If Fox offered $79 m to walk away,then at the end of this current contract,we could witness the collapse of the HAL in it's current form.
Personally ,I cant see how FFA / New management,without a safety net, can keep this sinking ship afloat.
Adding one ,two or more teams feels like too little too late ,before a collapse and the sad reality is once people lose interest in something it rarely comes back into vogue,without a major facelift.
Can the HAL survive without the Fox money?
I doubt it.CCM,AU,BR ,NJ..etc.... Are all these owners going to lose triple what they are now with no prospect of a turnaround?
In the meantime what can new management do to stop the elevator dropping?
It will need something dramatic to get peoples attention and interest.

So,I wouldn't be surprised if the HAL folds around the time the Fox money ends and after another reboot ,teams are invited into a new competition.Who knows if we get the football pyramid then or more of the same?

Change the wording from Hal .... to professional Football in Australia.... there are posters on here who actually believe if Hal falls over something bigger and brighter with more support will emerge ... to take its place.. I honestly don't think some posters understand how important Hal is ...

Arguably nay IMO without doubt many within the Football community totally over estimate Footballs popularly in ratings and commercial sense furthermore many underestimate how strong the traditional bonds are between existing codes and sports watchers...

Hal is Australia's professional Football competition and it needs changes to its structure of this there is no doubt... but me thinks we have reached a point where we continue to put in the slipper to the point Hal falls over... or ...start to accept it for what it is and develop a set of criteria for the development of a Football model based on passing identified KPI points... 

This becomes a personal decision especially for our limited Football media ... me personally I hope people start to support Hal again, whilst pushing for change ..  

Let’s assume FoxSports break the contract, what could football do to compensate. The obvious answer is to run to Optus Sports and see if they would pick it up.

An alternative would be to do what the EFL have done and have their own streaming platform. If you could make it an 8 month season at $30/month then the following subscribers would generate:

100,000 = $24,000,000
200,000 = $48,000,000
300,000 = $72,000,000
500,000 = $120,000,000

You’d obviously have production costs (let’s say half of what fox say at $40k/game = $5.6m) which could be offset by sponsorship/advertising.

Then you’ve got the overheads of running the broadcast company (no idea but a few million no doubt).

If they had this sort of platform with HAL, Div 2, selected NPL, Y Keague, W League, Matilda friendlie, Socceroo friendlies, and junior rep teams how many could they get?

I’d say the likes of CFG would be willing to gamble tbh

$360 per year per subscriber?
No Deal, won't work

How much do you spend on coffee a year?

@ Chris

$360/year.

$30/month for 8 months = $240/year.

That’s exactly what I’m paying for Kayo right now. And I only have it for the football.

Would I keep it for the remaining 4 months to get to your $360? Not without more content.

The numbers are there I recon.

@waz, based on current viewership, you'd say a realstic potential audience is 30K, assuming you get full conversion of current Fox audience.

Next issue is cost/content. Optus sport with EPL, Champions league, europa league, plus heaps of other content is only $15/m, so why would anyone play $30/m for 5-6 HAL games a week for half a year.

Price for HAL alone would need to be $10 or less to be interesting.

500,000 subscribers bringing in $120 mill per annum, that's some decent coin, with a 12 team comp, each team is getting $10 mill from the deal

@AJF

The math becomes guesswork when you start to talk audience. Not least because the new model is about subscribers not viewers, same for Kayo and to a certain extent Optus Sports.

So let’s assume the average audience across Fox, Kayo, Go, and Telstra is 50k per game (generous but it’s an easy number).

There’s 5 games/weekend so a total viewing of 250,000 (again it’s maybe not that high lately but just run with the numbers).

There’s an uplift applied to that number because the home team supporters aren’t watching, they’re at games, so let’s say that’s 50,000 making 300,000. (Again that’s high but I’m just trying to work with round numbers).

That 300k then starts to come down ...

How many people are watching one screen therefore 2 viewers = only one subscriber.

Let’s say 20% so there’s 240,000 viewers left.

