Televised sport: The anti-siphoning list (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Breaking...orld-Cup-rights/2005/02/14/1108229922613.html

SBS doubtful over 2010 World Cup rights
February 14, 2005 - 5:59PM


SBS downplayed its chances of scoring the TV rights for the 2010 FIFA World Cup because of the financial firepower of pay TV group Fox Sports.

SBS managing director Nigel Milan told a Senate committee the federal government's decision to drop the World Cup from the national anti-siphoning list meant SBS was unlikely to show the soccer matches.

The government last year dropped the World Cup from the list, which gives free-to-air broadcasters the first chance to buy rights to major sports events ahead of pay TV operators.

Mr Milan said the decision meant the price for the 2010 World Cup rights would surge, possibly by up to 100 per cent, because Fox Sports could enter the bidding war for the tournament.

"We are always optimistic (of securing the rights) but you would have to say that the odds of us being successful have reduced," he said.

About 14.8 million soccer fans tuned into watch the 2002 World Cup matches on SBS.

SBS screened 48 of the total 64 World Cup matches, while Kerry Packer's Nine Network showed the remaining 16 games.

Communications Minister Helen Coonan defended the government's decision to drop the World Cup from the protective anti-siphoning list.

She said the list was designed to protect sports events which were of national importance and cultural significance.

"If you sought to add every event that had a large audience ... you would have a list of quite extraordinary length," she said.

I like the final two paragraphs... I thought that it was clear to all that the World Cup is of great cultural significance to many people, and given the ratings you would think that it is of great national importance, too (no matter the qualification status of our own national team).

If the World Cup does not deserve a spot on the list, then what does?

I do realise that 2010 isn't that much of a consideration at the current time with it only being 2005 and with the 2006 tournament just around the corner, but it's still an interesting issue.

 

[matt#1]

oh well, I have Foxtel to watch it on anyway...but it really should be on 'normal' TV as well.

 

[Bone577]

It would be horrible if it wasn't on free-to-air TV.

The communications minister can go shove it quite frankly. Her argument that "If you sought to add every event that had a large audience ... you would have a list of quite extraordinary length," is bloody stupid.

The World Cup is the BIGGEST event. Stupid Howard government loves giving concessions to the corporate world.

 

[graphix]

I've got Austar so I'm sweet personally, but that is seriously lame. The World Cup is the biggest and best event of what is knwon as the world game (we are apart of that right?), and with the multi-cultural society of Australia the World Cup does have a lot of cultural significance....dumbass government.

 

[timbk2]

Im hoping i'd be able to afford Fox by 2010

 

[ZabZu]

The world cup should always be shown on free-to-air, its such a big event and it only happens once every 4 years.

In regards to the coverage of sport on tv in general. I would like to see every tournament that Australia is in (or could be in) on free to air. With reference to rugby union, all the tri nations games should be shown on free to air. Its stupid that only people with pay tv can watch South Africa vs New Zealand.

The losers in this are the sport fans who cant afford pay tv or cant get it installed at their place.

 

[angelduck]

and Fox isnt relatively cheap, i mean at $12 + a week...