AFL announces 4.5billion, 7 year media deal (2025-2031 inclusive)

[Tackle Bag]

I'm worn out from all the trolling of throwballers the past day or so. I hope you guys are getting in on the action, I can't do it all alone ya know, they are super sensitive at the moment, a lot of fun to be had out there

There's some real doom and gloom posting over on League Unlimited. Talk of merging with Union in order to compete with AFL. Some suggesting that the "expansion" side in Brisbane will turn it all around for NRL.
I'm a fan of the game but I must say its bloody hilarious over there at the moment.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Sorry if it's already been asked and answered, but does this deal include a Tassie team?

 

[darcytiger]

Also, can someone explain ‘contra’ to me like I’m 10 years old?

 

[Bjo187]

Don’t stoop to their level.

Every post on there is “fumbleball, AwFuL” etc. You can’t take any argument seriously when the posts are full of that. We’re better than that.

I reckon it's insulting they are called 'footballers', when the only skill in the game is to throw a ball 1m sideways.

Give a bit back, it has an impact on potential new fans when they bully people that follow Australia's own code. In fact, I reckon it's disgraceful behaviour. Australia doesn't have many inventions in our short history and these scumbags are denigrating one of our proudest inventions to anybody that will listen. All to protect their inferior British invented sport.

 

[The Tilt]

Also, can someone explain ‘contra’ to me like I’m 10 years old?

My understanding is that it's just advertising space. Gil said that the cash component of the $4.5b deal was "north of $4b". If we call it $4b (for the sake of simplicity), then the broadcast deal involves Fox/Seven paying the AFL $4b over seven years, as well as providing $0.5b worth of ad space (i.e. "contra") over the same period.

 

[Kwality]

Also, can someone explain ‘contra’ to me like I’m 10 years old?

7 put an AFL discussion show on & its worth $x+1 as promo to footy.

 

[Tackle Bag]

Sorry if it's already been asked and answered, but does this deal include a Tassie team?

Apparently there has been what they called “consideration” of a team likely coming onboard

 

[From The Pocket]

Sorry if it's already been asked and answered, but does this deal include a Tassie team?

The deal "contemplates" a Tasmanian team but doesn't confirm it. The AFL still wants all the guarantees and stadium deals from the Tasmanian government and the clubs would need to vote on it.

Would be interesting to see if 7 or the AFL negotiated FTA rights for the potential Tasmanian team in Tasmania since 7 doesn't own 7 Tasmania.

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

Deal size is obviously great, as too is enabling Fox to produce all their games in competition with seven.

Two things I am less happy about:

- Choosing channel 7 over channel 10. Channel 7 is atrocious, commentators are terrible, biased and unprofessional and overall product leaves much to be desired. Channel 7 does nothing to grow the game in Sydney. I remember when channel 10 had the rights and they pushed the swans and AFL all the time. A ten year deal for paramount/10 would have been amazing for the game in northern states. A huge opportunity missed for not much more money. Very disappointing.

- Reducing free to air games / shifting to Thursday. As someone who grew up watching Rugby Union and how it fell off a cliff when it cashed in with foxtel instead of expanding on free to air, I can say that turning one’s back on free to air is possibly the dumbest thing a sport can do. I hear the arguments that Kayo is not super expensive but they miss point. People want to watch what everyone else is watching, that means knowing others are watching on TV and watching at the stadium. Shifting to Thursday’s means people watching games in unfilled stadiums - it’s a turn off, just look at the plummeting TV numbers during COVID even though people had SFA else to do, watching sport on empty stadiums is depressing. Shifting to behind paywalls also means many just won’t watch, and then the (far far fewer) people who pay for access will feel less incentive to watch, as they will have fewer people to discuss the game with afterwards and no sense of FOMO if they don’t - this leads to fewer people with subscriptions watching, and so on and so forth. Sport is tribal and social and the AFL have missed this. Dumb.

I hope they use the money wisely at the very least…

 

[calculon559]

Deal size is obviously great, as two enabling Fox to produce all their games in competition with seven.

