AFANA Footy BBS

I am in no means a reporter or anything, but it would be extremly cool! Just because of the fact that much more people have ESPN2 than Fox Sports World.. Back in the days when ESPN showed VFL, I seemed to run into a lot more people who knew what this game was, now the kids just give me blank stares when I mention Aussie Rules Football..

Now that I think about it with Comcast taking over Cable systems and probably ditching Fox Sports World, any change of netowrks could be for the better... thats if someone out there decides to have coverage

Hi Tony,

> I am in no means a reporter or anything, but it would be extremely cool!
> Just because of the fact that much more people have ESPN2 than Fox Sports
> World.. Back in the days when ESPN showed VFL, I seemed to run into a lot
> more people who knew what this game was, now the kids just give me blank
> stares when I mention Aussie Rules Football..

There is little doubt that a significant number of fans would be pleased to see footy back on an ESPN network. Given that FOX Sports World is in just 15% of American homes while ESPN2 is in 75%, it would mean a huge increase in market reach.

While not impossible, it seems very unlikely. For one reason, it would mean that FOX Sports International in London, UK (which owns the international marketing rights to footy and is the parent of FOX Sports World) would have to give the sport to a major competitor. For another, there is no indication ESPN is in the least bit interested; one should not underestimate just how happy some ESPN management was to lose coverage of the sport after the 1996-97 AFL seasons. Finally, it's not clear that footy fits into ESPN's current marketing philosophy.

Let's not forget what happened in 1996-97 either. The sport was aired on an constantly varying schedule and in '96 often at weird hours. In 1996 ESPN chose not to air the Grand Final and AFANA had to arrange a satellite broadcast with less than 8 days to go before the GF. In 1997, ESPN tape delayed the broadcast for 90 minutes (meaning the East Coast started at 1:35 AM!) and did so with just 30 hours notice after promising right up to Tuesday of GF week it would be live. They also did not show most of the pre and post game festivities. This could happen again because of ESPN's contractual commitments to other sports such as baseball.

> Now that I think about it with Comcast taking over cable systems and
> probably ditching Fox Sports World, any change of networks could be for
> the better... that's if someone out there decides to have coverage

A new network could be much better but it could also be worse. What we don't need is another startup network without any prospects of significant market penetration within 3 years. A startup which is well organized and likely to succeed or an established outlet already with a significant market reach would be a plus.

Everyone should hang in there. We'll have another media update out soon and if and when the situation demands, we will call on fans to make their voices heard. We're not at that point yet, however. So keep the faith.

We will get our footy in 2003

-Rob de Santos
AFANA Chairman

AFANA newsletter signup

This is an open letter to Fox Sports World. I am frankly starting to really get disgusted with FSW. I used to tell everybody I knew that it was my favorite TV network. I used to watch it all the time - where else in the US could you see coverage of footy, rugby (both union and league), cricket, Canadian and Gaelic football, and even hurling?

Alas, I am afraid those were the good old days. Now, they seemed to have morphed into Fox Soccer World. Not that I have anything against soccer, but recently they have been running all-soccer-all-the-time. For the past 4-5 weeks, they have been showing one rugby show a week (taped review shows), and that's it for any sport other than soccer. Their 10:00 PM "Fox Sports World Report" might as well be titled "Fox Soccer Report". They did show the CFL Gray Cup final, and the guys on the FSW team (Max Bretos, Brian Vizard, etc.) are doing a great job, for which I'm grateful, but that's it.

Now, I have been really hoping that this is only a temporary thing for FSW. But the latest news WRT footy makes me wonder. I really wonder about their programming: is it *really* more profitable for them to show, say, Argentine and German soccer (in addition to all the other soccer they show) than the AFL? I don't know what other criteria they would conceivably use to choose their programming, but it really makes you wonder. English Premier League, maybe - but are all those other soccer leagues around the world more profitable than footy?

If anybody from Fox Sports World reads this, please reconsider your programming selections. We watch Fox Sports World because it gives coverage to the sports we can't see anywhere else. If you turn into a one-sport-network, that will kill the whole reason why I, for one, subscribe. I know this: if programming continues to be all-soccer-all-the-time, I won't be a subscriber for much longer.

