Play Nice Admin, Finance, Members, Ratings, Crowds, Policies - Please refer to each sports own boards

[Ned_Flanders]

I'm uncomfortable as well at the thought of ABC broadcasting soccer but while they're broadcasting other sports such as the cycling and EPL, there really isn't much to be gained by critically looking at it. The question here is why FFA have failed their sport in not finding a FTA commercial partner.

Why? Why is it wrong for them to show one sport (soccer) but not another (ar)?

As for why the ftas passed, its tough to answer without knowing the criteria the ffa attached to any bids, and the priorities/budgets of the individual sports divisions at each network

 

[NoobPie]

Apparently sbs and abc should only show aussie rules because of some pax ar rubbish a few here are pushing

Nobody is saying that

Reality is sbs and abc funding and its use has never been under greater scrutiny and govt oversight than it is today. Libs are not fans of either, and some in the party are still pushing for them to be privatized.

If either was just wasting money on a boondoggle, the libs would be all over them like door knobs on degoey.

Any price paid will have been reviewed to death internally and by the board, and only approved when its decided that the price paid is appropriate for the benefit that they expect the content to provide them with

I disagree with this. SBS paid an amount far in excess of what commercial FTAs would have paid. This is the issue. More likely deluded thinking of the soccerphillic cabal running the SBS thought spending $7M of public money a year was a goer

In terms of the ABC, what is the "benefit that they expect the content to provide them with"? The ABC is explicitly not commercial, so what would the benefit be?

In the current climate, shouldn't the ABC be putting its sports resources to women's sport rather than a men's comp that can't justify it?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Nobody is saying that




I disagree with this. SBS paid an amount far in excess of what commercial FTAs would have paid. This is the issue. More likely deluded thinking of the soccerphillic cabal running the SBS thought spending $7M of public money a year was a goer

In terms of the ABC, what is the "benefit that they expect the content to provide them with"? The ABC is explicitly not commercial, so what would the benefit be?

In the current climate, shouldn't the ABC be putting its sports resources to women's sport rather than a men's comp that can't justify it?

When you talj about cabals running sbs you have lost the plot. Govt has them 100% by the balls now, and they have demands for greater "commercialization" of the station every year. This has ranged from greater demands re: advertising revenues, and greater accountability on ratings.

The days of both being run by unaccountable boards are well and truly dead.

And scroll back re: the demands only ar be shown instead of soccer

 

[The_Wookie]

FYI

 

[The_Wookie]

 

[NoobPie]

When you talj about cabals running sbs you have lost the plot. Govt has them 100% by the balls now, and they have demands for greater "commercialization" of the station every year. This has ranged from greater demands re: advertising revenues, and greater accountability on ratings.

The $7m SBS deal happened several years ago. You are reading a little too far in to the use of the word "cabal".

The days of both being run by unaccountable boards are well and truly dead.

It seems that both are now run by politically stacked boards

And scroll back re: the demands only ar be shown instead of soccer

Nothing. You either made that up, misrepresented somebody or just plain didn't grasp someone's point

A number of people have questioned the SBS / ABC's noncommercial effective subsidies of soccer, not that it should show AF and no show soccer

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

FYI

Incredible really. I also remember hearing somewhere that NFL clubs have double the revenue as EPL clubs but I'm not sure how true that is.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Incredible really. I also remember hearing somewhere that NFL clubs have double the revenue as EPL clubs but I'm not sure how true that is.

Nfl had $7.3b in 2015

 

[Aussie in exile]

FYI

The folly of having more money going out than coming in.
The first rule of a successful business is you can't have more money going out than coming in.

 

[NoobPie]

The folly of having more money going out than coming in.
The first rule of a successful business is you can't have more money going out than coming in.

In soccer it's called "investment"

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Nfl had $7.3b in 2015

Insane money. I guess AFL clubs were around the $500mil mark so on a per person scale it's not so far off

 

[Aussie in exile]

In soccer it's called "investment"

In the business world it called stupidity.

 

[BobbyMorri]

The folly of having more money going out than coming in.
The first rule of a successful business is you can't have more money going out than coming in.

unless you got a rich sugar daddy who doesnt care. etc Man City or Chelsea.

Incredible really. I also remember hearing somewhere that NFL clubs have double the revenue as EPL clubs but I'm not sure how true that is.

the biggest soccer clubs in the world(Real, Barca, Man Utd etc) match most of the metrics of the biggest NFL clubs in the world(Dallas, Pats) give or take. the difference lies with the fact that the 10th biggest NFL club would dwarf the 10th biggest English club by some margin.

 

[The_Wookie]

Insane money. I guess AFL clubs were around the $500mil mark so on a per person scale it's not so far off

AFL clubs came in at $856 million

 

[NoobPie]

In the business world it called stupidity.