Two things I am less happy about:

- Choosing channel 7 over channel 10. Channel 7 is atrocious, commentators are terrible, biased and unprofessional and overall product leaves much to be desired. Channel 7 does nothing to grow the game in Sydney. I remember when channel 10 had the rights and they pushed the swans and AFL all the time. A ten year deal for paramount/10 would have been amazing for the game in northern states. A huge opportunity missed for not much more money. Very disappointing.

- Reducing free to air games / shifting to athursday. As someone who watched up watching Rugby Union and how it fell off a cliff when it cashed in with foxtel instead of expanding on free to air, I can say that turning one’s back on free to air is possibly the dumbest thing a sport can do. I hear the arguments that Kayo is not super expensive but they miss point. People want to watch what everyone else is watching, that means knowing others are watching on TV and watching at the stadium. Shifting to Thursday’s means people watching games in unfilled stadiums - it’s a turn off, just look at the plummeting TV numbers during COVID even though people had SFA else to do, watching sport on empty stadiums is depressing. Shifting to behind paywalls also means many just won’t watch, and then the (far far fewer) people who pay for access will feel less incentive to watch, as they will have fewer people to discuss the game with afterwards and no sense of FOMO if they don’t - this leads to fewer people with subscriptions watching, and so on and so forth. Sport is tribal and social and the AFL have missed this. Dumb.

I hope they use the money wisely at the very least…

Foxtel really had no choice BUT to go with 7; 10 has Paramount+, 9 has Stan. 7 has no equivalent, therefore can't step on Fox's toes with regards to Pay TV games.

Other problem is, Channel 10 now is not the same as Channel ten that had the footy from 02-11. Just look at the A-League; six matches a week, only one on FTA per week, the rest behind the Paramount + paywall. Would AFL on 10 be much better?

I think the AFL is acutely aware it needs to maintain a minimum of free-to-air coverage. If they weren't, they would gladly have given Foxtel their wish of a Super Saturday for the whole year instead of the first eight games.

The real fireworks will begin when 7 finally grows a brain and establishes its own paid service. Once all three networks have both FTA and Paywall capabilities, it might finally push the AFL to break up the TV rights NFL style, for better or worse.

 

[Angus Young]

Give a bit back, it has an impact on potential new fans when they bully people that follow Australia's own code. In fact, I reckon it's disgraceful behaviour. Australia doesn't have many inventions in our short history and these scumbags are denigrating one of our proudest inventions to anybody that will listen. All to protect their inferior British invented sport.

I kind of feel sorry for those types. So insecure because they always come second. That can't be easy. A person with a brain can process it and put it in context and doesn't care.

When you combine insecurity with low IQ you get a hater/ bully.

We are not not all like that.

 

[Rob]

The real fireworks will begin when 7 finally grows a brain and establishes its own paid service. Once all three networks have both FTA and Paywall capabilities, it might finally push the AFL to break up the TV rights NFL style, for better or worse.

Not quite sure 7 setting up a paid streaming service is the cash cow you think it is. Competition in that market is extreme and the setup costs are huge. Content is likely to be expensive as well, and it's not like 7 creates it's own.

There's a reason 7 haven't done so already and it might be a lot more prudent than you think.

 

[Bjo187]

Deal size is obviously great, as too is enabling Fox to produce all their games in competition with seven.

Two things I am less happy about:

- Choosing channel 7 over channel 10. Channel 7 is atrocious, commentators are terrible, biased and unprofessional and overall product leaves much to be desired. Channel 7 does nothing to grow the game in Sydney. I remember when channel 10 had the rights and they pushed the swans and AFL all the time. A ten year deal for paramount/10 would have been amazing for the game in northern states. A huge opportunity missed for not much more money. Very disappointing.

- Reducing free to air games / shifting to Thursday. As someone who grew up watching Rugby Union and how it fell off a cliff when it cashed in with foxtel instead of expanding on free to air, I can say that turning one’s back on free to air is possibly the dumbest thing a sport can do. I hear the arguments that Kayo is not super expensive but they miss point. People want to watch what everyone else is watching, that means knowing others are watching on TV and watching at the stadium. Shifting to Thursday’s means people watching games in unfilled stadiums - it’s a turn off, just look at the plummeting TV numbers during COVID even though people had SFA else to do, watching sport on empty stadiums is depressing. Shifting to behind paywalls also means many just won’t watch, and then the (far far fewer) people who pay for access will feel less incentive to watch, as they will have fewer people to discuss the game with afterwards and no sense of FOMO if they don’t - this leads to fewer people with subscriptions watching, and so on and so forth. Sport is tribal and social and the AFL have missed this. Dumb.

