The next Media rights deal (2023-?)

RussellEbertHandball

Flick pass expert
Nov 16, 2004
57,485
78,141
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
7th largest behind...?
My guess would be England/UK, France, NZ, SAF, Ireland and USA.

Edit USA isn't a Tier One nation but their rights would be pretty valuable. At some point in the early 00's the USA became the 3rd most valuable TV rights market for cricket in the world, because all those Indians, Pakis, Bangers and Sri Lankans in USA were prepared to pay for a cricket channel.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

robbieando

Moderator
Oct 9, 2001
16,374
9,224
Spitting Bars
AFL Club
Sydney
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.
But an 10/AR JV won't have any standing in the eyes of World Rugby when hosting rights are to be awarded in the US as they get the benefits, not AR. Ignoring that even for a second, CBS would be behind the 8 ball by quite some distance. NBC already show English Premiership/6 Nations on their NBCSN network, (have even shown All Blacks and Irish matches in the US and had the rights for this years World Cup) while ESPN have the Rights for ECPR matches as well as a host European Leagues and the current SANZAAR rights which they are using to pad out their ESPN+ service.

CBS can only join to boost the game in Australia, not promote it in the USA. A 10/AR JV can't sell world rights for SANAAR events, so CBS would have to get those off the current holder (Which is possible but with Comcast now owning Sky UK, that could be harder than you think) and their sports network has to resolve carriage issues that prevent it from matching anything NBC and ESPN could offer in terms of eyeballs.

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.
Yeah that isn't happening. As long as there is a commitment to sell to a FTA Network no government will do that. World Rugby would laugh Channel 10 out of the building
 

RussellEbertHandball

Flick pass expert
Nov 16, 2004
57,485
78,141
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
But an 10/AR JV won't have any standing in the eyes of World Rugby when hosting rights are to be awarded in the US as they get the benefits, not AR.
I'm talking about cold hard cash. If CBS decides its worth making a bid, but if it is in JV with AR, then it spends a couple of years getting close to WR and working the corridors and the politics of WR with the help of AR representatives, so it makes a smarter bid than others in the US. It might not be enough cash, but it goes in with better knowledge of what the key players at WR want.

Ignoring that even for a second, CBS would be behind the 8 ball by quite some distance. NBC already show English Premiership/6 Nations on their NBCSN network, (have even shown All Blacks and Irish matches in the US and had the rights for this years World Cup) while ESPN have the Rights for ECPR matches as well as a host European Leagues and the current SANZAAR rights which they are using to pad out their ESPN+ service.
OK I didn't realise NBC had such a presence in the US. Knew that ESPN had a big coverage and just assumed they did the WC.

CBS can only join to boost the game in Australia, not promote it in the USA. A 10/AR JV can't sell world rights for SANAAR events, so CBS would have to get those off the current holder (Which is possible but with Comcast now owning Sky UK, that could be harder than you think) and their sports network has to resolve carriage issues that prevent it from matching anything NBC and ESPN could offer in terms of eyeballs.
Its not all about CBS/AR buying everything. It's about building the value of Oz market and the demand for content.

I assume CBS wants to sell out of 10, in 5-7-10 years time and make a decent capital gain. Part of that would be to build something of value from a relatively low cost base. There is the scope there for CBS/10 because the AR rights will be cheap and wont break the bank.

But as I said in my first post on this, AR needs a good friend at CBS in NY for this to happen and appoint a smart operator at AR to make this happen. The likelihood is that neither of this will be in place but they have to do and try something different.

Yeah that isn't happening. As long as there is a commitment to sell to a FTA Network no government will do that. World Rugby would laugh Channel 10 out of the building
Its about playing hard ball and pushing WR if it is going to make a marginal decision then to go with the AR partner. FIFA did it with SBS. They saw the benefit of going for a pro soccer broadcaster rather than just the highest bidder. SBS still had to stretch themselves but they made a competitive bid and FIFA gave them benefit of any small shortfall.

Foxtel and 10 made a joint bid for the WC rights but left it until very late getting the rights in March this year, 7 months before the WC started. They are usually stitched up 2 or 3 years before the WC. If CBS came to the party with AR, then 10 won't be making a joint bid with Foxtel, who if you believe them, would either not make a bid, or make a very low bid.
 

