What's new

Cricket Australia profits plummet; Net result is down almost $100 million

MenInG

PakPassion Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Runs
218,167
Cricket Australia has posted a $9.7 million dollar surplus - down almost $100 million from last year.

But there's no panic in the organisation with the figure above budget after the record surplus in 2014-15 was fuelled by hosting the one-day World Cup.

The CA annual general meeting heard that this year's figure could also be attributed to reduced international media rights revenue in the current year.

Five of tjhe six states had recorded profits.

While finances were down, participation figures were up eight and a half per cent since 2014-15, placing cricket as the No.1 participation sport in Australia.

Female participation also reached record figures in 2015-16, growing nine per cent to 314,936.

That represented 24 per cent of all participants in the sport.

Crowds and television ratings were also at record levels.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/10/27/cricket-australia-profits-plummet
 
A slightly more upbeat version from CA....


Cricket Australia continues strong performance

Australian cricket continued to build on the success of last year's home ICC Cricket World Cup, with the past 12 months featuring records for attendance, TV viewing and online audiences, highlighting the game's position as the country's number one summer pastime.

At Cricket Australia’s Annual General Meeting, the sport’s governing body reported its net result of operations for the year ended 30 June 2016 - after grants to state associations of $106,259,550 (2015: $106,002,709) - was a surplus of $9,701,628 (2015: surplus $98,665,494).

The reduction in the net result was primarily driven by the 2014-15 financial year booking host profits from the Cricket World Cup (CWC), along with reduced international media rights revenue in the current year.

CA manages its finances over a four-year cycle to smooth out the annual fluctuations in broadcast revenue, which is based on whichever team is visiting Australia that summer.

As another summer approaches, the Commonwealth Bank Southern Stars are ranked the number one in the world. The Australian men, having recently lost number one Test ranking, are ranked three, one and five respectively across Test, One-Day International and T20 International cricket.

The AGM heard that 1,727,270 Australians attended international cricket, the KFC Big Bash League and the Rebel Women’s Big Bash League during 2015-16, making it the country’s most attended cricket season on record.

Cricket also became one of the most popular and highest participation sports, with a record 1,311,184 participating around the nation last year. The record saw an eight and a half per cent increase since 2014-15, currently placing cricket as the number one participation sport in Australia.

Female participation also reached record figures in 2015-16, growing nine per cent to 314,936. That represents 24 per cent of all participants in the sport and included 581 girls and women’s teams playing 11-a-side cricket at clubs.

An average of 1.3 million people tuned in to watch Test, ODI and T20 international matches broadcast on the Nine Network, and many more followed the action via cricket.com.au and the Cricket Australia Live App, with the highlight being the inaugural Day-Night Test at the Adelaide Oval last November.

The positive response by fans to that match was reflected by record crowds and television ratings, with the national TV audience for the third day peaking at 3.19 million viewers, making it the highest rating day in Nine’s 2015-16 Summer of Cricket. The average of 2.34 million viewers that took in the final session of the match made for the most watched non-Ashes Test session since ratings records began.

Test cricket in Australia consistently rated in the Top 10 television programs nationally throughout the summer, demonstrating the continued appeal of the game’s traditional format.

Complementing the strong results seen for international cricket, the KFC Big Bash League rose to unprecedented levels of popularity in its fifth year, with an average audience of more than 1 million Australians tuning in to watch the tournament on Network TEN, and a record breaking 1,030,495 people attending matches.

Fans across the country flocked to the BBL, with seven out of eight venues setting all-time domestic cricket attendance records, including an incredible 80,883 fans descending on the MCG for the Melbourne Stars vs. Melbourne Renegades clash on 2 January.

The Rebel Women’s Big Bash League also achieved impressive results in just its first season, with more than 70,000 attendees across the 10 broadcast matches in the tournament and an average television audience of 231,000 people watching matches on TEN and ONE. The TV audience peaked to 398,642 viewers during the 2 January Melbourne derby.

The 2015-16 season saw the popularity of Cricket Australia’s digital platforms continue to grow. The Cricket Australia network, including cricket.com.au, achieved a unique audience of more than one million (as measured by Nielsen) in December, to be the second most visited sports news site during the month and to cement its position as the second most popular sporting body website for the year. There was also a surge in video consumption, with nearly 100 million minutes streamed in total across all formats this season, up 20 per cent on last year.

