TV Deal Must Be Thought Through

There are many football fans across the country who were celebrating the news that Fox Sports may relinquish its stranglehold on the Hyundai A-League television rights which could result in more matches being shown on free-to-air television. However hasn’t football been down this path before?

We have witnessed a television network build up the sport only for the game’s governing body to opt to give the rights to the highest bidder, without negotiating what they will do with those rights.

With the controlling shareholder in Fox Sports, News Corp reporting the pay TV outlet had made a loss of $417 million in 2018, something was always going to have to give.

Fox sports has invested heavily in the A-League since its inception. It has covered every single match across every season since the start. They have paid a high price for those rights and in the main have been a very strong ally to the FFA.

Regrettably the cost is now outweighing the return on investment. Dwindling crowds at A-League matches and dropping viewing figures have played a key part in the decision that has been made to outsource games in 2020.

Of course when any situation such as this arises there are a number of contributing factors. The general economy of the nation has clearly had an impact. As has the glut of entertainment options available, and the way in which consumers can view them. This has changed radically since 2004 when the A-League started.

The worrying scenario now is that the FFA may award the rights to a free-to-air channel that shows games on delay in the Summer months when the country moves to five time zones. There is also the possibility that they will give priority to Cricket or AFL which even Fox sports acknowledge is “marquee content.”

Probably the biggest question is going to be whether any station is prepared to pay for the rights and if so how much? It is certainly likely to be well below the $346million six year deal the FFA signed with Fox in 2016.

Many television outlets are struggling to make money from live broadcasts. So they are happy to wear the production costs in return for airing the live matches, but will only pay a heavily reduced fee for the rights.

The impact on such a deal will have a far reaching affect on all of the A-League clubs, as all current clubs receive a slice of $57.6 million a year the current deal brings into Football. If they get their wish, which is to decouple the A-League from the FFA and have it run separately it could in the current climate spell disaster for many of the clubs.

There is a limit as to how long many of these club owners can afford to carry losses; something that almost all are doing at the moment. One figure quoted was that the clubs had lost collectively $25million in 2018/19.

It is understandable they would like more say in their own futures, but the FFA relies on the money from television to support grassroots at state level and support their high performance units and staff levels. They are never going to simply hand over all the TV rights revenue to the A-League clubs.

Brisbane Roar vice-chairman Chris Fong was quoted as saying in April that the clubs were more interested in sustainability than profitability.

However he went on to say to The World Game, “Owners are not looking to push through change for the sake of making profits but instead want to see the value of the clubs go up.” Presumably to give them an option to sell, and recoup some of the loses they have incurred over the years!

So who is to blame if anyone? Has the FFA, who own the A-League brand marketed the league and the matches adequately? Have the clubs themselves marketed games, players and fixtures effectively to pull in fans? Or has it been pretty much all done on a budget or left to Fox to promote the matches, albeit bar an advert on a local radio station or in a local newspaper?

Has the interest waned due to the structure of the league and the limited number of teams? Or is it because the standard has dropped as players are recycled time and again, as coaches are too scared to take risks for fear of losing their jobs? After all where do you go after losing your job in the A-League?

Could the FFA have been more innovative to keep interest levels high. They have broken with football tradition by having a Finals series, so why couldn’t they have said there will be no draws. There will be a shoot-out if a game ends in a draw? Or could they have awarded bonus points based on the margin of victory, or the number of goals scored to encourage attacking football?

The FFA took a roadshow around Australia to supposedly hear the views of their members, those they are supposed to serve, but this was a token gesture. They came with closed minds and failed to listen. So lost support instead of gaining it, because the fans soon realised they were far from genuine in their intentions. They have continued to lack transparency on issues that matter to the fans, the paying public, the Fox Sports subscribers. The truth is the FFA have lost more football fans than they have brought in.

Ultimately though you have to go back to the man who many still laud as the saviour of the game, Frank Lowy. Was he really the saviour? Was he really there for football? If so why was he hellbent on ignoring the recommendations of the Crawford Report?

The report stated that the League should be run as a seperate entity from the game’s governing body. Something that we are now looking at 15 years after the time it should have happened.

Lowy senior and his CEO John O’Neill ignored the recommendations of the players union and the NSL taskforce to create community based franchises and instead went for private ownership. A move that has seen the ownership of a number of clubs change over the past 15 years and the future of some clubs put in jeopardy.

He ignored the recommendation of having a ten team league, and having two sides from the word go in the main cities of Sydney and Melbourne to build up an instant rivalry. This could have prove a decision that will have a long-standing impact. New clubs are about to come into the competition, but they are going to have to woo new fans or try and wean exisiting fans off the clubs they have already formed a bond and an association with. True football fans never change their allegiance. Something the non-football people at the FFA failed to comprehend.

How was the Chairman of the game in Australia allowed to have a stake in the ownership of a club? How was his company allowed to sponsor so many facets of the game, yet when transparency should have been essential due to the conflict of interest, no figures were shared with the public? Yet we are told the value of other sponsorship deals, such as the one with Fox Sports.

The history of the game was eradicated as we were told it was “old Soccer New Football.” NSL records were not to be mentioned, neither were the performances of players from that era. The past was lost to a whole generation, so too was the history of the game. Only in such a young footballing nation would such actions escape protest.

At the time we were told it was all part of “a long term plan.” A plan that would “carry the game forward.” Lowy has gone as has O’Neill, his son Stephen has gone as too has Ben Buckley, who replaced O’Neill. Did they leave the game in a better place than when they came in? Did they lay the foundations for a strong and viable future? If they did why does it appear as if the A-League is headed down a similar path to the NSL? A competition that Frank Lowy was behind at the start and then left.

Will Free-to-air television help resurrect the League? It may, but it will need a number of other components working with the broadcaster to turn losses into profits for the owners, and for the TV stations to see a return on their investment. Hopefully there will be a marketing campaign to underpin the move and promote the league, or all the work done by Fox will soon be undone.