The next Media rights deal (2023-?)

Remove this Banner Ad

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
6,255
4,289
AFL Club
Collingwood
If We Are talking Free to Air, it will be between 7 and 9.

10 is done as far as i know, they were nearly bankrupt or in administration a couple of years back.

10 are now owned by CBS. I would say definitely not done

So who might be competing for these rights?

A lot of players I suspect

There are a lot more possibilities and options for the next rights and for all the things the AFL can be accused of mediocrity, creating competitive tension in tv rights negotiations hasn't been one of them
 

Freomaniac

Brownlow Medallist
May 3, 2007
21,326
10,686
Parts Unknown
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Man City, Valencia, Lazio, Panthers
10 are now owned by CBS. I would say definitely not done




A lot of players I suspect

There are a lot more possibilities and options for the next rights and for all the things the AFL can be accused of mediocrity, creating competitive tension in tv rights negotiations hasn't been one of them
serious question....

what was your opinion on channel 10s coverage of the AFL when they had it?
 

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
27,374
10,128
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Renault F1
Melbourne ratings for a Friday night games is usually one of the best rating programs each week. Very few programs bar the news and MAFS can match the regular audiences that AFL matches can bring. I’d say with the way FTA is going football will be more valuable to 7.
Need to make profit: https://tvtonight.com.au/2019/02/tough-ad-market-hits-seven-west-media-profit.html

No questioning interest/value of sport:
Our acquisition of the Cricket rights, at a lower cost per hour than the Tennis, has paid off with ratings exceeding our projections.

Not sure where 7plus video on demand fits into the jigsaw, competitor for kayo?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Gigantor

Brownlow Medallist
May 13, 2012
14,998
5,091
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Brumbies, Socceroos
In an increasingly fragmented viewing market, for want of a better term, is anyone out there interested in reaching an almost guaranteed 1+ million viewers every week (often twice a week), for six months?

Someone will be interested.

Failing that, even if we assume the worst case scenario where absolutely no one wants to broadcast any sport, or they will only do it at zero cost (something already facing some sports in Australia), which professional sport in Australia is best positioned to broadcast itself and from the very first season of such arrangement, be guaranteed at least 500,000 paying customers, prepared to subscribe to that single sport?

Those subs will raise less revenue than current broadcast deals, yes, but then doesn't that sport now control all advertising dollars relating to the biggest professional sport in the land?
 

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
6,255
4,289
AFL Club
Collingwood
In an increasingly fragmented viewing market, for want of a better term, is anyone out there interested in reaching an almost guaranteed 1+ million viewers every week (often twice a week), for six months?

Someone will be interested.

Failing that, even if we assume the worst case scenario where absolutely no one wants to broadcast any sport, or they will only do it at zero cost (something already facing some sports in Australia), which professional sport in Australia is best positioned to broadcast itself and from the very first season of such arrangement, be guaranteed at least 500,000 paying customers, prepared to subscribe to that single sport?

Those subs will raise less revenue than current broadcast deals, yes, but then doesn't that sport now control all advertising dollars relating to the biggest professional sport in the land?

That's right.....(though I would say the game's reach would be over 2 million a week)
 

BringBackTorps

Club Legend
Jan 5, 2017
2,201
1,348
AFL Club
GWS
Could nrl.com etc. really be woth c. $1 billion in the next 5 years?


Anyone wish to provide an estimate of the AFL's afl.com, & other digital assets?
 

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
6,255
4,289
AFL Club
Collingwood
Could nrl.com etc. really be woth c. $1 billion in the next 5 years?


Anyone wish to provide an estimate of the AFL's afl.com, & other digital assets?
Nobody is going to do that, BBT. I suspect it is higher than the NRL's though.

Old Roy couldn't bring himself to acknowledge that the AFL has the jump on the NRL on this score too
 

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
58,968
109,578
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
Nobody is going to do that, BBT. I suspect it is higher than the NRL's though.

Old Roy couldn't bring himself to acknowledge that the AFL has the jump on the NRL on this score too
One thing to remember with digital rights is that not all digital rights are equal

Depending upon what offering both the NRL and AFL put together, valuations could vary significantly.