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
5,137
3,386
AFL Club
Collingwood
In Rugby terms South Africa is much larger than Australia and New Zealand and take away the most money out of the current SANZAAR TV Rights agreement.
I know that's true but their tv market would be nowhere near as big as Australia's. Rugby gets a very small slice of a much bigger pie in Australia
 

robbieando

Moderator
Oct 9, 2001
16,374
9,224
Spitting Bars
AFL Club
Sydney

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
5,137
3,386
AFL Club
Collingwood

Their TV market is massive. Up to 10 million for FTA and Up to 1 million for subscription. Australian networks would love those figures
They'd prefer the bigger commercial market over the bigger number of people surely?

South Africa has a quarter of Australia's GDP . It's not a bigger market unless by "market" you mean "population"
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
20,538
7,167
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Renault F1
FWIW the total ad spend in SA TV is about 20% of that for AU
From robbieando
In Rugby terms South Africa is much larger than Australia and New Zealand and take away the most money out of the current SANZAAR TV Rights agreement.


Is there a story behind all that? How does is stack up with say, cricket ?
 
Last edited:

RussellEbertHandball

Flick pass expert
Nov 16, 2004
57,485
78,141
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Interesting take from this EPL broadcasting revenue chat on their potential future rights. It helps when you have 100m follows around the world. Can't see 2m footy fans paying $20/month for 12 months.

Demetriou a couple of years before he left, did say that if the NBN was rolled out then AFL would look at streaming games via NBN and maybe set up their own network.

talkSPORT is part of News Corp in the UK and sell themselves as The world's biggest sports radio station. I wonder what Rupert would think of an employee agreeing with the commentator that Sky should lose EPL rights?


 

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
5,137
3,386
AFL Club
Collingwood
Interesting take from this EPL broadcasting revenue chat on their potential future rights. It helps when you have 100m follows around the world. Can't see 2m footy fans paying $20/month for 12 months.

Demetriou a couple of years before he left, did say that if the NBN was rolled out then AFL would look at streaming games via NBN and maybe set up their own network.

talkSPORT is part of News Corp in the UK and sell themselves as The world's biggest sports radio station. I wonder what Rupert would think of an employee agreeing with the commentator that Sky should lose EPL rights?


The AFL is in a much better position in a relative sense than the EPL. The EPL has been entirely behind a cable paywall for three decades and squeezed every last drop of that lemon.

If they went to that model domestically they would need 1 in 4 brits to pay that figure to match the income of the current deal which is driven by getting a lot less to pay a lot more for monthly subscription. Perhaps internationally such a model would work better for them? I suspect there are far far less than 100 million people globally who would actually pay $20 a month for EPL rights.

The AFL would need one in 20 Aussies (assuming FTA still pays for 3 games a week) to match the amount foxtel and telstra are paying currently.
 

RussellEbertHandball

Flick pass expert
Nov 16, 2004
57,485
78,141
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
The AFL is in a much better position in a relative sense than the EPL. The EPL has been entirely behind a cable paywall for three decades and squeezed every last drop of that lemon.

If they went to that model domestically they would need 1 in 4 brits to pay that figure to match the income of the current deal which is driven by getting a lot less to pay a lot more for monthly subscription. Perhaps internationally such a model would work better for them? I suspect there are far far less than 100 million people globally who would actually pay $20 a month for EPL rights.

The AFL would need one in 20 Aussies (assuming FTA still pays for 3 games a week) to match the amount foxtel and telstra are paying currently.
Not sure what you mean by relative sense, because there is nothing stopping the EPL doing a mix of free TV plus subscription TV. UK has about 60% penetration of people who have some form of subscription TV, whereas Oz is a bit under 1/3 of households and that wont be increasing.

These video on demand streaming services like Netflix is affecting the UK market it seems more than other Euro TV markets and North America. Its affecting the Oz TV market but haven't seen any definitive figures of the impact, but Kayo is a response to people cancelling basic Foxtel services as further fragmentation occurs.

Stuff I have read in the past says there are about 27m households in the UK and about 12m only have terrestrial TV services. I read details of this Ofcom report last year in another article, but I found this one from July 2018 that says - "The regulator’s (OfCom) inaugural Media Nations report revealed that in the first three months of 2018 there were 15.4m UK subscribers to the likes of Amazon and Netflix, around 300,000 ahead of the number of pay-TV homes."


The EPL has become the default world soccer league. In 2016-19 period their domestic rights were sold for £5.136 bil and their international rights sold for £3.00 bil. There probably wouldn't be any other sports league that would have close to that 5:3 ratio for domestic TV rights vs international rights.

