I'm not such a fan of halftime interviews but they do happen in other countries.

On the subject of halftime I think ABC could do something similar to Eurosports coverage of Bundesliga. They just show goals and highlights from the other matches in the round or from the previous round. It would of course need to be supported by FOXTEL. Their coverage goes straight to the team sheets and the match.

Does ABC need a pre post or halftime show? 1 commentator is enough.

They do this in the W League. Perhaps they could do previous round wrap up given they will be showing the 3rd game

I don't know about you guys but I love the half time interviews.

"We're going to come back out and hopefully turn it around" or "The boys are going to give it their all in the second half" is just as exciting the 978th time as it was the very first

Or the classic question about why the team is doing poorly

'Yeah we just need to dig deeper and improve our second efforts, work together as a team'

I love post game interviews.

"Full credit to da boiz"

etc etc etc

-PB

Don't you think having the game on the primary channel on 9 or 10 will provide a far better return to the game than 4 million from the ABC in terms of exposure? Think about it this way... many of us laughed when the Gold Coast signed Carmichael Hunt and GWS signed Israel Falou on 7 figure contracts. But the AFL claim they made their money back many times over after the exposure they received in the local markets. they claim the got a great return on their investment. 

AFL got their returns on hunt and folau because of the Promotion and advertising revenue. Getting 4 million a year from ABC isn't a bad deal. at least its guaranteed money. having an A-league game on 7two wont get as many viewers but the ad revenue money Might be worth it.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/sporting-bubble-bursts-as-broadcasters-lose-money-on-rights/news-story/79ad3f9aa0e599391a947a779c634107

Sporting bubble bursts as broadcasters lose money on rights

An off-field sporting event in the US this week generated drama every bit as great as February’s heart-stopping extra-time win for the New England Patriots over the Atlanta Falcons in Super Bowl LI.

Early on Wednesday ESPN, the self-proclaimed “worldwide leader in sports”, sent out a bombshell memo, announcing it was laying off about 100 of America’s best-known on-air sports identities, including reporters, sports­casters and presenters.

It was the memo that shocked a nation. It also has reverberations for sports lovers around the world, particularly in Australia.

ESPN president John Skipper did not sugar-coat his message to staff: “Dynamic change demands an increased focus on versatility and value, and as a result, we have been engaged in the challenging process of determining the talent — anchors, analysts, reporters, writers and those who handle play-by-play — necessary to meet those demands.

”The list of talent purged on the back of this blunt memo was ­extraordinary.

Those deemed not to have the “versatility and value” to survive included US household names like former NFL quarterbacks Trent Dilfer and Danny Kanell, reporter Ed Werder and ex-Major League Baseball general manager Jim Bowden — made redundant, in front of the eyes of millions of ­disbelieving fans in the world’s dominant sporting nation.

What prompted this seismic moment in American sports broadcasting?

One key factor: the price paid for sports television rights. ESPN has outlaid tens of billions of dollars to hang on to its marquee sporting rights in the US in recent years, paying way over what many analysts believe those rights are worth.

Media analyst Steve Allen of Fusion Strategy says this week’s events at ESPN were a “cautionary tale” for Australian broadcasters who have been already been pushed to the brink by their existing rights deals for major sport.

Analysts believe the nine-year, $US12 billion deal ESPN started during the current NBA season for basketball rights may have been the single deal that pushed it over the edge. Meanwhile, an ongoing eight-year, $US15bn deal with the NFL for Monday night football, which does not expire until 2021, has caused the broadcaster continuing pain.

Allen says: “There is no question in my eyes that the peak of the market has gone past us for sports rights, both overseas and here. There is now a fact-based decision supporting this contention.“

ESPN is a cautionary tale for Australia.

”The most important sport in Australia to be a guinea pig for the new rights climate in 2017 is ­cricket. This week, investment bank UBS caused a stir in the media community with an analyst’s report about Nine Entertainment Co, which mentioned the group’s cricket rights: the biggest set of sports rights to be negotiated in Australia this year.

In 2013, Nine agreed to pay $500 million over five years for the rights to Tests, one-dayers and T20 internationals played in ­Australia. This is due to be renegotiated for a new five-year term from 2018-19 onwards. The 2017-18 summer, featuring a blockbuster home Ashes series, is in the last year of the current deal.

But UBS analyst Eric Choi warns in the report that Nine enter the new negotiations with Cricket Australia with a “sensible mindset”, claiming it has been losing $30m-$40m a year from the ­current deal.“The existing cricket deal costs NEC (circa) $100m per annum,” he says. “We estimate the existing deal likely only generates gross revenues of $60m-$70m.

”Choi adds: “We think it would seem logical for NEC to enter ­negotiations with the ­following mindset: more cricket content at no additional cost, or to step away from the cricket ­contract.

”Some media sceptics have pointed out that UBS is Nine’s house investment bank, and suggest the report was timed to give the network a handy bargaining chip with cricket administrators to drive down the cost of future rights negotiations.

As exclusively revealed in The Weekend Australian today, one way in which cricket is looking to boost the value of its rights is by “fattening the calf” that is, its one true runaway success story of recent years: the domestic T20 Big Bash League.

