Broadcast options for Australian Rugby
- Thread starter WorkingClassRugger
- Start date
Perfect for games with no spectators though.
(lights are barely broadcast quality though)
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Yes, I recalled the criticism by some of the JH headlines and I think I posted on another thread:
RA $7 million in debt - acknowledged by RA
RA on verge of bankruptcy - interim CEO acknowledges this by saying that the advance/loan from RA staved off bankruptcy
RA Board moving against Castle - it happened
Captains unhappy with RA - public letter by 10 captains
Lynagh Unhappy - asked for his name to be removed
Powerbroker's threat to quit board - he quit
So if the headlines (which are written by sub-editors anyway) reflect the content of the stories, then it would seem that JH was pretty much on the money.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Tickets in 2021 could command a premium for Heritage Listed
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
A bit of rugby heritage. Good to see then ARU President Roger Vanderfield on the sideline clapping the team onto the field.
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
Jeez, I reckon I was there about 10 years ago.
it looked “tired” then.
Rebels3
Jim Lenehan (48)
Rumor has it the A-League and Fox are about to part ways after Fox offered them as low as $10m a season for an updated competition. They are also saying the existing contract is null and void because of the pandemic despite it has 2.5yrs left on the deal.
What happens here could potentially have an impact on how much we get offered in any potential deal going forward. If they save $50-60m A year on the a-League deal the ability to be able to get a decent offer for rugby.
What happens here could potentially have an impact on how much we get offered in any potential deal going forward. If they save $50-60m A year on the a-League deal the ability to be able to get a decent offer for rugby.
half
Dick Tooth (41)
Fox have spent so much on the cricket and after buying the cricket their subscriptions fell.
I read somewhere that Fox said they spend in the order of 100 million on soccer and 85 million on rugby. These figures include international match cost as well.
Our rating are similar.
If Fox ditched soccer & rugby, and made other cost savings they could reduce operating costs by over 200 million.
Say an average of $ 500, per year in streaming / Fox subs, meaning 400, 000 subs to recoup that. My guess is Fox even if they lost 200, 000 subscribers are better off.
Rebels3
Jim Lenehan (48)
Our ratings are comfortably above theirs, which isn’t saying much. They have several games during friendly viewing hours that pull in less than 20k watchers. We are poor ratings, they are piss poor ratings. Sydney FC and Victory games are the only teams that create viewership.
A-League also means fox has to produce 5 games a week, which is considerably more expensive than what Super Rugby offers as other broadcasters cover this cost for some of their content. It also runs for 26 rounds so this cost is continually compounded.
Looking at just subscriptions as well isn’t a good metric, there is advertising revenue which would make up a large portion of revenue for the stations, then they look at metrics like demographics of who’s watching, the value of the advertising partners they bring in and do these people watch other shows/sports, the market share that demographics can bring in, etc. I worked in analytics for a research company that has done analysis for companies looking to invest into sports markets. Metrics like who’s watching, where they are watching, key drivers, loyalty, as down to as much detail as the potential advertising partners these sports could bring in etc. Admittedly rugby was never one of these sports but I’m sure clients would want the same thing. Cricket, AFL, NBL are some of the brands I have worked with plus a telco company that was interested in American sporting markets looking at potentially bringing them into their network like Optus has done with EPL. After all this newscorp and Telstra would look at, is this driving revenue in their other businesses? Does rugby sell papers or create more news for people to click on (does rugby drive revenue on fox sports.com, etc.
For the record I am pro moving into another area to develop revenue, but Covid might mean focus on short term stability. I just hope that doesn’t mean the same Super Rugby format we have got used to seeing which isn’t helping the broadcaster or the union.
A-League also means fox has to produce 5 games a week, which is considerably more expensive than what Super Rugby offers as other broadcasters cover this cost for some of their content. It also runs for 26 rounds so this cost is continually compounded.
