Sport codes join Foxtel in fresh bid to relax anti-siphoning list
Free TV networks are facing the greatest threat to their exclusive broadcast rights for key sporting events after Australia’s major codes joined forces with subscription TV in urging the government to reform the anti-siphoning list.
A letter signed by Foxtel chief executive Richard Freudenstein, Fox Sports’ head Patrick Delaney, ASTRA chairman Tony Shepherd and the heads of seven sporting codes, has been sent to federal communications minister Malcolm Turnbull calling for reform. It is thought to be the first time the sporting bodies and Pay TV bosses have formed a united front.
The AFL, NRL, Cricket Australia, Australian Rugby Union, Football Federation Australia, Tennis Australia and Netball Australia have all joined the fresh bid to force through the change.
However the letter stops short of calling for the abolition of the anti-siphoning list, instead asking for a relaxation of what events subscription TV networks can openly bid for, according to reports in The Daily Telegraph.
A Foxtel spokesman told Mumbrella: “Our position is well known which is that we think anti-siphoning is anti competitive by its very nature and way too expensive. But we have never argued that the list should be eradicated, we don’t think that is realistic. But we do think there is a case for reform.”
He added the network was “hopeful of getting a sympathetic hearing” from the Government given its “desire to be deregulationist and to reduce impediments on business”.
It is thought the core of the list would remain, including the present split between Fox Sports and free-to-air TV for NRL and AFL, and the Melbourne Cup. But it would be up to the codes top determine which games were screened where. However, many international events will be open to subscription TV, including the Olympics – excluding the opening and closing ceremonies – English football’s FA Cup Final, tennis and golf.
Sports rights are becoming an increasingly fraught battle ground for broadcasters as one of the last bastions of live TV, as audiences fragment. Foxtel is keen to get more exclusive sporting content on the network as a means to increase its market penetration, which has been stalled at about 30 per cent of Australian households, following the model set by Sky in the UK which saw penetration rocket after securing the English Premier League rights.
Similarly sporting codes are eyeing a potentially bigger pay day if rights are relaxed, with Foxtel able to provide increased competition to the free-to-air networks, driving up prices.
ASTRA claimed the list strikes a balance between protecting the public interest and ensuring sporting codes are free to negotiate their own rights.
“At the moment, the anti-siphoning mechanism is constructed as though the public-policy rationale is to give free-to-air networks protected access to sporting rights,” chief executive Andrew Maiden said. ‘‘But in fact the public-policy rationale of the anti-siphoning regime is only to ensure the viewing public have access to certain sports at no cost.
“We would like to put more power in the hands of the sports bodies themselves so they can decide to sell subscription rights directly to subscription providers, or free-to-air rights directly to free providers.
“Our proposed reforms strike an appropriate balance between protecting the public interest, while enabling sports bodies to maximise their revenue through a more open and competitive rights bidding process.”
A spokesman for the AFL said it was only seeking “reasonable amendments” to the anti-siphoning list and was not looking to shift all coverage to pay TV networks.
“We have been engaged in ongoing discussions with the Federal Government for a number of months, in particular on a collective position from the sports’ governing bodies in relation to what we propose as reasonable amendments to the anti-siphoning list, which also ensures continued access for fans to their favourite sporting events,” he said.
Free TV Australia chairman Harold Mitchell declined to comment. But the body has previously lobbied the government not to cave in to the mounting pressure for reform.
Mitchell said in April that reform would only serve the interests of subscription TV and would force millions of Australians to pay to watch their favourite sports.
“Pay TV is trying to trick the public and policy makers with a call for the current system to be replaced with a ‘dual rights’ scheme where free-to-air and pay TV rights for listed sports are sold separately,” he said. “It’s nonsense to suggest that a dual rights scheme would deliver the same amount of quality of sport on free-to-air television. This is a ploy to force Australians to pay to watch their favourite sport on television.”
Steve Jones
its Patrick Delaney not Richard
User ID not verified.
To increasingly privatise the viewing of sporting codes has long been the desire of Foxtel. What Foxtel is proposing is a cash tax (rather than inconvenience of ad breaks), for as many peak sporting codes as possible. Now the question is, does the Australian taxpayer own a percentage of equity in peak sporting codes? The answer is yes.
