tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/anti-siphoning-8190/articlesAnti-siphoning – The Conversation2017-06-05T04:00:05Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/786662017-06-05T04:00:05Z2017-06-05T04:00:05ZAnti-siphoning changes a blow to sports fans who want to watch on free-to-air TV<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171958/original/file-20170602-25689-cdski1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Controversies over sport, gambling and TV have tended to overshadow changes to the anti-siphoning scheme.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Julian Smith</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Sport features heavily in the federal government’s long-anticipated <a href="https://www.communications.gov.au/what-we-do/television/broadcast-and-content-reform-package">Broadcast and Content Reform Package</a>.</p>
<p>The package demonstrates the deep connection between sport and TV, as well as the prominent place of <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295687970_%27Great_markers_of_culture_The_Australian_sport_field">sport in Australian culture</a>.</p>
<p>It proposes to ban gambling advertising during live sports programs to placate those who oppose the increasing presence of gambling in sport, via TV. But the major sports and TV networks <a href="https://theconversation.com/live-odds-ban-debate-exposes-sport-and-gamblings-uncomfortable-mutual-dependency-76514">are soothed</a> by lifting this restriction after the key 8.30pm watershed.</p>
<p>The government also wants to provide A$30 million over four years to assist pay TV to give greater coverage to sports that are rarely or never shown on TV. It is not clear why free-to-air TV is excluded from this arrangement, as low-income households would struggle to afford to watch this new sport TV content. </p>
<p>Controversy over sport, TV and gambling, as well as broader issues like easing the reach and concentration rules, have tended to overshadow <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Television/TV-content-regulation/sport-anti-siphoning-tv-content-regulation-acma">significant changes</a> to the anti-siphoning scheme. This scheme was introduced prior to the introduction of pay TV in 1995 to ensure that “<a href="http://www.tandfebooks.com/isbn/9780203758397">events of national importance and cultural significance</a>” – all of them of a sporting nature – should not be captured exclusively by pay TV.</p>
<p>A list of sport events that had to be offered first to free-to-air TV was produced based on this criterion. </p>
<p>Ever since, commercial networks have battled with pay TV over the size of the list, and even its existence. For obvious reasons, the free-to-air networks prefer a long list, even if they don’t want to show all the sports available to them.</p>
<p>The communications minister has the power to list any event judged to have widespread public appeal. It must be made freely available as a right of <a href="https://www.clearinghouseforsport.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/737219/International_Review_for_the_Sociology_of_Sport-2016-Rowe-CulturalCitizenship..pdf">cultural citizenship</a>.</p>
<p>The government proposes to reduce the size of the anti-siphoning list to improve the competitive position of pay TV. What are the implications of the proposed changes for TV and the wider national culture?</p>
<p>In an acknowledgement of the complete digitisation of Australian TV, the package allows free-to-air broadcasters to show listed events on their digital channels without asking the minister’s permission to move it from their main channel.</p>
<p>It has also widened the window for taking an event off the list from 12 to 26 weeks to assist pay TV in bidding for events that the networks may be not be interested in broadcasting. </p>
<p>The current list covers Australian rules football, rugby league, association football (soccer), rugby union, cricket, tennis, golf, Olympic Games, horse racing, netball, and motorsports.</p>
<p>No sport event has been added. Most of the sports on the list are male-dominated. And this remains the case despite the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-27/some-womens-sports-reaching-new-heights-while-others-languish/8307666">rising position of women’s sport</a> in Australia. </p>
<p>There are only limited changes to domestic sport. The AFL and NRL are untouched (the A-League, Netball Championship and Super Rugby aren’t listed), as are the Melbourne Cup, State of Origin, the Grand Prix and Bathurst 1000, although other V8 Supercars Championship races have been delisted.</p>
<p>Golf has disappeared altogether, meaning the Australian Masters and Open are no longer part of the national cultural estate. But so has the US Masters, reflecting a trend of delisting some major events and overseas tournaments.</p>
<p>Consequently, the English FA Cup final has gone, but so have tennis’ Wimbledon and the US Open. </p>
<p>It is in the international sphere that the biggest changes have occurred. While the Olympic Games is untouched, there is a substantial reduction of listed coverage of international events involving Australian teams playing overseas in rugby league, football, rugby union, cricket, and netball. There is also a general reduction of listed coverage of major events like the football, rugby and cricket World Cups.</p>