It is understood that Cricket Australia is closely looking at ­“supersizing” the BBL from its ­current schedule of 35 games in December and January, to a potential a new level of 59 games spread between December and February — directly pitched at boosting the value of cricket’s overall rights in Australia.

Cricket insiders say that holding the BBL in February makes sense, helping the sport to “mark its turf” in the no-man’s land before the start of both the NRL and AFL seasons.

For its part, the AFL has been trying to put its stamp on February with the women’s AFL, which for the first time was run in February and March this year in an attempt to extend the reach of the AFL ­season.

Cricket believes the extension of the Big Bash could win any ratings battle with the women’s AFL.

The stakes are high. The Ten Network is currently paying just $20m a year for the BBL rights, which Allen says is the “great bargain” of Australian sports rights at present: meaning that Cricket Australia currently makes $120m a year in total from its media rights.

But it is believed to want to make as much as $180m a year in total under the next overall contract, or up to $900m over five years: $120-$130m a year from the international rights, and $50-$60m a year from the BBL rights.

With the current climate suggesting the value of sporting rights globally has peaked, Nine is likely to exert pressure to reduce the cost of its rights, and with Ten’s perilous financial position laid bare this week, is such an ambitious figure achievable?

Allen argues cricket’s expectations are “unrealistically aggressive”, and a total payment of between $650m-$700m over five years, including the BBL, is likely the maximum achievable. “We ­believe $130m-$140m a year for all of their rights is the most they can hope for,” he says.

But how are the media rights to the other big products in the Australian sporting landscape — the AFL and the NRL — performing?

Both were the subject of record deals, with the AFL media rights attracting $2.5bn over six years and the NRL media rights $1.85bn over five years. These were prices that many analysts believed made them marginal propositions for the TV networks in terms of ­making money — but both deals are locked in until the end of the 2022 season

.Allen believes both products are marginal. He believes the NRL is “marginally loss-making” for Nine, while the AFL is “marginally profitable” for Seven.

The key factors sustaining live sport for the networks is that its production costs are low, it cannot be pirated and it provides a platform for networks to promote the rest of their schedules.“

Never forget that Seven became the No 1 network because of two weeks of the (2005) Australian Open tennis (when Lleyton ­Hewitt made the final), and its ability to cross-promote its new shows that year,” he says.

“That’s why the Big Bash is so important to Ten. Without it, what else do they have to promote their shows for the year ahead?”

And Allen notes that with only one home Ashes series — the most marketable product for networks — to be part of the next deal, compared with two Ashes in the current deal, cricket may struggle to achieve any uptick in the value of the international cricket rights.

In comments that appeared highly optimistic on Thursday, the day of Ten’s monster writedown and questions about its ability to service its debt, the company’s chief executive Paul Anderson claimed that a spending spree on all cricket rights remained on his radar. “We will consider (bidding for) all forms of the game,” he said.

Cricket sources are hoping Anderson’s comments signal some form of bidding war. However, Allen considers such a bid to be highly unlikely, given Ten’s teetering financial position.

He believes the best Ten can hope for at this point is to combine with Foxtel to make a bid for the BBL alone.He claims there is less competitive tension for the overall cricket rights this time around, compared with the previous 2013 negotiations, when Ten had made a big-money offer to lure the entire cricket rights away.

He also notes that Nine needed to land the cricket rights at all costs in the previous negotiation, as it would have been a bad look to lose them just as it was preparing to list on the stock market later that year.

“This time, Ten can’t afford to buy all of the cricket rights, Seven still has the tennis in January and Nine is going to be tougher (in ­negotiations),” he says.

Other media sources believe Anderson’s claim that he wants all cricket may simply be a tactical bid to push up what Nine pays for international cricket, giving Ten more chance of retaining what it really wants: the BBL rights

Allen believes that while the upcoming summer’s Ashes Tests are likely to provide an ad bonanza for Nine, there is a lack of guaranteed programming from inter­national cricket Tests going forward. He points out that some uneven contests over the past two Australian summers have frequently resulted in Tests lasting three days. “No broadcaster in the world now expects with any certainty that Tests will go beyond three days, and this creates scheduling problems that other sports don’t have,” he says.

shocked about some of this

It makes you wonder if FTA advertising revenue from sports drops,will we ever see sports like Cricket,AFL and NRL ever take a pay cut and how will that go down with players?

Not surprised the bubble has burst. In the states the behemoth that is NFL tv ratings are down 8% for season 2016.

I think this us why sports need to create other revenue streams. I would also like to see caps scrapped. They will only go up and it looks like thw money just wont be there sooner rather than later.

Also, players should get paid what they deserve, not what a union decides

@Midfielder.

Your last comment - relatively speaking our players are underpaid. I would expect football salaries to initially rise if the cap was scrapped until we find an equilibrium in the market. 

that wont happen. They wont ask for pay cuts. It means Foxtel are the winners here.

