A-League clubs want bigger slice of new broadcast deal, with free-to-air component yet to be finalised

AUSTRALIAN football’s new $65 million-a-year broadcast deal is likely to spark an arm-wrestle over how the new cash is spent, with clubs and players jostling for an improved share of the TV money.

As the players union warned that the competition’s salary cap couldn’t be taken for granted, negotiations to find a new home for the A-League on free-to-air TV are likely to go to the wire, with TV networks and Football Federation Australia waiting to see the outcome of the Big Bash TV deal early next year.

A separate deal to confirm Fox Sports as the A-League’s major broadcast partner, believed to be worth some $50 million a year, could be announced as early as Tuesday, as A-League bosses try to give their club owners surety about a rise in income next season.

HERE COMES THE SUMMER OF FOOTBALL

AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL’S 10 MOST INFLUENTIAL

FFA CEO David Gallop is expected to announce the new deal soon. (Christopher Pearce/Getty Images)
FFA CEO David Gallop is expected to announce the new deal soon. (Christopher Pearce/Getty Images)Source:Getty Images

In what will be seen as a game of brinkmanship, the free-to-air component of the new broadcast deal will be held off until the new year, with Football Federation Australia hoping that the networks that miss out on the T20 cricket deal will then spend their warchests on football.

FFA hopes that FTA deal, plus digital rights, will add some $15m a year, giving the game an increase of nearly two-thirds on the current $40 million a year — though short of the doubling that former FFA chairman Frank Lowy had previously targeted.

A-League clubs have already made clear their expectations that the distribution of money they get from FFA must rise by more than the salary cap, to give them more financial support.

But players union boss John Didulica warned that his members could not be expected to sign up to one of the world’s few salary-capped competitions indefinitely, with the current pay deal due to be renegotiated in 2018.

“An agreement to a salary cap in football is never an absolute and cannot be taken for granted,’’ Didulica said.

“Consent to wage restraint is always dependent on a number of factors. It works hand-in-hand with having sustainable clubs that are exceptionally well managed, having some measure of job security for players, an assurance that agreed entitlements will be paid, suitable funds being set aside to support players who are transitioning out of the sport.

“Beyond that, we are part of a global sport. If we want to attract and retain the best players to drive the sport forward, we need to be ambitious with our thinking.”

SOCCER STARS EARN MORE THAN AFL’S BEST

PFA boss John Didulica believes the salary cap is not set in stone.
PFA boss John Didulica believes the salary cap is not set in stone.Source:News Limited

The union will have a far bigger say in how the game is being run when it has a presence on the Football Federation Australia general assembly, which votes in the FFA board. FIFA is likely to force FFA to lift the assembly number from 10 to 18 in March.

The A-League’s $2.65 million-dollar cap is already something of a nominal figure as most clubs take advantage of exemption clauses and marquee opportunities.

Melbourne City spends more than $9 million on its 23-26 man squad, Sydney FC almost $6 million and Melbourne Victory more than $5 million.

Major League Soccer in the US is the only other notable soccer league to have a salary cap. Cup year — have resulted in soccer wages surging past those in the AFL.

Originally published as A-League clubs want more of TV cash

http://www.news.com.au/sport/football/a-league/aleague-clubs-want-bigger-slice-of-new-broadcast-deal-with-freetoair-component-yet-to-be-finalised/news-story/afd489ca8cb90ec94676e51490211ff6

There needs to be a clear separation between "players want more" & "clubs want more"

#scrapcap
#freedaaleague

I thought it was going to be 80million ? 

No chance of $15M from a FTA network. They have so much non-sport content which can rate higher than our league, $5M would be a great result.

Best case scenario would be if they surprised us and have negotiated 2 simulcast games for FTA the money we get doesn't matter as much as the publicity.

Exactly.  As pathetic as it us 'Dogs make you laugh out loud' would outrate the A-League 5 or 6 times over.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/dogs-make-you-laugh-out-loud-betters-cats-ratings-triumph-for-seven/news-story/6661240992e68b93fc03e2295d5296a5

I don't know, I think 3 Sydney derbies alone is worth a lot, along with the 3 Melbourne derbies.

If it isn't worth much this time around, it wont be long until it is.

Aussie TV will pay good money for the derbies alone. I think you guys will get 15-20 mill a year from your FTA component

It's not about what rates higher, it's the content and demographics 

Young people aren't watching FTA anymore, Whilst football is very popular with younger demographics 

No. Increase the Cap sure but the floor and grant stays the same so if the big clubs want to spend up then they can fund it themselves. The only clubs that could justify an increased level of spending are the ones who could already afford to pay it now (i.e everyone except Wellington, NUJ, CCM and Adelaide). 

The new revenue needs to go below the A-League for infrastructure funding, community club support and funding the 2nd tier, not just get thrown at elite wages and club expenses. 

