Watching sport on television and other screens is integral to the cultural life of many Australians.
This is why the anti-siphoning system was introduced in 1995 to ensure that “events of national importance and cultural significance” in sports were not broadcast exclusively on pay television at the expense of free-to-air broadcasts. .
Since then, there have been major changes in television, and the laws of this analogue era have become increasingly out of touch with the landscape of modern digital media.
Importantly, under the current definition, streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon are not subject to the regime that restricts subscription broadcasters such as Foxtel.
The federal government has promised to review the anti-siphon system ahead of the 2022 election. The subsequent Communications Law Amendment (Conspicuousness and Anti-Siphoning) Bill 2023 aims to fill the “regulatory gap” that has developed within media law since Netflix launched in Australia in 2015.
The Senate referred the bill to the Environmental Communications Legislative Committee. The report has just been released and will help shape Australians' access to sports media content.
The importance of standing out
“Prominence” refers to the ease with which individual media applications, such as Netflix and 9Now, are discoverable on the smart TV's user homepage.
The federal government is troubled by the fact that Australia's free-to-air TV is effectively being “buried” as foreign services such as YouTube and Amazon become readily available on smart TVs through commercial license agreements.
Public broadcaster SBS, for example, claimed in a Senate hearing that a TV manufacturer demanded a listing fee for listing on TV homepages and a 15% share of the revenue.
Standing out in sports is very important. Because although anti-siphoning laws are in general decline, free-to-air television remains the most effective, low-cost, and quick way to bring premium sports to the masses. This is because it is based on the principle that it is a means of access. Australian family.
Read more: Regardless of the rules, the sports world is running away from free pay TV and could cause an avalanche
siphon prevention
Although often criticized as anti-competitive by subscription media companies and many sports, anti-siphoning laws have a lot to do with the continued availability of free major sports on TV.
In a harbinger of risks to come, free-to-air coverage of the World Cup will disappear from television between 2024 and 2027 after the International Cricket Council signed an exclusive four-year deal with streaming platform Amazon.
The AFL reportedly held talks with Amazon in 2022 as part of media rights negotiations.
Loopholes in this plan are increasingly being exploited. The issue came to light in 2018 when his one-day international cricket match for Australia took place behind a paywall despite being listed as a free-to-air event. .
As Foxtel said at the Senate hearing, both Nine (Stan) and Ten (Paramount+) are now hybrid networks, allowing them to move their acquired sports from free-to-air to behind streaming paywalls. .
Currently, free-to-air networks cannot be forced to acquire the rights to sports, broadcast them if they acquire the rights, or refrain from selling them to paid platforms.
What are the implications for sports and other viewers?
The majority of the Senate report broadly supported the federal government's existing exposure draft.
In terms of visibility, this means that when you turn on your new smart TV, the free-to-air channel “tiles” will be very noticeable. The Committee recommended that the Prominence Framework be phased in over 12 months. This only applies to new TVs.
The committee also broadly accepted the bill's anti-siphon provisions, which affect where and what fans watch sports.
First, the listed events will be expanded by 30% to include more women's and para sports. This includes the AFLW and NRLW finals, the NRLW State of Origin Championships and the Summer Paralympics.
To provide an offset to subscription broadcasters, sporting events not acquired by free-to-air broadcasters will be made available on subscription platforms more quickly (12 months instead of 6 months before the event starts). Months ago). This gives subscription platforms faster implementation time to plan, organize, and promote content schedules.
The most controversial recommendation concerned the scope of anti-siphoning laws, which will impact how Australian viewers access sport in the medium term.
It supported the government's position that anti-siphoning should apply only to terrestrial broadcasting, citing undue competitive advantage. This does not include digital rights for live streaming via broadcast video on demand apps such as 9Now, Seven+, iView and SBS On Demand.
Private free-to-air broadcasters estimate that by 2027, 50% of households will watch TV online, calling it a “nightmare scenario”.
For viewers who don't have a TV connected to an antenna, this could make major sporting events unavailable on free-to-air TV. Although terrestrial TV remains the most widespread sports screen, antennas are no longer routinely installed in new homes.
However, an investigation by the Australian Communications and Media Authority shows that the free-to-air networks' claims that their TV antennas have disappeared are somewhat exaggerated. Nevertheless, strategic compromises around broadcast video-on-demand apps will inevitably come under scrutiny, as modernization was the main justification for anti-siphon reforms.
Significantly, in the opposition minority report, the Greens complained that the bill did not go far enough in terms of spotlighting or preventing siphoning. They reserved the right to refuse it unless it was suitably amended to ensure that global companies could not acquire Australian sporting rights.
Read more: TV networks are holding us back from the future
What happens next?
The amended bill will need to be passed by Congress in order to become law, but its final form and the fate of the amendments are still unclear.
It is widely, if not universally, acknowledged that action is needed to protect free on-screen sports viewing, but there are heated opinions among competing interest groups about what to do now and in the future. Differences remain.
To protect viewer interest, Australian sports fans need to watch these highly specialized debates as closely as they watch their favorite sports contests.