According to the EPL page linked below they sell their rights in 188 of 193 nations that are members of the UN and have a household reach of 978 mil households.

They have become the world league with so many foreign players. English football are the biggest importers of any country in the world. In 2019 England imported 728 players, 139 of which grew up in other UK nations, Italy 636 players, USA 575 players, Spain 516, Portugal 508, Turkey 455 and Germany 379.

The EPL is huge in most Asian nations, so 100m people subscribing £10 a month isn't a stretch.
 

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
5,137
3,386
AFL Club
Collingwood
Not sure what you mean by relative sense,
I mean that the starting position of the AFL in terms of the revenue it currently extracts from its domestic market - $420 million a year (which includes $16M contra) - is far more likely to increase that figure under new models that result from technogical shift than the EPL - £5.136 over 3 years.


because there is nothing stopping the EPL doing a mix of free TV plus subscription TV. UK has about 60% penetration of people who have some form of subscription TV, whereas Oz is a bit under 1/3 of households and that wont be increasing.
Yep, and this is the point if you think it through logically. Subscription TV never made it in Australia - perhaps through a combination of the technology being rolled out too late and it never getting exclusive rights to any of the three main sports.

The point is 60% at $150 a month has a lot further to fall than 30% at $70 a month.


These video on demand streaming services like Netflix is affecting the UK market it seems more than other Euro TV markets and North America. Its affecting the Oz TV market but haven't seen any definitive figures of the impact, but Kayo is a response to people cancelling basic Foxtel services as further fragmentation occurs.

Stuff I have read in the past says there are about 27m households in the UK and about 12m only have terrestrial TV services. I read details of this Ofcom report last year in another article, but I found this one from July 2018 that says - "The regulator’s (OfCom) inaugural Media Nations report revealed that in the first three months of 2018 there were 15.4m UK subscribers to the likes of Amazon and Netflix, around 300,000 ahead of the number of pay-TV homes."


Not sure the relevance of this to the discussion.


The EPL has become the default world soccer league. In 2016-19 period their domestic rights were sold for £5.136 bil and their international rights sold for £3.00 bil. There probably wouldn't be any other sports league that would have close to that 5:3 ratio for domestic TV rights vs international rights.

According to the EPL page linked below they sell their rights in 188 of 193 nations that are members of the UN and have a household reach of 978 mil households.

They have become the world league with so many foreign players. English football are the biggest importers of any country in the world. In 2019 England imported 728 players, 139 of which grew up in other UK nations, Italy 636 players, USA 575 players, Spain 516, Portugal 508, Turkey 455 and Germany 379.

The EPL is huge in most Asian nations, so 100m people subscribing £10 a month isn't a stretch.
It is a massive stretch. None of the factoids preceding that assertion in any way support it.

Let's be ridiculously generous and say that 20 million of that 100 million can be derived from the UK. This would mean it would need 80 million from everywhere else. Your 5:3 ratio flips to 1:4 in moving to this direct subscription model.....how? Alternatively the £3B over 3 years becomes £24B for the international rights! Hmmm.....

There is clearly a reason that sports find it far harder to extract higher revenues internationally than domestically.

House holds "reached" is irrelevant. If anything it just highlights that most of the existing global audience is watching it on FTA or ubiquitous subscription services. The EPL isn't driving mass subscriptions outside of the UK. The optus set up in Australia is probably a rare exception.

On its subscription services (SKY and BT), the premier league apparently averages around 800K and 600K respectively per game (not too far above the AFL and NRL and the former broadcasts significantly higher hours per week albeit a good chunk on FTA). It apparently averages 12 million globally. Good luck getting any serious proportion of those to pay 100 quid a year.

If the premier league put itself behind exclusive pay walls globally it would very quickly cease to be the "default world soccer league"

The dudes on that podcast have spent too much time swilling around in EPL bathwater
 

HavUEvaSeenTheRain

Premiership Player
Apr 20, 2006
4,744
5,083
AFL Club
Carlton
I mean that the starting position of the AFL in terms of the revenue it currently extracts from its domestic market - $420 million a year (which includes $16M contra) - is far more likely to increase that figure under new models that result from technogical shift than the EPL - £5.136 over 3 years.




Yep, and this is the point if you think it through logically. Subscription TV never made it in Australia - perhaps through a combination of the technology being rolled out too late and it never getting exclusive rights to any of the three main sports.

The point is 60% at $150 a month has a lot further to fall than 30% at $70 a month.





