There is also much not to like about the culture of Australian sport.   A quick of the newspapers and other blogs will bring front and center the current scandals of the NRL's Canterbury and Melbourne clubs.   If the allegations have a shread of truth to them, for some individuals and clubs non-consensual sex and violence are just what you do after a good night of footy.  (I'll skip recanting the stories of where some rugby players place their fingers or the Kobe Bryant, Univ of Colorado, and English soccer affairs.)

In this writer's opinion none of this has any place in modern sport.   Violence toward others is not to be tolerated or ignored.   It's one thing to give an opposing player a hard shirtfront on the ground, it's entirely different one to force a woman to engage in sexual activity without consent.   I hope that the legal authorities and the involved clubs and leagues take the appropriate action, including criminal prosecution where warranted, for the alleged behavior.   If the AFL and it's member clubs are paying attention, they'll lay down some tough guidelines for their players and staff so the next story in the newspapers isn't one about the AFL.

If you are a parent as I am, talk to your children.  Teach them not just how to play sport but how to behave on and off the field, and how to avoid situations that could turn dangerous, particularly for women.   Practice what you preach by behaving appropriately yourself.

Several related commentaries we think are relevant to this are:

The Supermercado Project: When Sportsmen attack

Ubersportingpundit: What on Earth is going on?

Patrick Smith in the Australian

-Rob (who is disgusted and offended by all of this)

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...)

In particular, I draw your attention to these paragraphs:  "The quandary facing Australian football is that we have a world-class game played, and followed, by only a tiny fraction of the world's population. That can work both for us and against us.

But the world of global entertainment is upon us. Australian football evolved in the same sort of cultural isolation that created West Indian cricket. The present state of West Indian cricket shows what can happen when that isolation is breached."

I don't fully agree with Martin Flanagan here, I think the danger to Aussie rules if it doesn't face the international threat is very real.  The sport must seek to develop that global audience to survive.  There must be international development or else.  

He's absolutely right though that the lack of a large international audience is working against the sport.  If for no other reason than it is one of the great sporting spectacles around and it would be a huge success... if only potential fans were exposed to it.  This is exactly the thinking behind what AFANA wants to do in North America.  

He's also correct that the world of global entertainment is here and the sooner the AFL comes to terms with that the better off it will be.  

-Rob (who is glad someone addressed the AFL on this point!)

I'd like to say that all of that is surprising, but it isn't.   The idea is far from dead however as a recent article in the Melbourne Age strongly suggests.  

That's both good news and bad news.  Good news because AFANA wants to see an exhibition in the US or Canada.  Bad because the proponents of this event continue to hide in anonymity (AFANA has some pretty good clues who they are but because we don't have incontrovertible proof I won't publish their names).   Bad because the AFL should have more courtesy and respond to reasonable inquiries from AFANA on such issues.   Bad because none of the concerns we raised have been addressed by the promoters or the AFL.  

As a fan, if you want to see an exhibition here in the US then you need to let the AFL know that.  But I would also add that we need to make sure the AFL  understands it's not an issue of promoting a local footy club or league or AFANA or an issue of promoting Australian trade and culture to footy fans here.   To 99% of footy fans here it's an issue of promoting (and watching live) Australian Football and nothing else.  

This last point is clearly going to be problematical to some in the footy community over here.  I enjoy Australian culture, too.  I feel very much at home when I am in Melbourne.   I have business reasons to see trade grow between the countries (witness the recent blog on the Free Trade Agreement).   However, the cost and complexity of staging the first exhibition here in over 15 seasons requires that footy gain the maximum benefit possible from such an event.  

It also requires that the promoters anticipate what is going to happen when the exhibition is announced and confirmed.  Even allowing for my concerns expressed in the earlier blog on this subject, it's safe to say that thousands of fans are going to travel from all across the continent to attend.   Even in late January.   Are they prepared?  What venue is going to be used?  The questions go on and on.  

The time for answers is drawing nigh.  If the AFL intends to go forward with this event between the 2004 and 2005 seasons, the decision needs to be made ASAP and we need answers to our concerns.  

-Rob (who wonders if anybody at the AFL is listening?)