Hopefully what kayo is doing and what twitch is doing with other sports wakes the AFL up to move beyond its boring as dogshit arrangement with telstra
 

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
6,255
4,289
AFL Club
Collingwood
One thing to remember with digital rights is that not all digital rights are equal

Depending upon what offering both the NRL and AFL put together, valuations could vary significantly.

Hopefully what kayo is doing and what twitch is doing with other sports wakes the AFL up to move beyond its boring as dogshit arrangement with telstra
Well, given that this appears to be a hypothetical asset valuation then the "offering the NRL and AFL put together" is itself hypothetical....like for like it is hard to imagine the NRL digital assets are worth more than the AFL digital assets given the latter has far more traffic

"Rights" of course are a different thing again.

I would imagine that both the digital rights for the AFL and the NRL will be far higher next time around
 

juss

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 23, 2009
21,701
27,818
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
New York Jets
I wouldn't discount the significant chance of an online streaming service being a major player in what goes down.
FTA is becoming less and less of an important player in sports broadcasting as more and more people are happy to pay for that content.
 

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
58,968
109,578
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
Well, given that this appears to be a hypothetical asset valuation then the "offering the NRL and AFL put together" is itself hypothetical....like for like it is hard to imagine the NRL digital assets are worth more than the AFL digital assets given the latter has far more traffic

"Rights" of course are a different thing again.

I would imagine that both the digital rights for the AFL and the NRL will be far higher next time around
Depends upon how it's packaged. Do they get all games, live only, how much of the AFL archive, who else can stream

Btw I'm not comparing to NRL. Just looking at it as an issue in isolation, as the AFL have been reluctant to give too much of the digital opportunity away (they had a dream for a long time of running their own digital offering)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
6,255
4,289
AFL Club
Collingwood
Depends upon how it's packaged. Do they get all games, live only, how much of the AFL archive, who else can stream

Btw I'm not comparing to NRL. Just looking at it as an issue in isolation, as the AFL have been reluctant to give too much of the digital opportunity away (they had a dream for a long time of running their own digital offering)

Yeah, so you are talking "rights" where as the article is talking about asset valuation (presumably of NRL.com). It is not clear exactly from the article what is meant by that

If you are talking rights than of course the value of the rights depends on what actual "rights" are included. That is axiomatic

I think though everything I have seen suggests the AFL has more to sell (i.e. greater subscriber numbers consuming more content

In terms of the Telstra app, it seems like the AFL had a 4 to 3 advantage over the NRL in terms of minutes consumed...



...but my understanding is the AFL.com / telstra live has far higher subscriber numbers than the NRL. The fact the streaming differential is lower is due to the fact that the AFL FTA arrangements mean that all (except a few SA and WA) games with non-Vic teams are broadcast into their home market and Victorian CH7 FTA is skewed heavily to bigger Victorian teams accordingly.

The biggest AFL game had double the minutes consumed as the biggest NRL game. The Kayo release from a couple of months ago tells a similar story
 

Our Game

Club Legend
Sep 30, 2014
2,539
1,443
Sandringham
AFL Club
Geelong
There was a story in the AGE early today saying Foxtel is losing subscribers at an alarming rate not picking them all up in kayo and running at a massive loss I wonder if will effect the next TV deal?

"Indeed, News Corp chief executive Robert Thomson called out Australia in his opening remarks, noting that the company’s overall performance was "affected by pronounced currency headwinds and a particularly sluggish Australian economy and property market".

The most troublesome Australian asset is undoubtedly Foxtel. It has been squeezed in a pincer of paying for expensive sports programming -in particular, cricket - and facing a relentless churn of customers away from its flagship subscription service.
This put pressure on revenue and costs. Revenue from Foxtel fell by 9 per cent (or 3 per after adjusting for currency effects) and its earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) slumped by $US32 million to $US81 million - driven by fewer broadcast subscribers and a hefty 14.4 per cent churn rate.
Foxtel is making up some of these losses by adding lower-paying customers to its two newer digital services, Kayo and Foxtel Now - but not fast enough, and in the quarter adjusted EBITDA fell by 28 per cent.
Structural decline
The former pay-TV monopoly is in structural decline, having been disrupted by new entrants into the video streaming space like Netflix and Stan, and more recently by Amazon Prime and Apple - all of which place intense pressure on the operating model of the traditional subscription TV product."
 
