Foxtel boss Patrick Delany has taken aim at the anti-siphoning laws which give free-to-air networks an advantage when it comes to securing key sporting rights.
Australia’s anti-siphoning laws were introduced in 1992, as a way of making sure that key sporting and cultural events remained free to watch on television. These laws were written in the same year that the Australian Government called tenders for Australia’s first pay-TV licenses, as a safeguard against sporting events falling behind a paywall.
Therefore free-to-air networks are the only ones able to bid on broadcast rights for these key events, which Delany feels limits Foxtel’s ability to build its subscription base.
Delany feels, in 2022, these anti-siphoning laws are “stuck in a time warp” that ignores the fact that free-to-air networks also own paywalled subscription TV offerings.
“We are continually frustrated that the Foxtel’s traditional business is extraordinarily regulated,” Delany said.
“It’s regulated more than free-to-air, where the streamers are not regulated in any way. We always do the right thing.
“But at the same time, I think that the laws need to look at the public interest purpose, rather than just protecting free-to-air TV.
“What the regime protects is not true anymore. Free companies are winning rights of free sports events, but they’re pushing consumers to their paid outlets.
“It’s a fact that they don’t acquire free rights alone, they acquire free and paid rights, and they exploit them, and they push customers over to the paid side.”
This is true of Channel Nine who owns the rights to Rugby Union in this manner, broadcasting the games on the anti-siphoning on its free-to-air channel, who also touting Stan as the home of rugby union.
Ten is owned by conglomerate CBS, and controls the rights to the A-League soccer, which is primarily aired on Paramount+ – another CBS company, and a paid subscription service.
“We’re the only pay TV company in the world at 20 per cent penetration,” Delany said.
“That’s partly our own fault – paying too much for sport and so you have to have a very high retail price. But if the laws about being able to get it for free, then why should it be limited to a free-to-air licence? Why can’t it just be that you’re willing to offer it for free? The internet actually reaches more homes than terrestrial does.
“Why shouldn’t a company like ours have the right to bid for sports in an open process against those other companies who are paid TV companies, and we would commit to make those events that are truly iconic and available for free.”
