TV Rights Discussion

[jargan83]

The need to be less NSW centric and allow franchises such as Rugby WA to be more competitive by equally the playing fields and making the teams more evenly distributed as far as talent is concerned.

As Mark Sinderberry said a while ago we need a strong competition through even teams not strong teams that are East Coast centric.

With all rthe NZ and SA ex pats here much easier to tap into this market than areas where Rugby league is entrenched

I agree and one of the ways to do this is to scrap ARU top ups and give the money to the states in terms of an increased salary cap (beating a dead horse here). At least all the sides might be on an even playing field when it comes to contracting payments in terms of the salary cap.

I know Sinderberry mentioned a draft but unless the ARU goes back and completely redrafts their contracting rules it will never happen. At the end of the day even on an even playing field we will be pushing it up hill due to reasons such as family, home town etc until we are producing our own Super Rugby players in large numbers.

They could give the Force and Rebels a higher salary cap because we're expansion markets similar to the AFL in NSW and Qld. Maybe if Top ups remain the way they are that could be one thing to look at.

[SNOB]

The ARU would be better of paying on performance, some of that team should have to pay the ARU the way they played on Sunday.

[Alison]

Jargan - I agree with you that individual franchises should be responsible for the marketing, advertising, admin etc for their own franchise/product. But what I'm talking about is the bigger picture i.e. the strategic direction of the code as a whole in Australia. Responsibility for that clearly lies within the jurisdiction of the ARU. Likewise the financial position of the code as a whole in Australia.

Which brings me back to my original point - it is (to my mind) a shameful indictment on the way the ARU has managed the code as a whole that we are having to rely on UK TV viewers to help keep the game financially viable in Australia.

To my mind, Pulver and his cohorts have a long way to go to achieve the vision and goals they set themselves in last year's ARU Annual Report, namely that they would grow the game in Australia and engage new fans (in Australia!) to allow the ARU to invest in the future (see page 5 of the Annual Report).

Incidentally, note the final sentence of his "CEO's Report" in which he says "We head into 2014 full of confidence that we have laid the foundations to ensure rugby is in a strong position on and off the field." I think he needs to eat those words insofar as the Wallabies are concerned.

That's really all I have to say on the topic. Over to others to have their say should they wish!

This is the link to the Annual Report if anyone's interested.

http://www.rugby.com.au/annualreport...e/index.html#1

[James]

IIRC the Fox Sports money is paid in US dollars. One of the difficult things over the past four or five years is that the US and Aussie dollar had been somewhere near parity. The Aussie dollar has recently (last few months) dropped to 87 US cents. That means that if we were paid 100 million US (~105 million Aus on average over last few years) we have an effective increase of 10 million or 10% (100 US million = 115 million in current currency prices). The Aussie dollar is likely stay in that 80-90 US cents range.

Nothing to sniff at.

[jargan83]

Which brings me back to my original point - it is (to my mind) a shameful indictment on the way the ARU has managed the code as a whole that we are having to rely on UK TV viewers to help keep the game financially viable in Australia.

I disagree regarding the UK viewers, Rugby Union is in a position to take advantage of overseas markets because there is genuine interest in the code in those markets eg the UK. Smart business to sell the rights overseas. The NRL have done it and I think the AFL have also done it in some overseas markets as well.

Problem for the ARU solely in terms of TV dollars is there isn't enough content for local markets. 3ish home games on any weekend and 1 game per weekend during the Test season doesn't exactly set off the cash registers.

The ARU should be following the other codes into digital rights. I would kill for digital Super Rugby coverage and I bet there are plenty of others out there that would prefer signing up to something like the NRL digital pass then a full on Foxtel subscription. The NRL and AFL made $100 million and $153 million off of Telstra by selling the digital rights to each code. It's 21st century and sporting codes are taking advantage of technology.

I do agree with you in some parts of the overall picture that there is probably a disconnect between fans the game be it at national or state level but this thread is about the TV rights for the code here in Australia

[jargan83]

Ten Network Holdings is set to cover one match of the Super Rugby *competition each week under the terms of the pending broadcast deal for the sport.

While the agreement, set to begin from 2016, will mark the first time Super Rugby has had a free-to-air *presence since it was established in 1996, it is understood Ten will only show a replay of one match in a Sunday morning time slot each week.

Fox Sports Australia has brokered the deal with the Australian Rugby Union and will maintain live coverage of all Super Rugby matches, on-selling the replay and rights to all Wallabies matches to be simulcast on Ten.

The ARU had attempted to spark a bidding war between the free-to-air broadcasters, but Seven West Media and Nine Entertainment Co showed little interest in the sport, which both have previously broadcast. However, as first reported by The Australian Financial Review, the ARU is set to reap close to $40 million in annual income from rugby union's next *broadcast rights, albeit mainly due to a large increase in the amount United Kingdom broadcaster Sky Sports will pay the competition's governing body SANZAR.

