Removing interstate clubs from FTA broadcast

[Igavemyloveachicken]

SA crowds have been poor. This could be explained by a couple of things:

Adelaide: Generally poor on field. Have a very high number of older members who have stayed away due to Covid.
Port: Hinkley is a campaigner and should burn in Hell.

Or there's a general loss in interest in a game/league controlled by the Corrupt Victorian State Government for the benefit of its own constituents

Either way, taking the locakl teams off FTA would be a futrther nail in what was per capita was the most rabid Aussie Rules watching state.

Not sure about WA, I think they're a bit different over there, but it wont be a positive change.

Are there even tickets available to the general public throughout the week though or are they all assigned to paid members who just aren't turning up on game day?

 

[My_Username]

SA crowds have been poor. This could be explained by a couple of things:

Adelaide: Generally poor on field. Have a very high number of older members who have stayed away due to Covid.
Port: Hinkley is a campaigner and should burn in Hell.

Or there's a general loss in interest in a game/league controlled by the Corrupt Victorian State Government for the benefit of its own constituents

Either way, taking the locakl teams off FTA would be a futrther nail in what was per capita was the most rabid Aussie Rules watching state.

Not sure about WA, I think they're a bit different over there, but it wont be a positive change.

I thought you wanted SA to be treated like the Vics get treated.

 

[kranger]

Can’t see any reason why interstate viewers think they should remain entitled to watch every game of their teams on FTA….. not to mention every game of the other team based in their state if they want to watch those games as well.

VIC viewers get maybe half that.

It makes sense from a tv rights perspective to ask WA and SA viewers to do what Vic viewers do too and dip their hands in their pockets and pay for a streaming service

The way that I read your comment, is that you think there is a problem that Victorians don’t get to watch all of their teams games on FTA. This could be a result of Victoria having too many teams, and being an over saturated market. But that’s not the point.

Rather than finding a solution to allow all Victorians to be able to watch all of their teams games on FTA and make things better, you choose to advocate to make things worse for people that live in a state with only two local teams who capture 90% of the market…

It seems like a bit of a sour perspective.

What benefit is there in removing the requirement for non Victorian team games to be played FTA in their local market?

Considering about 50% of footy supporters are in Vic, and 50% are outside Vic, you specifically want to make things worse for about 45% of all footy supporters (90% of non Victorians), for no actual benefit for the 50% who live in Victoria.

This shouldn’t be an us vs them discussion of Vic’s vs non-vic’s. It should be about ‘how do we get all Victorian team games on FTA in Victoria.

 

[My_Username]

What benefit is there in removing the requirement for non Victorian team games to be played FTA in their local market?

Simple. It's about the $$$

Foxtel (generally) pays more per viewer than FTA does and I dare say their footy package sells a hell of a lot better in Vic than it does in other states where people don't need it to see their team, and I dare say they're willing to throw a fair bit of money at the AFL to 'encourage' such non Vic fans, particularly WA/SA fans, to sign up by having exclusive rights to certain games.

Sure, FTA would pay less, but if the result of such a change is that the AFL gains $50M more from Foxtel while losing $30M from FTA, they're still $20M up at the end of the day.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The way that I read your comment, is that you think there is a problem that Victorians don’t get to watch all of their teams games on FTA. This could be a result of Victoria having too many teams, and being an over saturated market. But that’s not the point.

Rather than finding a solution to allow all Victorians to be able to watch all of their teams games on FTA and make things better, you choose to advocate to make things worse for people that live in a state with only two local teams who capture 90% of the market…

It seems like a bit of a sour perspective.

What benefit is there in removing the requirement for non Victorian team games to be played FTA in their local market?

Considering about 50% of footy supporters are in Vic, and 50% are outside Vic, you specifically want to make things worse for about 45% of all footy supporters (90% of non Victorians), for no actual benefit for the 50% who live in Victoria.

This shouldn’t be an us vs them discussion of Vic’s vs non-vic’s. It should be about ‘how do we get all Victorian team games on FTA in Victoria.

That horse has long bolted. Pay tv and streaming is here to stay.