I hope they use the money wisely at the very least…

I honestly feel like this is the biggest thing holding the game back in the northern states is intentionally poor media coverage (they might be worried about the knucklehead nrl fans switching off if they see afl promoted). You would hope the fine print of the deal includes actually growing the game there, surely the AFL are smart enough to force the broadcaster to do that. The fact they don't even put games on the main channel 90 percent of the time is very poor imo, general fta barely rates anyway these days and afl on the main channel rates double than on the secondary channels.

You have the biggest tv station 7, plus biggest media company newscorp as your two partners, they have to be pushing the product and it has to be part of the new deal, as I agree it's been very poor. If they refused to promote the game there, I agree going with 10 would have been a better business decision.

 

[Freomaniac]

So this has some pretty clear ramifications for an already heavily compromised fixture, does it not? From an SA perspective, there's no way they delay the broadcast of a night game so that it starts at 11pm or whatever, so in the first 8 rounds, SA teams will need to be fixtured for the Saturday day or Saturday twilight fixture for 6 of them? Same deal for WA teams though I guess it could be possible they have their night game happen live at 5:40 and broadcast on delay at about 8. Doubt it though.

The wording of the NSW and QLD section is vague - are their 12 "holdback" games also Saturday fixtures? If they are, they would also need to be Saturday day or Twilight fixtures to not have the "holdback" broadcast start at ridiculous o'clock.

Presuming that the Thursday game replaces the second early Saturday game as it has been, that gives you 2 games - or 4 team "spots" - a week for 8 weeks. 8x4=32. And either 12 (if just WA and SA teams) or 24 (if also NSW and QLD teams) spots need to be taken by those teams.

I reckon it will mean it's highly likely all the national clubs end up playing off against each other for the lions share of those first 8 weeks, the majority of which will be played on Saturday day or Saturday twilight games. Which of course means more Victorian teams playing Victorian teams as well, with the Thursday night, Friday night, Saturday night and Sunday arvo spots left for them. Essentially allowing the AFL to sneak in more Victorian so called "blockbusters" that it loves.

On the plus side, more Saturday games for national teams means mean less Sunday twilights though.

I also guarantee Foxtel will use this rule to get themselves at least one exclusively live Showdown and one exclusively live Derby per year. Smart business from them but a blow to casual supporters.

I suspect all this is going to result in even more splitting of the Vic vs Non-Vic dichotomy.

WA sides usually have home games on that Sunday Arvo dead slot that starts at 1pm WA time/ 4 pm eastern states time

 

[Freomaniac]

Wow! $4.5 billion. Gil has his critics, but he has just assured his legacy and Peter V'landys was just reminded that the AFL is the biggest game in the country by a long way. Now, he might start thinking that "The Everest" shouldn't be run in October !!

True. But the timing of that weekend of finals where all 4 games were close helped.

The 747 and Gavin Excell , even Rossy Lyon turned down Essendon LoL.

He didn't feel the vibe lol

 

[The 747]

True. But the timing of that weekend of finals where all 4 games were close helped.

The 747 and Gavin Excell , even Rossy Lyon turned down Essendon LoL.

He didn't feel the vibe lol

I am a little sad about that, I thought Essendon deserved Ross Lyon.

 

[JackFlash]

True. But the timing of that weekend of finals where all 4 games were close helped.

The 747 and Gavin Excell , even Rossy Lyon turned down Essendon LoL.

He didn't feel the vibe lol

Ross the Boss has his head embedded right up in his own posterior, he wants to be headhunted and feel good about it all, Essendon is still one of the biggest clubs in the country and they are not just going to hand over their coaching job without some sort of process undertaken. Ross will never be the boss again IMO. Something about the process puts him off and it's not just the "vibe" at Essendon.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Every time the TV rights deals are announced, NRL fans are forever telling us the AFL got overs and the NRL got unders... You might think they'd get the hint after 20 years of TV rights deals.