Cricket Australia’s focus remains firmly on fostering diversity in cricket, including more investments into women and girl’s cricket, upgrading facilities, and developing talented players, coaches and umpires to reach elite levels.

More than 8,000 children across five states and one territory are trialling a new junior format, with shorter pitches and smaller playing areas. It is all about making the game easier to learn, introducing many more people to the joys of the sport.

Cricket Australia’s CEO, James Sutherland, said that a focus on continuing to invest in important strategic projects, as has been demonstrated this year, will continue.

“More people are interested in cricket than any other sport for the first time in recent memory, and research measuring Australian’s passion for sport shows that cricket inspires more passion than any other sport.

“We could not achieve our success without the commitment and hard work of around 50,000 volunteers, the cricketers, the cricket administration professionals across the State and Territory Cricket Associations and at Cricket Australia, and our broadcast and commercial partners.

“We plan to continue to build on this success and legacy of the World Cup with our focus on consolidating cricket as Australia’s favourite game and as a sport for all Australians.

“We have begun work on a new, formal strategic plan for launch in mid-2017. Earlier this year, we staged our second Australian Cricket Conference. That was about accelerating our progress, attracting and supporting females as community-level and elite-level players, and as fans to help ensure cricket is a sport for all Australians.

“Developing more sustainable high-performances is a major focus for the sport. To that end, Australian cricket is starting to reap the benefits of a better co-ordinated and more sharply focused high -performance approach. We know we have to find a way to win regularly when overseas.

“At a club level, the mindset about females playing the game has changed. Similarly, our participant base continues to better reflect the diverse nature of Australia’s population.

“The response from the Australian cricket community will change the dynamic of female participation in cricket right across the country, with more opportunities for girls to play cricket than ever before,” Mr Sutherland continued.

“The cricket community is determined to throw their support behind growing cricket for girls and women and continue to work towards making cricket clubs right across the nation more inclusive.

“Cricket has and will continue to lead the way on female athlete payments, and we are also investing heavily in female engagement through a newly formed Growing Cricket for Girls Fund.

“Whilst this year’s operating results are down on last year, we have and will continue to invest in the game at many levels and continue to realise the long-held desire to boost revenues, support our member associations with valuable funding and safeguard cricket for future generations,” concluded Mr Sutherland
 
Dhoni, Kholi & Co. with check in hand can fix this in a New York minute.
 
Good to see that Test matches are in the countrys top 10 TV national yearly ratings, with ODI and T20 not in the top 10. Seems that Australia and England Tests still reign supreme.
I wonder how in different countries Test matches rate on TV compared to ODI cricket, cos I feel fans are more likely to attend ODI or T20 for a night out with there mates, but prefer to watch Tests at home as its more serious and can focus better. For me I have gone to ODI's just for fun but I prefer Tests but I would never go to a Test cos I want to watch it properly on TV if that makes sense?
 
Good to see that Test matches are in the countrys top 10 TV national yearly ratings, with ODI and T20 not in the top 10. Seems that Australia and England Tests still reign supreme.
I wonder how in different countries Test matches rate on TV compared to ODI cricket, cos I feel fans are more likely to attend ODI or T20 for a night out with there mates, but prefer to watch Tests at home as its more serious and can focus better. For me I have gone to ODI's just for fun but I prefer Tests but I would never go to a Test cos I want to watch it properly on TV if that makes sense?
Hooray!

Proof that ODIs were watched after work/school only because Tests weren't available.
 
But there's no panic in the organisation with the figure above budget after the record surplus in 2014-15 was fuelled by hosting the one-day World Cup.

This is the key part to take note of before people reply after they only read the doom and gloom headline.

The board still made a profit, TV ratings and crowds are better than ever and more people are playing cricket than they did a year ago. Cricket is looking healthy down under.
 
What is more interesting is that CA is projecting a $68 million loss for 2016-17 despite the visits from South Africa and Pakistan. Getting to this from a $98 million profit in 2014-15.

So are the BCCI and Ashes bankrolling all other tours for CA?
 
What is more interesting is that CA is projecting a $68 million loss for 2016-17 despite the visits from South Africa and Pakistan. Getting to this from a $98 million profit in 2014-15.

