NRL cannot kick broadcast rights can for as much as AFL

[Beaussie]

Well, well, well, take note NRL cheerleaders.

NRL cannot kick broadcast rights can for as much as AFL
James Chessell
From:The Australian
June 25, 201112:00AM

ON any rational analysis, the NRL's media rights are not worth as much as the AFL's.

This will not stop many members of the extended rugby league family - including the odd commentator and club chairman - from making unrealistic claims about the the game's value. But strip away the emotion, ideology and historic grievances and you are left with good news and bad news as far as the NRL broadcast rights are concerned.

The bad news is that the Gold Coast Titans have as much chance of winning the competition as the NRL has of beating the $1.25 billion media rights deal struck between the AFL, Foxtel, Telstra and Seven earlier this year.

There are several reasons why the NRL is less valuable. The most obvious is that a free-to-air broadcaster cannot show as many ads. This is because a game of rugby league is not only shorter but contains less tries than goals and therefore fewer breaks in play.

While AFL is not big in NSW or Queensland, it is a more national game, which is important. For example, a company such as Telstra will always pay more for mobile and internet (IPTV) rights if it can market them across the country. Having the AFL is often the reason Seven finishes the week on top for all mainland capital cities combined.

National reach counts. NRL tragics talk about the code's Sydney and Brisbane audiences - which are very strong - but they forget that both AFL grand finals last year outrated the NRL equivalent (2.8 million and 2.7 million v 2.1 million) for the capital cities. Last year's NRL finals games averaged almost 700,000 metro viewers compared with more than 900,000 per AFL finals game, according to Goldman Sachs. These are the numbers FTA broadcasters care about. Not curious "cumulative audience" figures quoted in some newspapers (including The Australian) in March.

Another key difference is the new Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney AFL teams. They will take many years to build even a small following, but expansion plans mean more games and more money.

It should also be said the stars aligned for the AFL deal. Seven was forced into a "take it or leave it" situation when it became clear Foxtel was in the running to broadcast all nine regular season games per round live (with the support of Nine). Seven ended up paying $50m extra. Foxtel upped its contribution for the live rights.

This scenario could be repeated with the NRL - Foxtel certainly wants to show all games live - but it is less likely. Seven already had four AFL games per week to show; it doesn't have the room to do a deal for more than one game per round. Meanwhile, Ten has made it clear to a nervous equity market it won't overpay for sports rights.

Another complicating factor is the Sunday afternoon NRL game Nine currently uses to lead into its 6pm news. To do that, the match is shown on a one-hour delay - a 4pm kickoff is too late to attract live fans - and FTA networks would resist any attempt by Fox Sports to show this game live.

Nine, which is dead against Foxtel broadcasting every NRL game live now that it is the incumbent broadcaster, also has some power in the form of a "first and last" option. The network argues this will make it harder for NRL chief executive David Gallop to break up parts of the schedule such as the State of Origin series among rival networks. Gallop does not necessarily agree but admits in the first instance the game must be offered as a complete package. Nine can lose its "first and last" if another party beats its opening bid by 20 per cent but this is a long shot. Breaking up parts of the game, of course, is no guarantee of increasing the total price.

Whether these points will be acknowledged by Gallop's critics remains to be seen.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sp ... 6081603237

[King-Eliagh]

I agree with most of this article and dont expect the NRL to get the same either. But I'm still thinking it'll be above 900,000.

The AFL is the more national league but it is interesting how close their tv viewing is for the capital cities. Add to this the millions of regional viewers and I'm not sure the AFL would be winning...

As I've said before I think it wont be long before the FTA broadcasters will care about the regional market. I would guess in around 10 years regionals will be a bigger factor as the population spreads from the exhorbitant living costs associatated with the major cities.

[pussycat]

The Austraian is a News Ltd owned publication and this guy works for that publication. His agenda is to talk down Rugby League so News LTD can once again, get it cheaply. Rugby League currently provide Foxtel with, something like 76 of its top 100 program's. Rugby League is essential to Foxtel - without it they would sell very few suscription and Foxtel would soon collapse.

What he says about FTA is quiet true . The AFL game does give TV stations more advertising opportunities. However this is more than counterbalanced by the fact that ads on the East coast (where RL dominates) is 3 or 4 times what they get on the west coast. Take a look at the FTA stations. they all realise that the profit margin from AFL is very small. That is why this time C10 didn't bid - they will bid for league and C9 bid was only designed to raise the price so C7 had less money to bid for League.

The AFL Grand Final draw last year was a 1 off. So even even if we say (argueably) the AFL has the biggest sporting event - the next 4 all go to Rugby League, its Grand Final, Origin 1,2 and 3. Giving League 4 of the biggest sporting events in this country and the AFL 1.

And it is a myth perpetuated by the AFL that regional TV figures do not count. What fool would be stupid enough to dismiss a large chunk of his potential audience based on the fact that they come from the wrong area. - TV networks are well aware of regional figures.

