Super Rugby players must be allowed to cross borders and remain eligible for Test sides

[Rassie]

I've done a fair bit of looking but I can't find any information regarding what each broadcaster (Supersport, Fox Sports, Sky Television) pays towards the SANZAR TV rights deal.

Pay TV is more expensive in Australia than elsewhere so I'm betting that Fox Sports pays a high price per viewer relative to South Africa in pariticular (which does have easily the highest number of viewers per game).

Gate takings and ground attendances are irrelevant to the equation because each team gets to keep those.

Did you try Wickipedia? The total is the one stipulated in the contract

 

[gel]

But coming back to today. How much will people pay for a commercial when 400 000 people are watching compared to a commercial where 1000 000 people are watching. Rand or Aussie Dollars are not the important factor viewer totals are.

Fair enough, I thought it would work a bit differently.

 

[Braveheart81]

Did you try Wickipedia? The total is the one stipulated in the contract

It is easy to find the total of the 2011-2015 SANZAR TV deal of $437 million but I can't find the breakdown of what each TV broadcaster paid towards the deal.

If you can find it or know it, please enlighten me.

 

[Rassie]

Fair enough, I thought it would work a bit differently.

No viewer totals are. Because ads pay from most things. The more people watch the more you charge for a add. That is why brand sponsorship have become such a huge thing in Sport. Biggest example of this is the Super Bowl and the half time commercials. How much you think they pay for that couple of seconds?

 

[Rassie]

It is easy to find the total of the 2011-2015 SANZAR TV deal of $437 million but I can't find the breakdown of what each TV broadcaster paid towards the deal.

If you can find it or know it, please enlighten me.

I have it somewhere. Gimme me a minute.

Can't find it between a thousand pdf's. But this here thinks its on the dot

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/all-that-glitters-is-not-gold-in-new-sanzar-deal/

 

[gel]

No viewer totals are. Because ads pay from most things. The more people watch the more you charge for a add. That is why brand sponsorship have become such a huge thing in Sport. Biggest example of this is the Super Bowl and the half time commercials. How much you think they pay for that couple of seconds?

As I said, you must be right and demographics, disposable income and spending habits of the target audience would have zero impact on how much advertisers pay. I thought they might have something to do with it, but clearly I am mistaken.

 

[gel]

I should add, you may well be right that SA give more for the super rugby, but I was looking more for confirmation of that "fact". Thus my questions.

 

[Rassie]

As I said, you must be right and demographics, disposable income and spending habits of the target audience would have zero impact on how much advertisers pay. I thought they might have something to do with it, but clearly I am mistaken.

South Africa generate the most money for SANZAR. SA is basically bankrolling SANZAR
This is a good clue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_Ratings

Advertising makes up about 87% of combined network revenue

 

[gel]

South Africa generate the most money for SANZAR. SA is basically bankrolling SANZAR
This is a good clue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_Ratings

Advertising makes up about 87% of combined network revenue

Thank you for the link.

You should read it. Specially this bit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_Ratings#Demographics

the bit that talks about how fewer viewer numbers can sometimes command higher advertising fees due to the target audience being more easily parted with their cash.

So, whilst I am genuinely interested to know the figures that indicate that SARU is funding SANZAR - and I actually suspect you may be right, I don't necessarily think it is to the degree you think it is.

Do you have any other numbers or reasoning as to why you think it is?

 

[Braveheart81]

South Africa generate the most money for SANZAR. SA is basically bankrolling SANZAR
This is a good clue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_Ratings

Advertising makes up about 87% of combined network revenue

The ratings in each country don't necessarily have an impact on what each network paid SANZAR for the ratings.

How much does a pay TV subscription cost in South Africa (so you can watch Supersport)? This would probably have a bigger impact on what each network paid SANZAR for the TV deal.

Fox Sports revenue is primarily from subscriptions, not from advertising.

Without knowing what each network paid towards the SANZAR TV deal, it's impossible to say which country is bankrolling SANZAR.

 

[Rassie]

The ratings in each country don't necessarily have an impact on what each network paid SANZAR for the ratings.

How much does a pay TV subscription cost in South Africa (so you can watch Supersport)? This would probably have a bigger impact on what each network paid SANZAR for the TV deal.

Fox Sports revenue is primarily from subscriptions, not from advertising.

Without knowing what each network paid towards the SANZAR TV deal, it's impossible to say which country is bankrolling SANZAR.

How much does a beer cost in Australia mate?

 

[Rassie]

Thank you for the link.

You should read it. Specially this bit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_Ratings#Demographics

the bit that talks about how fewer viewer numbers can sometimes command higher advertising fees due to the target audience being more easily parted with their cash.