While I'm not yet convinced the AFL is headed down to 12 clubs as Scott is, I am convinced that some of the current clubs, particularly the two or three weakest clubs in Melbourne won't be around a decade from now.  

Their lifeline at the moment is the AFL's promise to run a 16 team comp until the conclusion of the current TV contract (end of 2006 season).  That and the money from the disposal of the Waverley property have allowed the AFL to prop up distresssed clubs.  The money and the contractual guarantee won't go on forever.  

The sporting market is international as I have argued here before.  Whether the AFL and the Australian sporting public fully accepts it, the reality is that the major international sporting organizations are already in the AFL's backyard.  Soccer and rugby are merely the tip of the iceberg.   The major North American sports bodies (NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, NCAA) are already on Australian TV and their merchandise is in Aussie stores.   Premier League is pushing it's marketing harder in Oz (witness the recent Essendon - Man Utd deal).  When the multi-channel digital TV universe finally takes hold down-under coverage will expand even further (something has to fill all that bandwidth!).  (Exercise for the Melbourne based reader:  count the number of jerseys or jackets of an American college on the streets on a given day... compare it to the number of AFL jerseys and jackets.)

The AFL's future growth and survival depend on being competitive with those foreign codes both domestically and ultimately internationally.  While parity NFL style or "AFL socialism" as Scott Wickstein refers to it, is desirable from a fan interest standpoint, it can be carried too far.  

The weakest AFL clubs will ultimately have to fold or merge.  It's simply unrealistic to think that the AFL will go on for very long past 2006 in loaning and giving extraordinary aid to clubs such as Melbourne, North Melbourne, and St. Kilda.  Sure, one of them might stage a recovery in the short term as Hawthorn did after the failed merger about a decade ago.   But in the longer term either there must be even more massive revenue sharing (ala baseball) or some clubs will have to go.  

It's hard to think of any other major international city outside Melbourne that has so many major sporting clubs based there and competing for the same sponsorship dollars.   With the entry of foreign codes into the market, that competition gets worse over time.

I can't predict just how it will happen, but mergers or other moves to cull the weaker clubs will happen between 2006 and 2010.   So, if you want to know what I think of the new AFL management, the answer is they weren't hired to keep the status quo.

-Rob (watching from afar)

UPDATE: The AFL has pronounced all the current clubs safe.  Excuse me, but I don't buy it.   A couple of thoughts come to mind...  Does anyone really believe that if the broadcasters came to the AFL and said, "the weaker clubs don't get ratings, they need to go" that the AFL wouldn't listen?  Further, you'll note that the new "stratetic plan" only goes for three years.... let's see, that's 2004-2006.  Oops, the TV contract ends in 2006.  What a coincidence.   Finally, what the AFL publicly has promised and insured by putting AUD$5 million a year into the aid fund, is that badly managed clubs or clubs simply unable to survive in the marketplace will be proped up.  This is bad governance and in the long run bad for the AFL's future.  It seems nothing more than a sop to those Victorian club presidents upset about the concessions to the Swans and Lions.  
-Rob

When AFANA left the merchandise business a few years ago, one of the contributing causes was the difficulty in importing merchandise from Australia.  While some organizations skirt the law by importing under an individual's name or use other tricks as a cover such as having people "bring" their merchandise in when travel between the countries, we did not.  

As our volume grew, we found the same problems those who preceded us did.  The tariffs, duties, and customs delays on imports of clothing, leather products including footballs, and manufactured goods (AFL licensed key chains, mugs, etc.) was adding significantly to the difficulties of doing business.   If this FTA is ratified by both countries, then almost all of that, save the post Sept. 11th security measures, goes away.

Regardless of whether AFANA ever gets back into that business in a big way, it's good news for footy fans.  Import is about to get a whole lot easier.   More footy related products for fans here and at cheaper prices.    The lack of customs barriers will encourage other potential vendors to get into the business even if we don't.  Movement of personel between Australian and American offices of businesses will be easier, too.

It's good news for the AFL and it's member clubs.  No longer will the import/export laws in both countries as an excuse not to do business here.  One more barrier removed.  

Lot's of problems still exist in dealing with sales of AFL licensed products in the US and Canada.  One problem though is about to get reduced by 99%.  