<p>The inevitable philosophical – as opposed to commercial – implication of the government’s revision is that events involving Australian sport teams and individuals in several overseas locations are no longer regarded as being of national importance and cultural significance.</p>
<p>As a result, what people could once see for free, punctuated by advertisements, they will now have to pay for – while still being exposed to advertisements.</p>
<p>The proposed anti-siphoning changes shift the economic balance from free-to-air towards pay-TV, as well as from government intervention in the sport TV market to more open market play. </p>
<p>Ardent free-marketeer and Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/opinion/why-the-governments-antisiphoning-sports-list-must-go/news-story/878490f7592f49ab76ca28751bcca882">writing in The Australian</a> (the publisher of which co-owns key pay-TV sport provider Foxtel), recently argued that abolishing the anti-siphoning list would mean Foxtel would acquire more exclusive broadcast sports rights and more subscribers. As a result, Foxtel could charge less for subscriptions and promote greater audience reliance on Sky News at the expense of the leftist ABC.</p>
<p>So, although the ABC carries very little premium sport, according to Leyonhjelm, ditching TV sport anti-siphoning would damage public service broadcasting. Notably, he does not mention the effect on the main beneficiaries of the list – the commercial networks Nine and Seven.</p>
<p>The effect on the ABC of reducing or abolishing anti-siphoning may be dubious. But it will certainly make it difficult or impossible for many Australians to watch their national teams in some significant sport contests. </p>
<p>For this reason, changes in televising sport arrangements in Australia have a wider political and cultural resonance. The issue of fair play is no less relevant in front of the screen than on the sport field itself.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78666/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Rowe has received funding from the Australian Research Council to support research relating to this article: Struggling for Possession: The Control and Use of Online Media Sport (with Brett Hutchins, DP0877777); 'A Nation of "Good Sports"? Cultural Citizenship and Sport in Contemporary Australia' (DP130104502), and 'Australian Cultural Fields: National and Transnational Dynamics' (with Tony Bennett et al, DP140101970).</span></em></p>The proposed anti-siphoning changes certainly shift the economic balance from free-to-air to pay-TV, as well as from government intervention in the sport TV market to more open market play.David Rowe, Professor of Cultural Research, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/605632016-06-09T06:26:08Z2016-06-09T06:26:08ZSeven’s Olympic coverage could change the way we watch sport on our screens<p>The Seven Network has <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/rio-olympics-seven-to-launch-paid-subscription-service/news-story/5f93d949500601d70dee4c95c765a9fc">announced</a> it will offer a paid subscription service via an app as part of its <a href="https://www.rio2016.com/en">Rio Olympics</a> coverage this year.</p>
<p>This will make Seven the first free-to-air broadcaster in Australia to charge for broadcasting sport.</p>
<p>This is a new approach to the station’s coverage of the Rio Olympics. Last year, it <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/2016-rio-oympics-seven-to-launch-app-with-900-hours-of-coverage/news-story/5854bc5f459d6791c421df2334ef8d54">said</a> the coverage would include all three digital channels (7, 7two and 7mate), in association with a 24-hour digital news channel, online catch-up, and a free app with 36 live streams.</p>
<p>At the same time, Seven <a href="http://www.sevenwestmedia.com.au/docs/default-source/business-unit-news/seven-now-next-future.pdf?sfvrsn=2">said</a> their approach to the games would be “the most technologically advanced coverage of any event to all Australians with its all-encompassing coverage”.</p>
<p>This week’s announcement that it will add a subscription service will have massive implications, not just for the future of sports broadcasting in Australia, but also free-to-air television more broadly.</p>
<h2>Free-to-air v subscription</h2>
<p>Seven is expected to broadcast about a 1,000 hours of free content over the course of the Olympics. Coverage available through the subscription service should triple that figure. </p>
<p>The subscription service will allow those interested in sports not commonly seen on Australian television, such as <a href="https://www.rio2016.com/en/handball">handball</a>, to watch every game during the Olympics from start to finish.</p>
<p>Seven’s subscription service is expected to <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/rio-olympics-seven-to-launch-paid-subscription-service/news-story/5f93d949500601d70dee4c95c765a9fc">supplement</a> the expected A$100 million in advertising revenue from the event.</p>
<p>Part of the broadcaster’s strategy could be to prevent any losses as occurred to Nine, which reportedly <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/seven-grabs-cutprice-olympics/news-story/9ee3514d4168777c0cfcf5a852e7ff7f">lost up to A$25 million</a> on the 2012 London Olympic Games. This was a deal that had Nine <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/olympic-broadcast-rights-in-crisis/story-fna045gd-1226614389333">split</a> the A$120 million cost with Foxtel.</p>