Not sure the relevance of this to the discussion.




It is a massive stretch. None of the factoids preceding that assertion in any way support it.

Let's be ridiculously generous and say that 20 million of that 100 million can be derived from the UK. This would mean it would need 80 million from everywhere else. Your 5:3 ratio flips to 1:4 in moving to this direct subscription model.....how? Alternatively the £3B over 3 years becomes £24B for the international rights! Hmmm.....

There is clearly a reason that sports find it far harder to extract higher revenues internationally than domestically.

House holds "reached" is irrelevant. If anything it just highlights that most of the existing global audience is watching it on FTA or ubiquitous subscription services. The EPL isn't driving mass subscriptions outside of the UK. The optus set up in Australia is probably a rare exception.

On its subscription services (SKY and BT), the premier league apparently averages around 800K and 600K respectively per game (not too far above the AFL and NRL and the former broadcasts significantly higher hours per week albeit a good chunk on FTA). It apparently averages 12 million globally. Good luck getting any serious proportion of those to pay 100 quid a year.

If the premier league put itself behind exclusive pay walls globally it would very quickly cease to be the "default world soccer league"

The dudes on that podcast have spent too much time swilling around in EPL bathwater
This is where it becomes interesting for the EPL. How far can theY push it? Push it too far and it could come back to bite you big time. They have to make it affordable enough that they don’t lose too much of their audiences to other leagues but expensive enough to make it actually worth it. Even if they do make more money it could still come back to bite them in the long run if it gives other leagues more international coverage and bigger audiences.
This is what the A league has to be extremely careful of in their next rights and not go down the Rugby path imo.
 

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
5,137
3,386
AFL Club
Collingwood
This is where it becomes interesting for the EPL. How far can theY push it? Push it too far and it could come back to bite you big time. They have to make it affordable enough that they don’t lose too much of their audiences to other leagues but expensive enough to make it actually worth it. Even if they do make more money it could still come back to bite them in the long run if it gives other leagues more international coverage and bigger audiences.
This is what the A league has to be extremely careful of in their next rights and not go down the Rugby path imo.

Yup

The EPL is probably better to continue to sell its rights internationally to FTA or high-penetration subscription companies. I'm sure they could make more money in the short term going behind a global paywall but that would carve massive value out of the jumper signage in the shorter term and pretty much ensure it loses its ascendancy in the longer term

It doesn't have the luxury of the NBA being the unassailable league competition in its sport. Not even close
 

JohnZ

Premiership Player
Mar 10, 2016
3,212
3,988
AFL Club
Geelong
Not sure if I've said it in this thread or not.

AFL media needs to bring AFL gameday production in house. Produce 9 games per week. Control the graphics, the commentary, the in game special comments, the on field/off field interviews.

Games can then be more easily packaged to 7/9/10/Fox at a higher price (to cover production), which makes it easier for the tv stations to cover the footy (literally buying the finished product, as they do for most reality/OS content). AFL retains all online/streaming rights so that they can make some money that way.
 

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
20,538
7,167
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Renault F1
Not sure if I've said it in this thread or not.

AFL media needs to bring AFL gameday production in house. Produce 9 games per week. Control the graphics, the commentary, the in game special comments, the on field/off field interviews.

Games can then be more easily packaged to 7/9/10/Fox at a higher price (to cover production), which makes it easier for the tv stations to cover the footy (literally buying the finished product, as they do for most reality/OS content). AFL retains all online/streaming rights so that they can make some money that way.
What will the AFL staff/equipment do to cover their costs in off season? Very inefficent. Will they fly the gear around the country?
Perhaps they could give this mob a call:
'https://www.gravitymedia.com/what-we-do/media-services-and-facilities/ob-trucks-mobile-units/trucks-australia/

afl-ej-whitten-legends-2019/
 

JohnZ

Premiership Player
Mar 10, 2016
3,212
3,988
AFL Club
Geelong
What will the AFL staff/equipment do to cover their costs in off season? Very inefficent. Will they fly the gear around the country?
Perhaps they could give this mob a call:
'https://www.gravitymedia.com/what-we-do/media-services-and-facilities/ob-trucks-mobile-units/trucks-australia/

afl-ej-whitten-legends-2019/
You know exactly what I mean when it comes to NEP etc.

Currently, every broadcaster of the AFL has to organise it's own production of the game. Makes it harder for new players to enter the market, as it sets a high barrier for entry.
 
Top Bottom