Last edited:

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
27,374
10,128
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Renault F1
There was a story in the AGE early today saying Foxtel is losing subscribers at an alarming rate not picking them all up in kayo and running at a massive loss I wonder if will effect the next TV deal?

"Indeed, News Corp chief executive Robert Thomson called out Australia in his opening remarks, noting that the company’s overall performance was "affected by pronounced currency headwinds and a particularly sluggish Australian economy and property market".

The most troublesome Australian asset is undoubtedly Foxtel. It has been squeezed in a pincer of paying for expensive sports programming -in particular, cricket - and facing a relentless churn of customers away from its flagship subscription service.
This put pressure on revenue and costs. Revenue from Foxtel fell by 9 per cent (or 3 per after adjusting for currency effects) and its earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) slumped by $US32 million to $US81 million - driven by fewer broadcast subscribers and a hefty 14.4 per cent churn rate.
Foxtel is making up some of these losses by adding lower-paying customers to its two newer digital services, Kayo and Foxtel Now - but not fast enough, and in the quarter adjusted EBITDA fell by 28 per cent.
Structural decline
The former pay-TV monopoly is in structural decline, having been disrupted by new entrants into the video streaming space like Netflix and Stan, and more recently by Amazon Prime and Apple - all of which place intense pressure on the operating model of the traditional subscription TV product."
Imagine the value of sports media rights in Aus IF there was no Foxtel.
 

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
27,374
10,128
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Renault F1
Rugby Union facing the market & there is not much interest from the media industry - it will be instructive for how Foxtel looks at sport more generally. Obviously AFL footy is a very different offering compared to Union.

Key points:
  • Rugby Australia and Foxtel have reportedly reached an impasse in re-negotiating broadcast rights
  • Fears have been expressed for the future of rugby union in Australia if its broadcast rights move elsewhere
  • Super Rugby's ratings have been in decline on Fox Sports in recent years

Rugby union risks turning into a third-tier sport in Australia after Rugby Australia walked away from a Foxtel offer to broadcast Tests and Super Rugby in Australia.
Rugby will not have a TV broadcast deal with any major provider after talks between Foxtel and RA broke down after meeting in Japan following the World Cup.

RA is now believed to be in talks with Optus after Foxtel withdrew its offer for the rights.

 

RussellEbertHandball

Flick pass expert
Nov 16, 2004
62,767
90,658
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Rugby Union facing the market & there is not much interest from the media industry - it will be instructive for how Foxtel looks at sport more generally. Obviously AFL footy is a very different offering compared to Union.

Key points:
  • Rugby Australia and Foxtel have reportedly reached an impasse in re-negotiating broadcast rights
  • Fears have been expressed for the future of rugby union in Australia if its broadcast rights move elsewhere
  • Super Rugby's ratings have been in decline on Fox Sports in recent years

Rugby union risks turning into a third-tier sport in Australia after Rugby Australia walked away from a Foxtel offer to broadcast Tests and Super Rugby in Australia.
Rugby will not have a TV broadcast deal with any major provider after talks between Foxtel and RA broke down after meeting in Japan following the World Cup.

RA is now believed to be in talks with Optus after Foxtel withdrew its offer for the rights.

Rugby Australia needs a good friend in senior management/board at CBS in New York so that CBS backs a serious bid by Channel 10 - even if its $30m-$40m a year x 5 years - $20m-$30m/year less than Foxtel is paying and prepared to accept the first 5 years might be a loss leader for 10.