<p>Seven is <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/seven-network-nets-olympic-games-hattrick-with-broadcast-rights-to-2020-20140805-100fyo.html">reported</a> to have paid between A$150 million and A$170 million for the Olympic rights, far less than the recent <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-the-afl-gets-richer-who-gets-richer-with-it-46321">AFL rights</a> (A$2.508 billion over six years). And only a small sum when compared with <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/10022290/NBC-signs-whopping-Olympics-TV-rights-deal">NBC’s US$7.75 billion</a> Olympic media rights contract for the games through to 2032.</p>
<p>Seven <a href="https://www.inside7.com.au/advertise/rio-2016-olympics">says it has the rights</a> for a number of Olympic events including the Rio 2016 Olympic Games, PyeongChang 2018 Winter Olympic Games and Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games.</p>
<h2>Going it alone</h2>
<p>The other interesting element of Seven’s Olympic coverage is to go it alone. This differs from the approach of past major sporting event broadcasts which generally incorporated various stakeholders (free-to-air, pay TV and digital). </p>
<p>It could be that Seven had planned to undertake this coverage unaccompanied from when it first was awarded the rights. Seven CEO Tim Worner’s <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/seven-network-nets-olympic-games-hattrick-with-broadcast-rights-to-2020-20140805-100fyo.html">comments</a> to Fairfax Media in 2014 could have given a hint of this thinking: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] “screen real estate” during the lifetime of the Olympic deal meant they may not need a co-broadcasting partner, but that “around 150 hours of content on any given day [means] there will be many more opportunities than ever before”.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Seven has also been engaged in the streaming major Australian sport events, since being awarded the Olympic media rights. These streams may have been part of a long trial, building up to the Olympics with numerous channel streams and thousands of hours of content.</p>
<h2>Was tennis a testing ground?</h2>
<p>Seven has been successful in new approaches to sport media coverage in recent years. For the 2015 Australian Open, the broadcaster <a href="http://www.sevenwestmedia.com.au/docs/default-source/business-unit-news/seven-launches-expanded-coverage-of-the-australian-open-series.pdf?sfvrsn=2">said</a> more than 1.2 million Australians chose to stream content during the Australian Open Series. </p>
<p>Seven then increased its streaming of sporting events in the <a href="https://mumbrella.com.au/melbourne-cup-viewing-down-on-last-year-but-seven-claims-300000-people-watched-on-live-stream-328612">same year</a>, including for the Melbourne Cup.</p>
<p>In 2016, Seven expanded its streaming capabilities of the Australian Open, launching a dedicated <a href="http://www.sevenwestmedia.com.au/docs/default-source/business-unit-news/seven-launches-expanded-coverage-of-the-australian-open-series.pdf?sfvrsn=2">7tennis app</a>. </p>
<p>The app allowed for more than 2,000 hours of live, exclusive and free tennis, catch-up and on-demand highlights and available via <a href="http://decidertv.com/page/2016/1/17/7-tennis-app-now-available-on-the-big-screen-with-appletv-7tennis-appletv">multiple devices</a>, including Apple TV and Telstra TV.</p>
<p>Seven’s chief revenue officer, Kurt Burnette has <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/2016-rio-oympics-seven-to-launch-app-with-900-hours-of-coverage/news-story/5854bc5f459d6791c421df2334ef8d54">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We had some great learnings from that in terms of how people were willing to watch on mobile […] It pointed to the fact that convenience was a huge factor in how people consume media.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>How does the change in approach by Seven – following the change in the way Australians “consume media” – impact the future of Australian television?</p>
<h2>Impact upon other broadcasters</h2>
<p>The fact that Seven, a free-to-air broadcaster, has created a subscription service as part of its portfolio raises many questions.</p>
<p>Andrew Maiden, chief executive of the subscription television industry body ASTRA, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/digital/sevens-olympics-app-proves-absurdity-of-antisiphoning-rule/news-story/a23c4a79a69383b2e08da14d16e38ad3">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This development proves the absurdity of a rule that bans subscription TV from buying the Olympics but allows so-called free-to-air networks to charge Australians to watch.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Adding that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Seven has proven for the world to see that the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Television/TV-content-regulation/sport-anti-siphoning-tv-content-regulation-acma">anti-siphoning scheme</a> cannot continue to exist in an online world. The exploitation of this loophole is only possible because the mechanism was drafted 20 years ago, before the internet was a twinkle in the regulator’s eye.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Channel Nine could potentially have undertaken a similar approach to sport broadcasting, when it first received the NRL rights as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/foxtel-boxed-into-a-corner-as-sport-streaming-takes-hold-46074">sole stakeholder</a>. Although this later changed to include the same multifaceted approach that had occurred previously both for the NRL and <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-the-afl-gets-richer-who-gets-richer-with-it-46321">AFL</a>.</p>
