RSS Feed
Twitter
Over the last year some of Australia’s media heavyweights have fought a high-stakes battle over the television rights to sports coverage. In one corner was ASTRA, the Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association (chaired by ex-Victorian ALP Premier Steve Bracks), most of the major Australian sports associations and Fox Sports. In the opposing corner were Free TV Australia (representing all of Australia's commercial free-to-air television licensees including channels Seven, Nine and Ten) and the Keep Sport Free campaign (chaired by ex-Queensland ALP Premier Wayne Goss). The referee was the Federal Communications Minister Stephen Conroy.
According to Conroy his job was to ensure a balance between the two sides. The only problem is that you would think his actual job as an elected representative would be to push a third agenda - that of the Australian people. Considering 70% of Australian people do not have pay TV, surely someone should be putting in a few right hooks for us. As predicted, Conroy achieved a balance between the giant media powers managing to give both sides a large purse for just turning up.
The bout was to be contested over a list of sporting events. A short but powerful list which dictates the sports events that must be offered to free-to-air networks before the pay TV networks. If the free-to-air networks decide not to bid for these rights twelve weeks prior to the event, pay TV networks are able to bid. The list was introduced by the Keating Government in 1994 to stop pay TV networks from exclusively obtaining the rights for major sporting events and siphoning them off from free-to-air TV. Anti-siphoning has generally been seen as a socially responsible scheme to ensure major sports events are accessible to people who can not afford pay TV.
Kerry Packer was one of the driving forces behind efforts to introduce the scheme in the first place and while social responsibility was a concomitant consequence, the scheme was also a huge win for the free-to-air commercial networks. They have benefited greatly from the anti-siphoning rules, enabling them to win the rights for valuable sporting events at a lower price. Hence the opposition by the sports associations who believe they will be able attract higher bids for their product if the market is opened up to pay TV. However, it is extra money that they could lose on sponsorships if broadcasting is restricted to a smaller audience.
Every few years the anti-siphoning list is reviewed. The current list expires on 31 December 2010 and a decision is expected to be finalised in the new year.
Throughout 2010 the stakeholders weaved, ducked and lobbied their way around the ring with a few pitty-pat punches from Goss and Bracks. Then suddenly some of the prize fighters changed sides part way through. Media tycoons James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch started off in the pay TV corner - both owning significant shares in Foxtel through their respective companies. In October 2010 news broke that Packer had acquired an 18% share in Channel Ten (which runs the free-to-air digital sports channel One HD). Packer then sold half of his shares to Murdoch and both have since accepted seats on the Channel Ten board. In the few weeks after this announcement Conroy released his review on the anti-siphoning scheme, “Sport on Television” outlining his plans for a two tier system to allow free-to-air-channels to use their digital channels to broadcast listed events for the first time. This was a huge win for the free-to-air networks, particularly Channel Ten who has the only digital all sports channel. Victory is sweet for the billionaires who now also profit from this decision.
Murdoch also owns 9% of the regional Prime Network and one of Packer’s closest friends, David Gyngell runs Nine. So this group of rich mates had media in Australia all wrapped up nicely in time for Christmas.
It seems that Stephen Conroy, far from being the independent referee, has been trying out to be corner man for the billionaire mates. Conroy did nothing to stop the blatant conflict of interest in the Channel Ten Murdoch-Packer deal (given they also own significant shares in One HD’s only competitor in the Australian market, Fox Sports). In the anti-siphoning review, Conroy announced that he intended to remove thirteen sports events from the anti-siphoning list and add only three. That is thirteen more events able to be siphoned off to pay TV. The list includes the French Open tennis, early rounds of Wimbledon, netball games played by Australia outside Australia, some rugby test matches and some rugby league test matches.
If you’re wondering where the ABC’s role is in all of this then don’t look at Conroy for a backbone. His review took little notice of the ABC’s submission, treating them like a palooka. The review rejected the notion the ABC put forward that communications laws should support under-promoted sports such as women’s sport and the Paralympics. No changes proposed in the review favour the ABC or SBS. If funded properly these networks could further assist in ensuring a wide variety of sports are broadcast live rather than the Australian public being saturated with AFL, NRL and cricket. Instead, Conroy committed $250 million to Seven, Nine and Ten in February this year to top up their profits.