Except for WA and SA viewers.... they are the last bastion and out of step with current trends.

It’s not unreasonable to expect them to put their hands in their pockets like everybody else does

 

[Walshawk]

Interstates don't be so tight. Kayo is as cheap as chips.

 

[Dirty Bird]

The way that I read your comment, is that you think there is a problem that Victorians don’t get to watch all of their teams games on FTA. This could be a result of Victoria having too many teams, and being an over saturated market. But that’s not the point.

Rather than finding a solution to allow all Victorians to be able to watch all of their teams games on FTA and make things better, you choose to advocate to make things worse for people that live in a state with only two local teams who capture 90% of the market…

It seems like a bit of a sour perspective.

What benefit is there in removing the requirement for non Victorian team games to be played FTA in their local market?

Considering about 50% of footy supporters are in Vic, and 50% are outside Vic, you specifically want to make things worse for about 45% of all footy supporters (90% of non Victorians), for no actual benefit for the 50% who live in Victoria.

This shouldn’t be an us vs them discussion of Vic’s vs non-vic’s. It should be about ‘how do we get all Victorian team games on FTA in Victoria.

But would a company that wants to advertise with a club rather have their logo infront of eyes country wide for 8 games, or a select market for 20 games, and nationally for 3-4?

The current deal is great for the fans yes, it's great for the networks too. But the clubs are losing out on sponsorship deals. Being stuck in worse timeslots, could make a player go 'why play infront of 20k people on Sunday afternoon, when I can play infront of 60k people on Friday night'.
And the inbalance stops potential growth for smaller clubs. If a neutral is starting to get into the game, there's a whole world of clubs they never see so they wont support them.
So it hinders future growth. (Though, this is probably a greater issue than Vic than for the interstaters)

 

[My_Username]

But would a company that wants to advertise with a club rather have their logo infront of eyes country wide for 8 games, or a select market for 20 games, and nationally for 3-4?

The current deal is great for the fans yes, it's great for the networks too. But the clubs are losing out on sponsorship deals. Being stuck in worse timeslots, could make a player go 'why play infront of 20k people on Sunday afternoon, when I can play infront of 60k people on Friday night'.
And the inbalance stops potential growth for smaller clubs. If a neutral is starting to get into the game, there's a whole world of clubs they never see so they wont support them.
So it hinders future growth. (Though, this is probably a greater issue than Vic than for the interstaters)

Absolutely.

As I posted earlier, in theory, having all clubs on the same media deals should mean a more equitable fixture...Except of course this is the AFL, and the whole reason for this change is to make more money, so that'll mean even less equity as the media will dictate even more who plays when.

Really, given that it's never going to be fair, there should be a transparent system whereby clubs get compensated for bad fixtures (for example play Friday night you get 200K less if it's a home game and 100K less if it's away, play Sunday afternoon and you pick up an extra 150K/75K...add it up to the end of the year and the AFL adjusts their dividend accordingly). Hell, take it a step further and let clubs bid for timeslots/FTA markets.

 

[JohnZ]

Absolutely.

As I posted earlier, in theory, having all clubs on the same media deals should mean a more equitable fixture...Except of course this is the AFL, and the whole reason for this change is to make more money, so that'll mean even less equity as the media will dictate even more who plays when.

Really, given that it's never going to be fair, there should be a transparent system whereby clubs get compensated for bad fixtures (for example play Friday night you get 200K less if it's a home game and 100K less if it's away, play Sunday afternoon and you pick up an extra 150K/75K...add it up to the end of the year and the AFL adjusts their dividend accordingly). Hell, take it a step further and let clubs bid for timeslots/FTA markets.

The reality is, a high rating game in each market is massively different.

An average rating Melbourne game still dwarfs any other market's highest rating game (derbies etc), so for Ch7, scheduling VIC teams just becomes the default.

 

[Dirty Bird]

The reality is, a high rating game in each market is massively different.

An average rating Melbourne game still dwarfs any other market's highest rating game (derbies etc), so for Ch7, scheduling VIC teams just becomes the default.

