• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
How we allowed a US media company to design a made for cable product and then adopted the cable concept as our main competition still annoys me how incredibly inept our leadership was at the time

Because there was literally one broadcaster offering significant money for rugby in Australia.

The ARU had the option of going with it or becoming the Australian Cricket Board during World Series Cricket and fielding sides of below average players. The best players were going to be playing Super Rugby regardless.
 

JRugby2

Billy Sheehan (19)

This is cool - in this Mumbrella article it links to a story talking about how Reddit have partnered with US sporting leagues to distribute highlights and exclusive (I'm assuming exclusive) content on the platform in exchange for a share of it's ad revenue.

Be keen to see Rugby Australia explore these types of deals to supplement it's revenue. Not sure if this type of deal would reach the 'casual fan' but it would fill the massive content gaps that highly engaged fans have been screaming out for, for ages.

With something like this, we might finally be able to replace the pidgeon.
 

LevitatingSocks

Alfred Walker (16)

This is cool - in this Mumbrella article it links to a story talking about how Reddit have partnered with US sporting leagues to distribute highlights and exclusive (I'm assuming exclusive) content on the platform in exchange for a share of it's ad revenue.

Be keen to see Rugby Australia explore these types of deals to supplement it's revenue. Not sure if this type of deal would reach the 'casual fan' but it would fill the massive content gaps that highly engaged fans have been screaming out for, for ages.

With something like this, we might finally be able to replace the pidgeon.
If you want to reach younger fans these days, you have to allow for some degree of content to trickle out on tikok/reddit/social media.

Locking it behind a paywall just ensures people take in interest in other sports.
 

JRugby2

Billy Sheehan (19)
If you want to reach younger fans these days, you have to allow for some degree of content to trickle out on tikok/reddit/social media.

Locking it behind a paywall just ensures people take in interest in other sports.
As much as I want rugby on FTA - some sort of paywall seems inevitable in future. This seems like a good way to funnel people into signing up to those services though and/or just get more eyeballs on rugby - albeit in a more contemporary sense.
 

half

Dick Tooth (41)
Because there was literally one broadcaster offering significant money for rugby in Australia.

The ARU had the option of going with it or becoming the Australian Cricket Board during World Series Cricket and fielding sides of below average players. The best players were going to be playing Super Rugby regardless.
Wow, who said to leave Fox, and who said to set up your own Kerry Packer circus.

Just maybe the then powers could have developed a concept acceptable to Fox possibly better than what they had after all we did not always have 15 teams spread across 3 countries.

Consider what could have been done, and there were a number of different things and Fox would have backed most.
 

JRugby2

Billy Sheehan (19)
I wonder what the bargaining chips were? Tillies undoubtedly the most popular national team and they've got 2 major tournaments (one being played in the middle of the night again). Genuinely not sure who's won this deal.
 

half

Dick Tooth (41)
SMH reporting the 50 million per year is well short of what the actual is, the following is from the smh.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer...k-10-for-next-five-years-20240827-p5k5n2.html

Football Australia has clinched a rich new broadcast deal with Paramount Australia that will see all matches involving the Socceroos and the Matildas – except for the next men’s FIFA World Cup – shown on either Network 10 or the paid Paramount+ streaming service.

The five-year agreement means Network 10 and Paramount+ will broadcast the Matildas’ next two major tournaments: the 2026 Women’s Asian Cup, which will be hosted by Australia, and the 2027 FIFA Women’s World Cup in Brazil.

The vast majority of matches at both events, however, will be shown behind the Paramount+ paywall.

It is the first time FA’s national team rights have been sold as part of a bundle with both the Asian Football Confederation rights and the Women’s World Cup, which the federation secured in separate deals to then on-sell to boost the value of the rights they own.

FA would not disclose the financial terms of the deal; previous reports of a $200 million agreement were wide of the mark according to sources who were speaking on the condition of anonymity due to the confidential nature of the deal.

Chief executive James Johnson would only say it was a new high-water mark for FA’s broadcast revenues and would enable them to continue investing into growing the brands of both national teams and the programs of junior teams that sit beneath them.

WHAT’S INCLUDED IN FA’S NEW BROADCAST RIGHTS DEAL​

  • All Socceroos qualifiers for the 2026 men’s World Cup (home matches only on free-to-air, the rest on Paramount+)
  • 2026 Women’s Asian Cup (six matches on free-to-air, the rest on Paramount+)
  • 2027 Women’s World Cup (15 matches on free-to-air, the rest on Paramount+)
  • 2027 men’s Asian Cup (all matches exclusively on Paramount+, the rest on Paramount+)
  • All Socceroos and Matildas friendlies 2025-2028 (15 Matildas friendlies, 10 Socceroos friendlies on free-to-air, the rest on Paramount+)
  • Australia Cup finals 2025-2028
  • AFC U23 men’s Asian Cup 2026 and 2028
“It reflects, I think, the growth of the sport, and in particular the brands, the Socceroos and the Matildas, and also the aggregation of all the content that we’ve been able to bring together,” Johnson said. “We are reaching new heights in terms of investment.”

