Skip to main content

(This is the first in a series of long form editorials on the state of footy on TV in 2016 and the future outlook.) A long time ago in TV world far, far away, a small group of passionate AFL fans managed to get the AFL and ESPN together and save the weekly highlights coverage on US and Canadian television. It was an early and largely unnoticed accomplishment of the internet age as e-mail and newsgroups were the media used to launch coordinated action. Looking back, it was an amazing achievement in 1995-1996. It also was the catalyst for the formation of AFANA.

Over the past 20 years we’ve evolved from lobbying by fans to more sophisticated ways of attempting to drive the AFL’s TV strategy (with varying degrees of success). We’ve successfully helped steer them to new TV homes for the sport when old ones blew up on us. We’ve succeeded in keeping it on the air for 21 seasons without fail. Now, we have to decide what we do in 2016 and beyond. The answers for 1996 and 2006 no longer are the right ones. The TV market has changed. The fan base has changed. The AFL is far more media savvy than before and nominally, has an “international” strategy (although fans and marketing seem not to be a big part of that). We must change our tactics and strategy to deal with the AFL, TV networks, and fan development to match the world as it is in 2016.

Let’s take a look at the US landscape today (we’ll deal with Canada and Mexico in a future article):

Fox is in the last year of the AFL contract in the US. Fox has been tight-lipped about whether they will continue in 2017 but history tells us that we shouldn’t be surprised either way. We believe the AFL and Fox are in communication but we can’t say more than that at present. Last year the two Fox networks provided more than 430 separate telecasts of footy including over 135 live matches (preseason, in-season and post-season). Coverage reached the astonishing level of just under 1,200 hours! (Back in 1996, we were thrilled to get less than 24 hours and just 3 hours live.) By the way this exceeds the number of hours of coverage of many better known sports and is on a par with UFC. 

Fox Sports 2 (FS2) is growing slowly, mostly on the back of UFC coverage not footy. Ratings for FS2 overall have roughly doubled in the past year but still hover in the single tenths of a point most of the time. Subscriber numbers have crept up slowly and they are now in about 47 to 50 million homes (around 40% of all US homes)  FS2 needs Comcast desperately to pick up the network and grow its audience. Comcast subscribers shouldn’t plan their celebration though. We know that the Comcast issue is the single biggest complain of fans as they constitute about 20% of US TV homes. **[The Nielsen number of TV homes (116 million), on which the percentage is based, and which had been declining, magically jumped by 8 million last fall after networks complained)]. **Read this for some financial insight:  Note FS2 at #10.  

Ignoring the Grand Final, a special case and not on FS2, even the semi-finals and prelim finals last year only garnered, on average, 9 to 11,000 viewers per hour live on FS2. Undoubtedly, delayed viewing probably doubles or triples the total, but the live number is flat. There is no growth of the live ratings number over the past 3 years even as the channel as grown. Time slots are an issue and one that we can’t do much about with live programs. In the last week of the NAB Challenge, not a single AFL match cracked the top 100 programs on cable sports. None even registered on the Nielsen ratings. This means we’re not drawing news fans and existing fans aren’t watching in enough numbers to register. **[By way of explanation, for Nielsen to indicate a program had 10,000 viewers this means that about 1 home and 3 to 4 people out of some 100,000+ Nielsen panelists were watching. Even they acknowledge that the number isn’t statistically significant. If most viewing is delayed, then the live ratings are not indicative of the true audience.]

Fox Soccer Plus (FSP) continues on the back of the soccer contracts it has and the subscribers that sport generates. Speculation has continued that someday it may be converted to a standard cable channel but Fox has not indicated any such plan. It is also blocked by the Comcast issue. The subscriber numbers are small in TV terms and probably not growing much. It’s great for live AFL coverage, numerous repeats, and for current, hardcore AFL fans. It does very little to grow the sport or audience.

WatchAFL provides live coverage of every match via the internet. For hardcore fans or those without the necessary cable or satellite access, it has and continues to be a great alternative. Based on the numbers we’ve seen, the largest international markets for WatchAFL are the USA and UK by a wide margin. WatchAFL is however, in our opinion, overpriced. (Subscribing to FSP is now cheaper than WatchAFL!). It is not an effective way to grow the fan base since no novice fan is going to fork over the subscription fee to watch a sport they know little about. Part of the reason costs are high is the ridiculous overpayment by Telstra for the online rights. Some of that cost is passed to US fans via Rightster. The AFL has opted to take Telstra’s overpayment rather than grow the sport internationally over the longer term by taking less money. It’s a short term gain for the AFL to crow about but it is a long term loss for the game.

