@Midfielder

Another point I'll make in case you are already typing or this gets bumped is that channel 10 didnt pay $40m a year for the A League. It was $10m from 10 and $30m from Paramount+. The Socceroos content also has its ratios

Now this might seem like I'm splitting hairs but corporations and ownership are not minor details. If Paramount+ fails and becomes insolvent, the FA / APL dont get their money from the $600m channel 10 have, nor do the rights shift over. So if you want to properly portion the stake channel 10 have made its $10m and Socceroos content out of $600m

If Paramount+ fails, the A League fails. If the A League succeeds, Paramount+ succeeds. That seems to be the true stake

Channel 10 can easily write off a streaming platform and keep Saturday night games and Socceroos games

I'm no legal expert, and please correct me if I'm wrong

Jeez you have an answer for everything.  An expert in virology and the law. 

LOL at Bluebird.

As if contras don’t have value, of course they do. You just can’t dismiss that. And suggesting the potential of Paramount going bankrupt Is a long bow in your hunt for negatives. Anyone, any organisation has the potential to go bankrupt at any time. What is the risk profile of Paramount to suggest they’re a high risk? None as far as I can see.

The A-League got 100-150k on SBS2 for Friday night games which were specifically not the main game of the week (I can remember a lot of matches involving Newcastle for some strange reason). I would suggest having a weekly marquee match on prime time Saturday evening, on the main channel of a commercial network, with multiple millions of dollars of advertising of the games, would at least double these ratings, and that's probably what 10 is expecting, since 200-300k is their baseline ratings for that time slot.

Then the question is how many people are going to pay $9 a month to subscribe to Paramount+ due to its A-League coverage. If you get 200k, then that's $21.6m gross in their coffers, which added with the ratings on 10 for the main games means they are starting to see a genuine return on their investment. Is 200k a reasonable expectation? There were about 120k club members in the last pre-Covid season.

CBS Viacom is one of the biggest media companies in the world, and they're making a serious global play for streaming (as is just about everyone else, but that's another issue). Football seems like it's going to be a big part of their strategy, and they're not going to go insolvent any time soon. So we can be confident about the next five years. Beyond that is anybody's guess. Either the A-League meets their expectations and they continue, or it doesn't and they have to decide whether to keep playing a long-term game or cut their losses. We better hope it's not the latter.

In all of this we can't forget the W-League, which is small beans right now, but has huge growth potential particularly with the WWC in 2023. There's no reason why that can't rival AFLW for popularity.

By the way, according to the AAFC's report, a 12-team, 22-round NSD would cost $2.5-3.3m in league-wide costs, including travel for all teams at $1.3-1.6m. Maybe with this new deal FA could see its way to at the very least covering travel costs for the league. Then the remaining administration costs would come in at $100-140k per club per season, which should be a manageable amount for the upper tier of NPL clubs and any potential regional-based bidders. If games are streamed on Paramount+ it could add a significant number of subscribers to the platform. If each NSD club brings an average of 2000 new subscribers (since their fans will mostly not be existing A-League subscribers), then that's revenue of $2.6m per year.

After the present contract runs out in 2024, then the NSD could think about expanding to 14 and then 16 teams if the financial capacity under the following contract is there.

I think the path forward is starting to emerge. The APL is now independent, and will expand using the franchise model to 16 teams with a 30-round season, probably over the next 3-5 years. The salary cap has already been watered down, and a transfer system is being introduced. It will probably be further watered down until being abolished entirely. The flipside of this is that there will be an increased stratification of the league between the big clubs from Sydney and Melbourne and the smaller teams.

An NSD is now looking pretty firm for 2023, and with FA no longer responsible for the A-League and given financial security with the broadcast deal, they can focus on bringing this project to fruition. It will also start at 12 teams and also expand to 16 (either through franchising or direct promotion from the NPL).

Once A-League expansion is complete and the NSD is sustainable, then they need to introduce pro-rel, which means aligning the seasons. This will give the smaller A-League teams something meaningful to play for. Handily, this will be around 2026-27, which is when the current APL contract expires.

So the leap of faith will be convincing the new broadcaster that a March-November season with automatic pro-rel will work. But there will be five seasons worth of data to figure this out.