Unfortunately the future looks no brighter for sports viewers as we see a shorter anti-siphoning list to take us through the next few years. A number of sports will either continue to be shown on expensive pay TV channels with little chance of becoming more accessible or taken from free-to-air and shown on pay TV. All this as part of an Australian media which has a more concentrated ownership than ever. As you’d expect when opposing teams and the referee join forces part way through the match, the fans won’t get much of a show.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
It’s that time of the year again – time for netball fans to get out their magnifying glasses and search through the papers for the results of the ANZ Netball Championships. Sunday’s grand final between the Adelaide Thunderbirds and the Waikato Magic had everything – the best goal shooter in the world, Australia-New Zealand rivalry and a great narrative with both teams going for their first championship win.
And yet, the game was allocated barely 400 words in The Australian newspaper.
Netball is looking slicker than ever. It has been the most played social sport in Australia for years but with the launch of the ANZ Championships trans-Tasman league in 2008, the game took off at the elite level. Bigger sponsors have allowed more players to become professional and the longer hours in the gym have translated to players who are faster, stronger and more entertaining than ever. Games are being televised in a polished format on One HD with the aid of $400 000 from the Federal Government.
If netball is anything to go by, surely women’s sport is on a positive trajectory. Surely it’s only a matter of time before women’s sport receives the recognition it deserves and features equally amongst the back pages of the paper with the men’s football codes and men’s cricket. However, in the US, sports like women's college basketball have not been able to break through to this level of coverage despite massive crowds and an enormous fan base.
In fact, a recent US study has shown that over the last ten years coverage of women’s sport has actually decreased. The researchers recorded amount of time evening news programs spent reporting on women’s sport. They found that the time allocated to women’s sport decreased from 8.7% of all sports coverage in 1999 to around 1.6% in 2009. The recorded coverage even included instances when female partners of male sports stars were mentioned.
Coverage of women’s sport prior to 1999 had been increasing steadily and few people would have expected the drop seen in the last ten years.
The report is shocking and the owners of the media outlets around the world who continue to shun women’s sport should be ashamed. Fans of women’s sport and opponents of women’s oppression have a long fight ahead. The undeniable sexism that exists in areas like women’s sport will not automatically disappear. In fact the US study has shown that without added pressure on the owners of news networks women’s sport could tragically lose ground.
And yet, the game was allocated barely 400 words in The Australian newspaper.
Netball is looking slicker than ever. It has been the most played social sport in Australia for years but with the launch of the ANZ Championships trans-Tasman league in 2008, the game took off at the elite level. Bigger sponsors have allowed more players to become professional and the longer hours in the gym have translated to players who are faster, stronger and more entertaining than ever. Games are being televised in a polished format on One HD with the aid of $400 000 from the Federal Government.
If netball is anything to go by, surely women’s sport is on a positive trajectory. Surely it’s only a matter of time before women’s sport receives the recognition it deserves and features equally amongst the back pages of the paper with the men’s football codes and men’s cricket. However, in the US, sports like women's college basketball have not been able to break through to this level of coverage despite massive crowds and an enormous fan base.
In fact, a recent US study has shown that over the last ten years coverage of women’s sport has actually decreased. The researchers recorded amount of time evening news programs spent reporting on women’s sport. They found that the time allocated to women’s sport decreased from 8.7% of all sports coverage in 1999 to around 1.6% in 2009. The recorded coverage even included instances when female partners of male sports stars were mentioned.
Coverage of women’s sport prior to 1999 had been increasing steadily and few people would have expected the drop seen in the last ten years.
The report is shocking and the owners of the media outlets around the world who continue to shun women’s sport should be ashamed. Fans of women’s sport and opponents of women’s oppression have a long fight ahead. The undeniable sexism that exists in areas like women’s sport will not automatically disappear. In fact the US study has shown that without added pressure on the owners of news networks women’s sport could tragically lose ground.
Friday, July 2, 2010
For those of us who thought we’d never have to see John Howard again after he was turfed out of Australian parliament in spectacular fashion in 2007, the news in January this year that he may be heading up the International Cricket Council came as a nasty shock. It seems that Howard’s $330,000 pension, free travel, office and car that he receives for the rest of his life at tax payer’s expense weren’t enough. Howard wanted his dream job - President of the International Cricket Council.
Although Howard’s bowling action resembles Monty Burns and he has no cricket administration experience, when the Cricket Australia board (which includes Howard’s former Defence Minister, Ian McLachlan) came knocking looking for someone to stand up to the clout of India, Howard, being a self-confessed cricket tragic, was more than happy to oblige.
