Updating my earlier blog on this subject and in anticipation of the release of a much delayed TV update, we have some new developments on the coverage front.
It seems, just as a year ago, there is an issue about how much FOX Sports International (FSI) is willing to pay for shipment of the highlights and Match of the Week master video tapes from Melbourne to Los Angeles. As a result we have no coverage at this moment anywhere in North America. Even though the MHz Networks (Washington DC metro area only) and FOX Sports World Canada (FSWC) are willing to air the sport, they can't unless FOX Sports World US does, too. FSI doesn't confirm this, however our sources do and so does FSWC.
Suffice it to say that four decades after Telstar first transmitted transcontinental TV it is hardly reasonable to be air freighting video tapes all over the globe when there is a glut of available satellite transponders. Be that as it may, that's where we are.
Based on 9 years of previous experience what I'd bet is really going on is this: the problem is "real" to the extent that the AFL really doesn't want to lose any more money than necessary to ship the tapes around the world and thus prices that service into the rights fees for broadcasters. The problem is not real to the extent that FOX Sports International (FSI) in LA has their own agenda here and it's conflicted to say the least.
On one hand, they (FSI) own the international distribution rights for the sport. Meaning they, not the AFL, do all the negotiating with broadcasters around the world for coverage. Something they got in the 2002 AFL domestic Australian TV deal. But my sources have told me in the past it wasn't something FSI folks in London & LA wanted but instead got forced on them by FOX management. So, I suspect that the LA crowd would be quite OK if no deal happened, in which case FSI (and their subsidiary FOX Sports World US) could largely wash their hands of a sport they apparently don't like much or truly want.
You'll note here there is the small matter of a conflict of interest. FSI has to do a "deal" with their own subsidiary company. The AFL, sometimes lacking a serious and real commitment to international popularization of the sport, won't spend any more than necessary and thus likely caps what they'll accept as the minimum fee from FSI and any other international network. This is playing right into FSI's hands.
I want to see coverage this year and feel strongly that we will get something one way or the other. Still, it might be in our long term interests for FSI to succeed in dropping the sport since that would result in the loss of 80% of the worldwide coverage and be a huge embarrassment to the AFL. That might in turn get some real change in the arrangements.
If the AFL wanted to do satellite distribution they could. I've said that over and over and in fact, even offered at one point to arrange it for them. They always fall back on tape duplication and air freight. You guess why, I'd don't know.
-Rob (who thinks we seemingly go thru this EVERY year...)
Posted by rkdesantos at March 3, 2004 02:30 AM
Related Blog Entries:
I *had* been wondering about the whole tape issue that's been mentioned before, and wondering why the heck they just don't use a satellite feed - that would (I presume) shave at least a day off the delay between the actual games and when the shows air, or at least give the broadcasters some extra "buffer" time to ensure they have the program for its scheduled slot. Even if FSI in LA has to then air-freight tapes to FSWC and MHZ, and the London office to Europe, that bit will still be cheaper than sending them all the way from Australia.
If I could afford to travel Down Under, it would be interesting to see what sort of reaction a group of international fans would get if they showed up at the AFL offices (with an appointment, of course) to argue for better (and more certain) coverage. At least the AFL has acknowledged the international fans in passing in their recent email about the online streaming coverage.
Posted by: George Madison at March 6, 2004 02:34 PMI can tell you from personal experience what the AFL's reaction is when I go to meet with them, as I've done four times since 1996. They will get you a meeting with the "broadcast coordinator", usually an administrative assistant. Forget meeting with someone who has real authority there. The excuses I've heard over the years for why top managers couldn't meet with me are worse than those from a girlfriend who doesn't want to see you any more. And far less believable. :-) They'll listen carefully and be very courteous. Just don't hold your breath for major changes afterwords. Don't get me wrong. The people I deal with at the AFL are serious and helpful. They just don't have the authority to fix the problem. Yes, I can and do go around these folks to reach higher-ups. I just shouldn't have to.
FSWC and MHz take the feeds off air from FOX Sports World and probably would do the same with any other network, if permitted. Using satellite delivery would not only be more reliable, it would, as you correctly point out, shorten the time lag.
Posted by: Rob de Santos at March 6, 2004 03:09 PM