RA have plenty of content they can sell to 10 to turn them into the Rugby network. They have the Wallabies, Super Rugby, Club rugby, Sevens - men's and women's tournaments from around the world, the build up to the Olympics, the next World Cup, women's rugby, wheelchair rugby, other international rugby tests and provincial level games etc etc. There is no shortage of content for 10 to use on its main channel and other channels.

They then can take control of and get value for streaming rights and other stuff available via their official app, just like the AFL and NRL do with Telstra.

They would be complete idiots to have all their content on Optus via an app and bugger all presence on free TV.

But you need some adventurous management and board members at Rugby Australia to be smart enough to package it all up. They need a Larry Kestelman. Twiggy Forest might be that person.

Because, the next step once they have stitched up their financial stability for the next 5 years, is to work on their massive issue of junior development outside private schools. They need to look at the NZ model, that develops the game across all demographics, not just look to NZ for coaches.
 

robbieando

Moderator
Oct 9, 2001
16,450
9,751
Spitting Bars
AFL Club
Sydney
RA have plenty of content they can sell to 10 to turn them into the Rugby network. They have the Wallabies, Super Rugby, Club rugby, Sevens - men's and women's tournaments from around the world, the build up to the Olympics, the next World Cup, women's rugby, wheelchair rugby, other international rugby tests and provincial level games etc etc. There is no shortage of content for 10 to use on its main channel and other channels.
Rugby Australia only have the rights to sell Rugby Championship Test matches, NRC and Super Rugby. Everything else is locked away to either World Rugby, the ECPR or respective home unions. Heck they can't even sell the rights to Club Rugby as that belongs to the leagues who remain independent.
 

RussellEbertHandball

Flick pass expert
Nov 16, 2004
62,767
90,658
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Rugby Australia only have the rights to sell Rugby Championship Test matches, NRC and Super Rugby. Everything else is locked away to either World Rugby, the ECPR or respective home unions. Heck they can't even sell the rights to Club Rugby as that belongs to the leagues who remain independent.
They can negotiate along with 10 to either buy the rights or get access to them, even in a JV with 10.

I knew they didn't own all the rights, didn't know exactly which ones, but the bottom line is, there is plenty of content either live or delayed coverage if they are going to effectively be in partnership with 10.

As far as I know the 2023 WC rights haven't been sold to an Oz TV broadcaster yet, only for host nation France and the UK, but I could be out of date.

Look at the way the AFL work with 7 and NRL with 9 and there is plenty of scope for improvement by RA, and they can go further than both of them with 10, as 10 needs big sports content more than 7 and 9. Take out motorsports and the 4 day Melbourne Cup carnival and 10 has SFA sports content. They did a great job building the BBL market and then lost it because they didn't have the $$$.

It requires a bit of innovation, some arm twisting and smart management to do it, but RA seems to be too constipated to move ahead. A bit like the Australian Cricket Board was, when Packer came knocking on its door for the TV rights.
 

robbieando

Moderator
Oct 9, 2001
16,450
9,751
Spitting Bars
AFL Club
Sydney
They can negotiate along with 10 to either buy the rights or get access to them, even in a JV with 10.
Sure they could do a JV with 10 but keep in mind there have been many cases where TV networks (such as beIN and Rugby Pass) have gone behind Fox Sports back to get rights to overseas Tests involving the Wallabies just by dealing with the respective home union alone and bypassing RA and Fox Sport outright because they rather sell their rights on a global basis than to sell to individual markets on a case by case basis. A joint venture won't solve that from happening and the other unions won't owe us anything to respect such a JV in favour of their best interests. Something neither the AFL or NRL have to worry about

When you put the ECPR's existing deals in place with Rugby Pass globally for their rights long term (same with beIN/NBC for the Six Nations), then the point of a JV has to be questioned (in respect of what they gain outside of the Australian Rights deal). Some of the more sort after overseas rights just won't be available right off the bat and a 10/AR joint venture would be meaningless to those parties when rights go out to tender. The Australian TV market is the 7th largest out of the Tier One nations and not in a Rugby mad nation, like NZ where they can use the All Blacks as a bargaining chip.