They were right about the 2002-06 deal and 2007-12 deal. But wrong about every deal since these two.

News Ltd in Oz which became News Corp, had veto rights over the joint venture NRL comp with the ARL and they used them to protect News Ltd's interests, and indirectly the Packer's as well.

News Ltd and Packer had to claw back the monies they lost over Super League War so they had set up Premier Media Group / Fox Sports 50/50 ownership and it was Fox Sports that purchased the NRL rights over the period mentioned above. News Corp in their prospectus in US when they moved HQ and stock market listings around 2007 from Oz to US, said they had a tax asset of $560m of losses from the Super League war.

Foxtel which was owned 50% Telstra/ 25% Murdoch/25% Packer, signed the AFL rights in 2001 for the 2002-06 deal ( not Fox Sports) knowing they would make a big loss - Fox Footy Channel 2002-06 version was reported to have lost $120m over those 5 seasons, because they wanted to destroy Kerry Strokes / 7's, 24 hour pay TV sports station C7 on Optus Vision and become the only local 24 hour sports TV station.

They won the rights to the AFL and it was Telstra who funded 50% of Fox Footy Channel losses whilst Murdoch and Packer made handy profits in Fox Sports by News Ltd ensured an underselling of the NRL rights.

The Kerry Stokes had his famous C7 vs the rest of the media court case arguing what 9/10/Foxtel did was predatory behaviour and that 7/C7 offered NRL more $$$ for their TV rights.

News Corp had veto rights over Foxtel and the NRL as well as the Premier Media Group. This is what screwed RL from getting more money from TV. A big chunck of the C7 court case was about the fact that Ch 7 and C7 offered the NRL $50mil more nover 6 years, 2002 to 2007 deal, than Foxtel and Ch 9 did, but News Corp legal adviser Ian Philip sat on both NRL and Foxtel boards and advised the NRL to accept the Premier Media Group's lower bid.

News Ltd lawyer Ian Philip and chief accountant Macourt were directors of Premier Media Group Pty Ltd and are also two of News Ltd's three directors on the NRL Partnership Committee. They were bidders for the broadcast rights via Fox Sports and biddees as half-owners of the NRL.

According to evidence in the C7 Federal Court case, Philip was chief organiser of the 2001 Fox Sports' bid, then encouraged the NRL to accept it.

Justice Sackville in the C7 case was pretty scathing of Ch 7 for wasting so much time and resources on the case, however he was equally scathing of Philip.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2007/1062.html

38 By pointing to these matters I do not intend to imply that the behaviour of all the Respondents was exemplary. The Chief General Counsel of News, Mr Philip, for example, on his own account dishonestly attempted to mislead Telstra into contributing additional support to Fox Sports’ bid for the NRL pay television rights. The evidence also shows that News was content to withhold important information from Telstra, in effect its partner in the Foxtel Partnership, and did so over a considerable period of time.

39 At the conclusion of the hearing, I asked whether Mr Philip was still employed by News and was told that he was. If, in the meantime, News has taken no action against Mr Philip in respect of his admitted dishonesty, it would reflect very seriously indeed on News’ standards of commercial morality.
40 In the end, however, it is Seven that must prove its pleaded case against the Respondents

Of course News Corp conducted their own investigation into Philip and cleared him of any wrong doing before the decision was handed down.

The C7 case was handed down by the Federal Court in August 2007. In January 2006 7 (in partnership with 10) matched 9/Foxtel's bid using their 2nd and final right of refusal which they paid $30m for back in 1999. Stokes hated Foxtel and it wasn't until early February 2007, less than 6 weeks before the bounce down of the 2007 season, that Demetriou bashed a few heads and sorted out who would broadcast what and when in 2007, and therefore over 2007-12.

After the 2007 C7 Federal Court case was resolved and 7 lost and had to pay compo to all parties, the world started changing.

*Kerry Packer died in December 2005 and James sold 9 to private equity to buy Casinos. He didn't care about RL as much as Kerry. The private equity owners didn't have to claw back big losses made during the Super League wars.

