★★★★★ 0/5

Foxtel yet to sign AFL extension

Reports suggest a 'flip-flop' clause remains at the centre of some contention.

11
Leave a comment

Foxtel is yet to sign for an extension with AFL, while a ‘flip-flop’ clause remains at the centre of some contention.

The AFL has refused to drop the clause in its broadcast rights contract.

Reports suggest the clause allows a free-to-air partner to broadcast local team matches in all states except Victoria, which prevents Foxtel from exclusivity on matches in Adelaide and Perth.

For example, Seven has the ability to broadcast a West Coast Eagles match that takes place in Western Australia or a Port Adelaide match that is played in South Australia.

But Foxtel is keen to get more local team games in SA and WA, where it does not have the household penetration it does in Victoria, NSW and Queensland.

Last week Seven Network and Foxtel reached a revised arrangement for the 2020-2022 seasons while Seven Network extended to 2024.

Source: Brisbane Times, AFR

11 Responses

  1. That’s only in Vic, they show all games that are relevant to each market plus the national games. And Fox doesn’t always get crap games. They have gotten big Victorian teams versing each other before. But I think the point the afl has is that if Fox has agreed to this sort of clause and deal in the past, why are they asking to change it now. They could of asked that at the last broadcast deal. Maybe saying Fox being greedy wasn’t the right words, but I think the AFL is looking after the viewers unlike cricket Australia with their ODI and T20 being on Fox

      1. Agree, silly them for signing up to such clauses to start with, last year I was actually surprised with a lot of the blockbuster games that 7 didn’t carry, especially the weeks where they only showed 3 games.

  3. Why is Fox being greedy and not the AFL? Keep it as it is by all means but be realistic about the value of the rights. Fox would surely pay more for exclusive matches, less for status quo? Perhaps the AFL are being greedy by demanding more cash for less-valuable rights.

  4. I would think the biggest issue for Foxtel would be the online rights. Currently games shown in your local capital city are blacked out on Foxtel Now and Kayo and replaced with Seven’s coverage.

    1. Definitely that is one of the most frustrating things, and the stream carries all of 7s adverts as well, what a crazy clause to have, need to get that written out straight away, no time like the present to get that fixed given everything that’s going on and in a better negotiating position.

  5. People in Victoria, and Tasmania, without Fox can’t watch their team every week, and often those games are played outside of Victoria so there isn’t the option of going

  6. Well I hope that the AFL keeps that stance. What they are doing is better for the viewership and if they agree to stop doing that then people without Foxtel wouldn’t be able to watch their teams. I think Fox is trying to be greedy. Just leave it the same.

    1. It’s a business transaction. Each business wants to extract the most value from their part of that transaction for the least cost and lots of things have changed since the last time they negotiated the deal. Hardly what I would call being “greedy”.

    2. So they just want foxtel to have the crap games exclusively in each market, sounds like the greedy ones are the AFL, need to drop the price or change the rules so it’s worth their while. Don’t forget 7 don’t even want all the games, just their prime time games the rest the couldn’t care less about showing.

Leave a Reply