So are the BCCI and Ashes bankrolling all other tours for CA?
England are a huge draw and Indian population and subsequent financial power obviously means that it's a very strong draw.

It depends on Pakistans competitiveness too. Pakistan have lost last ten tests straight in Aus so it's natural to see they aren't as big a draw rankings notwithstanding. But if there is a close first match who knows

Also in 2014-15 there was the Worlf cup obviously
 
This is so awesome:)

How are things turning out for England? Decline in popularity in that part of world worries me more than anything
 
So does this mean they will only invite those teams that makes them huge profits in future?
Cricket has become big money making phenomenon!
 
What is more interesting is that CA is projecting a $68 million loss for 2016-17 despite the visits from South Africa and Pakistan. Getting to this from a $98 million profit in 2014-15.

So are the BCCI and Ashes bankrolling all other tours for CA?

Yearly revenue is unstable but spending money based on your yearly income will hold you back.

So CA ramped up spending due to higher income in India and Ashes years and the spending remains the same during the smaller tours.

So counting profit/loss on a yearly basis is a bad idea because it is the four year cycle that matters.
 
Why they not doing it IPL style?

Could make a fortune selling rights to 3rd party companies who want to own teams.

Privately owned teams isn't the done thing in Australia and private owners will put in a lot of pressure to get the test players playing BBL etc.

There priorities will not necessarily be the same as cricket priorities.

Plus the states would never have agreed to it
 
Privately owned teams isn't the done thing in Australia and private owners will put in a lot of pressure to get the test players playing BBL etc.

There priorities will not necessarily be the same as cricket priorities.

Plus the states would never have agreed to it

What is popularity of cricket in Australia. It seems like most of the country is just only mildly interested in it.


The Aussies I've met here in Canada have had a quite a nonchalant attitude towards the sport. One guy I met right after the WC victory and was making small talk with, I said to him "Hey you guys just won the cricket world cup", and his reply was "yeah I heard about that". I was like lolwut..
 
What is popularity of cricket in Australia. It seems like most of the country is just only mildly interested in it.


The Aussies I've met here in Canada have had a quite a nonchalant attitude towards the sport. One guy I met right after the WC victory and was making small talk with, I said to him "Hey you guys just won the cricket world cup", and his reply was "yeah I heard about that". I was like lolwut..

Second biggest sport in every state and territory
 
What is popularity of cricket in Australia. It seems like most of the country is just only mildly interested in it.


The Aussies I've met here in Canada have had a quite a nonchalant attitude towards the sport. One guy I met right after the WC victory and was making small talk with, I said to him "Hey you guys just won the cricket world cup", and his reply was "yeah I heard about that". I was like lolwut..
Test cricket is popular and so are home ODIs.

Nobody cared about the World Cup even when it was happening - there was much more excitement in New Zealand!
 
Personally I am yet to meet a white fella who is mad about cricket.

I see them on TV, hear about them on news, read about them on papers, interact with a few on forums but in everyday life, they seem to be mythical creatures who are nowhere to be seen.
 
Last edited:
Personally I am yet to meet a white fella who is mad about cricket.

I see them on TV, hear about them on news, read about them on papers, interact with a few on forums but in everyday life, they seem to be mythical creatures who are nowhere to be seen.

You live in India
 
Second biggest sport in every state and territory

There doesn't seem to be the same passion and following as Rugby though, right? or footy, whatever you call it.

I haven't seen/met many Aussies too passionate about the game. Apart from this forum of course, which is an exception.

Personally I am yet to meet a white fella who is mad about cricket.

I see them on TV, hear about them on news, read about them on papers, interact with a few on forums but in everyday life, they seem to be mythical creatures who are nowhere to be seen.

How can you see or meet them in everyday life in Ind, sif? :danish
 
Mainland Europe, South America, North America, most of Africa, Central Asia and far east have no concept of cricket.

Even golf is more popular than cricket. Cricket is a very niche sport.
 
Personally I am yet to meet a white fella who is mad about cricket.

I see them on TV, hear about them on news, read about them on papers, interact with a few on forums but in everyday life, they seem to be mythical creatures who are nowhere to be seen.

come to think of it i haven't met one in ages either. certainly no one under the age of 40 who is cricket mad by sub cont levels.
 
I have a few Kiwi friends. Don't even know who Kane Williamson is. Could be a matter of chance though. #justsaying
 
A significant number of English, Australians and Kiwis don't care or follow Cricket.

