Broadcasting rights

[GVGjr]

This was on SEN

The AFL has introduced a "social inclusion clause to diversify the presentation of football" at Channel 7 and Fox Footy from 2025 onwards.

It means the TV rights contracts with the broadcasters requires them to have a diverse range of presenters.
I like it in principle but the best people might not always be able to get 'on air' as much as they possibly should.

[bulldogtragic]

This was on SEN

The AFL has introduced a "social inclusion clause to diversify the presentation of football" at Channel 7 and Fox Footy from 2025 onwards.

It means the TV rights contracts with the broadcasters requires them to have a diverse range of presenters.
I like it in principle but the best people might not always be able to get 'on air' as much as they possibly should.

I suspect that’s a great sounding thing which will translate into:

- some indigenous commentators (Burgoyne, Betts)
- some women (many on each station)
- former players (heaps)
- non players (Hudson, et al)
- different sexual orientation (AFLW Players are far more open about their sexual orientation, so two birds one stone)

Status quo.

Perhaps they try to get current players from various international backgrounds to special commentate or host a pregame or similar.

This is the AFEL. If it’s going to be anything, it will be meaningless symbolism (that they’ll allege in a crisis shows them as progressive change agents).

[hujsh]

This was on SEN

The AFL has introduced a "social inclusion clause to diversify the presentation of football" at Channel 7 and Fox Footy from 2025 onwards.

It means the TV rights contracts with the broadcasters requires them to have a diverse range of presenters.
I like it in principle but the best people might not always be able to get 'on air' as much as they possibly should.
You could argue whoever the 'best people' are they are nowhere near the Seven commentary box

[bulldogtragic]

You could argue whoever the 'best people' are they are nowhere near the Seven commentary box

Yep. The best people are not on tv for the most part.

[Uninformed]

This was on SEN

The AFL has introduced a "social inclusion clause to diversify the presentation of football" at Channel 7 and Fox Footy from 2025 onwards.

It means the TV rights contracts with the broadcasters requires them to have a diverse range of presenters.
I like it in principle but the best people might not always be able to get 'on air' as much as they possibly should.

I would focus on getting more money out of them. Pay the players and coaches more.

[jDogs]

Does anyone else watch the broadcasts on mute? I can't stand to listen to most of these clowns, they should be focusing on tightening things up instead of having so many people involved imo.

[ledge]

Dani Laidley just got a job.

[soupman]

Any different approach to the current one cannot be worse.

[Grantysghost]

Does anyone else watch the broadcasts on mute? I can't stand to listen to most of these clowns, they should be focusing on tightening things up instead of having so many people involved imo.
Yes. I usually last for a quarter before I turn it down completely.
I wish we had premium options where we could choose behind the goals cameras and crowd sound only.

I'd pay extra for it.

I hate that in the coterie rooms they have the commentators turned up loud even in the toilets!

[Sedat]

I suspect that?s a great sounding thing which will translate into:

- some indigenous commentators (Burgoyne, Betts)
- some women (many on each station)
- former players (heaps)
- non players (Hudson, et al)
- different sexual orientation (AFLW Players are far more open about their sexual orientation, so two birds one stone)

Status quo.

Perhaps they try to get current players from various international backgrounds to special commentate or host a pregame or similar.

This is the AFEL. If it?s going to be anything, it will be meaningless symbolism (that they?ll allege in a crisis shows them as progressive change agents).
The above is all true and has all happened, so this 'policy' announcement is utterly unnecessary - the free market has already decided.

Not sure why the AFEL need to make it their business what talent the networks decide to choose for their footy broadcasting (so long as they aren't convicted criminals). Ch 7 stink to high heaven IMO but it is their right to stink in a free market - they have stumped up the cash. This policy sounds quite dictatorial and old school communist to me.

[lemmon]

The above is all true and has all happened, so this 'policy' announcement is utterly unnecessary - the free market has already decided.

Not sure why the AFEL need to make it their business what talent the networks decide to choose for their footy broadcasting (so long as they aren't convicted criminals). Ch 7 stink to high heaven IMO but it is their right to stink in a free market - they have stumped up the cash. This policy sounds quite dictatorial and old school communist to me.

Ahhh yes, the bastion of diversity and heterogeneity that was the Politburo ;)

I think the broadcasters have done an improved job of getting more diverse voices into footy media, so I don't think it's an issue that the AFL has put that into policy. No surprise that some of those 'diverse voices' have a heap more to say than the private school boy's club.

If the free market has dictated that I'm force-fed Brayshaw and BT together on a Friday night, we truly have reached late-stage capitalism.

