Network 10 is set to use live soccer to launch its new Paramount+ streaming service in Australia, with the US-owned television business on the verge of clinching a five-year $200m deal for A-League.
Ten will broadcast a Saturday night game live on its main free-to-air channel from the next A-League season, which is tentatively scheduled to begin in October, with the remaining games on Paramount+, which is set to launch in Australia in August.
A-League club owners were given details of the deal at a meeting on Tuesday, and the figure 10 will pay for the soccer rights is considered to be above expectation.
But roughly 20% of the amount Ten is stumping up for soccer is contra, and the annual cash figure is below the $51m in broadcast income the A-League had forecast for next year in documents it has been presenting to prospective private equity investors in the competition.\
The A-League is one of several Australian sports seeking a private equity injection, with the soccer competition after more than $100m for a 25% stake.
Excellent news for the League. I've seen Paramount + is supposedly launching in August in NZ as well.
While it hasn't been announced, one can dream that we could latch on and get the same deal over here for A-League coverage. I would definitely pay for that, hell I already pay for 3-4 other streaming services that I barely watch, so what's one more...
From my understanding this Tv deal with Sky sport is going to 2023 The Channel TEN and Paramount+ deal is only for Australia But I might be wrong but someone correct me if I’m wrong
Nix said on twitter more info on nz TV deal soon. But, the fact that sky sponsorm the team and the stadium means a deal with someone else will leave holes else where.
As bad as sky has been, at least they're local, produce local content, and employ kiwis. To be honest I'd rather give them or spark my money rather than paramount.
Sky has under valued Football for year and have literally paid nothing for A League rights. I'm expecting rights here to increase significantly now there is finally comp.dor the product.
SPARK to have the Premier and A league works for me.
Think a few are focusing too much on the dollars but not the full contract in its whole. Unlike most TV rights deals this is totally different and has real potential to accelerate growth. My biggest take aways; - Viacom (owner of Paramount and channel 100) will own part of the APL. They have a vested interest in investing in THEIR product and will want to see it do well. - Channel 10 can't bid for the rights for AFL or League. Football now is their sport. They have to own it. - Free to air on a Big 3 channel - Yes, only 1 saturday night game, but has the reach for millions without foxtel/kayo. This is important in the congested AU TV market. - Paramount - a little weird, but will be affordable at 8.99 a month, easily accessible for younger genz and has potential to engage with a different audience.
Down side; it wont be shown in pubs across Australia.
Meh! Lets break it down, $32m a year which FFA gets %20. Out of what's left they have to produce there own games which we know cost around $70k a game so basically after paying out W-league too the A-League clubs will have to share $12m between them a year = so $1m a year for each club. Good TV deal>? I think not.
But also hugely helped that with Rugby AU there was an Australian winner!! TV ratings may fall aware as the Australian teams continue to lose in the Trans Tasman comp (Aussie teams currently 0-10). Winning is good for ratings, losing not so much.
Having said that, there was only Super Rugby AU (ie no TT comp) last year, once Covid hit - so moving away from Fox Sports and having a Free to Air component may well be a big reason for the improved ratings.
I'm not sure your reading it right Royz. Also the contract says they can have as may or as little cameras as they like, so I can't see big money being spent on most W League games or even WU, NU and CCM games. Also a number of sides will be sharing the same ground in Melbourne, surely reducing broadcast cost and thus more coin for them to pocket.
Im interested to know what NZ nix fans want out of their TV deal. When I left Wellington 4 years ago, the knives were v much out for Sky sport and that it was a sinking ship. Im aware alot has changed with its management style and options to watch content now.
Would nix fans want games still to be broadcast on Sky, or would we be happy for a cheaper alternative, something like a Paramount Plus, Spark sport, with perhaps a free to air game?
Personally I would want it on Sky still so I don't have to pay for some other service. For me, Sky has the most sport that I'm interested in so having it somewhere else would be an extra cost for me... Understandable though if people less interested in the rest of Sky Sport think differently. Also, having it on Sky makes it good for watching at other places like bars, sports clubs, at families place etc.
plus, Sky are making heps of positive changes with the streaming services and the sky go app - they've known they need to change how they do things for ages, new CEO has started to make those changes.
Spark would be my first choice, as I'm already subscribed for their other content and Sky carries very little that interests me. I'm lucky that I piggyback off a Sky account that the owner doesn't use SkyGo for though.