-Rob (anyone want to buy a used football?)

In advance of a TV newsletter now in preparation (sign up here), I wanted to post a brief update on the TV coverage situation north of the Rio Grande.  

Last month, AFANA was able to confirm from FOX Sports World Canada and from MHz Networks (Washington DC metro area) that those networks planned on carrying the sport again this season.  More curiously however, we were told by FOX Sports World US that they would be making that decision "in a few weeks".

Curious because, one would assume that FSWC and MHz would not be sure of their position unless FOX Sports International (FSI), parent of FOX Sports World and international rights holder for the sport, had assured those networks of a source for the coverage at a reasonable cost.  That in turn would mean that some US network was going to carry the sport.  

As of today, FOX Sports World has yet to make a decision and AFANA is officially very concerned.   FSWLD has indicated that a decision is still a "few weeks" away.  The AFL season gets underway in just over six weeks.  Most TV networks are well past the point of planning their coverage for early April.   Should FSWLD US decline to carry the sport, something AFANA has felt for some time was a real possibility, it will be very difficult to get another network in place in time.   FSI knows that and has a conflict in interest in resolving it.  To get coverage elsewhere might mean giving the coverage to a competitor or demanding a rights fee far in excess of that justified.   In turn, coverage on FOX affiliated networks around  the world is in danger if FSWLD US drops the sport.

So far, the AFL has had little to say on the issue besides telling us we would be informed when the situation changes.  That's not much assurance given past history on this issue.   We'll keep asking and our inquiries will become more pointed in very near future.

AFANA will continue to follow this issue with our usual dogged determination and will keep all of you informed.

-Rob (who has a sense of dejá vú about all this...)

One unrelated problem we have been dealing with is a mail bombing / denial of service attack by a spammer.  That seems to be under control again this morning but it was a major distraction over the past week.   If you e-mailed AFANA over the past week and didn't get an answer, please do so again.  We more than likely never saw the message.  

Getting back to footy, regular readers won't be surprised to learn the AFL has chosen not to respond to our letter regarding the proposed exhibition.  Apparently common courtesy is something currently out of fashion at the AFL.  To the AFL:  you might consider acknowledging our letter even if you don't intend to answer our concerns.    If you wonder why we're cynical, this is a good example.   It's also worth noting that we have yet to see any official announcement regarding the exhibition.   Whether this means it won't take place we aren't sure.  

As another addendum to a past blog, our membership rates will be rising in January.  If you want to join, now is real good time to do so.  We have little alternative as our expenses have gone up considerably over the past three years and we have to bring income inline.  

And lest anyone forget, the first matches of the wizard cup are only about two months away...  

-Rob (returning to holiday season activities...)

As some of you undoubtedly noticed, AFANA.com was off-line for about 32 hours beginning late Thursday night into Saturday.  On Wednesday evening, without warning, our site was taken off line by our hosting company.  We then spent the next day and a half trying to get the situation resolved.   Not a fun way to spend a holiday.  

Our hosting company in turn buys it's service from another company and I will not name either company here.  It's alleged that the higher service provider received a complaint from AOL that we had sent sp*m to an AOL user.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  We're meticulous here about avoiding any possible interpretation that any of the mail we send out is unsolicited e-mail.  We drop any repeated bounces from our lists and we honor all unsubscribe requests promptly without complaint.   If you haven't asked for it by subscribing or joining AFANA you don't get anything from our e-mailing lists.   We hate unsolicited e-mail at AFANA and we get hundreds of such messages a day.

When we finally, after some 16 hours, got a copy of the header of the supposed $pam message it was immediately apparent (and would have been to anyone with minimal skills at reading headers) that it didn't originate from us and had nothing to do with us.  In fact, three of our own AFANA users received the same s&am.  I then contacted AOL and surprise! surprise! they have NO complaints lodged against us and haven't blocked mail from AFANA.  So, wherever the complaint came from, it wasn't AOL.   The AOL ISP desk categorically denies making such a complaint.    

Our site was restored to service after another 15 hours of waiting.  How much did this cost us?  We will probably never know for sure.   What we do know is that many visitors were likely befuddled by the "site suspended" message they received if they tried to visit our site and we surely lost some potential new members.   This also likely impacted our ranking on Google.  Are we glad to be back online?   You betcha.  

