SA Rugby needs pay TV

PROPOSALS: COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY WANTS TO SPLIT RIGHTS

‘Exclusivity the main source of revenue which funds international participation in the sport.’

SA Rugby yesterday submitted to the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) that the remedies proposed in their draft findings into the broadcasting of sport by subscription television will lead to a severe reduction in the investment by broadcasters in professional sport and will ultimately cost the Springboks the chance of adding to their 2019 World Cup victory.

Icasa proposed that broadcast rights should not last longer than three years, that there should be no exclusive deals and the rights should be split between multiple packages and broadcasters.

But in public hearings held virtually, SA Rugby chief executive Jurie Roux said the “remedies” would be an unreasonable burden on the federation and it was unlikely to survive in these times of Covid-19 uncertainty.

Senior counsel Ngwako Maenetje said Icasa would be acting “irrationally” and beyond its powers if it enforced the changes.

“If the regulations go through in their current format, then we may never see a day like the 2019 World Cup win again,” said Roux.

“SA Rugby needs to produce compelling content that is commercially viable so we can develop the game from grassroots level to winning national teams.

“We are 99.7% self-funded, we only get 0.3% of our income from

99.7% is how much SA Rugby is self-funded.

government and broadcast rights bring in R752 million.”

According to SA Rugby, broadcast rights make up 58% of its income and sponsorships, which are largely dependent on TV exposure, make up another 26%.

“We are in a daily fight for survival, we are in financial difficulty having made losses between 2016 and 2018,” said Roux.

“We recovered a little profit in 2019 on the back of the World Cup and we looked forward to capitalising on that. But no one could have predicted what happened in 2020.

“Covid has pushed us into survival mode and had a massive detrimental effect.

“We’ve had to cut our budget by R1.2 billion.

“It has made insolvency a real and present danger; we’re on the brink and if we had not been able to capitalise on broadcast rights, we would have been bankrupt by now.

“Exclusivity is the main source of our revenue and with less money it means there will be less rugby until we have to close our doors and only have club rugby.

“And then nobody will be interested in the game.”

Judging by the presentation, Icasa would probably face court action if it enforces the regulations.

“No regulatory impact assessment was conducted by Icasa, which makes the proposals irrational. They did not inform themselves of the adverse effect of these remedies,” Maenetje said.

“These effects are not proportional because they place such a burden on the rights holder, rather than broadcasters, such that they will not be able to sustain themselves.

“Icasa [has] paid scant regard to the dire impact we explained in our written submissions.”