The Sanzar $437 mill USD deal is shared among AU, SA & NZ. But it's not shared equally, with ARU gaining approximately $100 mill. USD over 5 years. SA receive the lion's share and NZ about 20% more than ARU.

In my username I am honouring the original and best known Mister Football, not the recent try-hard blow-in.

It was up against North Melb vs Geelong which got 227k, and it was also on FTA and got a further 360,000 on a Sunday afternoon, so all good.

yes - extremely outlandish.

$100 mill for five years is probably the very, very best that the A-League can hope for.

It will be packaged up with the Socceroos so will be much bigger than that

Thanks for that. I have just gone back and looked at the article I was quoting from and I had mis read the fine print below the chart.

Coincidentally, just as we were putting up opinions on the value of the next deal, an article has been put up about an expert's opinion on what the deal is worth, and my estimate is looking spot on the money.

Riiiiight. If this were the case, Nathan Tinkler wouldn't be the only owner who would've handed in his license in the last few weeks...

That's two in the space of a week (on the back of others who have already handed theirs in, I'll remind you), and the snowball has only just begun. One thing is for sure, they are all sweating on the figure being higher, but if it is higher, it will be only marginally higher.

The Socceroo's WCQs are on the anti-siphoning list now so that will affect their value to Fox. Saying that, there's still plenty of matches that don't fall into that category just not as valuable.

The anti-siphoning hasn't been decided yet

Maybe the HAL is worth $100m/5 years. Maybe the Socceroos are worth $200m/5 years

If the owners are after 2.5 mill a year to cover salary cap,then 100 mill over 5 years will be a little short.

Whichever way you dice it up, it's impossible to get up to such a figure for the Socceroos, impossible. Their last game on Fox got about 85k in ratings, they barely play 10 games per annum, and the best games they do play, the really good rating games, the FFA don't have the rights to 'em.

The $120m/7 years deal was signed off BEFORE the Socceroos smashed all time tv ratings records during the 2006 World Cup

It's on the interim list:
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010L03383/Html/Text#param7

Yes, so it hasn't been decided

None of us know. Me, I put more stock in the behaviour of the A-League club owners. If they for one second didn't believe that the next deal would cover most, if not all of the salary cap, they'd all have thrown their licenses at the FFA at the last meeting.

And forgive me if I'm a little weary when the former head of sport of two FTA networks who loathe football decides to stick the boot in in such a tumultuous week for the FFA.

It's in effect right now. Highly unlikely that it will be taken off on the final list. Personally I think just the home qualifiers should be FTA. That might actually add some value to the deal by giving the Socceroos more exposure.

It's on the table for negotiation & I expect them to remain available to Fox to bid for.
If it did become FTA, FFA would be able to pressure the government into future funding to make up any shortfall from lack of tv bargaining for the rights.

I think the A League rights will be more than the socceroos rights. Even though the socceroos out rate the AL quite well they have fallen right off now. 06 seems like an age ago and will not have any bearing on the current deal.

And the AL provides 95% of the content for fox so i would assume 20m per year for the AL and around 30m - 50m total for the socceroos depending on the Anti Siphoning list.

I really hope they manage to at least cover the salary cap though

but the FFA doesn't own the TV rights to the World Cup!!

if people want to have a go at working out the value of the A-League rights, all you need to know is that the AFL season will pull in 40 million viewers, and for that the AFL will get $120 million per annum (for simplicity I'm ignoring pre-season games and the countless talk shows which all rate very well)

the A-League will pull in about 8.5 million viewers for their season, and that's a very generous estimate

the figure comes to about $25 million per annum, but then you need to discount for the fact that far less content is getting delivered, so that's why I struggle to see the FFA getting more than $20 million

No, but it indicates popularity

1) AFL doesn't have advertising on Fox during games
2) Football supporters are worth more value per person, than AFL. Melb Victory sponsor research shows it (info comes from SPONSORS) & there was a survey done a couple of years back that, on AVERAGE, Football supporters are more passionate about their sport than what Rugby Union, League or AFL are. That means advertising to fans results in more revenue from said fans.
3) Its also about subscriptions for Fox - so market research needs to analyse how much subscriptions jumped by when all AFL games went on Fox.

The problem is that you're relying on business models that are 10 years old.

No "ifs" or "maybes" - the next HAL broadcast rights will include every match being available on "pay-per-view" via IPTv, tablets, mobile phones or PCs.

Foxtel will not be the only "subscription-content" broadcaster of HAL matches.

Pay-per-view matches will be available to every single person on this planet, who has interent access via either one or all of the following:

* FFA will directly broadcast games on a designated HAL web-channel; or
* one or more 3rd parties will broadcast the HAL games online: SBS, ESPN, Al-Jazeera, FoxSports, Fetch, etc. etc.

Currently the average audience for HAL on PayTv is approx 50k, with PayTv market penetration in Australia at 33%.

Internet market penetration in Australia is close to 100% in major markets, so we can assume the Internet broadcast of HAL will attract 3 x the PayTv audience.

Hence:
Viewers per game = 150k
HAL games = 142
Likely cost per game = $2 ($284 per year, which is about 1/4 the cost of annual HD FoxSports package)

Revenue from HAL = 150k x 142 x $2 = $42.6m p.a.

Above calculations do not include revenue from National Team matches.

yeh, the world cup is extremely popular, but it's irrelevant if you can't make a cent out of it!

complete pie in the sky

the AFL currently has the most lucrative broadcast deal in Australian history, based on "old" technology, and guess who has invested millions of dollars in creating its own media arm?
it's slowly rolling out an online presence, and will be ready to dabble in the sorts of things you're talking about in five years time
but it's pie in the sky to think the FFA will be ready to extract big dollars from the things you're talking about in the space of 18 months



Edited by Mister Football: 17/4/2012 11:40:30 AM

If you read the other thread on the expert's opinion on TV rights, you'll note that Fox are making insufficient ad revenue from soccer (unsurprisingly)
Fox Footy runs plenty of ads, it's the highest rating Fox channel, so it's attracting stacks of ad revenue
If you honestly believe that sponsors are lining up to pay more to sponsor an A-League club than an AFL club, you are absolutely dreaming.