Cricket is no longer the back page news in England unless something extraordinary happens and usually there is no news like Bad News.


The only real Cricket Mad country in the world is probably India.
 
Personally I am yet to meet a white fella who is mad about cricket.

I see them on TV, hear about them on news, read about them on papers, interact with a few on forums but in everyday life, they seem to be mythical creatures who are nowhere to be seen.

always wondered the same

of the 7-8 british folks i know well id say a good 5 dont even know the basic rules and the others just have some understanding. and they dont follow anything asides from ashes. (Ddint even know when WC was going on)

the handful of aussies i know do know abt cricket and can name the 2000s teams but certainly they dont follow it anywhere close to an average subcontinent guy.

only the white saffers ive met know whats going on and follow it.

kiwis havent interacted
 
always wondered the same

of the 7-8 british folks i know well id say a good 5 dont even know the basic rules and the others just have some understanding. and they dont follow anything asides from ashes. (Ddint even know when WC was going on)

the handful of aussies i know do know abt cricket and can name the 2000s teams but certainly they dont follow it anywhere close to an average subcontinent guy.

only the white saffers ive met know whats going on and follow it.

kiwis havent interacted

I too had a Saffer customer looking forward to the Indo-SA cricket series in 2013.

Apart from that....nothing.

Cricket is really not a respected sport at all. These days, I am happy if non desi people even know something like cricket exists.
 
My uni team had a Polish-English player and I saw a u-12 coach who was white and sounded Australian.

I always knew that we desis could only dominate in sports that others don't care too much about.
 
always wondered the same

of the 7-8 british folks i know well id say a good 5 dont even know the basic rules and the others just have some understanding. and they dont follow anything asides from ashes. (Ddint even know when WC was going on)

the handful of aussies i know do know abt cricket and can name the 2000s teams but certainly they dont follow it anywhere close to an average subcontinent guy.

only the white saffers ive met know whats going on and follow it.

kiwis havent interacted

In Britain it is socially determined.

International cricket was last broadcast live on free-to-air TV in 2005, and state schools were forced to sell their cricket fields by Thatcher in the 1980s.

So:

1) Most males born before 1970 like cricket, regardless of social class (e.g. Gary Lineker's dad had a market stall, but Gary was a keen fan).

2) Most white males who have attended private schools up to the present day like Test cricket.

3) Most Asian (but not Oriental) males like 20 and 50 overs cricket, but prefer football.

4) The lowest 70% of the social demographic (not privately educated, and not subscribing to Sky) born after 1975 find cricket as alien as golf or polo.

Australia is different. Cricket is what every family (other than Oriental, known as "Asian", or Italo-Australian or Greek-Australian) loves cricket of all forms, with women often as interested as men.

In New Zealand, the 70% Pakeha population follows cricket, the Pacific Islanders do to a degree and the Asians (Chinese) don't.
 
I live in the UK and there are hardly any white people interested in cricket. There is one at my workplace but I don't think he is that knowledge about the game.

There are a number of asians who follow the sport but most of them just look at the result and will follow Pakistan in the odd game.
 
Mainland Europe, South America, North America, most of Africa, Central Asia and far east have no concept of cricket.

Even golf is more popular than cricket. Cricket is a very niche sport.

The cricket WC is the third most watched event in the world after the football WC and the Olympics.

Yes, a lot of the audience is Indian, but there are few other sports that have an audience across nations. Maybe the Ryder Cup, but very few people really bother about that event. Maybe Formula 1, but that is more about which firm makes the best cars.
 
A significant number of English, Australians and Kiwis don't care or follow Cricket.

Cricket is no longer the back page news in England unless something extraordinary happens and usually there is no news like Bad News.


<b>The only real Cricket Mad country in the world is probably India.</b>

I know that a lot of Indians think that Nepalese, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans are really just another variety of Indians, but I believe it is not polite to say so openly :)
 
No wonder these countries are getting worse in cricket. Countries like Aus, SA are already batsmen short and NZ, Eng will follow. Ind, PK rising in rankings is one of the consequences.

In the end even the T20 format couldn't make the difference.
 
cricket is upper class in England isn't it?

I heard that in older times the batsmen would come from the upper classes and the fast bowlers from the lower classes. Apparently fast bowling was too vigorous for a thoughtful upper class man to indulge in.
 
