The Price of Parity

For many years there has been debate as to whether the success of a sporting team, or the hosting of a global sporting event can impact the mood of a nation and ultimately have a result on the outcome of a national election.

Some scholars are convinced that the success of a national team can impact an election, while others are adamant that it doesn’t. One thing that can never be questioned is the success of hosting a tournament or a national team at a World tournament does definitely have the ability to lift the mood of a nation.

Never was this more evident in recent times than when the England women’s football team won the Euro 2022 title at Wembley. England has, it is fair to say been in the doldrums of late following Brexit, Covid and a revolving door at number 10 Downing street. So this win was a huge boost for the country. For the final victory over Germany at Wembley it has been claimed that over 50 million viewers tuned in to watch the game in the United Kingdom. This is a truly remarkable figure if it is to be believed as the population of the United Kingdom in 2021 was 67.33million; meaning only 17 million people failed to watch the match!

Another positive to come out of this tournament and the team’s success was the statistic from the Women’s Sport Trust which revealed that the average time the Uk sports viewer spent watching women’s sport doubled compared to 2021. Undoubtedly because of the performances of the 2022 England women’s team.

So one would assume that television stations would be bending over backwards to be airing the upcoming FIFA Women’s World Cup due to commence in Australia and New Zealand in the next 50 days.

The issue of the broadcast rights has now become a political one with the Sports Ministers in five European nations stepping into the fray, FIFA President Gianni Infantino has threatened a European blackout unless the top European nations pay what he believes the tournament is worth.

Broadcasters from the UK, Spain, Germany, Italy and France are all holding firm. Meaning that fans in those nations may be starved of coverage, hence the politicians stepping in to try and win favour with the masses.

In a world where Equality has become the buzz word, rather than equal opportunity, (Equality or Equity, Which is Really Going to Carry Sport Forward?) Infantino is trying to boost the women’s game. He has trebled the prize money from the 2019 FIFA Women’s World Cup to $152million, and has stated that he is aiming for equal pay for the men’s 2026 World Cup and the women’s in 2027.

Of course to achieve these honourable goals he needs income. So FIFA decided to uncouple the Men’s and Women’s World Cup television broadcast rights. Previously the two had been linked. If you bought the rights to one you ended up with both.

While television stations paid between $100-200 million for the men’s World Cup rights in 2022. Infantino and FIFA are expecting those same television stations to pay a similar fee for the Women’s World Cup Rights.

It has been reported that the best offer so far is $8 million which has been rejected.

Clearly there is a huge difference between what FIFA expect to get, and what the broadcasters are prepared to pay. Which implies that FIFA is not really in touch with the broadcast market.

Broadcasters who buy the rights have additional costs attributed to those rights. Some may have to supply commentators and experts, if they are not taking the world feed. They will also have to create a studio show to keep viewers informed on the tournament, and how it is evolving. This is an extra investment in on-air staff and production staff.

Most of these broadcasters look to recoup their investment through advertising revenue during the tournament. They charge advertisers a premium rate for their air time when fans are tuned in. These advertisers pay an inflated rate to be linked to the tournament, and to obtain maximum exposure alongside it. Some broadcasters also hope to increase subscriptions to their pay TV channels; but most of these are by now already at their maximum levels.

Clearly the broadcasters in Europe do not believe that they can recoup the revenue if they pay what FIFA is asking. They will have done extensive studies into the viability of bidding for the rights, and will know what their break-even point is.

There is an additional issue with this particular World Cup, which would change dramatically if the event was being hosted in Europe, and that is the kick-off times of games in Australia and New Zealand.

Using England as an example as they are the European Champions, the kick off times of matches are from 0100hrs to 1200hrs . In other words in the middle of the night for European viewers. This is going to impact heavily on viewing figures, with many fans having to go to work or school the next day. That in turn will impact what they can charge advertisers. Diminished viewers means lower charges for those primetime slots.

This was one of the key issues that faced Australia’s doomed Men’s World Cup hosting bid.

This is something that FIFA and the organising committees would have been aware of when planning the tournament in this part of the world. While some effort has been made to accommodate European television audiences which is the biggest market when it comes to a television audience, it has been a hard juggling act to also accommodate local fans.

A record 365million are said to have watched Euro2022 in England. According to FIFA’s own data 1.12billion people tuned in to watch the 2019 FIFA Women’s World Cup hosted by France. Nearly half of the total viewing hours came from Europe. Very important statistics to take note of. Certainly it is not wise to ignore them.

There have been some comments bandied about that the broadcasters reluctance to meet FIFA’s rights fee demands is a reflection on those broadcasters views on women’s sport. Infantino himself has been one those looking to fuel this argument. He has been quoted as saying that the refusal to pay what FIFA is asking is a “slap in the face” for the players and “all women worldwide.” This is piffle. These broadcasters are running a business. If they pay millions of dollars over the revenue they believe that they can generate they will be broke in a number of months, and then there is no broadcaster to air any sport.

As former Football Australia board member and FIFA Council member Moya Dodd has been quoted as saying, FiFA undervalued the women’s game for decades so now it is “a bit rich to scold broadcasters for underpaying.”

So where to from here?

The Sports ministers in the five European nations know that many in their electorates want to watch the World Cup. They also no doubt understand the reasons behind the broadcasters refusal to pay what FIFA wants. Are they willing to handover money to these broadcasters to enable the games to be aired? While that may be admirable, with many families going through financially tough times can they justify such an expenditure while the economy is in a lull? Can they justify such a spend? Some would say it would be money well spent if the success of the team lifts the mood of the nation. However surely there is a limit as to what you pay for that, and FIFA’s fee still seems too high.

If the broadcasters hold firm maybe it is time for FIFA to put its money where its mouth is.

Last year the FIFA Council approved the Annual Report for 2022, which highlighted FIFA’s record breaking revenue of USD 7.6 billion during the 2019-2022 cycle. They also announced that USD 11 billion is expected to be earned during the 2023-2026 period.

So does FIFA accept what the broadcasters are willing to pay and then dip into its own reserves to pay the Women’s players what it has promised? This would appear to be the only way to keep everyone happy.

If that is the way things pan out Infantino may have to readjust some of his goals for 2027, or find an alternative way to generate money to enable him to offer equal prize money. Of course one option would be to lower the prize money in the men’s competition. How would that go down? Either way the FIFA President appears to have made a rod for his own back.