Moral of the story:  in today's online world, you are guilty until proven innocent.  If your hosting company or their provider wants to make your life difficult with (or more importantly without) justification, they can do so and your recourse is probably limited to the courts.  Good luck.   Where else can your company be put out of business without due process of law?

We were planning to move our site to a new host in December anyway.   Now that move will take place even quicker than originally planned.  As a result there might well be a brief interruption of service sometime in the next week or so.   Additionally, after the move, it will take us a few days to test and make sure the site is working properly.  So, if you have any problems please call or e-mail us so we can get right on to the issues.  

Another issue is the future of TV coverage.  We're hopeful that we will have some news on that front very soon.  I remain confident that footy will be somewhere on US and Canadian TV in 2004.  Expect much more information here and a TV newsletter in a few weeks after we relocate our site to a new host.  

-Rob (who did finally get some sleep last night...)

As we plan the upgrade of the AFANA web site and look toward 2004, one issue that keeps coming back is how long we can continue to make our web site available for free to all visitors.  It's been a point of pride with us that we have been able to develop this web site and provide the information we do for fans and do it without restricting the site only to members.  How much longer we can continue to do that is open to question.

If our voluntary membership levels were higher, then there would be no question to be answered.   However, such a small percentage of our visitors ever join and even fewer join at the $30 level and up we are able to pay the bills and not much more.   Most visitors probably don't realize that we don't pay our writers and web staff anything beyond a few expenses here and there.  We are able to compete with the big footy sites (all of them based in Australia with paid staff and / or links to major media) only due to the dedication of our staff.  

Costs continue to rise and advertising really doesn't get us there.   So, like most other web sites including almost all of our competition, we may soon be forced to restrict some of our content to members.  At the very least we are going to raise membership rates in 2004 for the first time in many years.   So when we ask you to support us, we are asking for survival money not cash for a Carribean vacation.   The next time you read an article here or check the TV schedules think about it...  are you supporting us or getting a free ride?

Our recent survey reaffirmed the desire of fans for live coverage and their apparently increasing willingness to pay for it.   If that's correct, then it is only a matter of time before live pay per view Aussie rules coverage comes to US televisions.   Most other sports, even minor ones, already are there including soccer, rugby, cricket, etc.  

AFANA and some other promoters tried to sell pay per view coverage several times a few seasons ago.   All of those efforts failed due to the unwillingness of fans to pay for it.   Not one of the efforts ever had more than 100 homes and businesses signup for the coverage.   Having mentioned our difficulties in raising funds to operate AFANA and it's web site, what confidence is there that fans in North America would step to the plate and buy live coverage?

I think prospects are better today but it would still be high risk.   A season of one live match per week would likely be priced at $199 or more per subscriber.   Even at that rate, the equivalent of at least 500 homes and businesses would have to sign up to make it work (one business equals about 10 homes and the rate is per home not per fan).   The costs of the coverage include rights fees, satellite time and production costs, distribution costs which include fees to whichever company administers the pay per view (e.g. inDemand, DirecTV, etc.), plus some profit for the promoters.  

So, US and Canadian fans tell us how you feel.  Would you pay $199 for 25 live matches per year?

-Rob (contemplating where it's all going)

While this might ordinarily be cause for great rejoicing, you'll excuse me for being a bit wary.   No organization has more strongly pursued an exhibition match involving AFL clubs in North America than has AFANA.  We've been lobbying for a match since our inception back in 1996.  However, at each and every turn we have warned the AFL that they should not repeat the mistakes made with some of the matches held in the USA and Canada in the late 1980's.

First and foremost among those warnings has been that the worst thing they could do is schedule an exhibition with only a few months notice at an inappropriate venue.   Sadly, that appears to be exactly what is happening here.

With no formal announcement yet made, we are now just 3 1/2 months from the proposed date of about 25 January, 2004.  This is insufficient time to properly promote the event and the timing could not be worse it from a media perspective.  

