Back to 1973 with Stephen Conroy’s sports rights TV policy
Back in 1973, the BBC aired an episode of Whatever Happened To The Likely Lads.
A comedy classic that still sometimes gets played in the UK before a big match, it featured the desperate attempts of the two heroes to avoid hearing the result of the the game before they can watch it on TV that night.
Thanks to Stephen Conroy, we’re going to be able to indulge in some nostalgia and reenact it 37 years later.
When it came to his review of the anti-siphoning rules for TV sports rights, the media minister had one big choice to make: free or live.
Unfortunately, he chose free.
As in free TV.
So now you may only have to wait up to four hours to see a big sports event.
Which is an improvement on previously, when the networks could warehouse a listed event and not show it at all.
But replacing a rotten set of rules with a slightly less rotten set of rules does not feel like a major triumph for consumers to me.
Personally, I live in the year 2010.
Unfortunately that means that I channel surf, which means I may bump into a sports result on Sky News or ABC News 24.
It also means that I use social media. Which means I may come across somebody talking about the event on Facebook or Twitter.
Fancy watching a Socceroos qualifier for the World Cup?
You’d better pray it doesn’t take place in the middle of the afternoon, Australian time. Because whichever free to air broadcaster has got the rights to it (and it won’t be Foxtel anymore) will be able to delay the broadcast by up to four hours to maximise the audience.
Ditto the World Cup itself. Come 2014 it’ll be in Brazil with a time difference of about 12 hours. On tenterhooks to see how another game goes involving teams from the same group as Australia? Don’t even think about getting up at 4am to see that key game. Chances are it won’t be on til breakfast time.
The same goes for the Olympics. The Olympics. Under the new rules, there’s no obligation to show it live. Instead, so long as it’s within four hours, that’s just fine. Like the last Olympics, as viewers we’ll have no idea whether what we’re watching is live, a few minutes ago or a couple of horus old. As a result, the whole lot ends up feeling slightly flat.
Tennis fan? Don’t think about staying up through the night to watch your favourite Aussie doing battle. If the networks prefer, they’ll be able to hold it til breakfast time.
The big winners – as usually seems to be the case when governments set broadcast policy – are the free TV networks. They’ve now got the option of showing sport on their digital channels too if they think it’ll rate. Pay TV is still mostly locked out – although it’s won just enough concessions that at least the new policy is a step forward for the likes of Foxtel.
Personally, I’d rather see market forces take hold. If there’s a large enough public demand to see a sport, it will be worth free TV’s while to pay market price for the rights. Otherwise, it goes to pay TV, where a viewer will be asked to pay a price to see a sport covered well, and live.
Potentially, it means less profits for free TV and more money for the sports in question. But it’s politically risky, so it hasn’t happened.
Whatever happened to the likely lads? They got boned by politival expediancy.
Tim Burrowes
Linkedin
Well said, Tim.
Anti-siphoning is an anarchronism based on the idea that people have some inate right to watch a sporting event without having to subscribe the pay television.
User ID not verified.
It will be both live and free with the advent of IPTV.
User ID not verified.
Free TV and their so called coverage of sport in general is joke to anyone especially those of us that have lived overseas.. Talking of which what the hell are Nine up to cutting their god awful news coverage at 6pm instead of the cricket? I had to dust off the radio.. so yeah it felt like the 70’s
User ID not verified.
Hi H&R – how will sports be free and live with IPTV? The sports will still sell the rights, and broadcast companies will still want to make money from having purchased those rights. IPTV won’t change that.
User ID not verified.
Anti-siphoning is a funny way of saying anti-competitive; the poor old free to air networks need so much Government protection, it seems, they aren’t allowed to play in the same sandpit as the pay tv networks. And that’s after a huge gift in rebating their licences ($250 million is not the full cost of course).
As for public benefit, I’ve never benefited from Nine’s lousy tennis coverage. They all (FTAs) want the rights, they want to broadcast it when and how they like – and to fit into their general schedule. And pay tv to be frozen out. ACCC where are you?
Where’s the equity in the balance between those who buy a TV subscription and those who don’t? The market has been shafted by the legislation, defended by Conroy. Con’s right.
User ID not verified.