I’d rather pay to watch sport than see it mangled by Free TV
Yesterday’s hoo-hah over Seven’s time shifted coverage of the V8s at Bathurst encapsulates rather neatly the issues that the government is grappling with right now over anti-siphoning rules for televised sport.
The rules as they stand prevent the rights to various sporting events being sold to subscription TV. They do not, however, provide much protection around how the free to air channels then treat an event.
I fear that what we will see when the government review finally emerges from its long period of hibernation will be something of a fudge.
I’m sure pay TV will win a minor victory with a “use it or lose it” provision that means that if an event is not aired at all on free TV, the rights can be sold on to subscription television.
And I’m equally sure that free TV will win the right to air such events on their secondary channels, which is sensible enough as switchover is not that far away.
But where I fear the fudge will appear is around what usage of an event is deemed enough for free TV to have fulfilled its obligations to the viewer. Will it be a highlights package in the middle of the night? Or as live coverage? Or a minimum proportion of an event shown live. Or must-be-shown-in-its entirety?
This is where viewers will have different views.
Personally, I grew up in the UK, where the lesson of the English Premier League is instructive. If you want to watch football, you have to subscribe to the Rupert Murdoch-controlled Sky. It’s an expensive package.
But, if you’re a fan, it’s worth every penny. Coverage of football vastly improved when Murdoch got his hands on it. There were more cameras, higher production values and far more games than British free TV was ever able to deliver.
I suspect it would be the same with televised sports here – look at Foxtel’s multi-channel Commonwealth Games and Winter Olympics coverage.
Seven yesterday demonstrated the limitations of what happens when advertising meets sport by inserting ads into the action, creating an increasingly time delayed program.
TV is often watched with laptop open, or channel hopping. There would have been nothing more irritating than finding out the result via Twitter or flicking across to Sky News. By going for the time delayed option, Seven appears to not understand how its viewers now live their lives.
Just as infuriating is cricket coverage. We’re weeks away and I already know I’m going to be fuming when Nine crosses to the News during The Ashes.
So what should the government do?
Speaking purely as a punter, I’d offer the free networks two choices. Show an event live and in full on any of the free digital channels, or lose exclusive rights.
But not all of the public will agree with that – some would be enraged at having to pay to watch something they currently see, in some format at least, for free.
That makes the decision very much about politics.
Like I say, expect a fudge.
Tim Burrowes
Tim Burrowes founded Mumbrella in 2008. He worked on Mumbrella until 2021. At various points he was editor, content director and editor-at-large.
Linkedin
It’s the inconsistency of it all that’s giving Australian viewers the utter shits. Imagine if the Melbourne Cup was delayed! The anti-syphoning list is a complete waste of time if it’s not enforced for the benefit of the VIEWERS – not the advertisers or the networks.
I think you’re right Tim – Australian networks seem to want to ignore or simply don’t understand how we consume sport in 2010. Do it properly or give it to someone who will.
User ID not verified.
7 are terrible for this kind of thing but Fox aren’t that much better either. When either of them televise rugby games ‘live’ there can 10 or 15 minutes delay. It’s atrocious. As soon as someone at the ground sends you a text you’re screwed. The actual delay of live coverage should be monitored.
User ID not verified.
Case in point: The Ryder Cup
Arguably the most exciting climax we’ve seen in many a year and, having watched the first 4 rain sodden days, did we get to see it in Australia? Did we f**k!
All we received were highlights of the final day, broadcast a day late, because of the extended weather delay in Wales.
News are currently everyone favourite anti-case study when it comes to subscription models (http://www.guardian.co.uk/medi.....readership) but when it comes to quality sporting content few can argue with the credentials of this business or, more importantly, that the average viewer is prepared to pay a price for content they consider valuable. In this context the anti-siphoning laws only purpose is to protect broadcasters revenues rather than viewers’ best interests.
User ID not verified.
We are used to sports coverage being peppered with advertising (sponsors/crawl-throughs)… why not go the other way and put picture-in-picture of the sporting event in the advertising?
Given that the playout centre of all networks (and regionals) are centralised, this shouldn’t be too hard to do.
If something major happens during the ad break, a.) we will see it live in a small box. b.) We can get a full size replay after the ad break
User ID not verified.
Also… eyeballs will still be on the TV showing the ad and listening to the ad. Viewers will be less likely to leave their couch during the ad or talk amongst themselves ignoring the ad
User ID not verified.
No way @Evan Davis. You set a dangerous precedent suggesting that to channels. You watch how advertising will enroach on that super quickly.
7 got greedy and overcommitted to advertising. Not enough safety car? What a LAME excuse. They should stick to the basics cover the sport LIVE and well and then charge a few premium sponsors for the privilege. not milk a short term-gain for (yet another) horrible treatment of sport by 7 and anger from the viewers.
User ID not verified.
The best compromise would be for the FTA station to nominate whether they will show the sporting event live and if not, then Pay TV also gets to show it. That way those that want to watch it live (and are willing to pay for it) can, and those that don’t want to pay can still see it delayed on FTA. We’ll probably find that FTA start showing more live sport with this ruling.
User ID not verified.
i agree in that paying for popular sport events will help to develop the quality of the coverage and also the sport itself. The English Premiership has become the most famouse league in the world thansk to Murdochs Billions.
The 2008 olympic ocverage is another case against Ch7, the single channel coverage was a disgrace and frustrating when the US and european channels were providing multiple event coverage via their online and digital channels.
User ID not verified.
Be careful what you wish for. In NZ the football (RUNION) is on SKY. I can’t find a single person who doesn’t wish that it was still free to air. The coverage is no better on air talent is worse and still full of ads.
@Mike Boyd did you work @ogilvy in the 90’s??
User ID not verified.
I have to agree. I have for years been willing to pay for a complete live coverage of Formula 1 (every practice session, qualifying and the race including preview show) from the wonderful BBC team. But 9 and now 10 have for years mangled the coverage with their moronic meathead Australian commenters talking over the BBC commenters and they have only recently started broadcasting qualifying. We can’t see practice on TV at all in Australia.
In the last 2 years I have simply stopped watching it live or nearly live (delayed) on broadcast TV and get every session via bittorrent. Finally, the full BBC experience uninterrupted by meatheads, advertising or corporate goons deciding what I should be able to watch.
Pay TV has therefore lost me forever. Why pay for something I can now get for free?
User ID not verified.