I still remember 2017 home and away season
What were the 3 highest drawing games on Friday Night?
The triangle of Adelaide-Sydney-Geelong

None involved a team from Melbourne. Neutrals want good football. They'd rather watch a good QClash than a mismatch Essendon-Collingwood game.
Only reason to air Essendon-Collingwood is to minimise the risk of the game being a dud. At least if it's a dud you have a stronger base.

 

[Rob]

Well WA collectively paid 1.6 billion out of our budget to build a world-class stadium for mostly the AFL to use and make money from so you can probably see why the premier here isn't impressed by West Australian's potentially looking down the barrel of having to pay for subscriptions to watch AFL games played there. Maybe WA should impose higher levy's for the AFL to use the stadium to compensate if we are assessing who should pay what?

The WA clubs already pay by far the highest rent in Australia, how much more do you want them to pay?

How much do you reckon was paid to hold the state of origin game?
HINT: it's a nice round number.

 

[parano1a]

It should be about ‘how do we get all Victorian team games on FTA in Victoria.

This is never going to happen. FTA is gradually dying and can't afford to purchase the rights on their own.
In fact I don't know many Victorian footy fans who would want all games on FTA. It would mean having to put with in game ads and lesser picture quality.

The whole point of this exercise is to increase the overall amount of money the AFL earns for the TV rights package.
As it stands, Foxtel attract a large subscriber base in Victoria from AFL fans, and in NSW/Qld from NRL fans.
The best way for them to increase their subscriber base in SA/WA is to have exclusive games involving their teams.
If Seven want to keep these games so fans can watch on FTA they will need pay a lot more for their portion of the rights.

 

[parano1a]

Neutrals want good football. They'd rather watch a good QClash than a mismatch Essendon-Collingwood game.

This is not correct. Channel 7 aren't stupid. A Brisbane v Gold Coast game on national FTA would struggle to attract 150k viewers in Melbourne, whilst Collingwood v Essendon is a guaranteed 250k+ audience.

 

[Scotland]

That horse has long bolted. Pay tv and streaming is here to stay.

Except for WA and SA viewers.... they are the last bastion and out of step with current trends.

It’s not unreasonable to expect them to put their hands in their pockets like everybody else does

Sure, can we have prime time games into the WA TV market? Or are we going to stick with 5.50 on a Friday and 5.25 on a Saturday because that's what the Victorian TV market would prefer?

For the remainder of the season there is at least one Victorian team involved in all of the Friday and Saturday night and Sunday 3.10 EST timeslots, AKA the "nationally televised" FTA games. This happens almost every week of the season. Partly due to weight of numbers, and partly due to the fact that Melbourne vs Western Bulldogs will rate in the "national" TV market of Victoria much better that Brisbane vs Gold Coast.

This was posted previously:

Free to air games this year (rd 23 tbd)
Western Bulldogs 16
Melbourne 14
St Kilda 13
Richmond 12
Carlton 12
Collingwood 12
Brisbane 10
Hawthorn 9
Essendon 9
Sydney 9
Geelong 9
Greater Western Sydney 7
Port Adelaide 7
Fremantle 4
Gold Coast 2
North Melbourne 1
West Coast 1
Adelaide 1

The bolded aren't meaningful because of current local broadcast arrangements. WA is the biggest market outside Victoria. Do people want to see 5 FTA games for the year involving Freo or WC broadcast into WA? Or do they want to see more WB/Melb/St Kilda/Richmond games on Foxtel? Or?

Bit of careful what you wish for to consider. WA has been propping up the broadcast schedule for years by absorbing "twilight" (it's not ****ing twilight at 2.40pm FFS) games Vic teams don't want and playing all of our night games to an EST/EDST time zone. Shunting non-Vic clubs off FTA has benefited the Victorian TV audience greatly.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Sure, can we have prime time games into the WA TV market? Or are we going to stick with 5.50 on a Friday and 5.25 on a Saturday because that's what the Victorian TV market would prefer?