Gary Bisaga

Gary,

Thanks for an excellent post. I'd like to think someone from FOX Sports World will reply but considering that no one from FOX has ever posted here, why would they now?

> Alas, I am afraid those were the good old days. Now, they seemed to have
> morphed into Fox Soccer World. Not that I have anything against soccer,
> but recently they have been running all-soccer-all-the-time.

The entire reason for existence of FOX Sports World has always been soccer. It's frankly all I think they have ever cared about. Rugby got some mileage out of the fact that some of the Murdoch's are rugby fans but that's about it. Everything else has been time fillers.

> Now, I have been really hoping that this is only a temporary thing for
> FSW. But the latest news WRT footy makes me wonder. I really wonder about
> their programming: is it *really* more profitable for them to show, say,
> Argentine and German soccer (in addition to all the other soccer they
> show) than the AFL? I don't know what other criteria they would
> conceivably use to choose their programming, but it really makes you
> wonder. English Premier League, maybe - but are all those other soccer
> leagues around the world more profitable than footy?

Nope and nope. In fact you could argue that because of Foster's backing and the next to zero cost for the rights that footy was actually one of their only profitable products throughout most of their history as a channel. These days FOX Sports World survives because the absurd cost of the rights to all those soccer leagues, particularly English Premier League is offset due to three factors:

• fees for the best EPL matches (which are pay per view only!)
  
• royalty fees from cloned FSWLD networks around the world such as FOX Sports World Canada
  
• the monthly fees from cable and satellite providers for every subscriber that gets the channel (about 15 million or 14% of all US homes)
  

Thanks again for a thoughtful contribution to the discussion here.

-Rob de Santos
AFANA Chairman

AFANA newsletter signup

Interesting. Guess I'm a "FSW Johnny come lately," having only subscribed since last Spring (in fact, footy was the original reason I signed up!) so I didn't know about FSW's soccer-only past. Your mention about the Foster's support is interesting. FSW just announced last night during their Year in Review show that FSW's rugby coverage (union, anyway) is going to be increasing in 2003, with two live Super 12 games a week, Spring tours, and Tri-Nations; and Max Bretos hinted that they'd be covering next year's rugby world cup. I have to think that one reason for this is the Guiness support for rugby coverage; so that makes me all the more confounded as to why they're dropping footy. Rugby League doesn't seem to have a big sponsor so I'm afraid they may drop that too. Maybe Foster's is pulling out their support? I hope not.

BTW, I love that Guiness hurling commercial FSW has been showing lately. It seems to me that they've changed the voiceover in the last few weeks - originally it didn't tell you what sport it was, but I guess most Americans have never heard of hurling (in the non-Wayne's World sense so they had to tell you what sport you were watching.

Happy Footy Holidays,
< gary

Hi Gary,

> Interesting. Guess I'm a "FSW Johnny come lately," having only
> subscribed since last Spring (in fact, footy was the original reason I
> signed up!) so I didn't know about FSW's soccer-only past. Your mention
> about the Foster's support is interesting.

FOX Sports World, despite the advertising, was founded as a network which intended to use 80% of their air time for soccer. Footy was fortunate, due to the work of AFANA's then V-P and others, to be one of the other sports that got in on the ground floor. Unfortunately, that ground floor was just 3 million homes in late 1997. It was the equivalent of the TV "ghetto".

> FSW just announced last night
> during their Year in Review show that FSW's rugby coverage (union, anyway)
> is going to be increasing in 2003, with two live Super 12 games a week,
> Spring tours, and Tri-Nations; and Max Bretos hinted that they'd be
> covering next year's rugby world cup. I have to think that one reason for
> this is the Guiness support for rugby coverage; so that makes me all the
> more confounded as to why they're dropping footy. Rugby League doesn't
> seem to have a big sponsor so I'm afraid they may drop that too. Maybe
> Foster's is pulling out their support? I hope not.

That's interesting news about Rugby Union and the answer there is clearly Guinness. We know who is paying the bills and where the footy air time is going now. Word is the Foster's did pull out of Rubgy sponsorship, too. That was in our Media newsletter of 27 November. All of you reading this do subscribe, don't you?

-Rob de Santos
AFANA Chairman

AFANA newsletter signup