The five media markets thing should be less of an issue: with a 16-team A-League there will be a much smaller chance of one of the big cities being unrepresented, particularly if there is no more salary cap and they can spend their way out of relegation danger.

Finals will always remain, although for the NSD I would prefer it to be like the EFL promotion play-offs. So one team gets promoted automatically, and the four below play-off for the other promotion spot (you could even throw in the second-last A-League team into the play-offs to make it extra interesting).

Which is why making this one is a must, cant afford to miss out.

Its relies on the Socceroos to do well for the ratings to be healthy, if they do well and make the World Cup and maybe make the second round with a couple of stars to boot then they a product to sell to the mainstream.
If not they make the World Cup then it will be a hard sell for them.

BB
You have been on this forum since the start of the A-L, you also I believe have the best interests of Football at heart.

You have raised unlike some on this site who only wish to troll, discredit, abuse, criticise and confuse, you have raised questions pertaining they wanted to the TEN investments.

BB, not wishing to claim anything special, but I have a professional accounting practice that specialises in taxation, business analysis and trend analysis.  I do believe I have something to offer in analysing the APL / FA contracts.

First its roughly 10 million more per year, than the last Fox deal, but includes all WCQ & ACQ which in practical terms means it’s about the same.

The deal as you question is not TEN’s nor is it Paramounts, its CBS, who own both TEN & Paramount.

CBS have extensive experience today in Football and operate in the US market that is arguably the closest market conditions to Australia relating to Football.

CBS, are a very experienced media company, as indicated they are also very experienced in working with Football in somewhat similar market conditions.

Both JJ, and Danny Townsend [APL media guy], said repletely, they sort a broadcast partner, not a broadcaster.

Arguably the best thing to come out of JJ renegotiation of the Fox contract was the ability to negotiate with other media organisations during the Fox media deal, which was not possible in the previous media deals.

CBS, would have spent months in analysing Football and they are famous for their due-diligence.

In theory the Fox contract still has three years to run, 60 million which is now about 70 million over five years. More in total and vastly more product i.e. all internationals including Joeys etc.

Townsend also said TEN have a trigger clause to extend by three years my guess on a much increased amount.

TEN broadcast costs say 6 million add to 32 million in cash to APL and say 24 million in cash to FA, that’s 62 million in cash and another 14 million in contras in fact the cash maybe more.

That is a huge investment and something TEN / Paramount need to make work.

For the first time in Australian Football history we have a commercial partner, who has a massive amount of skin in the game and that can only be good.

Right, but as I said, the specifics of the company and ownership is no minor detail. If this was a single company deal then it would have been announced as one and divided internally for semantics. But it isnt

What we see is $10m a year from channel 10 including contra. Thats ~$6m (by other people's estimates) cash, less the money they get from the government for showing the womens game which you have dismissed, and contra such as Archie on MasterChef and ads for their own streaming service such as "Paramount+ Its Mickey Mouse content but not as you know it"

Dont forget we have the unprecedented steps of the FA/APL having to pay for production costs and also buy the Socceroos rights to ensure 10/Paramount get them. Obvious steps to help absolve channel 10 of costs and responsibility, and ensure they get big content as a carrot for being on the main channel (which was always our end game)

Everything else has been staked on a company that doesnt exist yet. If Fox can get 1m subscribers for their online platform, then obviously they'd be looking at 500k ($60m per year) to 1m ($120m) per year which means they tip the A League to be about 25% to 50% of their content. They also get 2.5% ownership of the league so I can see why decisions about money made on player transfers and the selling of a 13th licence have become fast tracked

If Paramount+, the Australian company, bomb and only get 100k subscribers, then the A League can sink on a platform that can easily be dissolved or written off. Channel 10 is unharmed and the legalities and structure of the corporations (which is a safe bet none of us are privvy to) will determine how much the FFA get back

Make no mistake. This is about 10 launching their streaming service and wanting a point of difference. As much as people want to claim 10 are going to be doing all the work, the onus very much seems to be on the FA/APL to succeed. You cant think a company that big and that rich would be that naive. They are a global giant for a reason

