NRL plays up the numbers
Iknew it would happen, and it didn’t. I knew in the wake of the NRL starting up again on Thursday evening there would be a storm of narky emails and tweets pointing out your humble correspondent had been opposed to the Australian government – of all industries stopped at the traffic lights – effectively waving the leaguies through first.
In fact, I was pleasantly surprised. There was no storm, just a few scattered showers, mostly from folk who define themselves by the NRL team they follow. I think it’s likely because the bulk of the population remains uncomfortable with the whole thing.
Hopefully it will turn out well and there will be no second Covid-19 wave. But, as predicted, when the government waved league through the pressure to let everyone else in has been so great that in short order things will be back to where they were two months ago, with just about everything open, and social distancing quickly starting to recede from the public consciousness.
That was always going to happen at some point, of course – it’s just that the whole thing feels less driven by people in white coats, than those who just wanted to ‘‘bring back the footy’’ at any cost and had the political clout to make it happen.
Anyhoo, onwards. If you need me for any late nasty emails and tweets, I will be in my trailer.
Still, as to the blaring headline bouncing about on social media on Thursday evening about the NRL being broadcast to ‘‘300 million people’’ around the globe, it was nothing if not amusing. Visions came of people in Siberia huddled around the TV before exploding in cheers as Michael Jennings slammed the ball down by the posts; even as they danced an Irish jig in Dublin, and briefly stopped rioting in America, as Parramatta lined up for the shot at goal.
And, of course, all of that must have paled into insignificance compared to the cheering at NRL headquarters, what with a global audience 100 times bigger than the domestic audience for an NRL grand final. So why wouldn’t you? But look, actually, no.
There was no doubt a bump of interest globally in NRL given how sports-starved the masses have been. But an increase by 100 times? I thought that seemed a tad unlikely, so actually read beyond the headlines. The source was an unnamed person from TV, who said around 80 million-90 million people would have access to the games in America and Europe, and 30 million-40 million would watch for more than 15 minutes.
This, even though it was the middle of the night in America, and morning in Europe. I call – what’s that word again? – bulls...
NRL back on deck, rugby in a month or two. And the A-League? A piece by Michael Lynch and
Vince Rugari in the Sydney Morning Herald on Thursday said Football Federation Australia was under pressure from Fox Sports to accept a dramatic reduction in broadcast rights fees for the next three years. And it really is dramatic – Fox Sports might be offering between A$17m and A$29m.
It prompted well-connected Australian football figure Bonita Mersiades to write a heartfelt piece for footballtoday.com.au saying: ‘‘My understanding is what’s on offer from Fox Sports is much smaller than that, and is more likely around $10m. But regardless of whether it’s $10m or $29m, the FFA and the A-League chairmen should do one thing today: be bold and just walk away. This relationship is over ... So let’s walk away. Let’s explore suggestions such as the one made by The Golden Generation for a ‘Netflix’-style FFA TV and put our game into the hands of every single person who plays it, coaches it, referees it, volunteers for it and simply just loves watching it.’’
A noble sentiment, Ms Mersiades. And it may even be one that rugby is forced to look at, if Fox Sports also turns away from it.
In the end, though, watch this space. In the immediate post-pause world, everyone has to nut out what to cut out or die miserably, and there seems a universal trend among sports broadcasters across the world that if they keep paying what they were paying pre-Plague they will go broke. My suspicion is FFA understands that and, in the absence of serious alternatives for hard cash, will have little choice but to take what money there is.