In case no one has noticed, there will be a presidential election next year in the US.  The date chosen (during the weekend of "Australia Day") happens to be less than 4 weeks prior to the California presidential primary and smack dab between the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary.  It is also about a week prior to the NFL Super Bowl.  It should be obvious that getting media attention for this event will be very difficult.   Further, very few Americans either know what Australia Day is about or care.  

There isn't time to plan for the large numbers of US and Canadian fans likely to travel long distances to attend.  This includes adequate hotel rooms, airline travel, car parking, security, etc.   Fans also require time to arrange work schedules so they can get the time away from the job or family.  The last weekend in January is about the worst winter weather weekend nationally making it all the more complicated for travelers.

We're not sure where this event will be held.  A report in the Melbourne press indicated it would be at "UCLA Arena".  There is no such venue and in fact, there isn't so far as we can determine, any appropriate venue on the UCLA campus.  The only potential venues nearby, except for a temporarily constructed site, are the Rose Bowl and the LA Coliseum.  Both are too large and expensive.   Any location must be appropriately sized and have a suitable field as well as spectator amenities.  

Any provision for television coverage is also a concern as taped delayed coverage of the exhibition would stand to be a significant promotional vehicle for the sport on this continent.   It troubles us that there is no evidence any of the major footy organizations in the US or Canada, including AFANA, have been contacted regarding this event.

AFANA has written Rod Austin (acting General Manager for Football Operations) at the AFL with our concerns.  We want an exhibition here but we want it to be the huge success it can be for the sport.  The worst outcome from our standpoint would be another failure or an event that generates the wrong kind of publicity due to poor planning.

-Rob (who first talked to the AFL about an exhibition in 1996)

I suppose only the people in the big offices on the 2nd floor at Telstra Dome can really answer that.  However, I have some theories that might provide an answer.  

There are several plausible explanations for why the AFL does not see international markets as the "frontier".  One might be that they don't understand it is promoted or played in over 40 countries.  Another could be that the AFL is quite happy being the "big fish in the small pond" in Australia and doesn't want to spend the money or take the risk that growth elsewhere would entail.  Make no mistake that entering other major and larger sports markets such as Europe or North America entails a commitment of resources and a degree of risk that the AFL may wish to avoid.

More relevant to the question is that I suspect that the AFL doesn't understand how to promote the sport internationally.  It's efforts, meager as they may be, are often misguided.   However, I've already written on that issue in several different ways so I want to consider one more possible explanation.  

Just as significant as any of the above is that when the AFL deals with the football entities in most of the other countries where there is a significant presence of the sport they are dealing with Australian ex-pats.  This reinforces the perception around the AFL (and in some media down under) that most of these leagues are nothing more than expensive ways for the ex-pats to play a little footy on weekends and drink beer.   (I say leagues here because AFANA has no counterpart we know of on any other continent where footy is growing.)

For example USFooty and CAFA have almost always been headed by ex-pats.  This is not to say those leaders weren't qualified or competent, quite the contrary.  Are the ex-pats essential to spreading the game around the world?  Yes, without a doubt.  Their knowledge of the game is invaluable.  Should they be the face of footy in most of these countries?  No.  

You won't convince Americans (or Chinese or Canadians or Brits or Poles, etc.) to take the game seriously until they see the game being promoted and lead by fellow natives.  As long as soccer was viewed in the US as a game of interest to, and played by immigrants and ex-pats only, the media ignored it.   Only when natives finally started directing the sport, promoting it at the grass roots level, and playing and coaching the national team did it achieve recognition by the major sports media in this country.  

The point I often make is that if you went to Japan to sell a new "widget" and needed business advice, who would you hire:  an American or a Japanese businessman?  99% of the time the answer is a Japanese businessman.  Ditto for footy.  We have to get natives in each country involved.  We need ex-pat Australians for their knowledge of the game but the future market for the sport in the USA and Canada is not ex-pats, it's native Americans and Canadians.   And natives have to sell the sport to their countrymen.  With or without the AFL along for the ride.

-Rob (one fan among a potential 300 million fans in North America)

One of our goals in asking for fans to react to particular statements regarding the programs was to get a better idea of what you consider to be important and what you like and dislike about the programs.  This is important in determining what issues AFANA raises with the AFL and what direction we seek to have the programs go in future seasons.   Here are a few of things you told us:

• Fans, by a slight margin agree that some clubs are featured too often.  
  