Unfortunately for Howard and Cricket Australia the racist policies he pushed as a politician have come back to bite.
In 2007 Howard banned the Zimbabwe cricket team from touring Australia in opposition to Mugabe’s regime. Although not hypocritical in itself, when you consider that in the 1980’s Howard opposed economic sanctions against apartheid South Africa, it is no wonder that the nations involved in the ICC are dubious.
While Prime Minister, Howard called Sri Lankan cricketer Muralitharan a chucker even though repeated scientific tests proved that his bowling action was legal. Howard also chimed in on a controversial match between Pakistan and England, supporting Australian umpire Darrell Hair in his decision to award the match to England amongst ball-tampering accusations.
It is not clear which objections caused some members of the ICC to block Howard as no official explanations have been given. From his harsh stance on asylum seekers to his support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, any number of Howard’s racist policies may have been factors.
Howard’s lack of cricket administration experience was unlikely to be the reason he was blocked. The newly appointed ICC President from India, Sharad Pawar, is also a politician who has a limited cricket background.
In the end only the three “white nations” on the ICC supported Howard’s nomination – England, New Zealand and Australia. Six nations - India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, South Africa and the West Indies signed a letter in opposition to Howard’s appointment. Zimbabwe did not have to offer an opinion since no vote was taken.
It is no wonder Howard felt well qualified to take up the reins of the ICC since its history is steeped in racism. Australia, England and South Africa established the very white Imperial Cricket Council in 1909. South Africa was disallowed membership from the 1960’s but Australia and England continued to run the ICC together as its only foundation members, having veto over all decisions of the ICC and displaying an elitist view towards the other nations. After several years of applying Sri Lanka was the first country to be allowed full membership in 1981.
Howard’s rejection has caused an outcry amongst Australian sports commentators who believe the move is “disrespectful” to Australia and a power-play by India. While certainly a power-play on all sides, Howard’s rejection is far from disrespectful. The Indian press are right in pointing out that it was insensitive for a country like Australia with a long history of racism, including recent inaction around the attacks on Indian students, to nominate a candidate with Howard’s record.
The ICC’s Presidential appointments operate on a rotating basis. This year it is Australasia’s turn to nominate a candidate for Vice President for the next two years who will then be appointed President for the following two years. Australia and New Zealand have been told by the ICC to find someone else. Let’s hope they accept the objections of the other cricketing nations and keep Howard watching from the sidelines.
Although Howard’s bowling action resembles Monty Burns and he has no cricket administration experience, when the Cricket Australia board (which includes Howard’s former Defence Minister, Ian McLachlan) came knocking looking for someone to stand up to the clout of India, Howard, being a self-confessed cricket tragic, was more than happy to oblige.
Unfortunately for Howard and Cricket Australia the racist policies he pushed as a politician have come back to bite.
In 2007 Howard banned the Zimbabwe cricket team from touring Australia in opposition to Mugabe’s regime. Although not hypocritical in itself, when you consider that in the 1980’s Howard opposed economic sanctions against apartheid South Africa, it is no wonder that the nations involved in the ICC are dubious.
While Prime Minister, Howard called Sri Lankan cricketer Muralitharan a chucker even though repeated scientific tests proved that his bowling action was legal. Howard also chimed in on a controversial match between Pakistan and England, supporting Australian umpire Darrell Hair in his decision to award the match to England amongst ball-tampering accusations.
It is not clear which objections caused some members of the ICC to block Howard as no official explanations have been given. From his harsh stance on asylum seekers to his support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, any number of Howard’s racist policies may have been factors.
Howard’s lack of cricket administration experience was unlikely to be the reason he was blocked. The newly appointed ICC President from India, Sharad Pawar, is also a politician who has a limited cricket background.
In the end only the three “white nations” on the ICC supported Howard’s nomination – England, New Zealand and Australia. Six nations - India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, South Africa and the West Indies signed a letter in opposition to Howard’s appointment. Zimbabwe did not have to offer an opinion since no vote was taken.
It is no wonder Howard felt well qualified to take up the reins of the ICC since its history is steeped in racism. Australia, England and South Africa established the very white Imperial Cricket Council in 1909. South Africa was disallowed membership from the 1960’s but Australia and England continued to run the ICC together as its only foundation members, having veto over all decisions of the ICC and displaying an elitist view towards the other nations. After several years of applying Sri Lanka was the first country to be allowed full membership in 1981.