In my experience Sky streaming apps are pretty damn terrible (especially the new SkyGo one - I have no idea how you replace an app that was mostly functional with one that... isn't) and Spark Sport has been much, much better performing for me.
Think for most people the status quo would be the preference, but I would be ok with any of the 3 options presented.
from what I've heard from Sky they are in the process of building a service that includes access to Spark sport, Netflix, Neon and Disney+ ie combining as many streaming services with one access point. Combine that with their broadband offering and they will have a really strong corner of the market.
I would prefer Spark, currently I have both and only have Sky Sport Now for the A league.
The spark app is just better than Sky Sport Now, which is a steaming pile of dogshark. - Half the time I load up the SSN app it says no content available and I have to access via a web-browser, have never had that happen on spark. - On Spark when you select a game that has already started you can choose to watch live or from the start of the event, with SSN you have to jump to live, try not to look at the score and rewind. Even worse when you are casting there is no choice but to watch it live.
In addition to the above there is nothing else on SS that really appeals to me (apart from the NZC overseas tours which I think are still on there?)
I think the Phoenix should be very cautious about what deal they do, as I’d imagine going to Paramount would drop numbers significantly, Spark less so but still. The diehards would undoubtedly go across to it, but the masses would probably just leave it as is.
Also it’s worth noting the number of people who won’t go to streaming for various reasons, like difficulty of viewing or internet speed. For example, I live barely rurally (probably 5 minutes from suburbs) in Auckland yet very often the internet speeds won’t support streaming, so I can’t imagine people genuinely living rurally would have much luck, and they would of course compare it to their 1080p HD, 60fps Sky coverage. NZC has greater audience pull than the Phoenix, and even they will have, when excluding the matches free-to-air, likely lower viewer numbers than previously.
Sky have been putting in effort in last year or two for football, streaming every national league game, putting on the weekly football show with Goran Paladin, opening up Bein Sports so you can watch European football etc, plus they sponsor the team, so can’t imagine they want to lose the broadcasting for it.
I'll believe it when I see it. Unless Spark Sport is taking a giant dump financially (which is possible) I don't see why they'd sell their exclusive content back to Sky, but I've been wrong before.
I also have zero faith that they can execute something like that in a useable format, given their track record with only their own content to deal with.
I just cant see Clubs being able to live of $1.2m a season let alone for the next 5 seasons.
But surely this wouldn't be their only income / sponsorship?
Royz is intentionally taking a pessimistic view of the numbers to troll us, he's assuming that the league is responsible for the production cost whereas the announcement said that the league and Ten/Paramount will share responsibility and no announcement of a cost breakdown.
from what I've heard from Sky they are in the process of building a service that includes access to Spark sport, Netflix, Neon and Disney+ ie combining as many streaming services with one access point. Combine that with their broadband offering and they will have a really strong corner of the market.
I'll believe it when I see it. Unless Spark Sport is taking a giant dump financially (which is possible) I don't see why they'd sell their exclusive content back to Sky, but I've been wrong before.
I also have zero faith that they can execute something like that in a useable format, given their track record with only their own content to deal with.
I think you'd find both Spark and Sky want to get access to as many customers as possible, if teaming up with "the enemy" increases both parties customer base it's a win/win scenario.
I'm not sure your reading it right Royz. Also the contract says they can have as may or as little cameras as they like, so I can't see big money being spent on most W League games or even WU, NU and CCM games. Also a number of sides will be sharing the same ground in Melbourne, surely reducing broadcast cost and thus more coin for them to pocket.Royz
I just cant see Clubs being able to live of $1.2m a season let alone for the next 5 seasons.
Reducing broadcast production in terms of camera coverage is just short sighted. And would make things very interesting for the VAR.
I'm not sure your reading it right Royz. Also the contract says they can have as may or as little cameras as they like, so I can't see big money being spent on most W League games or even WU, NU and CCM games. Also a number of sides will be sharing the same ground in Melbourne, surely reducing broadcast cost and thus more coin for them to pocket.Royz
I just cant see Clubs being able to live of $1.2m a season let alone for the next 5 seasons.
Reducing broadcast production in terms of camera coverage is just short sighted. And would make things very interesting for the VAR.
Yep, the speculation was it meant that the league could increase camera coverage for big events not anything about reducing it.
Im interested to know what NZ nix fans want out of their TV deal. When I left Wellington 4 years ago, the knives were v much out for Sky sport and that it was a sinking ship. Im aware alot has changed with its management style and options to watch content now.