Again, I don't think whether that one FTA game will make a difference Financially. The 6 year foxtel deal alone can easily cover the 10 teams for the next 6 years

I am surprised with all the choices in viewing commercial TV is still relevant as a major player. What type of demographics are watching it and is there a future? I thought steaming TV was the future. If you consider the Telstra streaming service surely this must come into the discussion as a big player, as Telstra have a huge reach.

true but How many people have Telstra? Some People here thought internet streaming is the future too. Me personally.... My mobile phone is with optus and my Internet is dodo. You wonder how many people switched to optus internet with the EPL/

RBB you last post re the cap & the PFA


Agree ...

I also want the cap scrapped ...I like the  German method where salaries are limited to a % of prior years revenues.

I also have problems with some PFA decision making ...  I think it was you have posted before we will only get strong in Asia when we have teams that can compete closer in economic terms and the cap will never allow that. 

We still have many issues to solve but deep down in my soul every bone in my body and this is my head not my heart talking we are on the verge of a bump ... in three years IMO the league will look totally different .. 

"deep down in my soul every bone in my body and this is my head not my heart talking we are on the verge of a bump "

Sounds like midfielder is already experiencing a bump.

I am sorry if I don't believe you because almost everything you have written so far has been diametrically opposed to what I have said in the past. For a long time you have held the view that the salary cap should stay. You keep changing your mind as much as the weather in Melbourne. I have no problem with the PFA but they are restricted within the framework they are operating in. The best way to reduce the power of the PFA is to get rid of the salary cap. What this will do will enable more individual negotiations between players, agents and clubs. The current system enables the players to unionize a lot better because there is a set amount of money available and they know how much they can extract on behalf of their members. At the same time they have negotiated a position of a 90% salary cap minimum spend, quite ridiculous if you ask me and that has been brought about by the FFA. No where else in the world of football is this prevalent. 

My contention on competing in Asia is that we need to allow clubs to get big and not restrict them in anyway. The clubs themselves should be able to decide how much they can spend in any given year, most are run by multi millionaires and billionaires. If they didn't have a salary cap do you think they would spend more than 2.6M. This idea that we should keep the competition even is ridiculous, it hasn't been even for years. Let the shackles go. 

RBB

Well sorry mate  I was in favour of the cap a while ago but well over a year ago I said it should go... but have it your own way ...

You are right we have many different views on the way forward ... so I guess that in your eyes its  makes me an enemy of sorts...

However I still maintain we are in for a serious bump within two years .... time will tell ... 

I think you are taking this the wrong way. I am not your mate, but I'm not your enemy either. We all want the same thing, we want football to progress in this country. My contention is that we have a great opportunity to do that right now but we are once again stuffing up. We are stuffing it up due to inertia, inaction and a FFA who is determined to control every aspect of football. They are quite reactive to what is going on around them. Now I am not after miracle workers, but we have no clear governance, we have no clear plan on expansion, we do not have a working model, we don't have an FTA deal sorted, we still don't know what the cap distribution (which I eagerly await today). You would think that after a 11 years of the A-league that we might have reached a better position than 10 teams. This is all on the head of those who run football in Australia ie Gallop and the FFA. No else is to blame, not SBS, not the PFA or anyone else. 

Just to confirm, if there is no FTA bidder, the FFA will sell total exclusivity to Foxtel for an extra $4 million per year, right? Then Foxtel can on sell it themselves, which most likely would be Ch 10? 

Correct - so it would appear that the FFA can either accept very little (could be less than a million at this stage) for the rights and guarantee to have it on FTA (most likely to be ABC if the reports are true) or they 'sell' it back to Foxtel for $4 million a season, but then it's up to Foxtel's discretion as to whether they then onsell it to FTA. As you mentioned, if Foxtel did onsell it FTA it'd most likely be channel 10.

The only uncertainty about this is whether that $4 mill figure is already built into the $346 mill price tag (one recent newspaper report appeared to suggest that it was).

To add to that, more recent reports have stated that the commercial FTAs are reluctant to pay Foxtel $2 mill in production costs, which makes me think that that $4 mill figure actually incorporates $2 mill in production costs, so the FFA will only see $2 mill of it, and as I say above, that might already be incorporated in the $346 mill figure.

There is absolutely NO certainty in this whatsoever. 

That worst case scenario of $2m is just pathetic. What did SBS pay for the FTA component on the last tv deal, wasn't it 8-10M. So that is 6-8M short what they got from SBS isn't it. 

Yeah SBS paid something like that but the HAL has been a financial disaster for SBS.

They moved it from SBS2 to SBS1, and they lost even more money.  The SBS Chief at one stage said that the network loses money on every single HAL game they broadcast.  Then their funding got cut. Then Gallop went on air and publicly smashed SBS about how bad they were.

With no real increase in ratings over the years, its no surprise that the value has dropped.

SBS is unwatchable even for football fans. Attracting fence sitters would be impossible. 

Have whinged to ABC about wasting Tax-payers money on Lowys private toy.

Will post their reply if I get one.

SBS paid $7 mill per annum, which now looks huge.

As we know, SBS tried to offload it at the start of the 3rd year of the deal, but there were no takers, even at half price.