*Premier Media Group/Fox Sports 50% Murdoch, 50% Packer (via Consolidated press Holdings) changed ownership structure over the next few years and Packer sold half his share in CPH, effectively retaining 25% of Fox Sports, Stokes slowly increased his holdings from 4% to 25% of CPH and Bruce Gordon of WIN network and others took up the other 25% CPH.

*Stokes and Murdoch/Foxtel start working together and in early 2011 put in a joint bid for 2012-16 rights

*Federal Court approves Murdoch taking Consolidated Press Holdings and therefore gaining 100% ownership of Fox Sports and increasing to 50% his share of Foxtel in late 2012 after ACCC removes any objections.

*In 2012 News Corp's lackie David Gallop is sacked as NRL CEO and News Corp exit the NRL and ARL takes over and ARL people negotiate future media deals.

*By August 2015 Murdoch and Stokes are great mates and working closely together in both print and TV industries and joint 2017-22 rights bid.

*In 2018 Murdoch increases share in Foxtel to 65%, remaining 35% Telstra, and Fox Sports becomes a 100% subsidiary of Foxtel.

On field the landscape changed markedly from December 2000 and January 2006 when the first two deals were struck.

• Brisbane won flags - growing Qld market
• Sydney won flags and made 3 more GFs - growing NSW
• a new team in GC and western Sydney means further growth in RL heartland
• extra games = more $$$ for TV rights
• massive development funding in expansion markets - more people play the game and become spectators
• big chunk of Qld and NSW population growth is people moving northward as well as O's immigration not locals having lots of kids
• AFLW has scooped up massive female interest in all markets, but especially expansion markets.

Over last 22 years NRL has kicked out South Sydney, brought them back, GC entered in 2007 and the game has grown in NZ. They did increase the season from 180 games to 192.

The NRL can't match this sort of growth the AFL has gone thru, so whilst they were able to kick out Murdoch and the Packers from ******* around the TV deals, basic reality took over and they just can't provide value for the same sort of money compared to AFL post 2007 TV rights negotiated deals.

Here is a summary of what has happened in the AFL after every deal was signed, and you can see why value was added and the whilst I could probably do a similar table for the NRL, it would be relatively empty.

Like all myths, they start off based on some reality but overtime the incorrect portion becomes exaggerated.

 

[Gigantor]

Nice summary of last 20 years, but leaves out one crucial element: Australian Football has always been bigger than Rugby League. That's the starting point.

Another way of looking at it: why did Murdoch take over the two rugbies? Quite simply, because he could. He could never have done that to the AFL. I mean, imagine a big, traditional club like Souths (the equivalent of a Carlton or Essendon, winning 20 of the first 55 premierships) getting booted out of the comp. Absolutely impossible to imagine anything like that in the AFL happening.

 

[Kwality]

I honestly feel like this is the biggest thing holding the game back in the northern states is intentionally poor media coverage (they might be worried about the knucklehead nrl fans switching off if they see afl promoted). You would hope the fine print of the deal includes actually growing the game there, surely the AFL are smart enough to force the broadcaster to do that. The fact they don't even put games on the main channel 90 percent of the time is very poor imo, general fta barely rates anyway these days and afl on the main channel rates double than on the secondary channels.

You have the biggest tv station 7, plus biggest media company newscorp as your two partners, they have to be pushing the product and it has to be part of the new deal, as I agree it's been very poor. If they refused to promote the game there, I agree going with 10 would have been a better business decision.

How much damage would 7 to its profitability/share price if it went with poor ratings in prime time by jamming AFL down the throats of NRL heartland viewers/advertisers.
You can be sure it would be a great way to reduce the value of the AFL media rights.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Nice summary of last 20 years, but leaves out one crucial element: Australian Football has always been bigger than Rugby League. That's the starting point.

Another way of looking at it: why did Murdoch take over the two rugbies? Quite simply, because he could. He could never have done that to the AFL. I mean, imagine a big, traditional club like Souths (the equivalent of a Carlton or Essendon, winning 20 of the first 55 premierships) getting booted out of the comp. Absolutely impossible to imagine anything like that in the AFL happening.

He took over because RL was poorly run and licking the arse of the Packers. Don't apply 2022 metrics to 1992. Oz had 9 or 10 million less people back then and whole structure of TV and major parts of the economy was very different.