For the remainder of the season there is at least one Victorian team involved in all of the Friday and Saturday night and Sunday 3.10 EST timeslots, AKA the "nationally televised" FTA games. This happens almost every week of the season. Partly due to weight of numbers, and partly due to the fact that Melbourne vs Western Bulldogs will rate in the "national" TV market of Victoria much better that Brisbane vs Gold Coast.

This was posted previously:

Free to air games this year (rd 23 tbd)
Western Bulldogs 16
Melbourne 14
St Kilda 13
Richmond 12
Carlton 12
Collingwood 12
Brisbane 10
Hawthorn 9
Essendon 9
Sydney 9
Geelong 9
Greater Western Sydney 7
Port Adelaide 7
Fremantle 4
Gold Coast 2
North Melbourne 1
West Coast 1
Adelaide 1

The bolded aren't meaningful because of current local broadcast arrangements. WA is the biggest market outside Victoria. Do people want to see 5 FTA games for the year involving Freo or WC broadcast into WA? Or do they want to see more WB/Melb/St Kilda/Richmond games on Foxtel? Or?

Bit of careful what you wish for to consider. WA has been propping up the broadcast schedule for years by absorbing "twilight" (it's not ******* twilight at 2.40pm FFS) games Vic teams don't want and playing all of our night games to an EST/EDST time zone. Shunting non-Vic clubs off FTA has benefited the Victorian TV audience greatly.

I watch on Kayo anyway but generally sick of StKilda and the dogs anyway, and more freo would be nice.

I’m genuinely not fussed if the afl leave it the way it is. But if the new tv rights deal means that interstate viewers no longer get to every one of the 40 of their home state team games on fta then I totally understand it.

Time zones are obviously a particular consideration in WA but that’s not something the afl hasn’t been dealing with since forever. No doubt most fta games will play in the Eastern seaboard time slot.

 

[Viceregal]

Time zones are obviously a particular consideration in WA but that’s not something the afl hasn’t been dealing with since forever. No doubt most fta games will play in the Eastern seaboard time slot.

If one day there is a GF in Perth the AFL could use it to trial having a night GF ... at 2:40 pm

 

[nick1408]

Speaking from my memories of the late 1980s-early 90s before the advent of pay tv:

In Victoria Saturday afternoon games were never shown live, although games were telecast live into interstate markets.

I'm pretty sure country Victoria did get the games live. Metro areas didn't. It could have just been the country area I was in though as there are different country providers of Prime depending on the area (Ballarat, Bendigo, Albury, Taralgon, Shepparton, Swan Hill).

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

If one day there is a GF in Perth the AFL could use it to trial having a night GF ... at 2:40 pm

They’ve had their one day.

 

[parano1a]

If one day there is a GF in Perth

Did you forget last year?

 

[Viceregal]

Did you forget last year?

Honestly you could have injected me with truth serum and hypnotised me and I would have had no idea ... I am guessing I must have been aware of it at the time but it obviously made no impression on my psyche?

Did they at least play it at 2:40 Perth time and call it a night GF in Melb?

 

[Scotland]

I watch on Kayo anyway but generally sick of StKilda and the dogs anyway, and more freo would be nice.

I’m genuinely not fussed if the afl leave it the way it is. But if the new tv rights deal means that interstate viewers no longer get to every one of the 40 of their home state team games on fta then I totally understand it.

Time zones are obviously a particular consideration in WA but that’s not something the afl hasn’t been dealing with since forever. No doubt most fta games will play in the Eastern seaboard time slot.

Why does anyone outside SA/WA care what the local FTA stations do? I'd be interested to see the stats of how many FTA games there are per season and how many of those involve at least one Victorian team. My guess would be 80 (excluding the 9 finals) and 90%.

The Foxtel component might go up in value with exclusive content in SA/WA, but what of the FTA component? It's not tenable to have 5 games all year broadcast into WA involving the WA teams and 8 into SA as would have been the case this year without the current arrangement, and I doubt Channel 7 are too enthusiastic about screening Gold Coast vs West Coast to the 'national' audience when Geelong/Bulldogs and Richmong/Brisbane are on offer.

