Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
ESPN only re-signed with Foxtel last year on a "multi-year" deal...
The details including the length of the deal have not been made public as far as I can tell.
Last edited:
Broadcast options for Australian Rugby
- Thread starter WorkingClassRugger
- Start date
ESPN only re-signed with Foxtel last year on a "multi-year" deal...
The details including the length of the deal have not been made public as far as I can tell.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Presumably Foxtel is paying more for the rights than ESPn+ thinks they can get by setting up a whole new service here in Australia
liquor box
Peter Sullivan (51)
New today that many Labor politicians believe a loss of gambling advertising revenue will kill free to air.
I only watch about 30 minutes of free to air a week and this is ABC so I am not exposed to it, could this be a real thing?
I would love nothing more than ending gambling advertising (I do gamble online myself).
I only watch about 30 minutes of free to air a week and this is ABC so I am not exposed to it, could this be a real thing?
I would love nothing more than ending gambling advertising (I do gamble online myself).
Adam84
Rod McCall (65)
a similar argument was carried around the time they banned cigarette advertising..
I still remember attending an NRL match at Lang Park before its redevelopment, and the try-line was painted entirely red with the big 'Winfield' spelt out across it.
It will reduce advertising revenue, but wont kill FTA, that's just the TV companies pushing an alarmist agenda to try and preserve the revenue stream.
I still remember attending an NRL match at Lang Park before its redevelopment, and the try-line was painted entirely red with the big 'Winfield' spelt out across it.
It will reduce advertising revenue, but wont kill FTA, that's just the TV companies pushing an alarmist agenda to try and preserve the revenue stream.
JRugby2
Bob Loudon (25)
FTA will die with or without Gambling Ads on TV, but in the meantime - there are still farken HEAPS of advertisers who still love FTA (it is still the best way to reach AND engage lots of people with high impact creative) and will jump at the opportunity to take their primetime spots in live sport.
Without trying to get too political here, I say to those rugby loving politicians in power who undoubtedly monitor the pulse of the nation (this forum) - stop being flogs and grow a backbone
Without trying to get too political here, I say to those rugby loving politicians in power who undoubtedly monitor the pulse of the nation (this forum) - stop being flogs and grow a backbone
PhilClinton
Mark Loane (55)
I think the whole argument to kill gambling advertising is harder than what happened with the smoking stuff.
I dabble in online gambling myself but the change in how it has been intrinsically linked to every single sport we watch is quite concerning. I listen to a lot of Australian and American sports podcasts and I'd estimate there is at least 5-10mins on every 1hr long podcast focussed on discussing sports odds and special promotion bets they've got on offer.
The bottom line is there are more industries than just the FTA who will lose some pretty big coin if all gambling advertising is banned.
I dabble in online gambling myself but the change in how it has been intrinsically linked to every single sport we watch is quite concerning. I listen to a lot of Australian and American sports podcasts and I'd estimate there is at least 5-10mins on every 1hr long podcast focussed on discussing sports odds and special promotion bets they've got on offer.
The bottom line is there are more industries than just the FTA who will lose some pretty big coin if all gambling advertising is banned.
JRugby2
Bob Loudon (25)
For sure, but it's not a good enough argument against not banning it
They too will survive and the country will be better for it
The interconnection between the value of sports rights and gambling advertising revenue is the major issue in my view.
Sports rights are among the biggest and best assets for FTA TV channels and the bulk of sports betting advertising is linked with those broadcasts. If the advertising is banned does the value of those rights drop significantly?
I like sports betting but the level of advertising and promotion of it and particularly the imbedded nature of it within most sports broadcasts is hugely problematic. It isn't healthy for society that kids in particular watching sport are effectively told that sport and gambling go hand in hand.
It should be banned. It's no coincidence that we were an early mover to deregulate the gambling industry and are now the biggest gamblers in the world. It also needs to be noted that we were one of the first countries to ban tobacco advertising and regulate that industry and we have among the lowest smoking rates in the OECD.
Dctarget
Tim Horan (67)
At least nationalise it. If we're going to spend $20 billion a year ($1,200 per person) on gambling, at least let it go pay for some new hospitals and schools instead of buying new superyachts for overseas billionaires.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
They effectively already do this through taxes. That's why Pokies have such a foothold in NSW as they prop up the balance sheet.
Dctarget
Tim Horan (67)
go the full hog, take it 100% ownership. Seize the means of The Queen of the Nile.