<p>Optus’ <a href="https://theconversation.com/optus-the-new-player-in-australias-sports-media-rights-battle-50069">recent</a> acquisition of the European Premier League media rights further adds to the change in sports media rights and its broadcasting in Australia. </p>
<h2>The future of Australian FTA</h2>
<p>For live sport broadcast to have major success it needs to be at a time when people can watch it live. Therefore the Rio Olympics may not be the case study to determine whether this approach has been successful, due to the timezone differences.</p>
<p>But this is a development far greater than just sports broadcasting in Australia and online streaming. This creates tensions between free-to-air and pay TV, and it brings the debate about media policy and regulation to the foreground. </p>
<p>Further, it raises questions about the definition of broadcast and streaming: are they the same? The <a href="https://theconversation.com/regional-tv-fights-back-as-more-programmes-are-broadcast-online-54540">battle over live streaming</a> between Nine and WIN, showed that this is still clearly a grey area.</p>
<p>It also raises questions about the current <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Television/TV-content-regulation/sport-anti-siphoning-tv-content-regulation-acma">sport anti-siphoning laws</a>, which prevent pay TV from being the major rights holder of <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2010L03383">particular sports</a> allowing it to “be <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2010L03383">available free</a> to the general public”. </p>
<p>Seven’s approach to the Olympics questions the future of sports broadcasting and whether sport will continue to be free on Australian television.</p>
<p>The channel’s approach could become a precedent for commercial broadcasters in Australia to offer their current free service in parallel with a subscription service. </p>
<p>It could include the current “free” service, along with a premium fee-based service. The premium service could have additional content, original content, no ads or allow subscribers earlier access to programs. This is an approach that YouTube is currently exploring in Australia with its service <a href="https://theconversation.com/youtube-red-is-here-and-it-breaks-the-video-on-demand-mould-59656">YouTube Red</a>. </p>
<p>In a time when free-to-air broadcasters are losing audiences and reporting financial losses, their current business model needs a serious review. But is adding subscription the right approach for free-to-air television, which has been free to Australians since 1956?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60563/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc C-Scott is a board member of C31 Melbourne (Community Television Station).</span></em></p>The Seven Network’s decision to offer an additional subscription service for its coverage of the Rio Olympics makes it the first free-to-air broadcaster in Australia to charge for broadcasting sport.Marc C-Scott, Lecturer in Screen Media, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/207012013-12-02T19:30:13Z2013-12-02T19:30:13ZPolitical favours and the rights of TV sport audiences<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36577/original/js6prg2f-1385939332.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Rupert Murdoch may look to a more sympathetic government for reform to the anti-siphoning list of sporting events.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Drew Angerer</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As the dust settles after a decisive change of government, it is time for the main support players to <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/murdoch-wants-his-pound-of-flesh-20131105-2wzhs.html">call in their favours</a>. Among the cheerleaders for a Coalition government, none was more vocal than the Murdoch media, which <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-2013-the-role-of-the-media-17543">subjected a wounded Labor government</a> to a barrage of obstreperous tabloid <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/05/daily-telegraph-election-australia">front pages</a>, relentless broadsheet criticism, and a constant stream of syndicated hostility across its many platforms.</p>