Then you have to estimate how many people are watching 2 or more matches each weekend, let’s say it’s an average of 2.5/matches per viewer. That halves the number to 120,000 (it’s impossible to think that the same 50,000 average watch all games, every weekend)

There’s an unknown factor of how many people aren’t watching in s given weekend, due to work travel or other commitments

There’s also another factor of how many people aren’t watching because they can’t afford Fox Sports

So the potential audience for this is 120,000 to maybe 500,000. Given 1.7m are supposedly watching the Hal in some form each week that’s not an unreasonable range.

Then there’s the option to bundle this with a Telco, mobile operators have the money STV doesn’t. Let’s say the HAL did a deal for $2/month and every mobile subscribers gets HAL for “free”

Telstra would = $430m/year to the HAL

Optus = $240m/year

Vodaphone = $144m/year

The numbers get stupid, even at $1/month

This is the future although what the actual numbers are is anyone’s guess. But Fox is dead, Telstra know it.

Point is Kayo has a mixed offering across multiple platforms that makes it more appealing to subscribe

ALeague as an offer on its own won't work and to be part of a Layout would probably be worth A small percentage of $30

Rather than selling a HAL streaming subscription service it would have to be an Australian Football subscription.
W-League,NYL,Div2 ,npl,FFA Cup,football content shows,etc..
Which means FFA and Independent HAL co & Independent Div 2 co,getting together with wealthy owners/ investors to create Soccer-stream.

There is no doubt if owners think big and use their full resources here and abroad,they could do big things.But will they?

I think I follow.....
$300k÷2 X.5-300x2+(45-5π)56%×3%x(45-45+1%)=

My point is streaming services will reduce revenue a game makes unless you have a massive global audience such as epl as opposed to a local domestic audience

Chris

Streaming services will reduce revenue if the number of subscribers doesn’t increase.

And it doesn’t fit “the sky is falling” narrative, I get that.

But the maths is simple and the EFL have paved the way.

But to keep it simple for you, every 100,000 subscribers is worth around $25m in revenue per 8-month season.

The question is, how many 100,000’s of subscribers could football get?

One, 2, 2.5?

$25m, $50m, $62.5m?? or more ??

Waz

Genuine question with no hidden agenda..

Do you have any feel for what Football costs to run and operate in Australia.

Say
per professional Div 1 team male
per professional or maybe semi professional Div 2 team. male
per professional Div 1 team female
per professional or maybe semi professional Div 2 team. female

FFA to do their role as a national governing body i.e liaise with various government authorities, education, ministerial level, and to put forward Footballs case so as not to be done in the arse by AFL, Cricket and League
The 9 national sides, including scouts, academies etc. Remembering each side has a few games each year.

State Federations fund themselves and financials are readily available and its around 55 million per year

My guess for what its worth, if we want a reasonable professional league is as follows: based on 14 teams in each div
Div1 male 10 million per team,
Div 2 male 2.25 million per team [semi professional]
Div 1 female 2.25 million
Div 2 female 500K ==== all up 207 million

FFA 43 million, 7 million to run FFA and 36 million for the national sides... plus the 207 million is 250 million... plus broadcast costs. Currently 8 million per 100 games.

Fox said last year it cost $ 80K per game for broadcasting coast making each 100 games costing 8 million, arguably some savings bit I don't think a lot.

Revenue
FFA ... sponsors, crowds, merchandise, state / city government for key senior games, government funding of Olympics sides, plus MEDIA

For the Div 1 & 2 male and female professional competitions, Hal sponsors, club sponsors, crowd, merchandise, memberships, plus MEDIA.

The questions is who funds a shortfall if there is one and do we have any cross subsidiaries as has been the case for as long as I remember. 

“Fox said last year it cost $ 80K per game for broadcasting coast making each 100 games costing 8 million, arguably some savings bit I don't think a lot.”

I don’t buy that. It might cost Fox that but how about we drop back to one commentator and no dickhead on the sideline pretending to add value.

In terms of costs no is the answer, it varies too much.

But an EPL style streaming model, with Div 2 rolled in, and maybe some NPL games should be able to muster 250,000-300,000+ subscribers

You can then add in your overseas revenues ($5m?) and a FTA deal that is friendlier to FTA than Fox allow to get maybe $5m more and you’ve maybe got $80-$85m in tv revenues per year.