Fans often write us to complain that either their cable system doesn’t offer FS2/FSP or the programs should be on another network (ESPN, NBCSN, etc.). What you should know is that we keep in close touch with our sources across the US TV sports landscape so we have a good feel for what other networks might offer in terms of coverage and who might be interested should Fox and the AFL not reach a new deal. At AFANA we always have a plan B (but it isn’t plan B because it’s better than plan A.). It is our belief there is no better alternative than the current deal. We say this because of several factors:

  1. No other network is currently likely to offer as much live coverage as we get on FS2 and FSP combined;
  2. No other network is likely to offer the number of hours of repeats in more viewer friendly time slots as FSP;
  3. There are few better distributed outlets and neither Fox nor ESPN is going to put any footy on ESPN1/ESPN2/FS1 etc. It isn’t going to happen with the current ratings. (Note: As of Round 3 in 2016, we were pleased to learn that Fox moved one live game per week to FS1. This is likely to continue only if ratings justify it and other programming doesn't bump it in the future. For now, it is exposing new fans to the sport.)

More specifically regarding alternative networks, ESPN has been very clear in the past that they only would consider footy for WatchESPN / ESPN3 and nowhere else. At present, that won’t happen because of the online rights held by Rightster and Telstra. We are our own worst enemy in so far as those who have paid for WatchAFL discourage the AFL from choosing a different path. So far NBCSN has shown no interest. We’re watching CBSSN and NFL Network closely.

For those who feel the AFL is clueless or mistaken in dealing with Fox or that the deal with Fox is misguided, we’re sorry to say, we disagree. If AFANA felt there was an alternative, better for the majority of the fans, we’d lobby the AFL for that alternative immediately. Every alternate choice has major drawbacks that hurt a significant number of fans or reduce the coverage dramatically. We'd like to be wrong on this but so far there is no better alternative.

We will get “better” coverage in the US when, and only when, the ratings improve and/or we get sponsorship for the telecasts. The AFL can help by working with AFANA to find those sponsors but beyond that, only fans can help by watching the coverage and getting friends to do the same. WatchAFL is a great tool and in some ways, the future, but it cannibalizes the telecast ratings and hurts that aspect of the coverage. We love WatchAFL, too, and support it, but there is a downside.

To grow the ratings, we also have to grow the fan base. We cannot over-emphasize this point:  for the sport to have a future here, we need more footy fans. When we lost coverage of the highlights on MHz a few years ago, it was a major setback. At AFANA, we consider it a high priority to find ways to expose new fans to the sport on television and online. This will do more to benefit everyone, fans old and new, than anything else we can do in the long term.

On the up side, after lots of persistence by Jeff Hemelt and our staff, we have the most complete and accurate TV schedules for footy available anywhere. If it can be seen on a screen in North America, we can tell you where and when. Every match, every repeat, every show. No one else can do that. Not your on-screen guide, the AFL, any individual network, or any other website. Moreover, we update the listing at least daily, and it is 99.9% accurate. We remain constantly amazed that so many of you rely on the on-screen guide, often chock full of errors and not updated very often, rather than check our web site. What can we do to make those schedules easier for you to use? Let us know.

We, as fans, have to focus on is what we want going forward and how we can grow the audience. AFANA has more data and more research and better connections with you, the footy fan, than anyone else. We’re always looking for your input. We’ll continue to use that and find better ways to get you the most footy we can.


Posted by Toby (not verified) on March 20, 2016

Good read. Thanks for posting. It is a real bummer about the cost of WatchAFL and that crummy, short-sighted deal you mention with Telstra. Sadly after 16+ years following from abroad (USA mostly) it's sounds pretty typical. Thanks for the tip on your veiwing guide, too. I try to dvr as much as possible and that should help. I wish I wasn't such a tragic, but I'm sure I will inevitably over-pay for WatchAFL again this year. Keep up the great work!
Posted by admincms on March 21, 2016

Addendum (03/21/16): One thing we get in response to articles like this, mostly from Australians, is to blame Rupert Murdoch or Australian portions of his company NewsCorp for not supporting the sport better in the US. Mr. Murdoch and his family have supported our efforts in the past. Nevertheless, any lack of support is not the problem nor is more support the solution to better marketing of the sport here. We'll gladly take his money if he offers it and we appreciate what US networks in NewsCorp (e.g. FSP) do to support the sport but that's missing the point of our article. We're not going to succeed selling Australian culture to Americans; it just happens that we are promoting a sport from Australia to Americans. It is no more NewsCorp/Foxtel/Fox Sports Australia's obligation to sell the sport here than it would be for Vivendi to sell French sport via their US networks.

Another things we'd note is that we must move away from the novelty marketing of the sport if we want long term success (see Making North Americans Serious Fans of Aussie Rules). Consider some numbers. At any given time there are around 50,000 Aussie ex-pats in the US. Multiply that by three to account for their friends and families and to allow for any error then divide by the number of US residents (~320 million). It works out to less than 0.05%. Insignificant! And we didn't adjust for those Aussies who don't like the sport or prefer rugby or cricket or are temporary residents. There aren't enough to form the basis for long term growth. Only one US business of any size uses Australia as a theme: Outback restaurants. The company is US onwned and managed and may use Australia as a marketing tool but serves American food to Americans. Aussies regularly remark to us of their surprise upon finding out that the restaurants are Australian in motif only. It's novelty marketing and there is a reason there aren't lots of copycat restaurant chains. Guinness can get away with using Irish culture as a marketing theme because 40 million Americans have Irish ancestry and beer is an "international" product however their sales to Hispanic households is very low.