That is probably why much of this "investment" comes from countries where business is conducted somewhat differently

 

[Aussie in exile]

This should be the blue print in my opinion.
The Bundesliga business model: An analysis of its success and how other leagues can take lessons | Liam Smith Law

 

[Our Game]

I'd be seriously jacked if they ABC paid any money for the rights and implicitly subsidised it by putting it on ABC 1 on a Saturday night at the expense of whatever was already on a no doubt rating higher

Given that SBS will no doubt continue with its anachronistic subsidy of european soccer we will have both public broadcasters providing uncommercial support for the worlds richest game and one that is wholely private owned...yucky cultural cringe

Is about time SBS was merged with the ABC Its well past its used by date and its mostly pathetic programmes and ratings dont deserve government funding.
I would much rather the government put some money into CH 31 local community TV which does a great job without any government help!

 

[Our Game]

Yep - I think Lowy must have used a bit of muscle and called in some political favours which allowed SBS to waste a huge chunk of its budget on something which doesn't rate.

Westfield Lowys company is one of the biggest donors to the LNP so you might be on to something there.

 

[Our Game]

Why? Why is it wrong for them to show one sport (soccer) but not another (ar)?

As for why the ftas passed, its tough to answer without knowing the criteria the ffa attached to any bids, and the priorities/budgets of the individual sports divisions at each network

No its not the A League with its pathetic ratings is not viable for commercial FTA - thats it!

Its about ratings and commercial success and 7,9,10 cannot afford to show a dud programme like local soccer in prime time and lose heaps of viewers to their opposition and have advertisers drop off.
.

 

[NoobPie]

This should be the blue print in my opinion.
The Bundesliga business model: An analysis of its success and how other leagues can take lessons | Liam Smith Law

Haha, for whom? It looks really familiar

....Yucky cultural cringe...yuck

 

[Rob]

The Soccer Broadcasting Service is taxpayer funded -& should not be biased towards any sport. Morgan polls have constantly revealed more foreign-born spectators attend AFL matches, than foreign born attending A League matches. The Syd. based & focused SBS, fixated on soccer, virtually ignores the AFL, & provides more coverage even to the NRL.

It is incontrovertible that, if the commercial networks are unwilling to pay $2,000,00 pa for the A League, but SBS are paying currently $7,000,000 pa for identical rights of 1 game pw, then the SBS is wasting taxpayer funds. The SBS should have its sports' funding slashed. The woeful A League SBS FTA ratings, it can be argued, indicate that the SBS is not in a genuine commercial relationship with the A League -it is a defacto, taxpayer funded, wasteful, marketing arm of the A League.

In all fairness, SBS (and I reckon most of the rest of us) had no idea the A-League was going to rate so poorly. The only real figures they had as an indicator were Fox numbers, and it was probably a fair assumption that it would get at least 2-3 times the Fox figures (like major sports do), giving them an average audience of low to high 100ks. Instead it gets similar 5 city numbers to Fox nationally, indicating that most soccer fans have Fox anyway and there really isn't much of a casual fan base for the league. The only real question i'd have for SBS is whether there was any reason they paid as much as they did - were there other bidders that forced up the price?

I think it was probably a fair commercial decision at the time, it just turned out to be a shit one in hindsight. Government departments tend to make a lot of those.

 

[NoobPie]

In all fairness, SBS (and I reckon most of the rest of us) had no idea the A-League was going to rate so poorly. The only real figures they had as an indicator were Fox numbers, and it was probably a fair assumption that it would get at least 2-3 times the Fox figures (like major sports do), giving them an average audience of low to high 100ks. Instead it gets similar 5 city numbers to Fox nationally, indicating that most soccer fans have Fox anyway and there really isn't much of a casual fan base for the league. The only real question i'd have for SBS is whether there was any reason they paid as much as they did - were there other bidders that forced up the price?

I think it was probably a fair commercial decision at the time, it just turned out to be a shit one in hindsight. Government departments tend to make a lot of those.

The key gap being none of the three commercial networks were willing to make that commercial decision. Maybe the commercial networks correctly divined that the several fold increase on fox figures was ambitious given that it was previously exclusive to fox or that 150,000 audiences on the main channels would not cut it anyway?

Bottom line though is public broadcasters should not be outbidding commercial networks as a matter of principal.

 

[Rob]

The key gap being none of the three commercial networks were willing to make that commercial decision. Maybe the commercial networks correctly divined that the several fold increase on fox figures was ambitious given that it was previously exclusive to fox or that 150,000 audiences on the main channels would not cut it anyway?

Bottom line though is public broadcasters should not be outbidding commercial networks as a matter of principal.

Maybe, but you could say the same about SBS' deal with Viceland. If it was so great, why hasn't a commercial channel done the same deal? Or any other commercial deal done by either SBS or ABC. Perhaps SBS saw more value in it than another channel given their viewer base was a lot more likely to watch soccer than any other channel and could therefore get higher audiences (something which may well continue to be the case).

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I thought I'd throw this in the discussion:
How exactly did ABC get the rights to broadcast the 2014 Basketball World Cup? Did no other commercial broadcaster want to broadcast it?

 

[WagonBang]

Westfield Lowys company is one of the biggest donors to the LNP so you might be on to something there.

ALP were in Power at the time.