JRugby2
Bob Loudon (25)
I suppose it depends on if by sports rights you're talking code level partnerships with the NRL/AFL or broadcast sponsorships with the networks airing the games. All of the research and data still suggests that these partnerships deliver good ROI both to the bottom line and to brand, also sports audiences are still growing on a total TV basis.
I think as soon as the ink is dry on a complete ban, you'd find major corporations rushing to fill the space left vacated by gambling companies across both the code level and broadcast partnerships.
Your second paragraph though is why none of that actually matters and it should just be banned anyway.
JRugby2
Bob Loudon (25)
I mean that Channel 9 pays a lot to the NRL to broadcast NRL games. They then sell a lot of ads at high values during NRL games and there is a significant slant towards sports betting advertising.
I don't really watch FTA TV but I would guess that the sports betting advertising is far more prevalent during live sport broadcasts than it is during other programming.
If Channel 9 can no longer sell advertising slots to sports betting companies at high prices during big games can they fill that void with other advertisers? Will the other main companies advertising on FTA TV increase their ad spend because there is more space or will they spend the same and some of that spend gets moved up into more valuable slots?
If Channel 9 can no longer leverage the rights into generating as much advertising revenue as they previously did, does the amount they pay for the rights continue to hold up and/or keep increasing?
JRugby2
Bob Loudon (25)
My guess is yes, they will fill that space with other advertisers and advertisers will likely find the money to fund the increase media spend
The data supports this also (note this probably includes gambling advertising but I'd wager that the graphs look similar even if gambling media spend was modelled out): https://www.statista.com/outlook/amo/advertising/australia#ad-spending
The NRL (and AFL) are growing - both the codes themselves (more teams/ games/ content) and audience numbers so they will absolutely be able to turn around to advertisers and demand the same premium $$$ they are now
** and important to note - while yes linear FTA TV is changing so are media co's. There is more content than ever across a suite of channels and people are consuming it + sport is still so strong, so the general decline of TV doesn't really factor here - IMO.
The Ghost of Raelene
David Codey (61)
Sooner they ban the ads the better. Absolutely toxic.
Go to a School Boys game and you'll hear 16-17 year olds talking about Multis on the NRL. A lot have it set up on phones already. Not hard to get around the verification measures. I generally am very against interference in peoples lives and their choices but this is one that has huge effects on those around the person using.
People are worried about their sports clubs and FTA... move on and find another stream.
I'm not saying ban gambling but don't advertise it as a normal and even positive part of life.
Go to a School Boys game and you'll hear 16-17 year olds talking about Multis on the NRL. A lot have it set up on phones already. Not hard to get around the verification measures. I generally am very against interference in peoples lives and their choices but this is one that has huge effects on those around the person using.
People are worried about their sports clubs and FTA... move on and find another stream.
I'm not saying ban gambling but don't advertise it as a normal and even positive part of life.
SouthernX
John Thornett (49)
Once they take away gambling sponsorships they’ll start going after fossil fuel companies. Rugbys favourite politician has been on record about sports washing for mining companies.
i feel more passionate about fossil fuels sponsorships because these mining companies are building communities and hiring a workforce - where as gambling doesn’t really have anything beneficial for the community other then the minuscule money made off the pokies.
i feel more passionate about fossil fuels sponsorships because these mining companies are building communities and hiring a workforce - where as gambling doesn’t really have anything beneficial for the community other then the minuscule money made off the pokies.
Wallaby Man
Nev Cottrell (35)
With the gambling discussion, I’m not sure how much it will change things in the public. By all measures poker machines are the biggest issue for gambling addiction in Australia and ads on these have been banned for decades. Is pointing the finger at places like Sportsbet an easy thing to point at without understanding if it will bring about any change? With the pokies example advertising ban didn’t move the needle at all. Would we be potentially jeopardizing the television revenue streams and the professional sporting industry for something that might be zero difference?
PhilClinton
Mark Loane (55)
I think Ghost made a good point earlier that it's the younger generations watching sport at the moment where banning the gambling advertising will be most beneficial and probably make a tangible impact on their behaviour in the future.
The way gambling and sports have been tied together over the last couple of years makes it nearly impossible to separate the two during a broadcast. The American sports used to be fairly clean but now all the laws over there changed it's going insane with draftkings odds and commentator pre-game specials.
Of course boomers who never gambled and always enjoyed sports may not be impacted, but if you're a generation where from day 1 of your sporting experience there is someone telling you the odds and specials etc. it changes your perception.