This is pretty much Socceroos as a carrot in exchange for being on the main channel which is what those in charge of our game have been pushing for from the start. It depends on Joe Random saying "Hey wow! That guy sure makes good honey and garlic chicken squares. I'm definitely going to watch every game of a league he no longer plays in. I bet he'd make a great commentator"

I've never seen any source that says 10 is paying $10m and Paramount+ $30m. All the media has presented it as a single deal worth $40m a year with 10 and Paramount+. They are different platforms but they are both owned by the same company and there will likely be a lot of integration between them, so it makes no sense to have an artificial division like this (except maybe for their own accountants, but that's of no concern for us). Likewise FA's deal is $100m for 3.5 years. Yes a bunch of this is contra and a bunch has to go to the AFC, but the latter is unavoidable and it's proven to be good business by FA to bundle their content like this.

Moreover, Paramount+ isn't going anywhere. It's set up to be the Australian arm of the global Paramount+ service, the same way Netflix Australia relates to Netflix. And indeed they've said their aim is to be the second most popular streaming service in Australia after Netflix. It's not just A-League rights, CBS Viacom has one of the world's largest media libraries: movies, TV shows, etc. And this will be migrating to the Paramount+ platform. It's going to make Stan look like small beans. I can also see them going after other sports rights, particularly European football and American pro sports. The EPL would be the big get of course.

None of this is to say that the A-League will be a definite success on 10/Paramount, and if they don't meet expectations then the relationship may go sour, but the deal that's been signed is better than I could have possibly hoped for, and all the communication from 10 has been that they see this as a long-term investment rather than looking for a quick buck.

The specifics of this deal vary depending on the source you read. Thats neither here nor there because it isnt what I am arguing

What I am saying is that 10 have not staked 12% of their future on our code. They would not have entered this deal unless there was something for them, particularly as they have given up a prime spot on their biggest network

Dont forget, the FA/APL are paying for some of the broadcasting costs which is unconventional, and certainly not something a company that is spending their future on the league would do

Everything I have read suggests that this is something that will either work for 10 or it wont. We had these literal promises 3 years ago before they walked away from our code

The FFA and all its different formats have had a 15 year belief that the game cant grow unless it was on one of three very specific bandwidths. We have that now. No doubt there will be a myriad of excuses as to why every game was the exception. But at least now we can move past that point

Not quite. this is about 10 re-launching their streaming service. 10 All Access - based on CBS All Access has been a bit of the poor cousin of streaming services in Australia, It is being rebranded  as Paramount+. Sport and football in particular are the point of difference they have chosen as well as opening up the Paramount movie vault. 10 as the smaller commercial player in the FTA market are hoping that Paramount+ will pass Stan.

Archie will be on Masterchef soon, look out for it.

It also includes an AFL player so I'm surprised at how quickly A League fans took this news to be a first positive step

Lets hope Archie is better at clutching at straws

How pathetic are you? Always negative. 

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo.  The FA should not/never fund any League, especially professional.  Just no.  Every League or competition must stand on its own legs.  If it fails it should collapse only on itself and not take anything else with it.  The Leagues should be paying the FA as should anybody else receiving a service from it not the other way round.  The FA should fund National Teams for which it has sole responsibility.  It has a shitload of other things it has to fund.  The 2nd Division has to be self-funding or it will absolutely fail down the track when "funding" is pulled for whatever reason.

We want/need an expansion of professional and semi-professional football in this country.  It will add massive value to the sport here (all levels).  It cannot start or grow if it depends on funding from other parts of the ecosystem.  I'd rather go back to chook raffles.

I'll never understand this mentality. The W League wouldnt exist without help from the top tier. Neither would the youth league. The German league which is one of the most successful financially supports its second tier with parachute payments

What kind of reality are you living in where professional second tiers can pay for themselves?

The stone cold reality of a second tier is it would be funded by the top tier

I think this is right.
In all the major European football comps, it's a massive drop to the 2nd tier (in terms of revenue).
The better players have to be sold (generally they'll have terms in then contracts that make such transfers easy).
Even those operating on the smell of an oily rag will still need to be bailed out by wealthy owners on a regular basis.
But absolutely no one ever calls for the elimination of the 2nd tier.
And yet many on here believe that the Australian 2nd tier must pay for itself on its own.

