Free TV Australia calls for fast-tracking anti-siphoning law changes in response to Amazon Prime’s cricket rights acquisition.
Free TV Australia is advocating for the rapid amendment of the anti-siphoning laws, emphasizing the urgency to safeguard the Australian public’s access to live and complimentary sports broadcasts.
This push comes in the wake of the startling announcement that Amazon Prime has acquired exclusive Australian streaming rights for numerous International Cricket Council (ICC) events through 2027, including both men’s and women’s cricket World Cups, T20 World Cups, Champions Trophy, U19s, and the World Test Championship Final. This totals 448 live games from 2024 to 2027.
The deal notably includes both the Australian men’s and women’s national cricket teams, yet these events do not currently fall under the purview of the Federal Government’s Anti-Siphoning Legislation.
In a statement, Free TV CEO Bridget Fair remarked,
“We have been saying for years that streaming giants would be coming for our sports rights here in Australia and the acquisition of World Cup cricket by Amazon just proves the point.
“All Australians deserve the right to share our great sporting moments for free, and that right is in serious jeopardy. There is a real risk that more of our iconic sports events could be exclusively acquired by subscription streaming platforms that aren’t currently covered by the anti-siphoning rules. With cost-of-living pressures in overdrive, we cannot allow access to key sporting events to be dictated by what subscription services Australians can afford.
“The Government’s new Bill introduced last week to expand the current anti-siphoning rules to subscription streaming services is an important new measure, and this deal shows there is no time to waste in getting the Bill passed. The anti-siphoning rules urgently need to be updated to protect our access to live and free sport – it’s part of the Australian way of life.
“However the Bill has a glaring oversight with the failure to include free streaming rights in the proposed model. Australians should be able to watch key sporting events whether they choose to access their free TV services through terrestrial broadcast or online streaming, and this should be rectified before the Bill is passed.
“It might also be time to look at whether the limitation of cricket games on the list to those played in Australia or New Zealand is working for the Australian public. We should be able to watch our national team play no matter where the game is taking place.“
While I generally agree that it may be desirable to prevent certain events going behind a paywall, there are elements of this discussion not being reported:
1. FTA does not always have the best production of sports events because they put it in suboptimal places, where events are not in UHD format. This should be part of the requirements in the future. Also broadcasters should send their commentators to the event. We do notice when the broadcaster has commentators commentating from a studio. It isn’t as good.
2. Subscription television and streaming applications can offer content for free. This is the case with Kayo Freebies. I see no reason why FTA companies should get the benefit of the rights if they can be offered by subscription television and streaming applications for free.
By ignoring these points we are compromising the best coverage for the events and interfering with the market in a way that is not delivering a favourable outcome for the consumer – merely a favourable outcome for FTA.