Afl's Bold New World

The Age

Thursday March 20, 2008

Richard Hinds

THOSE still harbouring the belief that television networks merely broadcast football, rather than shaping the very nature of the game on your screen, would have had that antiquated notion shattered at an AFL press conference last week.

After a meeting with the 16 AFL presidents, league chairman Mike Fitzpatrick and chief executive Andrew Demetriou outlined the reasons why they had not merely been able to convince the clubs to green-light two new teams in western Sydney and the Gold Coast but had them so excited some presidents believed the proposed 2012 start-up time was not soon enough.

The AFL had outlined the strong competition from other codes, assured them their playing lists would not be plundered - not too badly, anyway - and borrowed the bold pioneering spirit of those who created the game 150 years ago. Then almost as a throwaway line at the end of the press conference, Fitzpatrick revealed perhaps the most compelling reason the AFL had been given the go-ahead to adopt a role as missionary in once hostile territory, particularly western Sydney.

A conservative industry estimate had put the value of adding one extra game in the next television rights deal at $60 million a season. Split that revenue between the new clubs and, as Fitzpatrick put it, "They pay for themselves."

The figures are rubbery but, if anything, industry insiders believe they could be conservative. The AFL rights rose from $500 million (2002-2006) to $780 million (2007-2011) without significant change to competition. Add an extra game and the first $1 billion rights deal in Australian sport is likely - particularly with the AFL promising greater access to the more than 2 million viewers in western Sydney and more than 1 million on the rapidly expanding Gold Coast.

Then there is the anticipated growth in the "new media" element of the contract that will either add cream to the next deal or at least compensate for any negative impact on traditional television audiences.

Which is why it is far from coincidental that the proposed start-up date for the teams coincides with the first year of the new rights deal. And, inevitably, why the AFL is willing to plough millions of dollars into establishing teams in the belief they will "pay for themselves".

So, other than the possibility that their star centre half-forward will be lured by the Gold Coast Theme Parks or the West Sydney Ugh Boots, how will an 18-team competition affect fans?

Stand by in the next few years for some experiments with Monday night football, something successfully trialled by the National Rugby League on Foxtel last year. Another possibility is the Friday-night double-header also used by the NRL - although AFL games are much longer than rugby league, making programming difficult.

Meanwhile, as the AFL positions itself to take another major bite from the networks' sports budgets, there are some very keen observers at the Football Federation Australia waiting to find out how their soon-to-be-expanded A-League can find a niche in a crowded market.

By good planning - or sheer good fortune - the FFA's seven-year $120 million rights deal with Foxtel expires in 2012, leaving it in a good position to negotiate with whoever misses out on the AFL deal. (Another fierce battle between Seven and Nine is anticipated, with Ten and Foxtel again likely to be courted as potential partners.)

Soccer plans to increase the A-League from the current eight-team competition to at least 12 by the time the next rights deal is signed. That probably means second teams for Melbourne and Sydney, a franchise on the Gold Coast and possibly one in Townsville.

A new rights agreement could see the best A-League match each weekend as well as the Socceroos matches - sold to Foxtel as the sweetener in the current rights deal - on free-to-air and the other five A-League matches on cable.

Meanwhile, as rugby union talks of expanding the Super 14 competition to a Super 16 and Foxtel juggles commitments to the four football codes among its various channels, the question might become: When does an abundance of football become an oversupply?

Whatever the outcome, have no illusions. What you call a "game", those running the sport - sorry, industry - are busily packaging as "content".

© 2008 The Age

Back to News Index | Back to Home