Play Nice Admin, Finance, Members, Ratings, Crowds, Policies - Please refer to each sports own boards

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.afr.com/business/media-a...s-for-freetoair-soccer-rights-20170419-gvnv3y

Football Federation Australia has failed to entice the three commercial free-to-air television networks into bidding for A-League and Socceroos matches, leaving the ABC in the box seat to gain the rights.

Seven West Media, Nine Entertainment, Network Ten and current FTA rights holder SBS are understood to have not lodged an official bid with the FFA by last Thursday's deadline, having baulked at some FFA requirements such as having to pay Fox Sports $2 million in annual production costs.

It is understood and FFA and ABC are in discussions.
At least it will be on Free to air
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Wi
It was on sbs and that didnt help.

It really did need 1 of the big 3 to take it to the next step

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

With the terrible ratings this year no commercial channel was going to waste money on soccer.

I doubt the ABC has the money either with the government always threatening to cut their budget.
 
AFL
A-league
NRL
Super Rugby
Other
 
Wi


With the terrible ratings this year no commercial channel was going to waste money on soccer.

I doubt the ABC has the money either with the government always threatening to cut their budget.

I think this is true, it was hard to imagine any FTA taking up the rights to the A-League when the ratings are so woeful.

On top of that, it's not a game which is conducive to being broadcast on FTA in the first place.

It's incredible to think that SBS has been paying $7 mill per annum, but no one is even now wanting to pay $2 mil per annum (for one game per week on FTA), even for the suppposed better Sat night game.

For any sport thinking it's now part of the big league, to be on the ABC is pretty embarassing.
 
It was on sbs and that didnt help.

It really did need 1 of the big 3 to take it to the next step

One positive for soccer fans is that it will allow them to maintain the line that the A-League will rate 300-400k if it was on a commercial FTA network.
 
I think this is true, it was hard to imagine any FTA taking up the rights to the A-League when the ratings are so woeful.

On top of that, it's not a game which is conducive to being broadcast on FTA in the first place.

It's incredible to think that SBS has been paying $7 mill per annum, but no one is even now wanting to pay $2 mil per annum (for one game per week on FTA), even for the suppposed better Sat night game.

For any sport thinking it's now part of the big league, to be on the ABC is pretty embarassing.

SBS ratings this season were just over half of what they were 2 seasons ago.

Interesting note: the VFL last season averaged 58,000 in Melbourne on 7 with AFL Victoria paying production costs. (SBS averaged 61,000 NATIONALLY this season with SBS paying 7 million).
 
Last edited:
https://www.triplem.com.au/sport/nrl/news/paul-kent-highlights-the-big-financial-problem-in-the-nrl

"The NRL has spent $50 million on an advance from Channel 9, it's had another $50 million on an advance from Fox Sports, and they're still going to the banks soon to ask for another $25 million loan," he said.

"We're borrowing money, we're spending the money and we're not getting it back into the game.

"It reminds me a little bit of the GFC - the smart ones saw that coming."

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
It's extraordinary that the NRL has appeared to have spent all the money in its Future Fund -& has been forced to seek loans of $125,000,000.

It would be interesting to know how much money the NRL has spent up to the present time on improving its digital presence? At least this spending is an "investment"directly for its future -& should generate good revenues in the future. If not much $, then the NRL financial management model appears to have been very poor.

These $125,000,000 loans put into context Grant's recent decision to renege on the funding deal with the NRL clubs. The reason given by the NRL for this was that the NRL grassroots required much greater funding, more than what was originally expected 12 months ago.
We know, with the recent forced merger (due to declining regd. nos.) of the U13 -U17 Western & Canterbury JRL First grade Divisions in "RL grassroots heartland", that grassroots funding has become a paramount priority.

When the $1.9 billion 5 year TV rights funding flows through soon, these NRL financial difficulties are almost certainly a short term problem.
 
It's extraordinary that the NRL has appeared to have spent all the money in its Future Fund -& has been forced to seek loans of $125,000,000.

It would be interesting to know how much money the NRL has spent up to the present time on improving its digital presence? At least this spending is an "investment"directly for its future -& should generate good revenues in the future. If not much $, then the NRL financial management model appears to have been very poor.

These $125,000,000 loans put into context Grant's recent decision to renege on the funding deal with the NRL clubs. The reason given by the NRL for this was that the NRL grassroots required much greater funding, more than what was originally expected 12 months ago.
We know, with the recent forced merger (due to declining regd. nos.) of the U13 -U17 Western & Canterbury JRL First grade Divisions in "RL grassroots heartland", that grassroots funding has become a paramount priority.

