Foxtel calls on govt to address anti-siphoning list
Foxtel CEO has renewed calls for dismantling the anti-siphoning list.
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under Subscription, Top Stories
Foxtel CEO Richard Freudenstein has renewed calls for dismantling the anti-siphoning list.
Speaking at the American Chamber of Commerce yesterday he said Free to Air networks “can’t have it both ways.”
“The free to air networks are arguing that they should have their licence fees largely eliminated. We don’t have a view on that, except to say that if they are to have their regulatory obligations reduced then they cannot expect to continue to have the regulatory benefits that they have enjoyed,” he said.
Anti-siphoning rules, which keep major sports on Free to Air television, distorts competition for sports rights and unnecessarily privileges the free to air networks, according to Freudenstein.
“But there is a bigger public policy issue at stake here than the tussle between free to air and subscription television,” he said.
“For a start, by reducing competition, anti-siphoning reduces the money available to sporting bodies and therefore the amount they can invest in both at the elite level and grass roots. The sporting codes have made this point consistently at parliamentary enquiries and in submissions to bodies such as the 2009 Crawford Review.
“The sporting bodies have also argued that even without regulation there would be significant amounts of sport on free to air television. It is in the interests of the sports and their sponsors to continue to obtain wide coverage and free to air will clearly be part of that mix. For example the US has no antisiphoning list but the vast majority of NFL games are on broadcast television as well as many baseball and basketball games.”
But Free TV Chairman Harold Mitchell said the anti-siphoning rules had not prevented sporting codes such as the AFL, NRL and Cricket from securing recording record broadcasting rights deals.
“It’s no surprise to see pay TV out there crying foul over television sporting rights. It’s more of the same from an industry that is about one thing –making people pay for stuff they would otherwise get for free,” he said.
“Calls for the current framework to be replaced by a ‘dual rights’ scheme where free-to-air and pay rights for listed sports would be sold separately is nothing more than a pea and thimble trick that will see sports disappear from the television screens of ordinary Australians,” Mitchell said.
“It is simply a fantasy to imagine that the same content can be sold to two competing platforms. “That scheme is simply the latest strategy devised by pay TV to achieve their ultimate goal – exclusive rights to premium sporting content.
“Have sympathy for pommie Cricket fans: the real story about The Ashes in the UK is that if you want to watch it there, you have to subscribe to Sky.”
Freudenstein proposed a shorter list, consisting of events national significance and a system that does not make the networks as gatekeepers.
“A system where rights were split, so that the networks were entitled to acquire the free to air rights but where others were not blocked from obtaining other rights until after the networks had done so, would solve the gatekeeper problem and reduce regulatory complexity.”
Mitchell also used the opportunity to push for Foxtel to pay Free to Air networks a fee for re-transmission rights.
“It’s curious that they find the concept so offensive here, when Fox and CBS have led the US charge for retransmission fees,” he said.
“The absence of a retransmission right in Australia is an outdated anomaly and we will be arguing that it should be fixed as part of the government’s general regulation review.”
Share
- Tagged with AFL, Ashes Series, NFL, NRL
15 Responses
Richard is right on the reduced fees or fee rebates that the Networks get. That should be stopped however it will not. Anyway he is deffinetely wrong on the Anti-Siphoning list being abolished. I do however believe it needs to be ammended to include a Use it or Loose it clause. This would mean that no Network would be legally able to buy tv rights to a sport and then not show it or treat it badly.
i just want to watch some soccer from europe and britain with out buying foxtels packagenow theres a monopoly
This is foxtel way to try and force people to sign up to their very expensive packages and very poor offerings .its not fair if you have the olymipics or the world cup of soccer the two biggest sporting events in the world only available to the minority that can afford to pay to watch it . In this country the overwhelming majority do not have pay tv for whatever reason, they cant afford it or dont see the benefits of it .. Look at the A league figures over three hundred and fifty thousand watch it on free to air on fridays only one hundred thousand watch it on pay tv. I attend soccer matches because i have been watching it on FTA tv. this is not america where there is competition and its very affordable . Foxtel has a monopoly in this country and that is not a good thing.rugby league and afl already split their coverage between pay tv and FTA , no need to change the rules major sport…
@Victor
For the first 8 years the A League and Socceroo games were only on Foxtel as part of the initial deal the FFA (FTA didn’t want to pay for them) and the World Cup finals were the only games on FTA. So has Super Rugby been on Foxtel for a couple of years.
And it won’t all end up on Pay TV. It is in both the networks and sports bodies interests to have few games on FTA and the rest on Foxsports. As is the case now for both NRL and AFL.
I think it should be reviewed. I agree rights should be shared like the afl deal. Fta and Fox cover that.Pity the nrls current deal doesn’t have this.
One thing that I think needs to be addressed is when the FTAs get a sporting event – Australian Open, Test Cricket – the deal also includes Pay TV rights, which they hardly ever on sell.
They should not be allowed to pick up the Pay TV rights as well.
FTA sports rights should be protected … FTA networks should pay their fees … nuff said
It’s a bit rich for Foxtel to be crying foul over competition when they have a monopoly on subscription television. I’ll happily pay for television, but not the way Foxtel package it.
If Foxtel want to abolish the anti-siphoning list, make Fox Sports available (in HD) on it’s own at a reasonable price without requiring a base package of crap channels.
No politician will go there. Can you imagine the level of public complaint if you had to subscribe to watch cricket, NRL, AFL or soccer? But Richard is right that the commercial free to air channels want to reduce their regulatory obligations without any reciprocation. Media bosses have been doing this to politicians since the creation of TV. Australian content…we can’t afford it. Digital channels..we don’t need them but if we do give them to us for nothing. The list goes on and on. Good luck Richard.
I can’t see why it couldn’t be changed to something like what FOX Sports and Seven done with the AFL rights – all games shown live on FOX Sports and Seven use there filming but add their own commentary and play it at a time that suits them. That way the main things still get there FTA broadcast, the sporting code gets the money they deserve, and viewers have the choice whether they watch it live or delayed, in SD or HD, with or without ads, etc.
Sporting rights do unfortunately need to be protected as if it isn’t then you can guarantee that yes like New Zealand top line sport will only be available if you pay for it – and foxtel don’t help themselves by not having a sports only package – um to get sports you will also need to sign up for a lot of rubbish you won’t watch. There has to be a balance. And yes sporting bodies do need to get maximum return .. And I think it fair to say that a league, socceroos and super rugby have not grown at same level they may have otherwise with free to air exposure.
Of course they are.
The key point is that that NRL, AFL, FFA, TA etc are responsible for running and developing their games and they should be able to decide where their matches are broadcast to best achieve that.
Not by politicians forcing them to sell them for less money to FTA to buy win for themselves.
The FFA wanted the match of the week and Socceroos competitive games on FTA to grow the support and ended the Pay TV exclusive deal as soon as they could afford to.
FTA networks are spending billions for sport, they have the large audiences and can out bid Pay TV for the rights for major games anyway.
Mitchell is talking about Ashes games in Austalia. When Australia plays in India or WI those games are already only on Pay TV because FTA doesn’t want them.
What is a major sporting event in NZ that isn’t a rugby game?
Instead of comparing with USA, why not look at NZ? No major events are.live on FTA over there, most are live on Sky TV and delayed by a few hours of FTA. Same thing would happen here if Foxtel got there wau.