Let’s not get too excited - that’s not all that much and it might, after costs and a “royalty” payment has gone to the FFA, only leave them about where they are today.

But they will be independent of Fox. That’s huge in itself imo.

I'm questioning how you came to the conclusion that the a league on its own commands $30 per month for a streaming subscription without including other sports content

Blatantly clear that when EPL left Foxtel A-League viewer numbers dropped alarmingly. This is not a coincidence as the A-League on its own is not a strong enough brand to demand its own independent subscription service. the A-League needs to be bundled with suitable sports content that will shoulder shared interest between the content

Chris

Possibly.

I agree that HAL viewing dropped when EPL moved, it essentially split the audience.

FoxSports packages though were something like $65/month (mine with entertainment and drama was over $100) so when EPL left customers were forced in to a choice - you couldn’t afford both in most cases so many ditched Fox/Telstra for Optus.

Since Kayo came I’ve got that for the HAL at $29/month, we subscribed to Netflix to replace Fox which costs $25/month, and we have the EPL for free over my sons Optus phone.

For half the price we get what we had before, just not in one place.

Will the market stand $30/month just for the HAL? I don’t know, I picked it based on Kayo’s price appreciating that’s for multiple sports even though I’m only there for the HAL.

As I said, I think the model they need to pursue is in partnership with a mobile operator, they’re looking to attract, retain and reduce churn and they can’t compete with Netflix so sport is the way to go.

By all means argue over my figures, I didn’t do any research, my point was simply that if Fox go football will still have a revenue stream. It might be more, might be less, but it’ll still be there.

Yeah I don't agree with the $30/month fee - far too much for the product. I feel like football would have to start at $10/month in order to build an audience on the new platform. The content should be as follows:

>Every A-League match + finals
>Every W-League match + finals
>NYL finals
>Every FFA Cup match from the Round of 32 onwards (perhaps also select fixtures from earlier rounds?)
>Every Socceroos friendly
>Every Matildas friendly
>Youth friendlies

Other nice to haves:

>NPL finals from all the states
>Competitive Socceroos fixtures (AFC puts these out to tender, so depending on the cost the FFA may not be able to afford to 'bid' for them on the streaming service)
>Competitive Matildas fixtures (see above)
>Competitive youth fixtures (see above)

All that for $10/month is good value imo, and should suit the football tragic. In addition, I think the biggest strength in regards to a streaming service is the fact that we can offer it to a global audience. Now, I know what you're thinking - why would a foreigner watch the A-League? For the simple reason why we Aussies watch random leagues - because we love football. I don't think it is unreasonable at all, in a world with over 7 billion people, that we can double our domestic audience for the A-League - even if they're just ex-pat Aussies! I'm also going to be politically incorrect here, but you can't underestimate the power of gambling throughout Asia lol. Give them easy access to watch games at a friendly early evening timeslot for SE Asia, and I reckon I can guarantee that there'll be bookies taking bets on the league and people interested in watching it as a result. Honda signs for the Victory - bam, another 10k people from Japan sign up for the streaming service to watch Honda play.

The big wigs at the FFA have got to stop thinking domestically - they complain that there is no money left in the Australian sports market, and they're probably correct. So why waste effort on the domestic market and appealing to the bogan codes when we've got the world on our doorstep? I'm not expecting EPL levels of fanaticism around the globe for our little league - all we need to do, is double or triple our current weekly viewership, and with a pool of 7 billion people to choose from? Well, I don't think that is impossible. As I mentioned earlier, even if every overseas subscriber we get is an Australian ex-pat, that is money that wasn't being captured before.

Of course, the streaming service cannot exist in isolation - it needs to be done in conjunction with fundamental changes to the league (pro/rel, scrap the cap etc) in order to continue to create an exciting 'product'.

Anyway, this is all pie in the sky - I genuinely don't think that the FFA are capable of a) big sky thinking and b) taking a calculated risk. We'll just sit continue to sit and watch the league die a slow, agonising death before another 'revolution' is required, the cycle repeats.

@ walnuts.

