- May 13, 2012
- 15,812
- 5,968
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- Brumbies, Socceroos
Up to around U15 level, it's not really.
Even at around U17 level, soccer can be just as dangerous.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Play Nice 2020 Non AFL Admin, Crowds, Ratings, Participation etc thread
- Thread starter Our Game
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Up to around U15 level, it's not really.
Even at around U17 level, soccer can be just as dangerous.
Not according to rugby league types.
Soccer is a dangerous CTE sport while it still revolves around heading the ball.
- Nov 21, 2013
- 5,845
- 4,319
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
That is not the question i asked
I asked should ALL sports reveal their true playing numbers without the BS
The NRL has finally come clean.
R.A. has faced the unavoidable reality some time ago .
Cricket was caught out big-time simply estimating figures.
Australian Rules Football is the only code that can clearly demonstrate that it is going forward.
AFL has the figures on this and this is backed up by the number of new players, new clubs, new competitions and demands on facilities.
- Moderator
- #2,431
The AFL has produced broad participation, and registered club playing data for decades. Its not the leagues fault you dont see past the headlines.
- Nov 21, 2013
- 5,845
- 4,319
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
I did say ALL sports. It's not my fault you don't read my posts properly
- Moderator
- #2,433
I did read it. Youve said this before about AFL and this is my standard response every time.
Pippen94
Cancelled
- Jun 12, 2019
- 2,670
- 976
- AFL Club
- Sydney
A-League seals landmark five-year, $200m broadcast deal with Network Ten
The A-League’s short-term future has been secured after signing a bumper deal with Ten, whose owners ViacomCBS have also taken a stake in the competition.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Moderator
- #2,435
geech. How they got 200 mil is an amazing bit of business.
now, they have to get people watching enough to pay for another streaming service. I don't know enough about how Rugby Unions season went with Stan to say anything about its chances.
now, they have to get people watching enough to pay for another streaming service. I don't know enough about how Rugby Unions season went with Stan to say anything about its chances.
- Apr 20, 2006
- 9,644
- 13,053
- AFL Club
- Carlton
It’s a lot of money all things considered and hopefully with the subscription being so cheap that anyone with a passing interest will sign up. In saying that atm my family already have Stan, Netflix, Amazon, Disney and Foxtel so they add up and anther one wouldn’t go down too well. I imagine if you like soccer and any other sport you probably will need this new streaming service, Optus and Kayo then worry about the other ones for tv/movies.
I wonder if ten are actually paying anything? I couldn’t imagine that happening.
- Moderator
- #2,437
A-league 200m/5 years - without FFA Cup/Socceroos matches etc
Rugby Union 100m/3 years
Includes Wallabies matches.
ten are owned by Paramount/CBS Viacom
Rugby Union 100m/3 years
Includes Wallabies matches.
ten are owned by Paramount/CBS Viacom
It is, although it does appear to include a significant amount of contra and very importantly they will not be incurring production costs, as that will now be paid for by the league itself.
For 10 to have a game on the main channel is a small win though, although the ABC is a much higher rating channel on Saturdays. How long that will last I don't know, as national ratings of 50k are appallingly bad for a main channel. The ABC can get away with it, but a commercial FTA channel is a very different proposition. But at least it doesn't completely lock out all but the hard core fans.
- Moderator
- #2,439
yeah.
Kayo=AFL, NRL, Cricket + Others including Bundesliga/EFL, NBA, ESPN, ATP/WTA etc
Optus= EPL , UCL and Euros
Stan= Rugby Union and Tennis(UK/French)
Paramount = A-league
And that is just for sports and ignores NBA TV and the like. I don't think I have missed one?
it seems paramount and stan is making a play for the UCL. Will be interesting to see where the EPL ends up in 2023(?) and if Optus stays in the game. Optus hasn't really reached out to any other sport or major league outside the EPL since it dropped cricket.
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
Paramount have already said that they intend to be a more major player with soccer, so I'm guessing some of the soccer that's on BeIN (through Kayo) as well as Optus goes there. Paramount a decent chance to do another deal for Socceroos, FFA Cup and ACL. Of course any sports fan would want Kayo, but it may not be necessary if you're purely a soccer and soccer only fan.
- Apr 20, 2006
- 9,644
- 13,053
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Yes, I didn’t realise they had 100% ownership so it makes sense for them to promote the league even if it is a loss maker
- May 13, 2012
- 15,812
- 5,968
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- Brumbies, Socceroos
First year of deal includes $32 mill in cash and $11 mill in contra, and it declines in value each year after that. The FFA takes 20% of the cash, so the 12 A-League clubs are sharing $25.6 mill. Not great, but probably a tiny bit more than what some may have been expecting, although, that decreases in each year of the deal.
The other interesting aspect is that Paramount seems to have taken a 2.5% stake in the APL. Unclear whether the $200 mill broadcast deal covers that or whether Paramount have invested additional funds.
I also read a line somewhere that the APL is sharing the production with Paramount. It said nothing about sharing costs, but if that does involve sharing some production costs, then that's coming out of the $25.6 mill in cash.
Is it a good deal?
Time will tell.
They are getting roughly the same amount of cash as they did from Fox this year, which declines over the life of the deal.
They are getting one game on Ten's main channel, not sure if that's set in concrete, i.e. can they dump it onto a secondary channel once they start getting bum ratings?