As the report pointed out, expansion is also a key factor . Rugby league also plans expansion but as the artivcle pointed out, the AFL's new teams are in rugby league heartland. So they will be facing another Swan's like situation. At least one of the two new teams Rugby League take on will be in league heartland making The TV network the big winners.

[Raiderdave]

these same stooges also said the AFL would not get their billion either

" it was impossible " they wrote
TV insdustry insiders trying to bluff their way to a cheaper deal .. fair enough they're a business & will always try & look after their shareholders

the AFL didn't fall for it
neither will we

the article is sort of right I don't completely disagree with what was written ,I don't think we'll get 1.25 Billion either

we'll get about 1 Billion .. to 1.1 Billion based on our code performing far better then the AFL in the last 5 years
their ratings dropped by 30% over this period
ours rose by 15%

their new rights deal appriciated by 60% on the old one

when you consider our present 500 mill deal is over 6 years .. not 5
our billion $ deal over 5 years this time round will have our rights increase in value by

250%
wow
what a result

[Beaussie]

The AFL is the more national league but it is interesting how close their tv viewing is for the capital cities. Add to this the millions of regional viewers and I'm not sure the AFL would be winning...

As I've said before I think it wont be long before the FTA broadcasters will care about the regional market. I would guess in around 10 years regionals will be a bigger factor as the population spreads from the exhorbitant living costs associatated with the major cities.

Oh you mean the regional markets where the AFL heartlands are not counted and the in many case the NRL heartlands are double counted (eg: Gold Coast double counted with Brisbane and Gosford, Wollongong counted with Sydney). Is it any wonder why broadcasters ignore regional markets. Besides, since when do regional broadcasters bid for sporting tv rights?

[Beaussie]

The Austraian is a News Ltd owned publication and this guy works for that publication. His agenda is to talk down Rugby League so News LTD can once again, get it cheaply. Rugby League currently provide Foxtel with, something like 76 of its top 100 program's. Rugby League is essential to Foxtel - without it they would sell very few suscription and Foxtel would soon collapse.

News LTD clearly see the AFL as more valuable based on the last broadcasting agreement for the AFL. Whilst it may be true at this point in time that most of top 100 programs are Rugby League, that fails to take into account that most AFL games unlike the NRL are simulcast on FTA TV at the same time. Watch next year for a massive change in the number of AFL programs in the top 100 based on Foxtel having all 9 AFL games live.

What he says about FTA is quiet true . The AFL game does give TV stations more advertising opportunities. However this is more than counterbalanced by the fact that ads on the East coast (where RL dominates) is 3 or 4 times what they get on the west coast. Take a look at the FTA stations. they all realise that the profit margin from AFL is very small. That is why this time C10 didn't bid - they will bid for league and C9 bid was only designed to raise the price so C7 had less money to bid for League.

Clearly you were selective in what you took into account from the article. Again

While AFL is not big in NSW or Queensland, it is a more national game, which is important. For example, a company such as Telstra will always pay more for mobile and internet (IPTV) rights if it can market them across the country. Having the AFL is often the reason Seven finishes the week on top for all mainland capital cities combined.

National reach counts. NRL tragics talk about the code's Sydney and Brisbane audiences - which are very strong - but they forget that both AFL grand finals last year outrated the NRL equivalent (2.8 million and 2.7 million v 2.1 million) for the capital cities. Last year's NRL finals games averaged almost 700,000 metro viewers compared with more than 900,000 per AFL finals game, according to Goldman Sachs. These are the numbers FTA broadcasters care about. Not curious "cumulative audience" figures quoted in some newspapers (including The Australian) in March.

The AFL Grand Final draw last year was a 1 off. So even even if we say (argueably) the AFL has the biggest sporting event

A once off? Since when has the prime time Sunday night NRL GF ever rated better than the less viewer/ratings friendly Saturday afternoon AFL GF? Never and you know it.

And it is a myth perpetuated by the AFL that regional TV figures do not count. What fool would be stupid enough to dismiss a large chunk of his potential audience based on the fact that they come from the wrong area. - TV networks are well aware of regional figures.

Answered this point in response to KE. Regionals don't count.

As the report pointed out, expansion is also a key factor . Rugby league also plans expansion but as the artivcle pointed out, the AFL's new teams are in rugby league heartland. So they will be facing another Swan's like situation. At least one of the two new teams Rugby League take on will be in league heartland making The TV network the big winners.

The expansion teams have proven already that they will grow the tv market Australia wide with an extra 2 games per round. Again from the article today:

Another key difference is the new Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney AFL teams. They will take many years to build even a small following, but expansion plans mean more games and more money.

How will the NRL grow its tv audiences in Brisbane and the Central Coast with expansion teams? Don't those in these areas and people living there who have an interest in Rugby League already watch?

[Beaussie]

we'll get about 1 Billion .. to 1.1 Billion based on our code performing far better then the AFL in the last 5 years
their ratings dropped by 30% over this period
ours rose by 15%

You keep repeating this line about AFL ratings dropping by 30% over the last 5 years whilst the NRL rose by 15%. I'm yet to see any proof of this. Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it true.