It’s a simple equation. $10, or $20 or $30 per month multiplied by the number of subscribers x 8 months which is the current season length (if they can find content for those remaining 4 months they have a chance of lifting revenues by 50%)

And there’s the possibility of tiered pricing, say:

$5 per game with no replay
$10/month just for your team. No finals.
$15/month for your team and the rest on delay.
$20/month for 2 teams and the “match of the weekend” (which can be the FTA game or another)
$30/month for all games, mini matches, full replays (that’s $1.50 per match or $1.25/match in a 12 team comp)

Those figures are comparable with one off netflix and Foxtel on-demand charges

As you say, the FFA have to start thinking differently. It was probably too early for the last tv deal but if they sleepwalk in to the next tv rights negotiations they’ll come out with their arses on a platter.

And this “think differently” was the purpose of my post, football has to address this and do it now. FoxSports may not survive the next few years so what next? Or the viewing numbers may lead Fox to tell us to take a hike?

For the first time though football does not need STV or FTA if it thinks differently

Waz

You have taken the smallest bit of my question and challenged it ... I have no idea how much per game it costs to broadcast but its not a deal breaker even at 80K its not a lot... but the broadcast cost are a small part...

My question was around how much do you think it will cost to run professional Football in Australia, my team structure and cost are above and its about 250 million..

 My costing were as follows 

My guess for what its worth, if we want a reasonable professional league is as follows: based on 14 teams in each div
Div 1 male 10 million per team,
Div 2 male 2.25 million per team [semi professional]
Div 1 female 2.25 million
Div 2 female 500K ==== all up 207 million
FFA 43 million, 7 million to run FFA and 36 million for the national sides... plus the 207 million is 250 million... plus broadcast costs. Currently 8 million per 100 games.

Midfielder

I think you're putting the cart before the horse here mate - it costs as much to run a professional league as it's worth. We don't have the pulling power to be going around dictating that our top clubs deserve $10 million from broadcasters - we get as much as we're able to, and let the clubs top up the rest (if they choose to do so). If that means clubs only get $3 million as a handout, than so be it - it's up to the clubs to find alternative sources of income (sponsorship, tickets, transfer fees etc) to then make up the rest of their playing budget. We already saw Australian clubs are prepared to do it - when Cahill was here, Melbourne City were spending approx ~$9 million for the season, whilst only receiving approx ~$2.75 million from the FFA for their TV rights. I'm sure both Sydney FC and Victory, with both marquee spots filled, are spending way more than their ~$3 million allotted from the TV rights.

Sports in general are not a profitable venture - even EPL clubs, with their enormous TV rights deal, are losing money. It may not be much money, but it's still a loss. That's what the owners are there for - whether it's a billionaire or a fans co-op, they top up the playing budget of the club as they see fit.

So, in answer to your question, I think it's not appropriate to be putting a set figure on what should and shouldn't be accepted. We market our game, and negotiate as hard as we can for the rights - absolutely. But we don't pack it in and declare all is lost because we don't hit some magical number. We get what we get, and leave it up to the clubs to budget themselves to be a competitive outfit.

@Walnuts, majority of EPL clubs are actually profitable

 https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jun/06/premier-league-finances-club-guide-2016-17

Great to hear - wasn't always the case!

Can't agree, if a professional Football competition is to run in Australia it needs funding... and the level of that funding will ultimately determine the quality of the league.

In the final say 10 years or so of the NSL, our ability to keep even average players was near impossible and as for signing reasonable quality overseas players that was almost unheard of.

I am not trying to cast doom and gloom nor advance the case of any body or any club.

My question is very simple, what level of funding do we need to run professional Football in Australia... for me cost saving can be made at least in Sydney in the use of smaller stadiums...

Salary cap and minimum spend can be replaced by a minimum  wage clause...
 
However at the end of the day I am wondering aloud what people think it cost to run professional Football in Australia, that is at least at the current A-League standard or higher.

Evidence to date indicates FFA gets about 120 million if someone has better figures please update... the clubs with their own sponsors, crowds and merchandise another say guessing 40 million, so combined guessing 160 million for a 10 team league + 9 national teams & a short 10 team W-League season.

