But since when has that ever been otherwise for commercial TV really? (Besides the very first days of pay TV of course, I guess.)
The virtual logos vs. being painted on, being so the away broadcaster can substitute their own… given what some of the other nations get away with now - the commentary in Hindi of Australian home games vs India, using their broadcaster’s coverage (which is usually put on Kayo as a separate feed) is a real eye-opener. Between over-the-bowler’s-arm view and the side-on, they had about 9 or 10 sponsors, but that’s probably not far from typical over there.
Can’t maximise the rights when the away broadcasters can’t sell their own space on the field, apparently. Can’t say I like that as a reason, but I’m also far from surprised when so much money to Cricket Australia comes from global rights now (to the subcontinent particularly, of course) vs. local ones.
Agree Fox could do their own better, but I think that’s not your complaint.
Watermarking a show with its name was a big trend on English-language South East Asian satellite channels in the late 2000s. I always appreciated that the Aussie pay TV networks were a bit more restrained, generally avoiding solid mudmarks and on-screen clutter.
(Besides the very first days of pay TV of course, I guess.)
Can’t say I like that as a reason, but I’m also far from surprised when so much money to Cricket Australia comes from global rights now (to the subcontinent particularly, of course) vs. local ones.