AFANA Chairman and Site Admin

Posted by KatKnows (not verified) on March 25, 2016

This is pretty good article except for one major flaw. Live streaming is not the alternative, it is the only way AFL is going to increase viewership in north america. Pay tv is losing customers especially among the younger consumers (those in their 20's). I do agree that WatchAFL has some flaws most notably their inability to create a Roku, FireTV, or AndroidTV app. I will gladly sign up for WatchAFL the day they have a Roku channel. Until then, I'm not going to pay premium prices for bottom level service. You can sideload their android app (which only is available for tablets) but you'll need a keyboard/mouse to actually use it. This is not something that the vast majority of consumers will be willing (or able) to do. And as you say, this doesn't pull in the channel surfer. For that, they are going to need to do something on Youtube or even Facebook.
Posted by admincms on March 26, 2016

Hi KatKnows,

We'll just have to respectfully disagree, at least in the short term, regarding live streams. There is not much question that in the long term, streaming will become more and more important and broadcast less and less. However, in terms of what we do this year, in 2016, we have to support both and we cannot afford to give up broadcast entirely.  We're watching the trends among younger consumers closely. For the near future, unless the AFL changes the online rights contracts, our alternatives there will continue to be limited. We've ask before for Roku, FireTV, and Apple TV apps without much success. We'll continue to make that point.

For the channel surfer we need both online and broadcast alternatives to capture the widest demographics possible. We've suggested to Rightster and the AFL that one free game each weekend would be helpful but they have declined to do that. The AFL has said it is too difficult technically though that's hard to understand. For broadcast, we need to get highlights (at a minimum) on a widely seen outlet. We'd also like to see AFL game highlights as at least an occasional part of the sports news on Fox but we understand that is a big ask.

AFANA Chairman and Site Admin

Posted by Jake (not verified) on March 28, 2016

This issue of discoverability is interesting. Had I not been channel surfing late one night some years back and run past ESPN2, I would have never known about the AFL. And yet today, like many of my friends, I've cut the cord. I used to have DirecTV but realized I could see everything I liked with Hulu/Netflix/Amazon Prime and subscriptions like WatchAFL and still come out spending less money than with the package I had on DTV. Obviously, we're not all there yet with everyone cutting the cord, so I take your point about the importance of what's being done today with broadcast. I know we're not completely there yet, but soon "discoverability" is going to occur on the home screen of Hulu/Netflix/Amazon (or during their promo commercials for their other content) or Roku/AppleTV. I, too, asked Rightster for an AppleTV app and they said there are no plans for it. Which strikes me as odd. The AFL seems to understand the need and value of a streaming service - thus WatchAFL - yet they won't put it in places where people are streaming and discovering new things. This would be extra important on AppleTV. I just got the new one for Christmas and it wasn't flooded with apps yet. The "Sports" category, where I found apps for ESPN, Willow, etc., would have been perfect for WatchAFL since it wouldn't have been buried in what will eventually be hundreds of other apps. I guess I can understand if they're looking down the road and not terribly concerned with broadcast, but then you'd think they'd put more effort into where people are streaming their content. Just a note on WatchAFL pricing... I get my subscription just a bit cheaper as part of my Swans membership. With the U.S./Australia exchange rate, my membership plus WatchAFL add-on was actually a bit cheaper than getting WatchAFL on its own directly through the site. Don't know if other teams offer that as well. And maybe if the team isn't as popular as the Swans, the membership price might be even cheaper. For some, it might be a bit much to become a member of a team just to get a cheaper WatchAFL price, but I'm a Swans member anyway so the add-on (and cheaper to boot) is a nice bonus. And, personally, as much as I appreciated FSP when I had DTV, I'm happy to pay more for the ability to get every game. No, I don't watch every game. But I'm guaranteed to see every Swans game and any other match-up that I think is worthwhile in a given week. With FSP (or any other broadcast channel) I'm watching what either they think is important or, more likely, what's a better fit in their schedule.

Donate to Our GoFundMe Campaign


Recent content


Our Favorite Footy Podcasts

A Yank on the Footy


Donnie's Disposal


Americans Watching the Footy

Shorten URLs


ENJOY Three Months Free! 

VPN for Sports!

  • Need to access sports broadcasts that are blocked in your area? You need a VPN!
  • With ExpressVPN, you get a flexible VPN service that can be adjusted on the fly.
  • More than 105 countries supported.
  • The best part? Click on this offer and get 3 months FREE!
  • AFANA independently selects products we recommend through experience,
    and we may earn commissions on your order.

We Recommend:


  • The future of vitamins is here! Say goodbye to generic multivitamins cluttering your table top. 
  • With Vitable, you get personalized daily vitamin packs tailored to your unique diet, lifestyle and health needs.
  • All you need to do is complete a simple online quiz and unlock your expert recommendation. 
  • Join the 400,000+ people embracing the Vitable way with 40% OFF your first order
  • Use the promo code AFANA40 at checkout.
  • AFANA independently selects products we recommend through experience,
    and we may earn commissions on your order.