It would be interesting to see a comparison with the equivalent games last year when the finals were played in "clean air".

suprised none of the earlier premier league games made top 20 for yesterday with them being on earlier.

Good point, the newest Fox channel is now the most popular channel on Fox - this is why Fox paid the big money.

People tend to exaggerate the popularity of the EPL in Australia.

Of course it's going to be the most popular channel, since the ratings are not spread across three channels.
If NRLhad it's own channel it would thump Fox Footy - the collective ratings prove it.

And likewise, the popularity of AFL gets exaggerated in Australia, thanks to the southern state 'skew'

You're wrong there. It's one thing getting high ratings on 3 or 4 games, it's another sustaining that over 9 games, as the AFL is doing, and on top of that, supporting a dozen talk shows.

The NRL cannot generate the volume that the AFL generates - that's the key that people keep missing - the volume.

There might be a skew, but at the end of the day, the aggregate numbers are very large.

Check the ratings to see what show was ranked 10th......

The AFL in Melbourne has had saturation FTA coverage for decades. The Melbourne public have not had to have pay tv to watch it. Matches have rarely been televised lived. The NRL is different, its been shown live on paytv for years. I think that goes a long way in explaining the differences in paytv ratings and attendances: AFL followers will go to games to see them live, or they'll watch at home delayed for free rather than fork out for pay tv. The Rugby market is the opposite.

This season is different: pay tv has go more AFL coverage than ever before.

Interestingly at work the vibe about the AFL season is far more subdued than I ever remember it. Hardly any discussion about the pre-season comp, very few post game discussions. Its pretty obvious FTA in Melbourne drives interest and match day attendances, if the games are on delayed.

That backs up my point that Fox are not getting the numbers to justify the enormous investment. My guess is that they need 400K+ AVERAGE game ratings to net a profit

We're talking volume - consistently good ratings (for Pay TV) over an entire week - that's why Fox Footy is the number one STV channel - the newest channel!

Don't worry just about what's top 10, worry also about what's sitting between 10 and 30, there you'll find all of those talk shows, consistently getting 60k to 90k per show (and the repeats getting 60% of that again).

Just to give you a tip, most of those talk shows are rating higher than the A-League finals games.

We have to understand something - there is a very good reason why Fox paid $600 mill for the AFL.

Mate - Fox Footy is already the number one STV channel - one round into the AFL season! The pick up in Southern subscriptions hasn't even started yet. I'm not sure what you are focusing on, but the aggregate ratings are big - clearly!

Edited by Mister Football: 3/4/2012 09:38:11 AM

NRL talk shows also rate well, but no talk show gets anywhere near game day numbers.
If AFL got $1.25B, NRL deserves $1.5B as the more popular sport

Yes, and the NRL currently sustains maybe two talk shows - the AFL has a dozen - and they all rate very well. It's about sustaining the volume - that's what the AFL gives Fox - volume - consistent volume - right through 30 weeks of the year.

Fox have to get a return on their punt (investment). Hence why the number of talk shows. The same thing would happen if there was an NRL channel

Fox have owned League for 16 years now - they could have done whatever they wanted - where's the NRL channel? Is anyone talking about it?

As I said, getting good ratings for a few 2 hour games per week is one thing - sustaining the volume of ratings over a whole week is an entirely different matter.

The ratings period posted is from and including Sunday 25 to Saturday 31 March. No AFL games during the 1st round were played on Sunday the 25th which meant 3 live games plus sundry afl shows were not included in the above ratings. This won't be the case in future ratings.

Though the nrl have a higher paytv average, by virtue of the 4 extra live afl games telecast, they will have an appreciable advantage in collective, weekly ratings.

And Fox could have offered alot more last time, when AFL got $750M and chose not to (including dumping Fox Footy channel)
They made a decision this time as part of the contrat negotiations with AFL. NRL would put similar conditions on Fox for the next package.
You also forget that NRL has the benefit of international competition (albeit small compared to other 'world' sports). For example, four nations will only get bigger as it is seen as less and less of a novelty. International games can be included in the tv rights package.
To get into the 'sustenance' issue, AFL can only maintain ratings over 6 months, NRL can over 7 to 8 because of what it offers outside the domestic season.

How do you come to that conclusion? By the way, don't forget the fox investment is less than half of the 1.25 mill. The rest is FTA and telecommunications.



Perhaps. If fox also had 9 live nrl per week, not their present 5 and were able to maintain their higher paytv ratings average. Then, also take into account the potential of both codes to increase subscriber numbers and the commercial sponsorship value of each.

Hence why I refer the NRL's NEXT tv deal. They could put all 8 live games on and get bigger aggregate numbers than AFL's 9. Tony Sage wants a team in Perth. Clive Palmer could have a startup in Adelaide, etc. There's your 18 teams and 9 games, if need be.

At one point, Lachlan Murdoch was talking about buying all 8 games and putting them on One - how much do you reckon he will want to pay for it if he wants to put all the games on One?

And Fox have been promoting the crap out of AFL for months, including AFL team remotes! Yet people are not subscribing. The culture in Melbourne is different: people are used to going to the game live when their team plays, but are happy to watch a delayed telecast when their team doesn't play,for free.

It won't matter what the ratings are if people are not subscribing. Fox needs a hell of a lot of new subscribers, and according to a recent article I read, 30% is about as big as Pay TV is expected to get in Australia.

I don't know what's happening with Fox subscriptions, and I can't predict what's going to happen, but I do know this - with Fox Footy already the most popular STV channel, with magnificent offerings to AFL fans, if your an AFL fan, and have the disposable income, for how long can you miss out on Fox Footy? Fans won't be able bear it for too much longer.

Fox's major markets at the moment are Sydney and SE Queensland because they have had bulk NRL coverage for more than a decade. Their intention in setting up the new AFL channel is to boost subscriptions which are at the lower end of the scale in Victoria. It will be interesting to see if the football culture in Melbourne morphs over time to accept live payTV instead of live attendance. I wouldn't see endless replays and do it to death chat shows being drivers for significant subscriptions. There is only so much normal people can take.

Glad someone else pointed out how much Fox was flogging the advertising of the new channel. Ratings have shown it clearly didn't pay off. And remember Fox aren't using in game advertising to subsidise the cost, as they do in NRL. They would be feeling the pinch.

Nor will Fox...

New South Wales and Queensland have always had the highest number of PayTV customers in the country.
Possibly or at least partly because the NRL, the most followed sport up there, have always been on PayTV.
Hence why the NRL out rates the AFL on Fox.

Hopefully the FFA wrap up a decent TV deal soon.

Spot on, NSW and Queenslanders watch sports on TV whilst Melbournians attend sporting events... Evidence and facts proove this.

How, then, do you explain higher FTA ratings for afl? Evidence and facts?