Re: Streaming companies want to broadcast AFL
Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2022 5:12 pm
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-25/ ... /101368454
25/8/22
“Strategic intervention' against Murdoch by minister in chase for AFL rights, but there's one thing missing”
Abridged
Xxxxxxx
The AFL's current arrangement, extended during the pandemic to the end of 2024, gives Channel Seven free-to-air rights. Foxtel and its streaming service Kayo can show all matches.
But even though every match of AFL is protected in the regulations, a Fremantle Dockers fan in Melbourne will struggle to watch their team without a Foxtel or Kayo subscription. Indeed, only three regular season matches are guaranteed to be shown on Channel Seven each week, even in the AFL heartland of Victoria.
The deal was struck between the AFL, Seven and Foxtel behind closed doors in 2015, with different rules for different states.
Similar negotiations are underway now, and Ms Rowland's intervention serves as a reminder to the negotiating parties that they cannot stray too far from the principle that AFL should be free to watch.
Yet it's clear the minister has contemplated a so-called "diminution" that will test the scheme, and its enforcement.
"A reduction of the availability of live and free matches being shown on free-to-air television would be a shame," she told ABC's 7.30, flagging the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) could look into the AFL's eventual deal.
"But we will be crossing that bridge when we arrive at it."
Xxxxxxxxx
There's no requirement for free-to-air companies to actually show the events or to not on-sell them, meaning these legacy entities can assert significant influence over a transitioning market.
And traditional free-to-air broadcasters are also becoming pay TV providers with their new paid streaming platforms. Channel Nine owns Stan, and Channel Ten and Paramount+ are within the same corporate family.
That dynamic prompted Foxtel's CEO Patrick Delany to declare “what the regime protects is not true anymore".
“Free [to-air] companies are winning rights of free [listed] sports events," he told the Age, "but they’re pushing consumers to their paid outlets.”
Once a shared-rights relationship between Seven and Fox Sports was a practical necessity. But now single corporate entities with free-to-air arms can chop up their offers to sporting bodies like the AFL, enjoying the benefit of the anti-siphoning framework and positioning their own streaming platforms for the future.
Months into its first term, the new government has landed on regulatory ground shaken by new media forces. But criticism will be as firm as it always has been.
Shadow communications minister Senator Sarah Henderson told the ABC "the minister's statement is unprecedented, because it looks like she's in opposition".
"What I was expecting the minister should have said today is we won't allow these games, these very valuable games, including with the AFL, to sit behind a paywall," she said.
What's missing
Ms Rowland said the government's upcoming review into the anti-siphoning scheme "will give stakeholders and the public the opportunity to share their views on which events should be on the list, and how the scheme should work".
xxxxxxxxx” comment: as i have posted before the government will need to change the law to restrict the way it works now….one could argue a limited cartel scheme….but it will be too late for it to affect the new AFL deal.
My
25/8/22
“Strategic intervention' against Murdoch by minister in chase for AFL rights, but there's one thing missing”
Abridged
Xxxxxxx
The AFL's current arrangement, extended during the pandemic to the end of 2024, gives Channel Seven free-to-air rights. Foxtel and its streaming service Kayo can show all matches.
But even though every match of AFL is protected in the regulations, a Fremantle Dockers fan in Melbourne will struggle to watch their team without a Foxtel or Kayo subscription. Indeed, only three regular season matches are guaranteed to be shown on Channel Seven each week, even in the AFL heartland of Victoria.
The deal was struck between the AFL, Seven and Foxtel behind closed doors in 2015, with different rules for different states.
Similar negotiations are underway now, and Ms Rowland's intervention serves as a reminder to the negotiating parties that they cannot stray too far from the principle that AFL should be free to watch.
Yet it's clear the minister has contemplated a so-called "diminution" that will test the scheme, and its enforcement.
"A reduction of the availability of live and free matches being shown on free-to-air television would be a shame," she told ABC's 7.30, flagging the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) could look into the AFL's eventual deal.
"But we will be crossing that bridge when we arrive at it."
Xxxxxxxxx
There's no requirement for free-to-air companies to actually show the events or to not on-sell them, meaning these legacy entities can assert significant influence over a transitioning market.
And traditional free-to-air broadcasters are also becoming pay TV providers with their new paid streaming platforms. Channel Nine owns Stan, and Channel Ten and Paramount+ are within the same corporate family.
That dynamic prompted Foxtel's CEO Patrick Delany to declare “what the regime protects is not true anymore".
“Free [to-air] companies are winning rights of free [listed] sports events," he told the Age, "but they’re pushing consumers to their paid outlets.”
Once a shared-rights relationship between Seven and Fox Sports was a practical necessity. But now single corporate entities with free-to-air arms can chop up their offers to sporting bodies like the AFL, enjoying the benefit of the anti-siphoning framework and positioning their own streaming platforms for the future.
Months into its first term, the new government has landed on regulatory ground shaken by new media forces. But criticism will be as firm as it always has been.
Shadow communications minister Senator Sarah Henderson told the ABC "the minister's statement is unprecedented, because it looks like she's in opposition".
"What I was expecting the minister should have said today is we won't allow these games, these very valuable games, including with the AFL, to sit behind a paywall," she said.
What's missing
Ms Rowland said the government's upcoming review into the anti-siphoning scheme "will give stakeholders and the public the opportunity to share their views on which events should be on the list, and how the scheme should work".
xxxxxxxxx” comment: as i have posted before the government will need to change the law to restrict the way it works now….one could argue a limited cartel scheme….but it will be too late for it to affect the new AFL deal.
My