Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[Strewthcobber]

Should add that prior to 1996, the local FTA rights deals were ludicrous. Kerry Packer got the rights to the ARL for $1million in 1990.

There was no broadcast revenue from the terrestial stations. When union gets offered $555m by News in 1996, everyone thought PayTv was going to wipe FTA off the planet, like it had in the USA

Didn't happen like that!

 

[Adam84]

The point of even mentioning 1996 was to debate this sentiment that this is a one off sugar-hit, chasing the dollar over FTA exposure has been going on for decades.. Acting as though this is a one-off ignores the actions of the past.

Arguably that horse has now bolted with market penetration anyway, we’re confined to a niche sport given the financial state and consumer base. FTA today as a mechanism for market penetration isn’t as valuable as it was 15-20 years ago given the rise in choice of SVOD services and digital channels.

but even in its current state, getting 50-150k on FTA is still far better for growth of the game then chucking it behind a paywall..

 

[Wilson]

Hypothetically, if we had secured an FTA deal for all of super (or at least all the games involving Australian sides), would that be more of a positive indicator for Australian rugby, or a negative one for FTA?

There's obviously a lot of different ways that could shake out and most of them come down to money, but where we are right now it's hard to see us getting a lot of benefit out of FTA for super rugby (or FTA getting a lot out of it). Particularly not when Stan is an enthusiastic supporter of the game, the likes of which we haven't seen since at least the early 2000's with Fox. I do think this would be a very different discussion if we had an all (or largely all) Australian product to offer, whether that was at super level or NRC equivalent.

 

[Tomikin]

The point of even mentioning 1996 was to debate this sentiment that this is a one off sugar-hit, chasing the dollar over FTA exposure has been going on for decades.. Acting as though this is a one-off ignores the actions of the past.

Arguably that horse has now bolted with market penetration anyway, we’re confined to a niche sport given the financial state and consumer base. FTA today as a mechanism for market penetration isn’t as valuable as it was 15-20 years ago given the rise in choice of SVOD services and digital channels.

but even in its current state, getting 50-150k on FTA is still far better for growth of the game then chucking it behind a paywall..

Free-to-air, though, was a much more penetrating proposition in 1996 than in 2025. Most people have streaming services these days; it's just how the world is.

I think we needed to have it back then, but now it's not so big of a deal (still important). We just need to use our money wisely. Hopefully, 9 will play the Big Oz games on FTA so we get some exposure.

Or when I win the US lottery of a billion dollars, I will make it work .

 

[PhilClinton]

Free-to-air, though, was a much more penetrating proposition in 1996 than in 2025. Most people have streaming services these days; it's just how the world is.

Absolutely but it’s also fair to say Stan Sports is the most niche product in the
Oz market when it comes to content and then relative price point. If rugby was on Amazon Prime it’s a different proposition. That is why I think having the FTA piece baked in does become important for accessibility.

 

[Strewthcobber]

We would be better off getting a game a week on YouTube then FTA if we want accessibility

 

[Adam84]

Free-to-air, though, was a much more penetrating proposition in 1996 than in 2025. Most people have streaming services these days; it's just how the world is.

yes, thats what I said in my post

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Absolutely but it’s also fair to say Stan Sports is the most niche product in the
Oz market when it comes to content and then relative price point. If rugby was on Amazon Prime it’s a different proposition. That is why I think having the FTA piece baked in does become important for accessibility.

A quich search suggests It's the 4th most subscribed service behind the big 3. Ahead of Kayo, Binge, Paramount+, Hayu, Optus Sport etc.

 

[Major Tom]

A quich search suggests It's the 4th most subscribed service behind the big 3. Ahead of Kayo, Binge, Paramount+, Hayu, Optus Sport etc.

Binge would be because it’s attached to Kayo. It’ll drop down now that it doesn’t have HBO. I don’t know of anyone with Paramount?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Binge would be because it’s attached to Kayo. It’ll drop down now that it doesn’t have HBO. I don’t know of anyone with Paramount?

Binge had 1.5m subs as of mid last year compared to Stan 2.5m.

 

[KOB1987]

I found it bizarre that Weekend Today (i.e. Ch 9) didn't even mention the Tahs/Chiefs game in the sports rundowns. I was only watching till about 8, maybe it got a run later - but still.

 

[PhilClinton]

A quich search suggests It's the 4th most subscribed service behind the big 3. Ahead of Kayo, Binge, Paramount+, Hayu, Optus Sport etc.

Stan Sports or Stan? I’m referring specifically to Stan Sports which is the subscription you need to watch rugby.

 

[PhilClinton]

Binge would be because it’s attached to Kayo. It’ll drop down now that it doesn’t have HBO. I don’t know of anyone with Paramount?

Paramount is actually unreal - some of the best shows I’ve watched in ages - Lioness and Landman specifically. We just have it as an additional subscription through Prime though.

 

[PhilClinton]

We would be better off getting a game a week on YouTube then FTA if we want accessibility

Correct. Which is ironic because the free production of club rugby on YouTube was actually quite good. Obviously the Stan product has more bells and whistles but no one really complained about the YouTube stuff and it was all free.