• The original commentators are strongly preferred while a slight majority disagreed with the statement that the highlights should have voice over to explain footy to new fans.  These results confirm our sense that the voice over, which was dropped before this season, was not well received.
  
• Somewhat to our surprise, a majority of fans like the idea that the weekly wrap and Top 10 are in both the highlights and the match of the week.  The ones that disagreed though, do so strongly.  
  
• A majority of fans felt that the programs are not scheduled at convenient times and even more felt that they are not repeated often enough.  A slight majority now feel they are on at predictable times however and that the schedule doesn't change too often.
  
• Fans were evenly split on the issue of whether the shows help new fans learn the sport suggesting that work needs to be done in this area if that is a goal of the AFL (and we don't know what the AFL goals are...).
  
• The most stunning result of the survey is that contrary to the assumptions of many, respondents disagreed more strongly with the statement  "there is too much emphasis on violence in the telecasts" than with any other item in the survey.  Clearly most of you don't feel there is excessive violence in the programs which suggests that this is not an issue except to some leaders of footy in this country.
  
• Fans by a slight majority do not feel the programs are too chopped up.  This is a major shift from earlier surveys.
  
• A strong majority of fans felt that the would be willing to risk missing a round or two of the programs if it meant getting the programs on the air earlier than six days after the matches take place.  By contrast however, when asked if you would be willing to wait another day if that meant better match selection, a majority agreed with that.  Fans by a similar majority agreed that better matches could be chosen.  This will require more research and continued trade-offs since these results are contradictory.
  
• A slight majority of fans felt that the network on which they watched the programs did a good job and that the programs were better this year than last year.
  
• Slightly less than half of fans tape the programs weekly.
  
• The strongest majority in the survey agreed with the statement that the programs needed to be on a channel that was easier to get.
  
• Overall the programs got a mildly positive reaction from most fans.
  

What conclusions can we draw from the results above?  In general fans want fewer changes in the content of the programs than in the past and more changes in the scheduling and distribution.  The conflict between how quickly we see the programs and how the matches are selected is significant and continuing.  

'till next time.
-Rob

• The average age of the fans who responded to our survey is about 36 years old and about 53% of them are under 34.
• Over 85% of those who responded were male.  We believe that this is a bit distorted since we had a significant number of USFooty players respond and they are almost all male.  The actual percentage of female audience members is more like 30%.
• More than 59% of the respondents have followed footy for over six years with an average of about 11 years.  
• Over 92% of the responses came from the US and 6% from Canada.  The rest were from other countries and not targets of this survey.
• About 65% of those answering the survey were born in the US or Canada.  32% were born in Australia and the balance elsewhere in the world.
• About 81% watch FOX Sports World.  Around 19% watch at a bar or pub.  About 10% don't get the programs at all.  Viewership thru other sources such as FOX Sports World Canada, the internet, and MHz Networks were all around 3 to 4%.  (There were multiple answers allowed on this question.)
• Interestingly, the satellite crowd is over represented among the audience of our survey compared to the national average.  While about 20% of US homes get DirecTV or DISH, they represent 34% of the survey.  Cable represents just 49%.  The Canadian satellite systems are around 2% and MHz Networks just 1%.  The AFL's internet service was the source of the programs for 3%.
• The average fan watched just over half of the programs aired thru the dates of the survey.   Most watched with one to two other people.
• Nearly 85% of the audience want live programming and some 64% were willing to pay for it.  On average they were willing to pay $15 per month.  Over 15% were willing to pay more than $21 per month.  This is highly significant since it suggests we are getting close to the numbers required for pay per view to be successful.
• AFANA members accounted for 23% of those responding and USFooty club members for 43%.  
• The most popular AFL clubs among the fans were, in descending order: Collingwood, Essendon, Sydney, and Hawthorn.  The least popular were Western Bulldogs, Melbourne, and St. Kilda.  Every AFL club had between 6% and 27% of the audience.  Some 13% expressed no specific preference.   Most fans follow more than one club.

Next time I will review some of the findings regarding the program content and organization and discuss some of the conclusions we can draw from the survey.

-Rob (who thanks all of you who participated!)