When the $1.9 billion 5 year TV rights funding flows through soon, these NRL financial difficulties are almost certainly a short term problem.

I think the issue is that $100 million of that deal has or is about to be received as an "advance" despite it not starting until next year. That and whatever deal they did with the clubs that lead to two commissioners resigning

It's a lot of money but it is less significant if it is just going to be passed through to higher salaries and offsetting club deficits
 
SBS ratings this season were just over half of what they were 2 seasons ago.

Interesting note: the VFL last season averaged 58,000 in Melbourne on 7 with AFL Victoria paying production costs. (SBS averaged 61,000 NATIONALLY this season with SBS paying 7 million).

I'd be seriously jacked if they ABC paid any money for the rights and implicitly subsidised it by putting it on ABC 1 on a Saturday night at the expense of whatever was already on a no doubt rating higher

Given that SBS will no doubt continue with its anachronistic subsidy of european soccer we will have both public broadcasters providing uncommercial support for the worlds richest game and one that is wholely private owned...yucky cultural cringe
 
I think this is true, it was hard to imagine any FTA taking up the rights to the A-League when the ratings are so woeful.

On top of that, it's not a game which is conducive to being broadcast on FTA in the first place.

It's incredible to think that SBS has been paying $7 mill per annum, but no one is even now wanting to pay $2 mil per annum (for one game per week on FTA), even for the suppposed better Sat night game.

For any sport thinking it's now part of the big league, to be on the ABC is pretty embarassing.
The Soccer Broadcasting Service is taxpayer funded -& should not be biased towards any sport. Morgan polls have constantly revealed more foreign-born spectators attend AFL matches, than foreign born attending A League matches. The Syd. based & focused SBS, fixated on soccer, virtually ignores the AFL, & provides more coverage even to the NRL.

It is incontrovertible that, if the commercial networks are unwilling to pay $2,000,00 pa for the A League, but SBS are paying currently $7,000,000 pa for identical rights of 1 game pw, then the SBS is wasting taxpayer funds. The SBS should have its sports' funding slashed. The woeful A League SBS FTA ratings, it can be argued, indicate that the SBS is not in a genuine commercial relationship with the A League -it is a defacto, taxpayer funded, wasteful, marketing arm of the A League.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I'd be seriously jacked if they ABC paid any money for the rights and implicitly subsidised it by putting it on ABC 1 on a Saturday night at the expense of whatever was already on a no doubt rating higher

Can't see the ABC putting it on their main channel on a Saturday night. They get the biggest ratings of any channel at that time with all the oldies at home watching Midsomer Murders and the like.

I'm looking forward to all the chip on their shoulder soccer types moaning that it's on a secondary channel and the ABC becoming yet another network they hate.
 
The Soccer Broadcasting Service is taxpayer funded -& should not be biased towards any sport. Morgan polls have constantly revealed more foreign-born spectators attend AFL matches, than foreign born attending A League matches. The Syd. based & focused SBS virtually ignores the AFL, & provides more coverage to the NRL.

It is incontrovertible that, if the commercial networks are unwilling to pay $2,000,00 pa for the A League, but SBS are paying currently $7,000,000 pa for identical rights of 1 game pw, then the SBS is wasting taxpayer funds. The SBS should have its sports' funding slashed.
how about no!!!!! for one, Soccer isnt the A-league. EPL matches at 10pm have been rating higher than A-league matches.

what do you want SBS to do. have a weekly footy chat show based on the unique perspective of indigenous Australians.... seriously, your issue is the coverage that soccer and other sports gets on SBS not the amount of coverage AR gets.

i am not talking as a fan of soccer here either. there is another sport which they probably broadcast more content for. I, for one, would riot if they dare cut content of the Tour de France or other great cycling events. how boring would SBS be if they stopped these unique broadcasts to promote more Aussie Rules. what Aussie Rules is left to broadcast.

