SABC not only broke, it is a bad sport as well

As sure as the All Blacks scoring a try just before halftime the SABC waited until hours before Rugby World Cup (RWC) 2019 kicked off to announce it would not be broadcasting any games.

The timing of the SABC s statement on Monday is important because it was done to create maximum negativity towards SuperSport.

The implication in the statement was that we, the SABC have done everything we can but the subscription service is holding a gun to our heads In other words: They won t give us something for free or close to it which they paid millions for. How unreasonable!”

The SABC employed the same tactic days before the Africa Cup of Nations earlier in 2019. And we ve seen this approach repeated in previous years as well.

World Rugby the sport s governing body holds the rights to RWC and essentially puts them out to tender. Broadcasters from across the world bid to broadcast, with the pie sliced into regions or countries.

The RWC is World Rugby s biggest single cash cow and the TV rights sold to broadcast the flagship tournament produce the bulk of the organisation s income. It is a fair process a classic supply versus demand scenario and the rights go to those willing to pay the most.

SuperSport was among the broadcasters willing to stump up the necessary cash which ran into tens of millions of rand for a six-week event.

The SABC was not.

If a rival had outbid SuperSport for the rights to show the tournament in SA then SuperSport would have had to raise its offer or miss out. Though it is an unlikely scenario given SuperSport s stranglehold on sports broadcasting in SA and large parts of the rest of Africa it is not impossible.

Pay Channel Sky TV in New Zealand had for years controlled rugby broadcasting in that country. But when RWC 2019 rights went out for tender Sky NZ lost out to a new streaming service called Spark New Zealand.

It is a straight battle for the rights to a sporting event New Zealanders hold sacrosanct. A 21st-century tech company with little track record beat the might of Sky TV to show one of the biggest global sporting events in the world.

It led to an outcry in New Zealand mostly from Sky subscribers who, much like their SuperSport counterparts in SA had pay-TV only so that they could watch rugby.

What did not happen was Sky TV implying it was unfair.

It depends how you look at it really. We would love to have it [RWC 2019]. It s really good content. But Spark paid a ton of money for it Sky TV director of sport Richard Last said.

We always try to make sure that we re going to invest money in the best way we can.”

That was a company not willing to pay more than it could afford for a product.

Contrast that approach to the SABC which continues to ask for government funding after a succession of appalling audits. If the SABC were a private company, it would have been out of business years ago.

In March SABC executives asked the government for R6.8bn to run its business.

Already hundreds of jobs have been cut and shows cancelled so it is no surprise the SABC did not bid for the rights to the RWC. It simply could not afford to which is not only unfortunate for the majority of people in SA but a reflection of the state of the broadcaster.

In a country such as SA, there is always a bigger picture. Bringing the RWC to a wider audience through TV and radio whose rights are held by sports management company IMG is necessary. Whether the SABC negotiated with IMG about RWC radio rights is unclear.

Sadly, what is obvious is that upwards of 5-million listeners to Springbok rugby games on Xhosa-language Umhlobo Wenene FM are going to lose out on hearing of the Boks exploits in Japan in real time.

Not because of SuperSport or IMG. But because the SABC is broke. SuperSport was willing to reach a deal to allow some games to be broadcast free to air, but even those terms could not be agreed upon.

Could SuperSport do more to accommodate the public in the national interest? Maybe.

But given the amount of money it has ploughed into acquiring RWC rights in addition to the costs of expert panellists, maybe it is the SABC that should be doing more.