So, whilst I am genuinely interested to know the figures that indicate that SARU is funding SANZAR - and I actually suspect you may be right, I don't necessarily think it is to the degree you think it is.

Do you have any other numbers or reasoning as to why you think it is?

TV numbers? This was in 2012

SuperSport 36 831 694 – 67% (175 389 per game)
Sky Sports 12 093 989 – 22% (57 590 per game)
Fox Sports 6 046 995 – 11% (28 795 per game)

 

[Braveheart81]

TV numbers?

SuperSport 36 831 694 – 67% (175 389 per game)
Sky Sports 12 093 989 – 22% (57 590 per game)
Fox Sports 6 046 995 – 11% (28 795 per game)

That has no indication of what each network paid SANZAR to make up the TV rights.

Foxtel (the pay TV service that owns Fox Sports) has about 1.6-1.7m subscribers who pay somewhere around AU$1,000 a year for their subscription.

I am fairly sure this is significantly more than subscribers pay in NZ or South Africa even if the viewer numbers are much higher. Super Rugby and Fox Sports are flagship products of Foxtel which has a significant impact on driving subscriptions.

 

[gel]

I shall endeavor to find an animated gif that explains what I am saying by way of interpretive dance.

 

[Rassie]

That has no indication of what each network paid SANZAR to make up the TV rights.

Foxtel (the pay TV service that owns Fox Sports) has about 1.6-1.7m subscribers who pay somewhere around AU$1,000 a year for their subscription.

I am fairly sure this is significantly more than subscribers pay in NZ or South Africa even if the viewer numbers are much higher. Super Rugby and Fox Sports are flagship products of Foxtel which has a significant impact on driving subscriptions.

You kidding me? South Africa have on DSTV owned by Media group owned Naspers who owns SUpersport and everything. Subscription is for the smaller package about R600.00 ZAR = 65.31 AUD p.m

But how many of those 1 million people watch rugby? You can't charge as much for adds when 29k people watch it on average as much as you can for 175k people. Like I said advertising brings in more than 87 percent of a network. Meaning the rand is lower than Aussie dollar don't mean everything is cheaper. It means we just pay that much more. But subscription is a small part of a networks income.

An example of this was one of the biggest rugby matches of 2012 on SuperSport when the Springboks played against the All Blacks. The game was watched by 695 000 viewers. To put this audience in perspective: an average episode of Carte Blanche has 500 000 viewers.

How much did a 30-second spot in this rugby match cost? 120,000.00 ZAR = 13,042.80 AUD. And the spot during Carte Blanche? 60,000.00 ZAR = 6,521.40 AUD. The rugby match is nearly 50% more expensive, with only 35% more audience.

Of the total amount received from NewsCorp South Africa received 36,6 percent, Australia and NZ both 31,1 percent

The Key Outcomes of the 2012 competition were as follo ws:

• 125 Primary Live Broadcasts on Supersport
• Cumulative Audience of Primary Live
Broadcasts = 45,207,291 viewers, an
increase of 20.0% YoY.
• Games featuring SA teams and that
are played in South Africa are the key
audience drivers! The Vodacom Bulls
v DHL Stormers game on the 2nd of June reached the highest average audience across all games
played to date – 990,062 viewers with 19.3% market share in
the Digital market.
• 370 Repeat broadcasts across all SuperSport Channels up to the 5th of August! Games featuring the Vodacom Bulls were
repeated 72 times, followed by The Sharks with 70 repeats
and the Toyota Cheetahs with 65 repeat broadcasts.
• Repeat coverage on SuperSport 1 accounts for 86.9% of all repeat coverage to date.
• Cumulative Audience across all repeats = 3,738,965 viewers
(an average of 10,187 viewers per game)
• 555 HL broadcasts to date across all SuperSport channels
with a cumulative audience of 12,758,606 viewers (an average
of 22,988 viewers per broadcast)
• Cumulative Audience across all SuperSport Television coverage =
61,704,862 viewers.
It is important to note that these figures exclude the “out of home viewing “numbers to
which we can add another 20% of the total audience. In comparison to our SANZAR partner
who collectively accounted for R20mil viewers in their markets we can see that SA continues to
deliver substantial value to the competition.

http://images.supersport.co.za/SARU-Annual-Report-2013-web.pdf

 

[Braveheart81]

It may be the case that Supersport is paying more money to SANZAR than Fox Sports or SKY Television but no one seems to be able to find out if that is the case.

That is what I am interested to find out.

If all three television networks are paying the same to SANZAR, all the figures you've posted prove is that Supersport is making a lot more money out of the deal.

 

[Rassie]

It may be the case that Supersport is paying more money to SANZAR than Fox Sports or SKY Television but no one seems to be able to find out if that is the case.

That is what I am interested to find out.