<p>News Corp Australia was not shy about being led from the top in this campaign. Chairman Rupert Murdoch <a href="https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/349904086902116353">took to Twitter</a> (with a characteristic apostrophic error) in June to declare:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Australian public now totally disgusted with Labor Party wrecking country with it’s [sic] sordid intrigues. Now for a quick election.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>With mission accomplished, and after Murdoch’s Lowy Institute <a href="http://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/2013-annual-lowy-lecture-address-rupert-murdoch-ac">pep talk</a> on “Australian values” and “the key drivers of prosperity: trade, technology and free market” last month, attention has turned to the juicy concessions that might be extracted from a sympathetic government.</p>
<p>Australians need look no further than their multiplying television, computer, tablet and mobile screens. With an <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-ashes-where-the-indigestible-meets-the-indelible-20057">Ashes series</a> in full swing and Australian Open tennis around the corner, many will engage in the languid summer pursuit of television sport viewing. </p>
<p>As I have <a href="https://theconversation.com/sport-citizenship-and-the-right-to-watch-the-boxing-day-test-from-your-couch-11410">previously written</a>, Australians live in a country with the world’s strongest anti-siphoning provisions, which prevent “events of national importance and cultural significance” – in Australia that means sport events like football grand finals, the Ashes, Melbourne Cup, Olympics and Wimbledon – from being exclusively shown on pay-TV.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36579/original/wg3wqc49-1385940211.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36579/original/wg3wqc49-1385940211.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=964&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36579/original/wg3wqc49-1385940211.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=964&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36579/original/wg3wqc49-1385940211.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=964&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36579/original/wg3wqc49-1385940211.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1211&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36579/original/wg3wqc49-1385940211.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1211&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36579/original/wg3wqc49-1385940211.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1211&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Ashes cricket series is prevented from being exclusively shown on pay-TV in Australia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dave Hunt</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Watching significant national sporting events on television free of charge can be regarded as a right of cultural citizenship. This means that no-one can be involuntarily excluded from participating in popular national rituals on the grounds that they cannot afford the price of entry – in this case, a pay-TV subscription.</p>
<p>But this sport-loving television audience is a great economic prize. In his 1996 pre-tweeting days, Rupert Murdoch famously told shareholders that “sport absolutely overpowers film and everything else in the entertainment genre”, creating a need to:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…use sports as a battering ram and a lead offering in all our pay television operations. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Live sport is the most successful attractor of pay-TV subscribers, and doubly so when it is exclusive – as is the case with soccer and Ashes cricket in the UK, and rugby union in New Zealand.</p>
<p>In my current research on sport and cultural citizenship, interviewees repeatedly confirm that sport was crucial in their decision to subscribe to Foxtel. However, from the point of view of pay-TV bosses, there are just not enough paying customers, with subscribing households remaining stubbornly <a href="http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2012/09/pay-tv-exec-concedes-foxtel-facing-an-affordability-issue.html">around the 30% level</a>. Viewers clearly need more “encouragement” than the usual letterbox special offers. Migrating favourite sports events from free-to-air to pay-TV would certainly be a potent push factor.</p>
<p>So, with some solid political capital in the bank, the main Australian pay-TV players are <a href="http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-business/foxtel-boss-wants-fewer-media-regulations-20131125-2y5pm.html">lobbying in earnest</a> to reduce the scope of the current list of protected free-to-air sport events. Under the previous Labor government, following the <a href="https://secure.ausport.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/405850/ReviewReport.pdf">2010 Sport on Television Review</a>, limits to free-to-air TV “hoarding” the rights to sports that they didn’t broadcast were introduced, along with sport event tiers with different levels of protection.</p>
<p>But despite its submissions to the inquiry, the pay-TV industry did not achieve a major reduction in the size of the anti-siphoning list or de-throne “old” television in the media sport marketplace. The most active organisations currently agitating for change – Foxtel (co-owned by Telstra and News Corp Australia) and Fox Sports (wholly owned by News Corp Australia) – are reportedly targeting the delisting of overseas sport events. </p>