Would nix fans want games still to be broadcast on Sky, or would we be happy for a cheaper alternative, something like a Paramount Plus, Spark sport, with perhaps a free to air game?
Spark would be my first choice, as I'm already subscribed for their other content and Sky carries very little that interests me. I'm lucky that I piggyback off a Sky account that the owner doesn't use SkyGo for though.
In my experience Sky streaming apps are pretty damn terrible (especially the new SkyGo one - I have no idea how you replace an app that was mostly functional with one that... isn't) and Spark Sport has been much, much better performing for me.
Think for most people the status quo would be the preference, but I would be ok with any of the 3 options presented.
I ditched spark, thought it was shark. Coverage didn’t start when it did and did provide the coverage I wanted. Great for summer cricket but that was it. I hope they stay with sky, making a lot of positive changes and I can piggy back my in laws account . Annoying I can’t use sky sport now but I get why. I actually find the new sky go up much closer to the UK one which was great. Huge step up from their previous “offering”.
I've got a sky sport now account pretty much only for the A-League. They provide good coverage and magazine style shows, not to mention sponsoring the team and the stadium, means that I hope they stay.
The only thing I'd like sky to improve is to get the pre-game and post-game content for the Australian games.
If sky lose the rights I'd rather Spark get it than another player - at least then I'd get to watch the F1 (although as a Williams supporter I'm not as interested in staying up until 2am on a Monday morning as I once was).
from what I've heard from Sky they are in the process of building a service that includes access to Spark sport, Netflix, Neon and Disney+ ie combining as many streaming services with one access point. Combine that with their broadband offering and they will have a really strong corner of the market.
I'll believe it when I see it. Unless Spark Sport is taking a giant dump financially (which is possible) I don't see why they'd sell their exclusive content back to Sky, but I've been wrong before.
I also have zero faith that they can execute something like that in a useable format, given their track record with only their own content to deal with.
Mainland FC
Royz
I just cant see Clubs being able to live of $1.2m a season let alone for the next 5 seasons.
But surely this wouldn't be their only income / sponsorship?
Royz is intentionally taking a pessimistic view of the numbers to troll us, he's assuming that the league is responsible for the production cost whereas the announcement said that the league and Ten/Paramount will share responsibility and no announcement of a cost breakdown.
APL will from next season produce its own “product” – that’s the A-League and Westfield W-League games, plus myriad features and news around them – and package it appropriately, in readiness for distribution via the commercial stature of the Ten Network and on Australia’s newest streaming channel. Global Sports and Media director Colin Smith, a previous broadcast rights advisor to the AFL and NRL, estimates the cost of producing a season of the A-League at the moment would be between $12 to $15 million. That leaves only $17m to be shared between the FFA and W-League along with A-League to survive off.
You've quoted from two different articles and made it seem like it's one. I had to google to find those. The part of the quote about the cost of producing the league has nothing to do with the current announcement, it was to do with options if Fox didn't play ball and also (in the article it came from) it said that the costs could be lowered. Pretty disingenuous.
Anyway, one press release says the A-League will share production, the other says that the A-League will produce the content. Neither talks about who pays for that production and if it falls under the current deal or not. It's supposition until the details are announced, and hasn't seemed to stop the clubs spending so doesn't seem relevant to the point your trying to make.
It will be interesting to see if the salary cap changes, if the payout to the clubs changes, or if there's any affect at all - you'd expect those details to be announced pretty shortly.
Two designated players on top of the two marquees, meaning four players outside of the cap per team. The designated player rule will be for players in the 300-600k range.
It's understood that the APL will produce five games a week and ten will produce one. (doesn't mention anything about the game every two weeks that Sky produces)
Fox paid $15 million per year in production costs.
The APL is selling 20% stake in the competition for $100-150 million.
Two designated players on top of the two marquees, meaning four players outside of the cap per team. The designated player rule will be for players in the 300-600k range.
It's understood that the APL will produce five games a week and ten will produce one. (doesn't mention anything about the game every two weeks that Sky produces)
Fox paid $15 million per year in production costs.
The APL is selling 20% stake in the competition for $100-150 million.
Designated player!? That is very bad news for the Phoenix. And any other team who is not based in Sydney or Melbourne. Anyone know a Russian oligarch, Arab sheikh........bored US billionaire?