[pussycat]

Well, well, well, take note NRL cheerleaders.

NRL cannot kick broadcast rights can for as much as AFL
James Chessell
From:The Australian
June 25, 201112:00AM


While AFL is not big in NSW or Queensland, it is a more national game, which is important. For example, a company such as Telstra will always pay more for mobile and internet (IPTV) rights if it can market them across the country.

Isn't this excerpt, from a rival publication, the direct opposite to what he was saying?

".....As more than half the Australian population live in NSW and Qld, it is logical to assume so does at least half of Telstra’s customers. And as the NRL has more content to offer Telstra, I would assume the NRL will get as much, and probably more from Telstra than the AFL......."

[Beaussie]

Well, well, well, take note NRL cheerleaders.

NRL cannot kick broadcast rights can for as much as AFL
James Chessell
From:The Australian
June 25, 201112:00AM


While AFL is not big in NSW or Queensland, it is a more national game, which is important. For example, a company such as Telstra will always pay more for mobile and internet (IPTV) rights if it can market them across the country.

Isn't this excerpt, from a rival publication, the direct opposite to what he was saying?

".....As more than half the Australian population live in NSW and Qld, it is logical to assume so does at least half of Telstra’s customers. And as the NRL has more content to offer Telstra, I would assume the NRL will get as much, and probably more from Telstra than the AFL......."

Telstra no doubt would prefer nationwide appeal that only the AFL can deliver on. Time will tell what the NRL gets from Telstra. I think it's highly doubtful Telstra will pay the NRL what they paid the AFL for mobile/online broadcasting rights.

[pussycat]

News LTD clearly see the AFL as more valuable based on the last broadcasting agreement for the AFL. Whilst it may be true at this point in time that most of top 100 programs are Rugby League, that fails to take into account that most AFL games unlike the NRL are simulcast on FTA TV at the same time. Watch next year for a massive change in the number of AFL programs in the top 100 based on Foxtel having all 9 AFL games live..

What you say is true, with extra Pay TV exposure you will make up a lot of ground on the Pay TV front. But what you arent considering is that the AFL wont have as much content on FTA. So Any ground you make up in the Pay TV area will be offset by a reduction in the FTA.

[pussycat]

The AFL Grand Final draw last year was a 1 off. So even even if we say (argueably) the AFL has the biggest sporting event

A once off? Since when has the prime time Sunday night NRL GF ever rated better than the less viewer/ratings friendly Saturday afternoon AFL GF? Never and you know it.

The sentence clearly expresses that I am talking about the draw.

NB. The Manly/Melbourne GF a couple years back, before the figures were mysteriously changed.

[pussycat]

Another key difference is the new Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney AFL teams. They will take many years to build even a small following, but expansion plans mean more games and more money.

How will the NRL grow its tv audiences in Brisbane and the Central Coast with expansion teams? Don't those in these areas and people living there who have an interest in Rugby League already watch?

Which is no different to the two new teams we will be providing the TV networks with our next contract. Other than the fact that one of these teams will be located in ARL heartland. So at least one of our new teams wont be outrated by re-runs of the iron chef on SBS! and instead will offer something attractive to the networks.

One of our new teams will be located in Brisbane. Meaning the people of Brisbane will be able to watch a game every week and not just every second week. As discussed earlier it will also be a big winner with TV networks. The 2nd new franchise will go to a WA consotium and already has some interest.

[pussycat]

Well, well, well, take note NRL cheerleaders.

Isn't this excerpt, from a rival publication, the direct opposite to what he was saying?

".....As more than half the Australian population live in NSW and Qld, it is logical to assume so does at least half of Telstra’s customers. And as the NRL has more content to offer Telstra, I would assume the NRL will get as much, and probably more from Telstra than the AFL......."

Telstra no doubt would prefer nationwide appeal that only the AFL can deliver on. Time will tell what the NRL gets from Telstra. I think it's highly doubtful Telstra will pay the NRL what they paid the AFL for mobile/online broadcasting rights.

Your 100% WRONG there. A company. any, would prefer more customers. A car salesman would rather sell 10 cars not 9 , regaurdless of where there situated . Coke is'nt the number one product because it is located in more places than Pepsi .

[TLPG]

Telstra already has the market share because it beats everyone on infrastructure! They don't need more customers because they already have the majority! AFL have more content to offer Telstra than NRL, because the games are longer, the stats are more detailed, they have one more club (and in 2012 it will be two more clubs and therefore more games full stop). The NRL only have Telstra on the naming rights, and that's not worth as much as online content for Telstra.

[Beaussie]

The AFL Grand Final draw last year was a 1 off. So even even if we say (argueably) the AFL has the biggest sporting event

A once off? Since when has the prime time Sunday night NRL GF ever rated better than the less viewer/ratings friendly Saturday afternoon AFL GF? Never and you know it.

The sentence clearly expresses that I am talking about the draw.

NB. The Manly/Melbourne GF a couple years back, before the figures were mysteriously changed.

What the hell??? Another conspiracy theory???