Howard’s rejection has caused an outcry amongst Australian sports commentators who believe the move is “disrespectful” to Australia and a power-play by India. While certainly a power-play on all sides, Howard’s rejection is far from disrespectful. The Indian press are right in pointing out that it was insensitive for a country like Australia with a long history of racism, including recent inaction around the attacks on Indian students, to nominate a candidate with Howard’s record.
The ICC’s Presidential appointments operate on a rotating basis. This year it is Australasia’s turn to nominate a candidate for Vice President for the next two years who will then be appointed President for the following two years. Australia and New Zealand have been told by the ICC to find someone else. Let’s hope they accept the objections of the other cricketing nations and keep Howard watching from the sidelines.
Rugby League star Timana Tahu has quit the NSW State of Origin team after assistant coach, Andrew Johns, made a racist comment during training.
While leading a team training session analysing video footage of Aboriginal player Greg Inglis, Johns reportedly told NSW players, “You must shut that black c… down.”
It is believed that Tahu privately simmered over Johns’ comments for two days before he decided to quit the NSW team in protest. While Tahu is being hailed as a hero, and rightly so, Johns has quit his coaching role and apologised.
Rugby League players have rallied around Johns, criticising his comments but reassuring us that he is not a racist. It’s time for these players to get real - if John’s actions don’t make him a racist then I don’t know what does.
Tahu isn’t the first Rugby League player outraged by racism in the game. Anthony Mundine fought a drawn out battle to pursue Barry Ward for racist taunts he made in 1998. Ward was eventually fined $10 000 by the sport which was later halved. Mundine was outraged. In 2009 after a series of similar racist sledges against other players, Mundine called on the ARL to take more action to stamp out racism in the sport.
Although players like Mundine have stood up time and time again and lodged complaints against racist slurs on the field, Tahu’s resignation has shone the spotlight well and truly on racism in sport and commentators are predicting that this will be a watershed moment for League.
It is no surprise that racism is alive and well in sport today. Sports players’ behaviour reflect society’s and with the continued discrimination of Aboriginal people by the Rudd Government including the expansion of the racist Northern Territory Intervention, racism is alive and well in Australian society. By continuing discrimination from the top, racist comments like those from Johns are legitimised.
Tahu joins a long list of courageous sportspeople including Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali, Tommie Smith and John Carlos who have stood up against racism and made an impact in the wider community.
With Tahu’s protest making headline news around the country, let’s hope that his actions inspire others to stand up against injustices, even if it takes courage and sacrifice.
While leading a team training session analysing video footage of Aboriginal player Greg Inglis, Johns reportedly told NSW players, “You must shut that black c… down.”
It is believed that Tahu privately simmered over Johns’ comments for two days before he decided to quit the NSW team in protest. While Tahu is being hailed as a hero, and rightly so, Johns has quit his coaching role and apologised.
Rugby League players have rallied around Johns, criticising his comments but reassuring us that he is not a racist. It’s time for these players to get real - if John’s actions don’t make him a racist then I don’t know what does.
Tahu isn’t the first Rugby League player outraged by racism in the game. Anthony Mundine fought a drawn out battle to pursue Barry Ward for racist taunts he made in 1998. Ward was eventually fined $10 000 by the sport which was later halved. Mundine was outraged. In 2009 after a series of similar racist sledges against other players, Mundine called on the ARL to take more action to stamp out racism in the sport.
Although players like Mundine have stood up time and time again and lodged complaints against racist slurs on the field, Tahu’s resignation has shone the spotlight well and truly on racism in sport and commentators are predicting that this will be a watershed moment for League.
It is no surprise that racism is alive and well in sport today. Sports players’ behaviour reflect society’s and with the continued discrimination of Aboriginal people by the Rudd Government including the expansion of the racist Northern Territory Intervention, racism is alive and well in Australian society. By continuing discrimination from the top, racist comments like those from Johns are legitimised.
Tahu joins a long list of courageous sportspeople including Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali, Tommie Smith and John Carlos who have stood up against racism and made an impact in the wider community.
With Tahu’s protest making headline news around the country, let’s hope that his actions inspire others to stand up against injustices, even if it takes courage and sacrifice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
