TV Rights Discussion

[jargan83]

THE Wallabies lost 75 per cent of their audience on free-to-air television inside a month but ARU boss Bill Pulver is confident the nosedive won’t have “any negative impact” on rugby’s next broadcast deal.

Having contentiously backed the expansion of Super Rugby, the ARU admitted their long-term financial security relied on substantial growth in revenue for their next TV deal, and Pulver told Daily Telegraph in April he was targeting a $40m-per-year package similar to Australian soccer.

Negotiations are underway but the hopes of expanding FTA coverage — with potential Super Rugby exposure — may have taken a hit in recent weeks, however, when initially strong ratings for the Wallabies on Channel Ten fell off a broadcasting cliff.

After almost one million FTA viewers saw the Wallabies draw with the All Blacks in Sydney on August 16, only an estimated 250,000 tuned in nationally to see Australia sneak home against Argentina on the Gold Coast on September 13.

Though up against NRL and AFL finals, the five-cities figure was a meagre 187,000 and was also beaten by Saturday night movies and ABC crime shows.

“Any drop-off concerns me, but obviously there are different circumstances behind every game. It’s Test matches against New Zealand compared to Test matches against Argentina,” Pulver said.

“And there are different environments too for every game, in terms of what competitor sports are on air. But overall, I think the trends have been pretty good for us.”

Along with Channel Seven, Ten is considered the network most likely to purchase rugby rights when the next deal kicks in 2016.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby/b...-1227065783619

[jono]

Guess someone better tell folau and k-hunt to work harder so more people watch.
Kiwis will come back on board when SBW comes back to union

[jargan83]

Possibly a good sign here

The talk floating around is the ARU and SANZAR partners are in line for a decent increase in broadcast revenue when the new deal is struck, possibly by the end of this month.

One big area of new money is said to be sizeable sum from Skysports in the UK, who are looking to expand their Super Rugby coverage.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby/s...-1227078224336

[Alison]

Nice one Sky :-))

[chibi]

I wonder what would have happened if he stood his ground on the farcical format of the new Super Rugby? I can hardly see SANZAR folding altogether if he did.

[jargan83]

The South Africans would have done their usual threat to walk away from the alliance and go and play in Europe before backing down.

This new format is going to be stupid. Deadset.

[jargan83]

Fox Sports Australia and Ten Network Holdings are set to secure the rights to screen rugby union for another five years in a deal worth $175 million to $200 million, representing a significant uplift for the struggling code.

However, sources have told The *Australian Financial Review the big rise will not come from domestic rights but instead from the ARU's share of a large increase in international rights.

ARU chief executive Bill Pulver also looks set to fail in his efforts to spark a bidding war between the free-to-air networks for the Super Rugby competition, which has been broadcast by Fox Sports since its inception in 1996.

No networks have expressed interest in Pulver's proposal for one match per round to be simulcast on free-to-air.

Advertisement
But the new deal, which will begin in 2016, will represent a substantial increase on the current contract in which the ARU receives about $25 million cash and contra annually.

It also shows the value of live sports to broadcasters and will come just before the AFL goes to market seeking a massive 10-year that could net it up to $3 billion. A deal for rugby union is likely to be finalised by about the end of October, with Fox Sports maintaining its Australian rights and on-selling Wallabies national team matches to Ten for about $4 million annually.

Rivals Seven West Media and Nine Entertainment, which have both *previously held telecast rights to Wallabies' matches, have shown little interest in doing so again.

The biggest source of the increase will be from the United Kingdom where Sky Sports will maintain its rights but only after a staving off an extremely aggressive bid from BT Sports, owned by telecommunications company BT Group.

Super rugby ratings decline
"The uplift really is just as a result of a telco bidding up Sky in the UK," said one source. The UK rights will be worth more than $20 million annually.

It is understood Fox Sports will pay about the same annual price it is *currently paying in Australia, about $15 million in cash plus several million dollars in contra, or at best a small increase. It will maintain its agreement with Ten for Wallabies matches.