Looking at just subscriptions as well isn’t a good metric, there is advertising revenue which would make up a large portion of revenue for the stations, then they look at metrics like demographics of who’s watching, the value of the advertising partners they bring in and do these people watch other shows/sports, the market share that demographics can bring in, etc. I worked in analytics for a research company that has done analysis for companies looking to invest into sports markets. Metrics like who’s watching, where they are watching, key drivers, loyalty, as down to as much detail as the potential advertising partners these sports could bring in etc. Admittedly rugby was never one of these sports but I’m sure clients would want the same thing. Cricket, AFL, NBL are some of the brands I have worked with plus a telco company that was interested in American sporting markets looking at potentially bringing them into their network like Optus has done with EPL. After all this newscorp and Telstra would look at, is this driving revenue in their other businesses? Does rugby sell papers or create more news for people to click on (does rugby drive revenue on fox sports.com, etc.
For the record I am pro moving into another area to develop revenue, but Covid might mean focus on short term stability. I just hope that doesn’t mean the same Super Rugby format we have got used to seeing which isn’t helping the broadcaster or the union.
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
Our ratings are at a similar level to those they were recording when they signed the recent TV deal. Domestically speaking. It's something I find perplexing when people talk about value of a domestic competition as we have a reasonable guide right in the A-League.
dru
David Wilson (68)
Possible synergistic strengths between the scorned? A football/rugby platform might be stronger than the two on their own. Perhaps if just in terms of a common portal for streaming and use of equipment etc.
Jimmy_Crouch
Peter Johnson (47)
https://www.singular.live/post/doubletake-sports-partner-spotlight
Good article on Double Take by their partner Singular
Good article on Double Take by their partner Singular
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
If they aren't already, alarm bells should be ringing loudly.
The current $57m a year broadcast deal with Fox Sports looks like a river of gold that is about to dry up. There is speculation Fox will only pay $10m to $18m a year or even put rugby on a performance-based deal, and these rumours are making players nervous. The fear is that Australian rugby will become a semi-professional sport with the Wallabies the only marketable product remaining. In that event, players could not be blamed for wanting to leave.
RA has let go consultants Shane Mattiske and Michael Tange with chairman-elect Hamish McLennan to drive the broadcast negotiations as a “matter of urgency”. That could be an understatement. Fox Sports – or whoever RA negotiates with – may believe they hold all the cards, but RA does have one card up its sleeve – the gold Wallabies card. That needs to be leveraged for all it is worth and then some.
With the exception of the Reds trio, the players have kept their heads down so far, but they will follow the broadcast negotiations closely, keeping their options open. There will come a time around the end of September or the beginning of October when the players will demand certainty about the financial future of the game here or look elsewhere.
If RA is unable to deliver a sustainable broadcast deal, more and more players will leave, not just a few Queenslanders, placing enormous pressure on the shape and structure of Australian rugby. The clock is ticking.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ustralia-to-avoid-mass-overseas-player-exodus
The current $57m a year broadcast deal with Fox Sports looks like a river of gold that is about to dry up. There is speculation Fox will only pay $10m to $18m a year or even put rugby on a performance-based deal, and these rumours are making players nervous. The fear is that Australian rugby will become a semi-professional sport with the Wallabies the only marketable product remaining. In that event, players could not be blamed for wanting to leave.
RA has let go consultants Shane Mattiske and Michael Tange with chairman-elect Hamish McLennan to drive the broadcast negotiations as a “matter of urgency”. That could be an understatement. Fox Sports – or whoever RA negotiates with – may believe they hold all the cards, but RA does have one card up its sleeve – the gold Wallabies card. That needs to be leveraged for all it is worth and then some.
With the exception of the Reds trio, the players have kept their heads down so far, but they will follow the broadcast negotiations closely, keeping their options open. There will come a time around the end of September or the beginning of October when the players will demand certainty about the financial future of the game here or look elsewhere.
If RA is unable to deliver a sustainable broadcast deal, more and more players will leave, not just a few Queenslanders, placing enormous pressure on the shape and structure of Australian rugby. The clock is ticking.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ustralia-to-avoid-mass-overseas-player-exodus
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Let's hope so, although we are in a very weak negotiating position in an environment where broadcast rights across the board are of less value than they might have been 5 years ago.
for this year's competition or the future?
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
just for this year I think, with regards to the broadcasting revenue for the Super AU comp.