Also by my understanding, even in Europe a number of leagues from the second tier down are managed by their associations. It's just the top tier (sometimes two in the big countries) that are independently run. So nothing particularly unusual here.

To some degree I agree with the sentiment that the proposed second division should be self - funded (I actually think the 1st division should ALSO be self funded btw) and not reliant on FA funds which is what the whole separation aimed to achieve - unless Im mistaken? I do however think that a flight/accommodation fund (whether that is directly paid for or at the least facilitated by FA in a collective bargaining group arrangement) would help set up a second division for success for the first few years and at 1-2mil would be an "investment" by the FA rather than a hindrance to their support of the national teams programs. 

Does anyone on this forum really believe that ten/Paramount care about whether the league succeeds? They have the money makers, which you'll have to pay for, if and or when the NT make finals. The aleague fails to show the right numbers forget about live more like late night viewing.

Historically there has been many instances of broadcast deals that have set the passions going, in our desire to make the game Number 1 in Australia.

The C10/paramount deal is just the latest incantation.

Lets just put a dampner on this "Great White Hope" for a moment, and focus on the hardwork necessary and long term approach required.

If history has shown anything its about retention, from participation numbers to attendances. And that requires a societal cultural love of the game that may require a generational approach.

But what ever, the game continues under this deal, so thats something. Its also good to see the content on one broadcasting service which is a great advantage of its own..

thanks Arthur,
Reading some posts is like reliving the past on the intro of AL way back then.
Lowy the god - no the saviour of our beloved game came to be like moses's, with his tablet of commandments and all.
I get it, its exciting but some posters are carrying on like its the break of dawn and with all the answers - like htf do you know.

Wouldn't it be wiser to sit back and see what actually gets delivered in the coming years, yer we'll have our honeymoon period like occured in the past, lets see after that is more the proof in the pudding overall, fingers crossed, I'm sure their will be some good speed humps but as said, lets see at a later time.

I understand that many see this as you say as the "Great White Hope" for football. But Viacom/CBS/10/Paramount+  are also trying to revive their streaming service. Both parties need this to succeed. 10 All Access which is being re-branded to Paramount+ virtually sunk without a trace besides Netflix, Stan and later Disney when it was launched. Now they are playing catch up and looking to build not only here but through Asia. 

Hopefully it works to football's favour but there are no guarantees - only a shared need for success

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm also pretty sure the state federations spend a decent amount of coin on administering the NPLs. But yeah, I agree the idea should be that FA subsidises the NSD only for its start-up period, and the aim should be for commercial sustainability on a long-term basis.

I think we are talking at cross purposes. The responsibility of the Federation (in my view) at state level for NPLs, state leagues and below, and National level, for 1st and potentially 2nd nation wide divisions should be to administer the game. Facilitate the competition so to speak, arrange scheduling (none of this broadcaster driven shit), arrange for referees, linos, 4th officials, match review panels, tribunals for resolution of issues etc etc. I think the "monetizing" for lack of a better word, marketing revenue generation etc etc should be done by APL in the case of Aleague and ... I dont know ....AAFC maybe in the case of second division???

At no point did I say that the 2nd division shouldn't receive money from from the first tier.  I said it shouldn't receive money from the FA.  If the professional comps want to cross fund I don't give a damn if they do or they don't.

I think the APL should be responsible for A League, W League, second tier, and any other tiers. They should take care of the league administration and advertising. The clubs should be independent of the APL and responsible for their own affairs

Revenue for the APL should be TV deal and shared sponsors. For clubs it is individual sponsors and investment, memberships and all gate revenue (including finals)

I'd like to see APL revenue be set percentages ie: $5m for APL, and ratio of all other revenue to go to clubs such as 3:1:1 for A League, W League and 2nd tier. The bigger the league, the bigger the tiers, and the more revenue clubs get. There can be thresholds for expansion

I agree the FA should be responsible for grassroots (amateur and local leagues), FFA cup, national teams, futsal etc... Revenue is relevant parts of TV deal, NT sponsorship and gates, merchandise, fees, and x% of revenue from APL

A second tier doesnt need a separate body