The FTA games play to the EST time slot, and involve mostly Victorian teams. Seems an odd thing for anyone outside SA or WA to worry about that Channel 7 Perth screens a WC game instead of Sydney vs Hawthorn or something. If anything it should be an opportunity for Fox to extract money from 7 Perth and Adelaide.

FWIW I watch Fox/Kayo in Perth. It's 2022 and I don't do delayed sport.

 

[Scotland]

I'm pretty sure country Victoria did get the games live. Metro areas didn't. It could have just been the country area I was in though as there are different country providers of Prime depending on the area (Ballarat, Bendigo, Albury, Taralgon, Shepparton, Swan Hill).

Back in the pre 9/10/Fox era when all games were on Channel 7 we used to get live Eagles and Dockers home games in the country and delayed in the city. Away games and other games were live or delayed depending on the time slot. I don't think we got live Friday night footy until 2012 unless you went to a pub that had satellite feed from another state. FMD.

 

[parano1a]

It's not tenable to have 5 games all year broadcast into WA involving the WA teams and 8 into SA as would have been the case this year without the current arrangement

This is not what is being proposed, it's just a gradual cutback of some of the Foxtel simulcast games in interstate markets. So instead of 22 Eagles games on FTA in Perth, you'll have 16, with six exclusive to Foxtel.
Channel 7 will still show the same games it currently shows in Victoria.

 

[Scotland]

This is not what is being proposed, it's just a gradual cutback of some of the Foxtel simulcast games in interstate markets. So instead of 22 Eagles games on FTA in Perth, you'll have 16, with six exclusive to Foxtel.
Channel 7 will still show the same games it currently shows in Victoria.

Gradual cutback to what?

As per the list above West Coast have 1 official FTA game this year. Top 3 on the list are 16, 14 and 13 games.

What you are suggesting is 16 of 21 Foxtel games are broadcast on FTA into WA instead of 21 which just sounds like a stepping stone to 0 of 21, or 0 of 5, 10, 15 depending on year. Foxtel are still producing content that 7 will televise. If I was Foxtel I would be putting my hand out for that. Most Sundays and often on Saturdays Channel 7's FTA game isn't broadcast into WA because an Eagles or Dockers game takes its place. I doubt there is much appetite from Channel 7 Perth to show a game from 1.10pm to 3.30-4.00 ish and then show a local game on delay. Dedicating 5 hours to AFL coverage is not what they want, and if they also won't want to cannibalise their own audience with games overlapping on 7 and 7Mate.

There's zero push to make the "national" FTA broadcast schedule more national, so I don't know why people suddenly care what happens outside Victoria.

It's not really about treating clubs equally at all. Who is on FTA the most from year to year generally tracks with who is successful/popular in Melbourne at the time. Does your average North fan care what's on FTA TV in Perth? I'd say they would be more interested in why they get 1 FTA game vs every other Victorian team getting 9+.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Why does anyone outside SA/WA care what the local FTA stations do? I'd be interested to see the stats of how many FTA games there are per season and how many of those involve at least one Victorian team. My guess would be 80 (excluding the 9 finals) and 90%.

The Foxtel component might go up in value with exclusive content in SA/WA, but what of the FTA component? It's not tenable to have 5 games all year broadcast into WA involving the WA teams and 8 into SA as would have been the case this year without the current arrangement, and I doubt Channel 7 are too enthusiastic about screening Gold Coast vs West Coast to the 'national' audience when Geelong/Bulldogs and Richmong/Brisbane are on offer.

The FTA games play to the EST time slot, and involve mostly Victorian teams. Seems an odd thing for anyone outside SA or WA to worry about that Channel 7 Perth screens a WC game instead of Sydney vs Hawthorn or something. If anything it should be an opportunity for Fox to extract money from 7 Perth and Adelaide.

FWIW I watch Fox/Kayo in Perth. It's 2022 and I don't do delayed sport.

Don’t care that much at all but if the tv rights deal says no more mr nice guy on FTA then I totally understand it.

Which is exactly what I said the first time in the post you responded to.

Like you say it’s 2022.