No wonder these countries are getting worse in cricket. Countries like Aus, SA are already batsmen short and NZ, Eng will follow. Ind, PK rising in rankings is one of the consequences.

In the end even the T20 format couldn't make the difference.

How do you figure when the number of people playing, attending and watching cricket on tv in Australia is at record highs?
 
Every Aussie I know who is into sport follows cricket during the big events.

A general issue with subcontinental people is the assumption that most Caucasians are into sport. They aren't. A dedicated football follower from Asia for example knows a lot more about football teams and their current squads than 90% of Western Europeans. It is the same across sports.

Some of them could name players from their local club and Ronaldo/Messi but that's about it. Cricket does not even have the concept of clubs for that to happen.
 
In Britain it is socially determined.

International cricket was last broadcast live on free-to-air TV in 2005, and state schools were forced to sell their cricket fields by Thatcher in the 1980s.

So:

1) Most males born before 1970 like cricket, regardless of social class (e.g. Gary Lineker's dad had a market stall, but Gary was a keen fan).

2) Most white males who have attended private schools up to the present day like Test cricket.

3) Most Asian (but not Oriental) males like 20 and 50 overs cricket, but prefer football.

4) The lowest 70% of the social demographic (not privately educated, and not subscribing to Sky) born after 1975 find cricket as alien as golf or polo.

Australia is different. Cricket is what every family (other than Oriental, known as "Asian", or Italo-Australian or Greek-Australian) loves cricket of all forms, with women often as interested as men.

In New Zealand, the 70% Pakeha population follows cricket, the Pacific Islanders do to a degree and the Asians (Chinese) don't.

Reflects the opinion from many Britishers that cricket is a toff sport while the working class followed football. it doesn't help that playing cricket costs money.
 
Reflects the opinion from many Britishers that cricket is a toff sport while the working class followed football. it doesn't help that playing cricket costs money.

It has become that way.

Until 1960, cricket was the dominant sport ahead of football even with the working class.

Two things changed that:

1. Football got floodlights, so matches on work days could be played at night.
2. Cricket gave away coverage from free-to-air TV in 2005, and that has decimated not just viewing numbers, but the ability of young boys to watch and learn the game on TV.

That's why I want Test cricket in England played in the afternoons and evenings with a Pink Ball, with the final session broadcast on free-to-air TV each day, just as is required by law in Australia.
 
It has become that way.

Until 1960, cricket was the dominant sport ahead of football even with the working class.

Two things changed that:

1. Football got floodlights, so matches on work days could be played at night.
2. Cricket gave away coverage from free-to-air TV in 2005, and that has decimated not just viewing numbers, but the ability of young boys to watch and learn the game on TV.

That's why I want Test cricket in England played in the afternoons and evenings with a Pink Ball, with the final session broadcast on free-to-air TV each day, just as is required by law in Australia.

Perhaps I don't understand the culture/state of affairs in UK and Aus. Why do people not have cable. Are these cord cutters like here in the US, or they refuse to pay, cannot afford cable? Cable TV one would think is part of life, like paying a telephone bill. But then that is the American in me talking.
 
Perhaps I don't understand the culture/state of affairs in UK and Aus. Why do people not have cable. Are these cord cutters like here in the US, or they refuse to pay, cannot afford cable? Cable TV one would think is part of life, like paying a telephone bill. But then that is the American in me talking.
1. Because it's really expensive - you're talking $1000 per year.

2. Because the best non-sport shows are all on free-to-air TV.

3. Because 50% of the population on principle will not pay a single penny to Rupert Murdoch on moral grounds - and he has a monopoly on international cricket.
 
Perhaps I don't understand the culture/state of affairs in UK and Aus. Why do people not have cable. Are these cord cutters like here in the US, or they refuse to pay, cannot afford cable? Cable TV one would think is part of life, like paying a telephone bill. But then that is the American in me talking.

Because we have free to air television so why pay?
 
Because we have free to air television so why pay?

I mean most countries do but then you have limited channels available and the good shows and events may be on private channels as they have more money to bid for them
 
1. Because it's really expensive - you're talking $1000 per year.

2. Because the best non-sport shows are all on free-to-air TV.

3. Because 50% of the population on principle will not pay a single penny to Rupert Murdoch on moral grounds - and he has a monopoly on international cricket.