The remainder of the ARU's *$25 million annual broadcast revenue is derived from its share in the SANZAR tri-nations organisation that also includes South Africa and New Zealand. Rights are pooled between the three countries, which are set to accept a team from Argentina and another from either Singapore or Japan in an expanded 18-team Super Rugby competition that includes a sixth South African team.

The Rugby Championship will *continue to be contested by the Australian, New Zealand, South African and Argentinian national teams.

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

Matches for football's FFA Cup, *contested between A-League and *lower-league state based clubs, are understood to be delivering Fox Sports twice the ratings than rugby union's NRC. The ARU, Fox Sports and Ten would not comment.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/un...#ixzz3FKMdn2vv

[Alison]

How crap that the financial viability of our game is being propped up by the Poms!!! Hang your head in shame Pulver et al!!

[jargan83]

How crap that the financial viability of our game is being propped up by the Poms!!! Hang your head in shame Pulver et al!!

It's a rather simplistic approach to blame Pulver.

[Alison]

I did say et al. And by that I mean the ARU. Who would you blame? Is there someone else in charge of Australian rugby that I don't know about? Please enlighten me in detail.

[jargan83]

The details are in the ratings numbers which are readily avaliable online.

Is it the ARU's fault that viewer numbers for Super Rugby have crashed by 10%?

Is the ARU's fault no FTA networks are interested in bidding for Super Rugby and they would rather save their cash to bid for the NRL and AFL?

[Alison]

Of course it is. It's the ARU's job to promote the game and make it more attractive to the viewer in a competitive market. At the moment they are being totally outplayed by their competitors in the A-League, AFL and NRL. Surely even the most obtuse people can see that?

The ARU's tactic seems to be to buy in code hoppers, put them in the "heartlands" and expect things to suddenly light up and everyone flock to see them. Well hello - it's clearly a lot more complicated than that but I don't see them trying anything different. The future of the game is in their hands and their hands only. And right now they're looking like the Keystone Cops.

[Invictus]

Well, the ARU's marketing efforts have been feeble or worse for quite a few years now.

Are they solely to blame, no. Do they have a big hand in it, yes.

[jargan83]

Of course it is. It's the ARU's job to promote the game and make it more attractive to the viewer in a competitive market. At the moment they are being totally outplayed by their competitors in the A-League, AFL and NRL. Surely even the most obtuse people can see that?

The ARU's tactic seems to be to buy in code hoppers, put them in the "heartlands" and expect things to suddenly light up and everyone flock to see them. Well hello - it's clearly a lot more complicated than that but I don't see them trying anything different. The future of the game is in their hands and their hands only. And right now they're looking like the Keystone Cops.

The game is in the hands of the QRU, NSWRU, RugbyWA etc etc as well as the ARU.

Usually the advertising for a code is done through the Contra part of the agreement which is essentially free advetising. I see plenty of ads for Super Rugby on Fox Sports. Promoting going to the game falls on the franchises.

How do the ARU make Super Rugby a more competetive option? I would imagine that would have more to do with the 5 franchises and not the ARU. I can imagine the uproar on this very forum if the ARU were telling the Force coaching staff how they should play.

You could argue that moving the Rugby Championship to its current timeslot is a terrible idea from a purely Australian view point because it's finals time in the NRL and AFL but I'm advocating that the ARU needs to consider this.

I don't factor in the A-League when talking about this much because they are on at different time of year when sporting content is less.

[Tazzmania]

The game is in the hands of the QRU, NSWRU, RugbyWA etc etc as well as the ARU.


How do the ARU make Super Rugby a more competetive option? I would imagine that would have more to do with the 5 franchises and not the ARU. I can imagine the uproar on this very forum if the ARU were telling the Force coaching staff how they should play.

You could argue that moving the Rugby Championship to its current timeslot is a terrible idea from a purely Australian view point because it's finals time in the NRL and AFL but I'm advocating that the ARU needs to consider this.
.

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