Is it better being on Paramount than Fox? Certainly not in the short term, but who knows, by the end of the life of the deal there might be as many on Paramount as there are on Fox - certainly Paramount is going to be dirt cheap, we're talking Netflix style pricing, and whatever sport they have, it's thrown in at no extra cost.
It will be great for those A-League fans who just want to watch the A-league, but I'm not sure there are too many of those.
The other interesting aspect is that Paramount seems to have taken a 2.5% stake in the APL. Unclear whether the $200 mill broadcast deal covers that or whether Paramount have invested additional funds.
I also read a line somewhere that the APL is sharing the production with Paramount. It said nothing about sharing costs, but if that does involve sharing some production costs, then that's coming out of the $25.6 mill in cash.
Is it a good deal?
Time will tell.
They are getting roughly the same amount of cash as they did from Fox this year, which declines over the life of the deal.
They are getting one game on Ten's main channel, not sure if that's set in concrete, i.e. can they dump it onto a secondary channel once they start getting bum ratings?
Is it better being on Paramount than Fox? Certainly not in the short term, but who knows, by the end of the life of the deal there might be as many on Paramount as there are on Fox - certainly Paramount is going to be dirt cheap, we're talking Netflix style pricing, and whatever sport they have, it's thrown in at no extra cost.
It will be great for those A-League fans who just want to watch the A-league, but I'm not sure there are too many of those.
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
The ability - and capacity - to re-jig the promotion and re-launch the league is probably the more important thing here rather than a few mil here or there.
Paramount/CBS Viacom is buying into 2.5% of the league as well, so they have a direct incentive to achieve that with the league.
A bit of extra money without a broadcast partner truly on board and having to spend extra money to rebrand the league with that handbrake on would have not been worth it. It's a all-in electric jolt that could help the league significantly IMO.
Paramount/CBS Viacom is buying into 2.5% of the league as well, so they have a direct incentive to achieve that with the league.
A bit of extra money without a broadcast partner truly on board and having to spend extra money to rebrand the league with that handbrake on would have not been worth it. It's a all-in electric jolt that could help the league significantly IMO.
To be fair, given the predicament of the A League, it would be near impossible to make the case that it is a bad deal
But it certainly seems that the headline number has at least two substantial factors that make it not directly comparably with, say, the rugby deal with 9/stan
1) the sharing of production costs
2) the 2.5% ownership
Obviously it is not clear what sharing of production cost means. Even at a very modest $40K per match the A League you are comfortably over $5M a season. Presumably they are sharing W League production costs as well.
In terms of ownership apparently they are discussing $100 to $150M for a 25% stake for a private equity deal....this would imply at least $10M in value for the stake wrapped in the TV deal.
The other unknown element that has a quantifiable value is what this 3 year option is at the end of it. Presumably it is an option for CBS to extend their deal at a certain price. By implication, in the event the value of the rights in 5 years exceeds this option price, CBS would get a windfall in those last three years.
Not sure is Stan / 9 have an option on the rugby but I'm pretty confident that they are covering production costs and positive they are not getting a share of ownership
It is very possible that it is misguided on its assessment of the potential of the A League though
Not my go to position when I dont understand the actions of the likes of Viacom.
The 9/ StanSport strategy is playing out.
- Moderator
- #2,448
The rugby deal also includes the Shute Shield and Hospital Cups, Wallabies tests and Rugby championship matches. the A-league deal doesnt include NPL matches or socceroos fixtures.
The deal specifies a sharing of production responsibility, but doesnt specify costs, or whether this was factored into to the deal to get the final figure. Likewise we dont know if the purchase of equity is included in the deal or separate.
The fact they have to pay 20% of the first years rights to the FFA is a bit of kick in the teeth.
Sure, the rugby deal includes different content. Let's be clear though, while clearly the FFA would be looking to get a few million for internationals, the NPL is not worth anything (whereas I suspect the Shute Shield has a very modest value)
Well, that's right, we don't know as irrefutable fact either way for either of those things. I'd go london to a small pellet of bricks that they are though.
The point is though it is impossible to make a like for like comparison given the value of these two factors. Word is that the APL is wearing the full production costs for both the A League and W League. It's hard to imagine that coming in too far under $10M.
Not really. They have a licence to operate a closed shop they now own outright that the FA has bestowed premier competition status on. It is presumably part of the deal that saw them assume ownership of the league they originally purchased stakeless franchises in.
- Moderator
- #2,450
Productions costs can be done dirt cheap if one wanted to. I mean, there is a reason why live streaming of local leagues of all kinds of sports can be done now.
I am guessing a better standard than those will be used as a baseline for telecasts and we go from there. Say, you 3 cameras per a W-league match and if you want more, you can pay for it.
This also doesn't include the NZ rights IIRC. I assume Sky Sports NZ will have it's own deal in how to broadcast its matches plus TV rights(which will be immaterial)
I am guessing a better standard than those will be used as a baseline for telecasts and we go from there. Say, you 3 cameras per a W-league match and if you want more, you can pay for it.
This also doesn't include the NZ rights IIRC. I assume Sky Sports NZ will have it's own deal in how to broadcast its matches plus TV rights(which will be immaterial)
Similar threads
- Poll