While I agree, it's not always the numbers but access to certain demographics. For example big tv spenders like beer and betting companies are more likely to have their target market watching the sokkah 

We need grants for academies and coaching 

If young people aren't watching FTA then why in the world would an FTA channel bid big money for it?  Or are you saying if a match is broadcast on a Saturday night shitloads of 18-35's are all of a sudden going to become TV watching football enthusiasts that Channel 9 or 10 can flog shit to. A single match on an FTA channel is not going to drag in millions of young people.    (Given a successful show rates about a million viewers total across all demographics.)

And of course it's all about ratings.  How do you think advertising rates are set?

Shit ratings = poor advertising returns.  Poor advertising returns = poor investment opportunity.  Poor investment opportunity = low bid.

I want to see the A-League on FTA because I'm a selfish prick who won't get Foxtel but you blokes are dreaming if you think any match would outrate a 50th rerun of the Shawshank Redemption.

If there are 30plus games up for grabs,including ,match of the round and all finals,then for $300k per game that is $9mill.If its $500k per game that is $15mill.
Now consider NRL on prime time 9 averages between 400-700k what could be expected for HAL for the best game?
I dont know the details of the NRL deal with 9,but if its $30mill per game per year and NRL rates 3 times HAL that is $10mill for HAL.

I think the money we got is a good deal. The only problem is we don't know how to work together and share.

If only we could get everyone on the same page in this country, we would be unstoppable without the biggest TV deal in the country.

But alas we have to fight each other over scraps instead go after what is rightfully ours.  

Thats not how it works though.  You cannot just say, this has half the ratings of that, therefore its worth half as much.  As a sports ratings increase, its value as a lead in to other programs, and as a vehicle for cross promotion increases.  The overs offered for NRL, AFL and Cricket are mostly to do with these, not directly related to ratings revenue.  A FTA may decide that at a third the ratings, the cross promotional and lead in value for the A league, especially at 1 game a week,  is zero, leaving just the ratings value minus the cost.  As the broadcasters know that FTA in itself is of value to the FFA, that would be a part of what they offer.

The FFAs big selling point is, get in on the ground floor, and ride the elevator up.  I am not sure on what I have seen that the FFAs marketing and negotiating skills are up to it though.

Rightfully ours?

Call the police, there has been a robbery.

Advertisers want to sell to the biggest consumers. Of course demographics matter. The old people who are watching cat videos on fta cause' they cant work the internetz' is different to the younger generations 

The joys of having a salary cap

So 50-55 mil is about a 50-60% increase from fox
if FTA get a 50-60% increase as well thats 10-12million for the first game

I would imagine another 50% for a 2nd FTA game when expansion occurs so a probable total of 65-73 million

Demographics matter but ratings don't. Have I got that right?  

So 'young' people don't read newspapers coz it's shit (see other thread) and don't watch telly coz interwebz and schtuff.  

So explain to me how exactly they're a valuable commodity to a FTA channel.

There is always another way to look at this .... 

50 million
plus 33 of our top matches, plus finals, plus Socceroo friendlies .... thats gotta be worth something...

plus international sales ...

plus the extra match ...

IMO a range between 60 & 90 million...

Consider this... 4 yes 4 years ago we had a 17 million dollar media deal, no FTA TV, no Radio broadcast, 

Within 4 years we have grown from 17 million no FTA TV, no national ABC radio broadcast ..

to

Somewhere between 60 & 90 million dollar, plus another 12 million for the Socceroos maybe even all up 100 million from 17 million in 4 years, 12 funded teams, at least one possibly two matches on a commercial FTA station... the ABC broadcast A-League matches... 

In 4 years time we could have 14 tom 16 teams and if we double plus this deal at least a 150 million dollar media deal... all within 8 years...

But maybe that's to simplest a way to look at it...

By doing deals every four years we are doing three media deals to the NRL and AFL two media deals ... IMO that is clever... 

True and I support those goals but I wouldn't want to just give clubs more money and see it only go on Elite player expenses rather than prioritising infrastructure academies etc.

I'd rather see more filter down to the NPL (Transfer fees farken) and stop them relying on gouging their youth players. 

This is one of the reasons I would have loved a second tier to be looked at. Instead of just giving 30% directly to the players and clubs, part of that could have been spent getting more professionals playing in the second tier. In the end we will always be top heavy and it will only get worse and more difficult to establish in the future.

It's in the players pay agreement, they get 30% of the increase end of.

well said. Again... We went from 11 teams and The A-league was getting 17 million a year from 2006-2013. To 40 million from 2013-2017 which 32,8 mil paid by foxtel and 7.2 mil from SBS.

Now its 50 million a year from 5 A-league games. Socceroos games are yet to be sold. I still see a FTA network putting 10 million a year for the Saturday night game.

If push came to shove, I wonder if the PFA would accept more teams/opportunities over two tiers in exchange for less guaranteed pay conditions (e.g some teams at the bottom might be semi pro).

If some of these tv executives still have an ounce of a brain in there heads they would get in now while the game is still relatively cheap to invest .  Its the game with the potential to grow more  than any other sport and in ten years time they might regret the decision they didnt make ten years before!