[Sedat]

Ahhh yes, the bastion of diversity and heterogeneity that was the Politburo ;)

I think the broadcasters have done an improved job of getting more diverse voices into footy media, so I don't think it's an issue that the AFL has put that into policy. No surprise that some of those 'diverse voices' have a heap more to say than the private school boy's club.

If the free market has dictated that I'm force-fed Brayshaw and BT together on a Friday night, we truly have reached late-stage capitalism.
Hehe, the playbook is the same ;)

Couldn't agree more on the Brayshaw/BT, but clearly there is a demographic that loves this style.

I hate with a passion governing bodies forcing and mandating anything - the free market has already broadened the commentary palette, and this policy is just posturing for the optics.

[hujsh]

Why is 7 'the fee market' but not the AFL? Last I checked they aren't the government and I'm pretty sure their main focus is making money and justifying their wages/bonus' the same as any private company.

Sure on paper they're NFP but that don't mean much these days.

Lemmon and BT are on the right track the policy only exists because the companies are already following it and it gives the AFL social credit for when they next fail when there's an actual issue to contend with.

[Sedat]

Why is 7 'the fee market' but not the AFL? Last I checked they aren't the government and I'm pretty sure their main focus is making money and justifying their wages/bonus' the same as any private company.

Sure on paper they're NFP but that don't mean much these days.

Lemmon and BT are on the right track the policy only exists because the companies are already following it and it gives the AFL social credit for when they next fail when there's an actual issue to contend with.
You are correct, but imposing a policy when the issue the policy is supposedly addressing has already been addressed organically is unnecessary at best. I guess it could be argued the AFEL is less "free market", being the governing body of a sporting code that benefits directly from govt funding and the public purse, whereas the networks are beholden to shareholders (yes they probably get substantial tax-break kick-backs from govts - the real world is nothing if not hypocritical).

I'm just not an optics guy. As you rightly point out, the optics will be trumpeted to all and sundry, but when the rubber hits the road and some real world issues come to the surface, the AFEL will abandon their ethics with Usain Bolt-like speed.

[angelopetraglia]

Why is 7 'the fee market' but not the AFL? Last I checked they aren't the government and I'm pretty sure their main focus is making money and justifying their wages/bonus' the same as any private company.

Sure on paper they're NFP but that don't mean much these days.

Lemmon and BT are on the right track the policy only exists because the companies are already following it and it gives the AFL social credit for when they next fail when there's an actual issue to contend with.

There are no shareholders to pay profits or dividends too. I'm not sure what metrics the senior team are rewarded on, but it should be about growing the game, particpation, audience and crowds, not necessarily revenue. You could grow profit and kill the game.

The AFL is a very different beast to a for profit business that really has three key stakeholders, a) shareholders b) their team c) customers. You are always balancing the need of those three, if you prioitise one too far, it normally spells trouble.

[hujsh]

There are no shareholders to pay profits or dividends too. I'm not sure what metrics the senior team are rewarded on, but it should be about growing the game, particpation, audience and crowds, not necessarily revenue. You could grow profit and kill the game.

The AFL is a very different beast to a for profit business that really has three key stakeholders, a) shareholders b) their team c) customers. You are always balancing the need of those three, if you prioitise one too far, it normally spells trouble.

I get the theory but in practice an organisation like the AFL (and realistically many NGOs) and a corporation are not really any different. The AFL may not pay shareholders but I'm not convinced that maximising revenue is not their primary goal (look at the fixture, actual custodians of the game would at least introduce some sort of equity over 2-3 years if they were serious about running a fair competition)

[GVGjr]

It's a control move by the AFL to ensure one of the broadcasters maintains what's probably already in place.

[angelopetraglia]

I get the theory but in practice an organisation like the AFL (and realistically many NGOs) and a corporation are not really any different. The AFL may not pay shareholders but I'm not convinced that maximising revenue is not their primary goal (look at the fixture, actual custodians of the game would at least introduce some sort of equity over 2-3 years if they were serious about running a fair competition)

I don't think we are too far apart in what we are saying.

I'm guessing the key metrics are TV audience numbers, crowds, memberships and grass roots particpation. To hit the first three they stack the fixutre to maximise those numbers at the expense of smaller drawing clubs like ours.

They want equity on the playing field, because that drives interest and crowd numbers. They are not pursuing equity in the fairness of the fixture for each club from a financial or coverage perspective as that doesn't align with their key metrics.

"Show me the incentive, I?ll show you the outcome"

[Uninformed]

Dani Laidley just got a job.

Would presage a significant dive in ratings.