0
0
The introduction of pay-TV in the 1990s raised high-level political concerns that the Australian public would no longer be able to access major sporting events via free television. Pay-TV operators believed they had more resources to monetize events like the Australian Football League (AFL) Grand Final, the Melbourne Cup and the Olympics.
The changing landscape of sports broadcasting over the past 30 years means siphon protection lists are no longer the most effective way to ensure free access to Australia’s major sporting events.
The following points are particularly important:
As the broadcast market is fragmented, anti-siphon auctions will limit competition from the first target.
As such, more needs to be done to ensure Australians have some access to a variety of sports and to address consumer satisfaction, including the societal benefits of a greater presence in sport, women’s and Paralympics sports.
Many sports fans have turned to pay TV or streaming services due to the freedom of choice, the ever-increasing lack of content and advertising.
· Legal basis
The anti-siphon list was created under the 무료스포츠중계 Services Act 1992 to allow free viewing of certain sporting events. The listing was clearly seen as a “free kick” for the network, but public backlash ensued when the two television channels decided not to broadcast the UK sessions and the UK Men’s Australian Cricket Tour in South Africa respectively.
Changes were later made to “encourage public service broadcasters to only acquire live broadcasting rights for a set of specific events or events that could actually be exploited”. The work is made available to two national broadcasters (ABC or SBS) for a nominal fee. Streaming rights are only available to pay TV providers after all free streaming options have been exhausted.
· Is the ad anti-competitive?
The Efficiency Board (Commission) reviewed this list in 2000 and found it to be proprietary and anti-competitive. The council noted that the stocks are at a disadvantage as they reduce the bargaining power of sports organizations when selling broadcasting rights to their products. The benefits of registration do not outweigh the costs passed on to broadcasters, sports organizations or the general public. Despite the commission’s findings, the list has become a political tool, with opposition parties claiming that “if they can’t watch their favorite sport on TV, Australians will know who to blame”.
· Technological innovations
The sports broadcasting landscape has expanded significantly over the past 20 years with the advent of streaming and multi-channel services. Communications Secretary Paul Fletcher recently delayed the expiration of the list by two years. This means that the current list is valid until at least April 2023. However, this extension does not fix a potential vulnerability that could enable streaming services like Kayo or Stan Sports. Legal “siphon” events listed after the pay wall (unlike pay-TV providers like Foxtel). The private nature of the census combined with the fragmentation of the media landscape shows that the census is no longer an effective legislative tool to guarantee Australians free access to major sporting events.
· Opportunities for reform
Technological advances since the listing present a greater opportunity to bring a wide audience of different sports closer to the public. As part of a broader media reform, we recommend removing it in favor of minimum content requirements. The proliferation of channels meant free-to-air networks were more flexible and less likely to delay events. In addition, these events can maintain or increase their commercial value thanks to Australians’ enthusiasm for sport.