<p>These events include US Open tennis and US Masters golf, the Ashes in England, and overseas matches involving the national teams of the men’s football codes, the Socceroos, Wallabies and Kangaroos. Splitting the bidding processes for free-to-air and pay-TV rights to remove the dominant “gatekeeper” market role of the networks is <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/pay-tv-calls-for-sport-rights-rejig/story-e6frfkp9-1226767298428">also being urged</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36580/original/2h8ch3pm-1385940492.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36580/original/2h8ch3pm-1385940492.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=822&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36580/original/2h8ch3pm-1385940492.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=822&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36580/original/2h8ch3pm-1385940492.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=822&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36580/original/2h8ch3pm-1385940492.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1033&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36580/original/2h8ch3pm-1385940492.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1033&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36580/original/2h8ch3pm-1385940492.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1033&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">English Premier League soccer is broadcast exclusively on pay-TV in the UK, attracting many subscribers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Gerry Penny</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The pay-TV companies argue that these moves would be popular with sports bodies by generating more TV income, and would also recognise the coming digital post-broadcast environment in which sport can be accessed on all manner of screens.</p>
<p>Sports, though, are not always the best guardians of national cultural citizenship when tempted by media gold. For example, much is made of the financial enrichment of England cricket after Sky Sports acquired its exclusive live rights from 2006 onwards. But rather less is heard of the substantial <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/engvaus2009/content/story/422272.html">falls in viewership</a> – the 2009 Ashes series peak of two million viewers was barely a quarter of the 2005 viewership on Channel Four. It <a href="http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/ratings/englands-dramatic-ashes-win-delivers-13m/5058297.article">fell further</a> to 1.3 million in the 2013 series.</p>
<p>One <a href="http://historyhub.ie/the-impact-of-pay-tv-on-sport">researcher</a> explains the universal fall in viewership when a sport moves to pay-TV:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>People who are older or poorer or who live in rural areas are substantially less likely to be able to watch it, regardless of their interest in or commitment to that sport. But, even in cities, significantly fewer people watch sport on pay-TV than watch it on free-to-air channels.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In a recently co-edited <a href="http://www.taylorandfrancis.com/books/details/9780415886031/">book</a> on sport, television and cultural citizenship with contributions from North and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australasia and the Middle East, considerable regional/national variation was evident. Argentina recently “re-nationalised” soccer on television; there are inexpensive “show houses” for watching soccer in Africa; while Singapore charges premium prices for TV sport.</p>
<p>Last week, it was announced that the famous “Hockey Night in Canada” is secure on public broadcaster CBC for another four years, but that broadcast and digital rights of the National Hockey League are <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rogers-reaches-12-year-broadcast-deal-with-nhl-worth-52-billion/article15600412/#dashboard/follows/">now dominated</a> by Rogers Communications after a CAN$5.2 billion, 12-year deal.</p>
<p>In Australia, key constituents of the national cultural estate, such as the Ashes, are secure for the time being. But the heat is on the new government to show its gratitude by doctoring the TV sport pitch to favour its fair-weather friends.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/20701/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Rowe has received funding from the Australian Research Council for research on culture, media and sport, most recently: Handling the ‘Battering Ram’: Rupert Murdoch, News Corporation and the Global Contest for Dominance in Sports Television (DP0556973); Struggling for Possession: The Control and Use of Online Media Sport (with Brett Hutchins, DP0877777) and A Nation of ‘Good Sports’? Cultural Citizenship and Sport in Contemporary Australia (DP130104502)..</span></em></p>As the dust settles after a decisive change of government, it is time for the main support players to call in their favours. Among the cheerleaders for a Coalition government, none was more vocal than…David Rowe, Professor of Cultural Research, Western Sydney UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.