As far as I know the 2023 WC rights haven't been sold to an Oz TV broadcaster yet, only for host nation France and the UK, but I could be out of date.
While true that the WC Rights haven't been sold as of yet, keep in mind WR rejected a larger bid from Optus to stay with Fox for the last World Cup who then on sold the FTA Rights. WR will again do whatever they want, not what RA want in regards to their rights.
 

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
6,255
4,289
AFL Club
Collingwood
Sure they could do a JV with 10 but keep in mind there have been many cases where TV networks (such as beIN and Rugby Pass) have gone behind Fox Sports back to get rights to overseas Tests involving the Wallabies just by dealing with the respective home union alone and bypassing RA and Fox Sport outright because they rather sell their rights on a global basis than to sell to individual markets on a case by case basis. A joint venture won't solve that from happening and the other unions won't owe us anything to respect such a JV in favour of their best interests. Something neither the AFL or NRL have to worry about

When you put the ECPR's existing deals in place with Rugby Pass globally for their rights long term (same with beIN/NBC for the Six Nations), then the point of a JV has to be questioned (in respect of what they gain outside of the Australian Rights deal). Some of the more sort after overseas rights just won't be available right off the bat and a 10/AR joint venture would be meaningless to those parties when rights go out to tender. The Australian TV market is the 7th largest out of the Tier One nations and not in a Rugby mad nation, like NZ where they can use the All Blacks as a bargaining chip.



While true that the WC Rights haven't been sold as of yet, keep in mind WR rejected a larger bid from Optus to stay with Fox for the last World Cup who then on sold the FTA Rights. WR will again do whatever they want, not what RA want in regards to their rights.
7th largest behind...?
 

RussellEbertHandball

Flick pass expert
Nov 16, 2004
62,767
90,658
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Sure they could do a JV with 10 but keep in mind there have been many cases where TV networks (such as beIN and Rugby Pass) have gone behind Fox Sports back to get rights to overseas Tests involving the Wallabies just by dealing with the respective home union alone and bypassing RA and Fox Sport outright because they rather sell their rights on a global basis than to sell to individual markets on a case by case basis. A joint venture won't solve that from happening and the other unions won't owe us anything to respect such a JV in favour of their best interests. Something neither the AFL or NRL have to worry about

When you put the ECPR's existing deals in place with Rugby Pass globally for their rights long term (same with beIN/NBC for the Six Nations), then the point of a JV has to be questioned (in respect of what they gain outside of the Australian Rights deal). Some of the more sort after overseas rights just won't be available right off the bat and a 10/AR joint venture would be meaningless to those parties when rights go out to tender. The Australian TV market is the 7th largest out of the Tier One nations and not in a Rugby mad nation, like NZ where they can use the All Blacks as a bargaining chip.
It depends how much CBS would be prepared to back AR over time, as to what they might chase if AR sold its rights to 10 and went into a JV with them. If 2027 World Rugby/IRFB awarded the WC to USA as has been suggestion - in minor conversions, but still suggested as World Rugby has seen the benefit of hosting a WC in a minnow rugby nation like Japan, but an economic powerhouse - then being close to one a major US broadcasters has potential benefits for AR, especially if CBS gets the hosting rights.

Bottom line, AR should be exploring all possibilities. They might not all come off, but find out where there are possibilities to make advances. And like Packer with the ACB, don't stop when you get rejected the first time, keep going back pushing your case.

While true that the WC Rights haven't been sold as of yet, keep in mind WR rejected a larger bid from Optus to stay with Fox for the last World Cup who then on sold the FTA Rights. WR will again do whatever they want, not what RA want in regards to their rights.
That's where you need smart management. Rugby WC is on the anti-siphoning list in Oz - ok not every game, but games Wallabies play. AR goes and tells WR it is no longer in partnership with Foxtel so if it sells the WC rights to Foxtel it will ask the government to void Foxtel's right to screen the WC Wallabies games live, and then they negotiate a fair price. Foxtel has said it is cutting how much it spends on sports anyway so there is an opening to get the WC rights.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Top Bottom