If we expanded to 14 teams and two division which seems the kinda minimum people seem to want ... what will it cost to run...  

Midfielder

The FFA “gives” the clubs $30m per year in cap grant, spends another $10m administering the HAL (about 3-4x what the scots spend on their entire league sysyem) and another $10m marketing the league. There’s a bit more money passed down for travel, merchandise and W League so let’s say that’s $55m granted to the clubs.

Losses annually are estimated at $20m across all clubs, so that takes your magic number to $75m.

Then there’s income from 1.5 million spectators ($30m?) plus income from sponsorships $6m?) which would gives a grand total of something like $111m to run 10 clubs, plus WL and NYL.

Roughly $11m per club. Roars costs from a year or two back (reported at a fan forum) were about $13.5m and I’d say we’re above average for costs due to stadium and running two marquees.

The second division doesnt factor in to this. The HAL tv rights are for the HAL not other competitions.

How does that fit with your thinking?

with the stadiums and brand new facilities going up in Sydney, do people think stadium rent will be cheaper for WSW & SFC??

not likely

And with possible scrapping of salary cap in future years, running a professional club is about to get a whole lot more expensive.

Waz

What are you talking about ... you are fighting yesterday's fight thats already won and over..

Its an unbelievably simple question, what do you think it will cost to run professional Football in Australia and that includes a functioning FFA with 9 national teams .

There is no hidden agenda in the question...  

My costing again repeat no favours to anybody just a simple question what do people think it will cost to have professional Football in Australia... my costings.. look forward to what others think...
 
My guess for what its worth, if we want a reasonable professional league is as follows: based on 14 teams in each div
Div 1 male 10 million per team,
Div 2 male 2.25 million per team [semi professional]
Div 1 female 2.25 million
Div 2 female 500K ==== all up 207 million
FFA 43 million, 7 million to run FFA and 36 million for the national sides... plus the 207 million is 250 million... plus broadcast costs. Currently 8 million per 100 games.
 

Mid,

No need to be so hostile. You’re trying to speculate around some big numbers that’s all, and I’d question to what point - it’s a futile exercise imo.

I gave you some reasonable analysis, or so I thought, but as you’re clearly not in this for any kind of debate you can carry on and come to whatever conclusion you’ve already decided on ....

I think you are being optimistic here.  If they could get A league shown around the world, casual viewers alone would possibly double Australian audiences as you say.  However, this doesn't help the A league at all unless you can make money from this.  It isnt going to be on FTA in random 3rd countries.  There does have to be a subscription means of streaming games for expats that still want to follow, but you arent going to get many international viewers willing to pay just for an A league stream.  You will get some, but not enough that the income will amount to anything.  That leaves the multi sport option like Kayo.  However, Kayo says it streams 50 sports (and each sport probably averages 4 or 5 different leagues or comps), but it charges $25/month.  Thats 50c per sport.  However, the headline Australian sports, and Australian leagues make the most from that $25.  AFL, NRL, A League, Supercars, NBL, etc.  Then the premium overseas leagues, NFL, etc.  You can watch the Oceania cup (Hockey) and the Indian Super League on Kayo, but what do you think they are getting?  5c per subscriber?  I suspect it is a flat licence fee (and a small one).

The A league can get shown all over the world, but they will basically have to give it away for free.  If you cannot already, you will be able to watch the A league in Romania, it will be listed, along with the Indian Super league, and whatever the Handball league in Mauritius is, and your A league clubs are not going to benefit by so much as a dollar.

I would note that the recent Superbowl had a smaller audience, for the third straight year.  They lost FTA, and gained online streamers, but what they lost in FTA dwarfed what they gained in streaming, and the NFL has been all over streaming as a revenue source, probably longer than any other comp.

Modern audiences are switching to the internet and away from FTA, but they are not switching like for like.  You cannot say that because FTA has lost 100k viewers, that they are streaming the content they used to watch on FTA instead.  Again, not a problem that will be unique to the A league, its just the A league was running with thinner margins, and it has shown up earlier.  All televised Australian sport will face the same issue to some degree soon.