SBS is great how it is. it what the government channels should do. broadcast those sports or leagues out of the limelight. i remember when they had the rights to the Olymipics. We could actually watch sports we normally wouldnt get to see. Volleyball and Handball to name a few. its variety should be encouraged.
 
how about no!!!!! for one, Soccer isnt the A-league. EPL matches at 10pm have been rating higher than A-league matches.

what do you want SBS to do. have a weekly footy chat show based on the unique perspective of indigenous Australians.... seriously, your issue is the coverage that soccer and other sports gets on SBS not the amount of coverage AR gets.

i am not talking as a fan of soccer here either. there is another sport which they probably broadcast more content for. I, for one, would riot if they dare cut content of the Tour de France or other great cycling events. how boring would SBS be if they stopped these unique broadcasts to promote more Aussie Rules. what Aussie Rules is left to broadcast.

SBS is great how it is. it what the government channels should do. broadcast those sports or leagues out of the limelight. i remember when they had the rights to the Olymipics. We could actually watch sports we normally wouldnt get to see. Volleyball and Handball to name a few. its variety should be encouraged.

There was a strong case for SBS's soccer coverage and investment back in the 80s under its charter but, IMO, this is no longer the case and hasn't been for some time.

If SBS is outbidding commercial FTA networks for professional sports, particular foreign competitions, than this is blatantly not right. With digital television, pay tv and the internets, there is surely no longer a case for a public subsidy of European soccer with all its gratuitous wealth.

How is this justified spending of a public broadcaster?

http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/

People have copious information sources online in both english and every other language of european soccer. The A League is a set of private franchises in a competition that already dwarfs the coverage of all other second tier sports. And a "football opinion" resource?

The ABC already puts "football" ahead of "AFL" on its ribbon....

upload_2017-4-20_11-45-16.png

For all the hand wringing about co-funded stadiums that are actually filled and don't prevent any code from playing on it, too many public agencies in this country act to skew resources towards globally rich sports at the expense of the domestically successful and, in the case of the Australian football, indigenous ones

We live in a cultural cringey wonderland.
 
how about no!!!!! for one, Soccer isnt the A-league. EPL matches at 10pm have been rating higher than A-league matches.

How about you settle down. SBS isnt likely to be paying 7 million for the EPL rights, and its notable that they actively didnt want the A-league rights this season...but no one else wanted them either.

what do you want SBS to do. have a weekly footy chat show based on the unique perspective of indigenous Australians

Since catering to these people is part of its charter, it couldnt hurt. Some promotion to aboriginal people couldnt hurt - Its not like the A-league has a huge percentage of indigenous players. THREE players...

.... seriously, your issue is the coverage that soccer and other sports gets on SBS not the amount of coverage AR gets.

The issue is SBS paying well beyond commercial terms for a product, and thus wasting taxpayer funds. If commercial networks wont pay 2 million for a product, why has SBS been paying 7 million?

i am not talking as a fan of soccer here either.

sure.

there is another sport which they probably broadcast more content for. I, for one, would riot if they dare cut content of the Tour de France or other great cycling events. how boring would SBS be if they stopped these unique broadcasts to promote more Aussie Rules. what Aussie Rules is left to broadcast.

The Tour actually rates. SBS has broadcast very little Aussie Rules ever - except indigenous stuff on NITV (again as befits its charter).

SBS is great how it is. it what the government channels should do. broadcast those sports or leagues out of the limelight. i remember when they had the rights to the Olymipics. We could actually watch sports we normally wouldnt get to see. Volleyball and Handball to name a few. its variety should be encouraged.

if its paying beyond commercial terms for material nobody else wants, then it is ripping off the taxpayer. And it knows it, which is why it previously said it wanted to offload the rights it had, and why it wont even pay 2 million for the next lot. With the advent of the internet there are other avenues besides broadcast television for unpopular rating sport - see what the NBL and WNBL have done for example.
 
There was a strong case for SBS's soccer coverage and investment back in the 80s under its charter but, IMO, this is no longer the case and hasn't been for some time.

If SBS is outbidding commercial FTA networks for professional sports, particular foreign competitions, than this is blatantly not right. With digital television, pay tv and the internets, there is surely no longer a case for a public subsidy of European soccer with all its gratuitous wealth.

How is this justified spending of a public broadcaster?

http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/

People have copious information sources online in both english and every other language of european soccer. The A League is a set of private franchises in a competition that already dwarfs the coverage of all other second tier sports. And a "football opinion" resource?

The ABC already puts "football" ahead of "AFL" on its ribbon....

View attachment 359834

For all the hand wringing about co-funded stadiums that are actually filled and don't prevent any code from playing on it, too many public agencies in this country act to skew resources towards globally rich sports at the expense of the domestically successful and, in the case of the Australian football, indigenous ones

We live in a cultural cringey wonderland.
whats wrong with sbs funding the epl?
 