Paramount was largely unchallenged in its bidding for the rights, with FA keen to sell the rights to a single party. Both Foxtel and Nine (the owner of this masthead) looked at the rights but made no serious bid, sources familiar with the plans said.

Approximately half of all Socceroos and Matildas matches for the next broadcast cycle – there will be over 100 in total – will be shown behind a paywall, which is a roughly similar carve-up to the expiring deal, and was stipulated by FA in the tender process.

Just six matches from the 2026 Women’s Asian Cup (which doubles as the qualification tournament for the 2027 Women’s World Cup) and 15 from the Women’s World Cup will be shown on free-to-air, while 15 Matildas friendlies and 10 Socceroos friendlies over the next four years will also be on free-to-air, with the rest on Paramount+. By way of comparison, the Seven Network also broadcast 15 matches from last year’s Women’s World Cup, with the remainder on Optus Sport.

The federal government’s anti-siphoning list stipulates that only World Cup matches involving the two senior national teams, and any World Cup qualifiers played in Australia, must be shown on free-to-air television.

“There are more matches behind the paywall because there are more matches overall in terms of the national team games,” said Beverley McGarvey, president of Network 10 and Paramount Australia’s head of streaming and regional lead.

“There’ll be about 100 and half of them will be in front of the paywall. In terms of how we work it out, there are certain games that are big events, that are of national importance, that absolutely should be free-to-air, that the whole country absolutely will want to see. For the economics of the deal to make sense, of course, content has to live on Paramount+. The price point is $6.99 [per month] so if you’re a sports fan, if you’re a soccer fan ... it’s a fairly efficient entry point.”

The rights for the men’s World Cup – the next edition of which will be held in the United States, Mexico and Canada in 2026 – were sold by FIFA last year to SBS, which has been the Australian home of the tournament since 1986.

The deal cements Paramount as the one-stop shop for Australian football content, and sits alongside their existing contract to broadcast the A-Leagues, which has two more seasons to run. Paramount has an option in their favour to extend it by a further three years; due to a failure to hit subscription-based targets within the contract, it has turned out to be worth a lot less than the $40 million-per-season figured trumpeted by the Australian Professional Leagues when it was signed.

The APL has since undergone significant belt-tightening, making half its workforce redundant and reducing annual distributions to clubs to just $530,000 per season – the lowest figure since the A-League’s inception. Network 10 retains a small, symbolic ownership stake in the APL, which formed part of the current A-Leagues rights deal.

“They had lots of work to do, and they’ve done a lot of it,” McGarvey said. “I think they would hope they’re coming out the other side of it now and getting ready for a great new season.

“We wouldn’t have chased another FA deal if we didn’t believe in football. Football’s our sport. That’s what we have, that’s our main sport. And I say this just knowing our business well, Australia is a tough market size. We’re not big, and we’re not small. It’s tough to run particular types of businesses in Australia because we lack scale in certain areas and people have expectations here in terms of what they expect from their sporting codes, their entertainment propositions.”

While the APL is eager to discuss a renewal to shore up the financial future of A-League clubs, and is expected to begin the process of seeking a new rights deal by the end of the year, McGarvey said Paramount was in no rush.

Last week, Foxtel expressed an interest in potentially bidding for the A-Leagues rights again. Julian Ogrin, the CEO of Foxtel’s streaming and advertising division, which includes Kayo Sports, told Mumbrella the company would “absolutely” consider a bid for the A-Leagues, if the rights became available.
 

half

Dick Tooth (41)
50 fta over four years thats 12 and a bit games per year. Thats not a bad deal. Also a number of sources aside from smh saying the NEWS reported 50 million is well short of what has been paid, no idea why the figure is a secret.
 

Strewthcobber

Simon Poidevin (60)
That's the benefit of having the Tillies doing well. Twice as many games to sell.

RA average around 7 games that matter to FTA TV a year. And at the moment the Matildas pull much higher ratings than the Wobs do.

The figure is secret because a) it's made up, or b) it's made up of lots of in kind payments, which the network wants to over value
 
Last edited:

Rob42

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Maybe it's just cynicism about the wild up and down of Australian soccer news - but does "wide of the mark" mean that the total value is a lot more than $200M? Or maybe less?
 

liquor box

Peter Sullivan (51)
FA would not disclose the financial terms of the deal; previous reports of a $200 million agreement were wide of the mark according to sources who were speaking on the condition of anonymity due to the confidential nature of the deal.
I have always been intrigued by attempts to hide how much was paid. I would assume that FA would have some type of profit and loss document that will reveal the value.



“There’ll be about 100 and half of them will be in front of the paywall. In terms of how we work it out, there are certain games that are big events, that are of national importance, that absolutely should be free-to-air, that the whole country absolutely will want to see. For the economics of the deal to make sense, of course, content has to live on Paramount+. The price point is $6.99 [per month] so if you’re a sports fan, if you’re a soccer fan ... it’s a fairly efficient entry point.”
Is the $6.99 all you pay, or do you have to pay for non sports too?

I have no issue paying for Stan sport, it is the non sport fee that I hate.
 
Top