Business

Apr 13, 2018

Is this $1 billion cricket deal all it’s cracked up to be?

After four decades, Nine has lost the broadcast rights to the cricket. But the deal might not be total cause for celebration for new rights holders Foxtel and Seven.

Glenn Dyer — <em>Crikey</em> business and media commentator

Glenn Dyer

Crikey business and media commentator

The two weakest members of Australian broadcast media -- Kerry Stokes’ Seven West Media and the Murdoch family’s newly merged Foxtel/Fox Sports -- will add more than $200 million a year to their already high-cost bases in winning the new cricket broadcast deal with Cricket Australia.

The much talked about deal will see Nine end its 40-year association with the game. Nine was reportedly losing more than $20-30 million a year on the cricket and only making a profit when the Ashes series rolls around (they'll still be broadcasting the upcoming 2019 series). The network has recently taken up partnership with Tennis Australia, snatching the right from Seven for $60 million a year (against the $40 million Seven was paying). More importantly, the $60 million will be less than the $80 million that Nine was paying Cricket Australia. 

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions

8 comments

Leave a comment

8 thoughts on “Is this $1 billion cricket deal all it’s cracked up to be?

  1. Jeremy Henderson

    In effect, this is a collusion to circumvent the intent of the anti-siphoning laws, which requires that a pay tv operator “will not acquire the right to televise, on a subscription television broadcasting service, an event that is specified unless a national broadcaster has the right to televise the event on any of its broadcasting services”.
    At present ODIs and T20Is played in Asutralia and involving Australia are included on the anti-siphoning list.
    If this deal is accepted by whoever the relevant regulator is, it effectively means that every event on the anti-siphoning list can be onsold by any FTA broadcaster for exclusive coverage by a pay tv broadcaster. What would Foxtel be prepared to pay Channel 7 for exclusive coverage of the AFL Grand Final???

  2. Mr B Barry

    One billion from a TV network that allows them to broadcast boring cricket?
    No wonder the game is rotten to the core. There will be millions of Australians who are fed up with the game of cricket becoming nothing more than a commercial venture to make money for top management and cheating players.
    Like Rugby League, Cricket has now become a boring turn-off. No wonder more people are turning to Optus fetch where you can watch a whole TV series or movies without ad breaks. Or the turn-off from watching multi millionaire cheaters playing cricket, or the grubs, thugs, and drugs of Rugby League.

  3. old greybearded one

    That should stuff the cricket. Seven is a bloody awful sports broadcaster at Olympic and Commonwealth level. Poor production and dimwit announcers.

    1. Jeremy Henderson

      The mute button is your friend! As long as Whitelinewireless and ABC grandstand keep covering it, there will be an alternative.

      1. Coral SeeNQ

        Until Rupert and gang turn up the toes, Cricket on the radio is the only place safe from him (so far). Good thinking, though I will check in on the new lot at Seven to see just how bad it can get. For a laugh or a curse or two as the case may be. Sad

    2. Wallywonga

      Yes agree. Channel 7 surely would win the most naf award of all the FTAs; their commentary during the c’wealth games has been cringeworthy, and including saturation advertising of putrid shows like “My Kitchen Rules”.
      Maybe 9’s worst commentator, Michael Clarke, will migrate, and offer the most fitting climax to this tragedy.

      1. Jeremy Henderson

        I seriously contest that assessment – none of the Channel 9 lot comes close to Ian Healy for dreadfulness, except when they let KP or Vaughan sneak in! It would be so refreshing if they could actually concentrate on professional broadcasters with knowledge and skills, rather than narcissistic ex-cricketers who could play well, but are dreadful behind a mic.

  4. Les Malo

    I don’t think Netflix is owned by Nine. Typo?

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...