In the early 1990's the swans were a disaster, the bears a disaster, the WCE had a $13mil debt at the end of 1989 season, when interest rates were about to hit 20%, and the interest bill in 1991 was about double the salary cap, and we had a recession that butchered Oz manufacturing losing jobs never to be seen again.

RL was expanding. In 1992 a 2nd Brisbane team, a Perth team and a NZ team were announced and their marketing of the sport via the Tina Turner simply the best tag line was superior to the AFL's.

When the the protected tobacco sponsorship deal ran out, in the early 1990's Keating government passed legislation banning tobacco companies from having naming rights to sports, but allowed existing contracts to run their term - remember the W.D & H Wills One day International series, the Escort Cup and in NSWRL comp it was the Winfield Cup - NSWRL went looking for a replacement sponsor.

Winfield was paying about $12m/year for sponsorship rights, a huge tobacco premium because they couldn't advertise anywhere else. A few years ago it was reported that Toyota was paying $15m/year naming rights to the AFL. But Packer was only paying $3m/year for TV rights.

Arko and Quayley went to News Ltd then CEO Ken Cowley, News Ltd owned 50% of Ansett Airlines, and pitched to them that they wanted News Ltd and Ansett to replace Winfield and pay the tobacco premium sponsorship.

Cowley and his News Ltd guys looked at the structure of the sponsorship and what Packer was paying for the rights and he laughed and said no way are we paying a tobacco sponsorship premium and Packer pays so little for the TV rights. After WSC nobody was game enough to try and screw down the Packers. They never paid top dollar.

News Ltd after their experience with EPL and BSKYB taking over 100% TV rights on pay TV, and Fox Network in USA saw a massive opportunity as pay TV had just been introduced into Oz, 15 years later than it should have been, and knew their was a huge windfall profit to make if they could control TV rights, (RL people watched the games on TV at RSL clubs and pubs, where as AFL was more an attendance sport), like they did with the EPL in UK, and the NSWRL administrators left the door wide open. And the rest is history.

 

[Bjo187]

How much damage would 7 to its profitability/share price if it went with poor ratings in prime time by jamming AFL down the throats of NRL heartland viewers/advertisers.
You can be sure it would be a great way to reduce the value of the AFL media rights.

Disagree, unless it's one of 7's local reality hits which are usually on during the week, what they put on Friday and Saturday nights on the main channel barely even rates. I think afl on the main channel would rate similarly and grow over time with more exposure.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Disagree, unless it's one of 7's local reality hits which are usually on during the week, what they put on Friday and Saturday nights on the main channel barely even rates. I think afl on the main channel would rate similarly and grow over time with more exposure.

If it was that simple and as accurate as you say, 7 executives in Sydney would have done it by now.

 

[The_Wookie]

Nice summary of last 20 years, but leaves out one crucial element: Australian Football has always been bigger than Rugby League. That's the starting point.

Another way of looking at it: why did Murdoch take over the two rugbies? Quite simply, because he could. He could never have done that to the AFL. I mean, imagine a big, traditional club like Souths (the equivalent of a Carlton or Essendon, winning 20 of the first 55 premierships) getting booted out of the comp. Absolutely impossible to imagine anything like that in the AFL happening.

he evidently did at least make enquiries. John Elliot was apparently approached about starting a rebel comp but declined. The AFL believed it was protected by its perpetual franchise agreements, whereas the ARL clubs had to renew every year. It was much much easier to get it over the line.

However the fact is, since the formation of the AFL commission in 1993, the league hasnt been beaten for broadcast rights by rugby league. Pacler was paying 10m a year when Seven was paying 17m pa from 1992.

 

[Bjo187]

If it was that simple and as accurate as you say, 7 executives in Sydney would have done it by now.

9 do it with nrl here and 10 do it with soccer on 10, both on the main channel, prime time, ratings under 30k, less than the swans or lions get when given the opportunity on the main channel. I think it's 7 wanting to appease the throwballers that froth at the mouth at any mention of the AFL in Sydney and Brisbane, the noisy minority. If they aren't willing to properly promote the game the rights should have been given to 10/ paramount, you can't put a figure on 'proper' free to air exposure in those markets, it's extremely important and something I hope gill demanded in the negotiations.