How about you settle down. SBS isnt likely to be paying 7 million for the EPL rights, and its notable that they actively didnt want the A-league rights this season...but no one else wanted them either.



Since catering to these people is part of its charter, it couldnt hurt. Some promotion to aboriginal people couldnt hurt - Its not like the A-league has a huge percentage of indigenous players. THREE players...



The issue is SBS paying well beyond commercial terms for a product, and thus wasting taxpayer funds. If commercial networks wont pay 2 million for a product, why has SBS been paying 7 million?


they overpaid for the a-league 3 years ago. it happens. it was the first time the a-league was shown on FTA. you couldnt be sure what the ratings would be like. hindsight is golden and it is great that you and others are talking from it.

who cares about the A-league and indigenous players. was the a-league shown on NITV. so its relevance to this discussion is .........

sure.



The Tour actually rates. SBS has broadcast very little Aussie Rules ever - except indigenous stuff on NITV (again as befits its charter).



if its paying beyond commercial terms for material nobody else wants, then it is ripping off the taxpayer. And it knows it, which is why it previously said it wanted to offload the rights it had, and why it wont even pay 2 million for the next lot. With the advent of the internet there are other avenues besides broadcast television for unpopular rating sport - see what the NBL and WNBL have done for example.
Be that person then Wookie. i am a "soccer troll".

the tour rates alright after some very hard work. but do the classics rate well. the Vuelta. cycling central. they lost the Giro this year but as a soccer fan, i wouldnt know.

What Aussie Rules are there left to broadcast? you go on and on about the NITV charter and why they must broadcast MG but ignore the fact that the TSL would not be a part of the SBS charter.

did you not just post an article indicating that SBS were not interested in broadcasting the a-league? they have moved to fix your concerns.
 
Have to laugh that people have a problem with SBS/ABC paying for A-League but are all good with SBS selling off most of the World Cup next year, thus destroying the coverage we all love.

Clear agendas at play.
 
Have to laugh that people have a problem with SBS/ABC paying for A-League but are all good with SBS selling off most of the World Cup next year, thus destroying the coverage we all love.

Clear agendas at play.

Apparently sbs and abc should only show aussie rules because of some pax ar rubbish a few here are pushing


Reality is sbs and abc funding and its use has never been under greater scrutiny and govt oversight than it is today. Libs are not fans of either, and some in the party are still pushing for them to be privatized.

If either was just wasting money on a boondoggle, the libs would be all over them like door knobs on degoey.

Any price paid will have been reviewed to death internally and by the board, and only approved when its decided that the price paid is appropriate for the benefit that they expect the content to provide them with
 
Have to laugh that people have a problem with SBS/ABC paying for A-League but are all good with SBS selling off most of the World Cup next year, thus destroying the coverage we all love.

Clear agendas at play.

To the extent that it is even inconsistent, can you identify the poster who has "a problem with SBS/ABC paying for A-League but are all good with SBS selling off most of the World Cup next year"?
 
It is incontrovertible that, if the commercial networks are unwilling to pay $2,000,00 pa for the A League, but SBS are paying currently $7,000,000 pa for identical rights of 1 game pw, then the SBS is wasting taxpayer funds. The SBS should have its sports' funding slashed. The woeful A League SBS FTA ratings, it can be argued, indicate that the SBS is not in a genuine commercial relationship with the A League -it is a defacto, taxpayer funded, wasteful, marketing arm of the A League.

Yep - I think Lowy must have used a bit of muscle and called in some political favours which allowed SBS to waste a huge chunk of its budget on something which doesn't rate.
 
Apparently sbs and abc should only show aussie rules because of some pax ar rubbish a few here are pushing


Reality is sbs and abc funding and its use has never been under greater scrutiny and govt oversight than it is today. Libs are not fans of either, and some in the party are still pushing for them to be privatized.

If either was just wasting money on a boondoggle, the libs would be all over them like door knobs on degoey.

Any price paid will have been reviewed to death internally and by the board, and only approved when its decided that the price paid is appropriate for the benefit that they expect the content to provide them with
I'm uncomfortable as well at the thought of ABC broadcasting soccer but while they're broadcasting other sports such as the cycling and EPL, there really isn't much to be gained by critically looking at it. The question here is why FFA have failed their sport in not finding a FTA commercial partner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top