Australia's share of the UK rights and a small increase from Fox Sports and Ten will see the ARU receive a *substantial boost from the current deal, worth about $25 million annually.

SANZAR will soon finalise all new broadcast contracts covering South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, with the competition expanding to 18 teams – including one each from Japan and Argentina and a new South African side – in 2016.

While the increase in funds will be a welcome boost to the ARU's coffers with the organisation potentially on the brink of running out of cash in 2015, there are concerns the new *competition structure could prove to be a financial drain on the five Australian Super Rugby franchises.

The new structure will see the Australian team's play less 'derby' matches against each other than as is the case with the current 15 team competition.

The derby matches usually provide the most income for Australian teams from ticket sales and corporate *hospitality and, in turn, are often the highest rating matches for Fox Sports/

Ratings for Super Rugby declined by about 10 per cent for Fox Sports this year, despite the NSW Waratahs *winning the competition, and the network is said to be concerned about *ratings for the National Rugby Championship, a tier below Super Rugby.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/su...23-11sfsk.html

[MI5_Dog]

With my lovely tin foil hat on I'm going to comment about why anyone would think that the Australian rugby viewing public are going to be more inclined to watch rugby because the Waratahs won the title?
The reason derby matches are watched more often is because we want to watch the other buggers lose.
The only people interested in the Waratahs are people in NSW.

[GIGS20]

While the increase in funds will be a welcome boost to the ARU's coffers with the organisation potentially on the brink of running out of cash in 2015, there are concerns the new *competition structure could prove to be a financial drain on the five Australian Super Rugby franchises.

The new structure will see the Australian team's play less 'derby' matches against each other than as is the case with the current 15 team competition.

I think we make more money out of hosting Kiwi teams

[The InnFORCEr]

I think we make more money out of hosting Kiwi teams

by way of fines for invading the field

[GIGS20]

by way of fines for invading the field

it certainly isnt from selling pi$$, they already come loaded

[AndyS]

I've always had my doubts about derbies being the best earners. They might be best stand-alone (and I'm even dubious that is true for all teams), but they can't be viewed in isolation. The question is how it compares to the alternative...does, say, Force v Sharks + Waratahs v Highlanders rate better or worse overall than Force v Waratahs + Sharks v Highlanders. From the point of view of the broadcaster, it is that total that matters rather than the one off number.

[Sheikh]

For attendance numbers last year, the derbies were less well attended (in general) than 'international' matches

[GIGS20]

From the point of view of the broadcaster, it is that total that matters rather than the one off number.

I think you're right, but the article was talking about lost revenue for the club, reasonable to assume that indicates a loss of gate takings. I'm not sure whether that's as a result of fewer home games or a perception that derbies draw bigger ticket sales....I was assuming the latter and calling it bullshit.


Of course, the club will lose out if the broadcaster pays less, but that was pretty well shown not to be the case in the article.

[jargan83]

In terms of ticket sales the derbies would not be the highest earner for the force but the NZ games. Not sure about the SA games but wouldn't surprise me given Perth is still a fairly new Rugby market.

In terms of TV ratings the derbies would rate the best as they are televised into the East coast during prime time where the audience would dwarf anything watching from the West Coast, hence the ordinary start times for the Force games over here.

With my lovely tin foil hat on I'm going to comment about why anyone would think that the Australian rugby viewing public are going to be more inclined to watch rugby because the Waratahs won the title?
The reason derby matches are watched more often is because we want to watch the other buggers lose.
The only people interested in the Waratahs are people in NSW.

It's a Sydney newspaper. Why would they speculate about the Force or the Rebels when the majoirty of the reader base is in Sydney.

Also a large percentage of the viewers are in NSW and Qld.

Thats the reason the AFL paid the AFL a bucketload so Foxtel can expand in states like WA, Vic and SA.

I've always had my doubts about derbies being the best earners. They might be best stand-alone (and I'm even dubious that is true for all teams), but they can't be viewed in isolation. The question is how it compares to the alternative...does, say, Force v Sharks + Waratahs v Highlanders rate better or worse overall than Force v Waratahs + Sharks v Highlanders. From the point of view of the broadcaster, it is that total that matters rather than the one off number.

I'd would guess that the first option of Force vs Sharks + Waratahs vs Highlanders would be the more attractive option as far as the TV network would be concerned as the Sharks vs Highlanders in our second option would be screened in the middle of the night.

[AndyS]

Even if it was Highlanders v Sharks, the point stands. I suspect there would be a number of viewers that would watch matches so long as there is an Australian team playing, so there would be a cross-over of viewers between the two international matches that you don't get with the derby. Say it was a 100k viewers for each team with only 10% crossover, for the broadcaster that is 110K eyes on screen for four hours versus 200k for two hours.