Glad to see and IMO with the correct broadcaster (also Olympics holder), like Seven’s last two.
Standout for mine though is only the next Paralympics, at least for now? Considering Nine’s long-term (multi) able-bodied games deal…
I think there’s still a degree of eyebrow raising though, yes a good outcome in the end, but to suggest those (many that commented were within the Olympic/Paralympic/disabled sports/disability/media realms) had no basis for at least questioning at the time is perhaps a little unfair.
Many might not be aware that the Paralympics (or parallel Olympics) is a separately run event to the Summer and Winter Olympic Games, and required a separate negotiation process with Paralympics Australia and the International Paralympic Committee. It is a privilege to be able to broadcast the Paris 2024 Paralympic Games, and I would say a special thanks to the team who got this agreement over the line, particularly our General Counsel, Rachel Launders, and Chief Strategy Officer, Matt Stanton.
I am also pleased to announce that Matt, alongside his strategy role, will be stepping into the role of Managing Director, Olympics and Paralympics. Matt has been integral to every discussion that has happened over the last few months and is well-placed to lead our teams to success in Paris 2024 and ensure we all make the most of this momentous opportunity.
Congraulations to Nine on getting the rights to the 2024 Paralympics. Today used the tagline “Home of the Paralympics” as with previous rights holder Seven doing the same. ABC aired the Paralympics in 2012
Meant to respond to this earlier - my guess (and it’s just that) is that Nine needed to get a wriggle on with plans for who they’re sending (on/off camera) to Paris and needed to get a rights deal across the line.
Guessing IPC would have been pushing for a multi year deal and it may not have suited Nine just yet or had the runway to negotiate a long term partnership.
I think even Warburton in a statement or internal memo that was made public said they really did want to keep it and loved doing it (and was part of the company’s DNA), however there was a price tag they could not cross, of course financials also self-inflicted, but also probably inflation (like any other sport lately) with asking price from the IOC but was it worth it compared to your AFL and tennis deals for example, which I’m sure the Rachel Launders and Matt Stanton equivalents would’ve been heavily crunching the data and economics. In the end, it clearly made sense to Nine (after Seven’s exclusive window passed) and are able to make it work. Dog eat dog world. I’m sure they’ll give it a red hot crack and do a great job, if their Australian Open coverage is anything to go by, definitely time for a refresh.
It’s sort of unreal how Nine now have much of what Seven once had that lead them to much success from about 18 years back, along with other programming, like Aus Open, Olympics, Winter Olympics, MAFS (in the thinking of MKR) to name a few (notwithstanding one-offs in Nine’s still dominant years such as Sydney 2000), just need Melbourne Cup and V8 Supercars plus AFL (although ship recently sailed) and Hot Seag > Nine News to be fixed up and they’d be like a ‘2008’ carbon copy and unstoppable.
Whilst Nine has the Olympics locked in up to the 2032 Olympics, the Paralympics rights have only been secured for Paris 2024. The difference comes from the fact that (Nine’s chief strategy officer and managing director, Olympics and Paralympics, Matt) Stanton and the team had to go through entirely separate negotiation processes for each set of games.
“We did the deal directly with the IOC for the Olympics, which was for a 10-year package including Brisbane, whereas we did this deal with the Australian Paralympic Committee [APC]. They bought the rights from the International Paralympic Committee [IPC] and were on-selling them, and they only had the Paris rights to sell.
“What will happen post-Paris is that the APC will either get the rights up to Brisbane or they might get one or two, we don’t know at this point.”