TV rights deal won't be anything near $1 billion

[Bismark]

Ever since reading about the AFL's $1.25 billion TV rights deal, I've been perplexed by the amount of assurance the media has given NRL fans that our game will also recieve such a payday. This is evident in Roy Masters column today with the subtle headline "NRL to reap $1.2b from TV rights deal"

Now the maths just doesn't add up. I'll split this into a comparison with the AFL:

**AFL**

2007 - 2011: $780 million between Seven and Ten, with Foxtel buying the right to broadcast games from those 2 networks. Per year, the deal is worth $156 million.

2012 - 2016: $1.25 billion deal between Foxtel, Telstra and Seven. This includes Friday and Sunday free-to-air games LIVE in all regions of Australia, and 4 games LIVE on 7Mate in NSW, QLD and ACT. DON'T FORGET, the AFL has 2 more teams now, so it also allows for an extra game per week, increasing commercial interest in the game. Per year, the deal is worth $250 million

Total <big>**INCREASE: 62.5%**</big>

**NRL**

2007 - 2012: $500 million deal between Foxtel and Nine. Was around a 60% increase on the previous deal due to a new team in a new martket (Titans) hence and extra game per week, PLUS the added commercial benefit of 2 Friday night games and a Monday night game. Per year, the deal is worth $83 million.

You may think the deal is a rip off and TV is getting league for cheap. You have to understand the commercial interest in AFL. It's highly popular in 3 key markets (Perth, Adelaide, Victoria) whilst mildy popular in Brisbane and Sydney. Furthermore, the game is longer, and literally allows more times for advertisements. The NRL can hardly compete with this.

If the deal is smack on $1 billion over 5 years, it would constitute a **<big>140% INCREASE</big>** on the previous deal. With no extra team and no added commercial benefit, it makes no sense.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Remember that the current rights were severely undervalued thanks to Fox Sports' parent company being 50% owner of the game.

 

[underdog]

More of an untapped international potential within the rugby league market - lets be honest here, AFL would look like a complete WTF sport to the international market, where our game looks like a faster more exciting game of Rugby Union.

 

[Tigerdave]

More of an untapped international potential within the rugby league market - lets be honest here, AFL would look like a complete WTF sport to the international market, where our game looks like a faster more exciting game of Rugby Union.

You'd think that that would be something they'd consider. A game overseas audiencies will be able to catch on quicker due to still being fairly close to Union.

 

[Goose]

I agree with pretty much the whole OP, at the time of the last broadcast I was seated next to a TV guy, and as a league fan I was saying we should get the same or more as AFL pointing to their ratings. He informed me to why we would not get close. We made a bet and I lost $100.
The reasons he gave from memory were as stated by the OP the various markets they could sell into. Adds in 5 markets even if combined audiences were the same as 2 markets always sell for more.
There is plenty more opportunities for adds,as the OP said, the games go longer and every time a goal is scored they have a chance to play an add. There 3 breaks instead of one.
Also the AFL fans watch the other shows on mass, shows like before the bounce, after the bounce, AFL 360 plus dozens more all rate well, we dont have that. AFL classic games also rate well. All small things that add up.