With respect to the future, if we do go down the TT path you would have to think that whatever the previous Super format was worth to Fox, the TT only version would have to be worth more. Surely. The payments to NZ & Aus that is. Viewership from down under will be at least twice whatever it was going to be.
With respect to the future, if we do go down the TT path you would have to think that whatever the previous Super format was worth to Fox, the TT only version would have to be worth more. Surely. The payments to NZ & Aus that is. Viewership from down under will be at least twice whatever it was going to be.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
I admire your optimism and hope you are correct. The Wallabies are the big trump card, but the layer below is the weak link. Not sure in the current climate where the value of sports broadcasting rights is declining that it's possible.
In 2018, the Australian Football League (AFL) was the Australian sporting code with the highest annual revenue from broadcasting rights sales, earning 418 million Australian dollars from broadcasters. Australian Rugby Union was the least profitable in terms of broadcasting rights sales, training just behind the Football Federation of Australia and Tennis Australia.
https://www.statista.com/statistics...adcasting-rights-by-sport/#statisticContainer
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Sports that have relied primarily on Foxtel may be facing a reckoning. Rugby, the rights of which expire at the end of the 2020 season, will be the canary in the coal mine which almost all sporting codes will be watching. While it is less reliant on the Australian market than other sports – the deal is done by the code's governing body SANZAR (South Africa, New Zealand and Australia Rugby) and sees big contributions from South Africa and Europe, Foxtel is unlikely to have an appetite to pay more.
https://www.afr.com/companies/media...changed-for-australian-sports-20190613-p51x90
https://www.afr.com/companies/media...changed-for-australian-sports-20190613-p51x90
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
“This has been a huge wake-up call globally [on] the fragility of the sports system. It is totally dependent on broadcast rights. Sports have not built in many cases a fortress to protect themselves from major downfall. The classic example is the NRL. And it’s not only the sport itself – I think you could see the disappearance of some clubs out of this because the AFL and the NRL will not be able to fund all the accumulating losses of the underperforming clubs.
“The whole issue is the driver of professional sport has been sports media rights and I don’t think that’s necessarily been realised by the Australian public, how the vibrancy of our professional sports system is dependent on that.”
One of the first major indicators of a shift in thinking by broadcasters was when Nine chief executive Hugh Marks in 2016 ruled out the network paying more to retain its decades-long association with cricket, a position supported by the investment bank that was advising the company as it was losing an estimated $40m a year televising the sport.
Such remarks before a rights negotiation have tended to be dismissed by the sports as the usual rhetoric aimed at tempering expectations but in that case Nine, now the publisher of this masthead, did walk away from cricket and picked up the rights to the Australian Open tennis instead. Cricket Australia still got its bumper pay day, although there is widespread agreement among industry figures that Seven and Foxtel paid too much.
As former News Corp chairman and chief executive John Hartigan told The Sydney Morning Herald last week, the pockets of the free-to-air networks are now nowhere near as deep as they once were, and the “landscape was ripe” now for a drop-off in broadcast fees.
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/the-wh...t-exposed-as-music-stops-20200324-p54dbw.html
“The whole issue is the driver of professional sport has been sports media rights and I don’t think that’s necessarily been realised by the Australian public, how the vibrancy of our professional sports system is dependent on that.”
One of the first major indicators of a shift in thinking by broadcasters was when Nine chief executive Hugh Marks in 2016 ruled out the network paying more to retain its decades-long association with cricket, a position supported by the investment bank that was advising the company as it was losing an estimated $40m a year televising the sport.
Such remarks before a rights negotiation have tended to be dismissed by the sports as the usual rhetoric aimed at tempering expectations but in that case Nine, now the publisher of this masthead, did walk away from cricket and picked up the rights to the Australian Open tennis instead. Cricket Australia still got its bumper pay day, although there is widespread agreement among industry figures that Seven and Foxtel paid too much.
As former News Corp chairman and chief executive John Hartigan told The Sydney Morning Herald last week, the pockets of the free-to-air networks are now nowhere near as deep as they once were, and the “landscape was ripe” now for a drop-off in broadcast fees.
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/the-wh...t-exposed-as-music-stops-20200324-p54dbw.html