★★★★★ 0/5

Govt to review anti-siphoning list

Review to consider the impact of anti-siphoning rules on broadcasters, streaming services, sports bodies and viewers.

11
Leave a comment

The Albanese government is set to begin a review into the anti-siphoning laws in coming months, ahead of the rules around sports broadcasting expiring next year.

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland told The Australian : “During the election, (Labor) committed to reviewing the anti-siphoning scheme and list, and to conducting consultative review processes as a priority. This review will commence soon and will allow the list to be remade before it sunsets in April next year.

“The review will give stakeholders and the public the opportunity to share their views on which events should be on the list, and how the scheme should work. This will include the impacts of the scheme on broadcasters, streaming services, sports bodies and, critically, Australian consumers.”

The anti-siphoning laws require that free-to-air television networks have an opportunity to bid for major sporting events prior to any bid by subscription TV broadcasters.

But the current rules do not cover Streaming services.

11 Responses

  1. Simple.
    1)List what events need to be on free to air, eg grand finals, stat of Origin, ashes cricket etc
    2) Free to air channels can bid for live free to air rights. Not exclusive rights.
    If 9,7 and 10 all dont want must go to Abc or sbs!
    3) Foxtel and other streaming services can also bid for live rights. Again not exclusive rights – has to be live on fre to air as well.
    4) More than one free to air and more than one streaming service can have live rights if they want ie. Something could be live Free on both 9 and 10, and also live on Foxtel and Optus etc all at same time!

  2. I think that some sport should be freely available for Australians. In other countries they have to pay to view many sports that are part of their culture and institutions.
    I know that this next comment is not on sport, but I feel the same about the lack of Australian drama. Streaming platforms make Aussie drama that airs first on streaming platform and we can wait months of years before they are on free-to-air and still meet the Australian content quota. I think there should still be drama points system for all free-to-air and payTV/streaming, to showcase Australian stories. Perhaps this idea could be revisited, I think TV Networks could earn more points by airing the dramas on free-to-air first. But I realise they want to push their subscription service to make money and I acknowledge with international owners they are pushing that agenda, when it used to be free. So just because a law made sport free to Australians doesn’t make it bad, it makes it accessible to more Australians.

    1. The only place that happens is the UK and Spain where the top soccer leagues are exclusively on the largest Pay TV providers. Then again those two competitions are a best soccer competition in the world because the Pay TV and global rights are so high, they allow teams to pay 75m pounds + wages for a Centre Back, and 200m pounds for a top striker. It costs thousands of pounds for season tickests. You however still watch the games in a pub if you buy a couple of pints (and don’t mind getting Covid again).

  3. If what you lay out is true (and I have no reason to doubt your knowledge), then that is clear evidence that the Law needs re-assessing, mostly to make it more restrictive and therefore fairer for those with only access to FTA.

    The public believed that the anti-syphoning laws protected key events from being shut behind paywalls, and the cricket/ODI debacle was a huge wake-up call. If the laws were only “perks for the mates” to start with, then they need to be rewritten to reflect what the viewing public want – important events kept, by law, on FTA TV.

  4. There has never been anything that hinders FTA bidding for sporting rights and no law is required for it. The anti-syphoning law bans only Foxtel from buying rights to a few events unless FTA hasn’t bought them 6 months before they happen. Even that doesn’t work because Foxtel and FTA just do joint deals to force the sports to do what they want. It only exists because Keating tried to create a licensed regulated Pay TV on on licensed Satellite spectrum to control and tax Murdoch and Packer. They refused to bid for it and joined with Telstra and Optus to run duplicate out-dated analogue cable up the steets of wealth suburbs so they could have private unregulated spectrum. Keating then lied and claimed cable would buy up every sport, unless he got laws to control Murdoch and Packer. Since Australia had no experience with Pay TV people foolishly believed him. So Australia is stuck with, unique, pointless laws that politiicans and FTA use to threaten voters, after voting out Keating.

      1. Because how else do the sports pay their own costs? It’s certainly not just from sponsorships and people turning up to the game.

        We don’t have a *right* to have whatever we want on FTA. The rights FTA do have are often poorly broadcast. Don’t forget, many sports have broadcasting now that previously never existed.

        The whole thing is archaic. Throw it out and be done with it.

        1. FTA still pay for rights. It’s never just from sponsors and gate sales.
          The extra that Sports might receive for exclusive pay rights are to the detriment of the game. Fast cash, but no audience splash.
          A-League was destroyed as a Pay only option.
          Rugby was destroyed as Pay only.
          ODI’s are on the cusp of destruction because of Pay only rights (and it’s only been off FTA for a couple of years)
          Soccer and Rugby are trying to rebuild; embracing FTA once again.
          It’ll take a long time for recovery.

          1. FTA pay but much less than the market price, and you have to put up with what ever limited crappy coverage full of ads that they dish out. And the A-League and our national teams only existed because Foxtel put $100m a year in to soccer for the rights, and once the pulled it out the game is collapsing. It’s up to the owners of the sport to decide what is best for their sport. They have billions of dollars in costs and the future of the sport to worry about. The idea that politicians are going to save them by extort viewers with false claims that if you don’t vote for me and my crazy policies, Murdoch will steal all your sport. The A-League has never been covered by the anti-syphoning list the FFA has always insisted SBS and now Ten cover a prime match on FTA every week. Every match of the AFL and NRL have always been on the anti-syphoning list yet 80% of them have always been exclusive to Foxtel.

          2. Pertinax summed it up beautifully.

            And there are more options now more than ever to access sports. But there is now more choice for consumers in general.

            Again, sport on FTA isn’t a right of being Australian. We may be a sporting country but come on!

      2. Because nobody else wants to watch the 50 over game, it’s been replaced by the IPL which is about to expand with a knock-out cup. Neither 7,9,10 wanted to show them. The anti-syphoning list has got them on to FTA and trying to do so will result just result in no ODIs at all.

Leave a Reply