Post history

History for Tegal

BLOG POST: What does the Wellington Phoenix bring to the A-League?

Back to topic

Current version

Posted March 14, 2015 11:42 · last edited March 14, 2015 11:47

I don't think 2% is that terrible a number. It's on par with how many watch on fox sports (relatively speaking). 

The difference is, fox pay $40millon per season (that figure includes Socceroos and Asian cup mind you), sky pay $300k (unsure if included Asian cup - doubt it). 

Fox have 3 times the subscribers as sky. So if the % of subscribers watching the A league are the same, sky should be paying 3 times less. That is $13.3million. A discrepancy of $13million. That is getting most of the games filmed for them as well. In my opinion this shows just how much the monopoly sky has over on site broadcasting is worth to them. 

It also shows that sky don't value (possibly correctly so) games other than the nix at all. This only furthers Smithys argument that this isn't the nix/NZFs problem at all. 

What people fail to add into their equations is what the nix contribute to that $40million the FFA receive from fox per season. Based on tv ratings I have worked out that we contribute $3.02million of the value of that. Add $300k from sky and we bring more value ($3.32M) to the FFA than both the jets ($3.18M) and mariners ($3.28M). So once again, this is nothing to do with tv ratings, or the value of the phoenix to the league. It is purely a mafia style shake down by the FFA to try and get some extra coin. 

Previous versions

2 versions
Tegal edited March 14, 2015 11:47

I don't think 2% is that terrible a number. It's on par with how many watch on fox sports (relatively speaking). 

The difference is, fox pay $40millon per season (that figure includes Socceroos and Asian cup mind you), sky pay $300k (unsure if included Asian cup - doubt it). 

Fox have 3 times the subscribers as sky. So if the % of subscribers watching the A league are the same, sky should be paying 3 times less. That is $13.3million. A discrepancy of $13million. That is getting most of the games filmed for them as well. In my opinion this shows just how much the monopoly sky has over on site broadcasting is worth to them. 

It also shows that sky don't value (possibly correctly so) games other than the nix at all. This only furthers Smithys argument that this isn't the nix/NZFs problem at all. 

What people fail to add into their equations is what the nix contribute to that $40million the FFA receive from fox per season. Based on tv ratings I have worked out that we contribute $3.02million of the value of that. Add $300k from sky and we bring more value to the FFA than both the jets and mariners. So once again, this is nothing to do with tv ratings, or the value of the phoenix to the league. It is purely a mafia style shake down by the FFA to try and get some extra coin. 

Tegal edited March 14, 2015 11:46

I don't think 2% is that terrible a number. It's on par with how many watch on fox sports (relatively speaking). 

The difference is, fox pay $40millon per season (that figure includes Socceroos and Asian cup mind you), sky pay $300k (unsure if included Asian cup - doubt it). 

Fox have 3 times the subscribers as sky. So if the % of subscribers watching the A league are the same, sky should be paying 3 times less. That is $13.3million. A discrepancy of $13million. That is getting most of the games filmed for them as well. In my opinion this shows just how much the monopoly sky has over on site broadcasting is worth to them. 

It also shows that sky don't value (possibly correctly so) games other than the nix at all. This only furthers Smithys argument that this isn't the nix/NZFs problem at all.