The privatisation of peak sporting codes by applying a viewing tax on them is theft of largely public goods. The ovals pools and basic sporting facilities that most of these athletes trained on through their lives, the training provided by Government sponsored bodies such as the Australian Institute of Sport, the ovals and toilet blocks provided by Councils and state governments for sporting codes as they gather players of which some filter to the top, and the often quiet massive arena investments, is equity in these sporting codes paid for by the tax payer. To ask the average Australian to pay again to watch what they invested is morally bad. It is wonder the people proposing this privatisation can sleep soundly at night, on this, another attempt at a progressive theft of largely public goods.
As an ex Australian Olympian in sailing (1988), I trained out of clubs provided land by local Councils, supported by State and local Governments quite often through grants, was coached by Yachting Australia, and no doubt the tax payer had enormous equity in my appearance in Korea. This is the thin edge of a wedge where the tax payer pays twice for something that was not created, developed or financed by Fox Sports or Foxtel. The ledger is certainly heavily weighted toward the public equity paying the majority of direct and indirect payments to sporting codes. In 2012/13 just the Australian Institute of Sport spent $311m. Fox Sports total expenses(not just programming cost) in 2011/12 were only $338m. There would be hundreds of millions more spent by Government, and far outweighing the puny Fox Sports contributions.
Bad plan.
User ID not verified.
How unfortunate that the Sporting bodies themselves in the desire for the dollar are jumping into bed with Foxtel who are well know for not giving too hoots for the general public and are only concerned about extorting as much as they can from Australians.
I can see that this i heading in a direction where the only avenue to watch sport such as NRL will be to have to jump through Foxtels package hurdles at exorbitant cost.
User ID not verified.
Widespread changes will be ineffective until there is a challenger to Foxtel. In the short term if there are any changes to the list then the government needs to take the opportunity to get a victory for the people and force a change to the Foxtel subscription packages, mainly either the ability to subscribe to only the sport package without any additional packages or subscribe to individual channels a-la-cart.
User ID not verified.
There are some good points raised above but you are all a bit deluded by the Free TV’s apparent altruism.
Do you really think the FTA networks hold on to the anti-siphoning list for the good of the Australian public – rubbish.
With the exception of the ABC which is government funded (and SBS to a lesser extent which is partly gov funded), 7, 9 and 10 drive the almost all their revenue through advertising revenue. That needs rating.
2 main genres seem to drive the high ratings in this country- Sport and Reality Shows (cooking, singing, dating, weight-loss. S**t, aren’t we bored of this rubbish by now?)
The FTA’s are handful of channels and they are crammed with reality shows and old movies (the new putty filler of all TV schedules). They don’t have enough airtime to run all the live sport they have exclusive access to.
The FTA networks are like a spoilt kid with too many toys. They don’t play with most of them but they won’t let anyone else play with them.
So here is the issue, we have a right to free live sport coverage – great. I’ll be honest, I don’t have Foxtel because it’s too expensive and I don’t want the 25 other channels I have to pay for to have Fox Sports and ESPN. I love the EPL, so I pay about $80 a year through Fox Sports on Demand to have it live streaming and on demand through the internet. Cheap as chips and well worth it.
I enjoy my AFL too and lucky for me I like the Swans and live in Sydney but my friend is a Carlton supporter and very rarely gets to see a game so he is forced to go to the pub to watch it on Foxtel (Live too thank you Free TV)
Isn’t it better to have access to watch the sport you want to watch even if you have to pay for it (even if it is only the cost of a few beers at the pub) rather than not be able to watch it at all or have to wait for them to show it delayed so that their “1 hour” show (that runs for 75mins courtesy of all the extra ads they cram in) can finish first?
As for increasing competition to allow broadcast rights to increase – what’s wrong with that. Maybe with more money for the FFA, they will be able to feed more back into developing talent so that our Socceroos can get out of the qualifying stages of the World Cup.
User ID not verified.
Love all the predictable hate for Foxtel.
Their sports channels are a billion times better than FTA’s when it comes to sport. Better accompanying programming, more choices, all in HD, less ad breaks, better commentators.
Why do you all think the FTA’s want to hold onto sports – to help the Aus public?!
User ID not verified.
I watched the AFL grand final on the weekend and was appalled at the amount of adds – at least one add at every goal scored. It was terrible. Having foxtel I had switched over earlier only to discover that Fox footy had no rights to the actual game itself. What would be the problem for the game to be live and ‘free’ (not free of adds!) on FTA but available also on Foxtel for those who can afford and choose not to be bombarded by adds driving them to distraction and completely ruining the atmosphere, continuity and appreciation ofr the game?
User ID not verified.