If all three television networks are paying the same to SANZAR, all the figures you've posted prove is that Supersport is making a lot more money out of the deal.

No. Supersport bought the rights for it from Fox who in turn payed over 500 Billion for the rights from SANZAR over the next 10 years. Supersport is a monopoly. They have no competition unlike NZ and AUstralia and other parts of the world. So they had basically no competition when bidding for SA rights. Then Supersport also serves a big part of Africa as well without much competition.

 

[Braveheart81]

The current TV deal runs from 2011 - 2015. The amount SANZAR sold those rights for was US$437 million.

This covers Super Rugby and 3N/TRC.

There is no indication anywhere I can find of what each network's contribution to the US$437m was.

 

[Rassie]

The current TV deal runs from 2011 - 2015. The amount SANZAR sold those rights for was US$437 million.

This covers Super Rugby and 3N/TRC.

There is no indication anywhere I can find of what each network's contribution to the US$437m was.

Let me put it like this. FIrst of all this is SuperSport

SuperSport International (SuperSport) is the South African pay television channel MNET’s sports broadcasting subsidiary. SuperSport has equity shares in three provincial rugby brands namely the Cheetahs (Free State Rugby Union), Griquas (Griqualand West Rugby Union) and Natal Sharks (Natal Rugby Union), as wel as a 50% share in three provincial cricket teams and 100% of the SuperSport United soccer team.

Murdoch News Corporation, bought the broadcasting rights of southern hemisphere rugby in 1995, which included the Tri-Nations and Super 12 competitions, for US$550 milion. SuperSport owns the exclusive rugby broadcasting rights in South Africa, because it bought the broadcasting rights of the major tournaments which amount to R200 milion = 22,188,000.00 USD per year.

So they bought that rights from News Corp just to have the rights to broadcast in SA. You can work it out as 22 milion x 10 gives you 220 million over that 10 years. So out of of that total of 10 years which was the contract back then the 550 million Super Sport payed 220 million to News Corp. This was back in 1995 I can assure its much more now. So you can see alone the huge amount Super Sport adds to the total.

Now here comes the interesting part. This means that SuperSport has the exclusive rights to broadcast South Africa’s foremost domestic rugby fixtures such as the Curie Cup and the Super Rugby. This also means that SuperSport has an influence in the draw of major rugby tournaments, the kick-of times of rugby tournaments, and an opportunity to expose its brands on television

SuperSport has built a near monopoly on rugby broadcasting in South Africa to date, broadcasting 7 000 hours of live sport.

Coming back to the 3 most broadcast teams on SuperSport? Blue Bulls, Cheetahs and the Sharks. THe last two they own shares in.

Interesting thing is the same company (SAIL) owns shares in the Stormers and Bulls.

For 2005 to 2010 end this is the totals.

News Corp. and South Africa's M- Net/Supersport will pay $323 million for broadcasting rights to southern hemisphere rugby union through 2010, the New Zealand Rugby Union said.

News Corp. secured broadcast rights for New Zealand, Australia and the U.K. markets, with M-Net/Supersport acquiring the rights for Africa.

``We didn't want to break it down between our share and their share,'' Greg Baxter, a spokesman for News Limited, News Corp.'s Australian unit, said in a telephone interview. ``The whole deal's worth $323 million between the two of us.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=an3iiMyvvwtk&refer=australia

SUperSport operating profit alone is $22 million usd alone

Now here is the the confusion. That 38 percent of SA is actually 33 percent because Vodacom Cup and Currie Cup which is sold outside SANZAR is included in that. SO basically SA bringing in the most is getting f over as it gets the same as NZ and Aus basically.

 

[Braveheart81]

Now here is the the confusion. That 38 percent of SA is actually 33 percent because Vodacom Cup and Currie Cup which is sold outside SANZAR is included in that. SO basically SA bringing in the most is getting f over as it gets the same as NZ and Aus basically.

This is no longer the case.

The new deal that was signed in 2011 is only for Super Rugby and 3N/TRC. It runs from 2011 - 2015. Each of the three SANZAR nations takes a third of the funds (now that each country has five Super Rugby sides).

The SARU completely controls the Currie Cup/Vodacom Cup rights which they sell themselves. This has nothing to do with SANZAR anymore. Likewise, the NZRU controls the ITM Cup rights which they can sell themselves. Both Supersport and SKY Television onsell their Australian rights to Fox Sports which broadcast those competitions in Australia.

The original deal cost Supersport more because it was bundled in with the Currie Cup. Supersport paid more to Foxsports for the rights but the SARU got a bigger share of the SANZAR money because they were providing more of the content. I don't see how you can argue that SA was getting screwed over. They paid more money for more content and then the SARU received more money out of the overall deal because they were providing more of the content.