No. 2 and 3 are absolutely incorrect.

2. No PL matches are free to air and only some FA and League cup matches are free to air. Even not all Champions League games are free to air. Without any PL matches the best footie matches are NOT free to air

Rugby is possibly the only sport free to air. With all 6 nations, Autumn Internationals (?) and WC free to air. but Rugby is no where near as popular as footie. Rugby PL is not free to air either.

The British Open is also free to air, but again how many watch golf.

None of the other sports are free to air anymore. F1, Cricket, Premiere League - Football and Rugby etc are all on Sky/BT now.

3. Most of my friends who can afford to, have Sky. Morality never comes into the picture. (And knowing you, you are going to suggest that morality might not be a concern with Brit Indians. Let me just add that most of friends are White - European)
 
How do you get the 4K & HD quality for free to air? With cable and now streaming you get excellent quality (in the US). I am sure that cannot be matched by free to air (I would think). Because it is also about the viewing experience/quality of the product. It is surprising to hear that people would rather not watch cricket than pay for it.
 
Last edited:
No. 2 and 3 are absolutely incorrect.

2. No PL matches are free to air and only some FA and League cup matches are free to air. Even not all Champions League games are free to air. Without any PL matches the best footie matches are NOT free to air

Rugby is possibly the only sport free to air. With all 6 nations, Autumn Internationals (?) and WC free to air. but Rugby is no where near as popular as footie. Rugby PL is not free to air either.

The British Open is also free to air, but again how many watch golf.

None of the other sports are free to air anymore. F1, Cricket, Premiere League - Football and Rugby etc are all on Sky/BT now.

3. Most of my friends who can afford to, have Sky. Morality never comes into the picture. (And knowing you, you are going to suggest that morality might not be a concern with Brit Indians. Let me just add that most of friends are White - European)

For 2 I actually wrote NON-sport programmes.

Every comedy or drama that anybody wants to watch is on BBC1, BBC2, ITV1 or Channel Four.

So £50 per month just for sport is a lot of money.

As for morality, try finding Murdoch's The Sun newspaper on Merseyside.
 
For 2 I actually wrote NON-sport programmes.

Every comedy or drama that anybody wants to watch is on BBC1, BBC2, ITV1 or Channel Four.

So £50 per month just for sport is a lot of money.

Fair enough. Sky1 has a few good stuff, but yeah, cant beat BBC. (at least my £130 TV License is being put to good use).

To be honest, as sports fan, I wouldn't mind paying £50. Gets you a lot of good stuff - F1, Most PL games (except couple of those with BT and 3PM matches), Cricket. But considering the majority of the population is only interested in footie, its a bit excessive for just a PL and Champions League.
 
Australian cricket is on free to air and overseas matches not only lack interest but are at unwatchable times. Austrlaians spend a lot of time outdoors and watching TV is not as important unless the sport is of high interest.
 
Australian cricket is on free to air and overseas matches not only lack interest but are at unwatchable times. Austrlaians spend a lot of time outdoors and watching TV is not as important unless the sport is of high interest.

What about Aussie Rules, Rugby Union and League? I've heard League is bigger than Union in parts of Aus?
 
Fair enough. Sky1 has a few good stuff, but yeah, cant beat BBC. (at least my £130 TV License is being put to good use).

To be honest, as sports fan, I wouldn't mind paying £50. Gets you a lot of good stuff - F1, Most PL games (except couple of those with BT and 3PM matches), Cricket. But considering the majority of the population is only interested in footie, its a bit excessive for just a PL and Champions League.

Then this is not free. You are paying for it. In fact you have no choice, you are forced to. This is more expensive than cable and you get next to nothing in terms of channels.
 
Then this is not free. You are paying for it. In fact you have no choice, you are forced to. This is more expensive than cable and you get next to nothing in terms of channels.

Sky is approx £600 a year. TV license is £130 ish a year. For sports is not that great, but thee are some good programs free to air.
 
For 2 I actually wrote NON-sport programmes.

Every comedy or drama that anybody wants to watch is on BBC1, BBC2, ITV1 or Channel Four.

So £50 per month just for sport is a lot of money.

So nobody wants to watch Game of Thrones or Westworld?

As for morality, try finding Murdoch's The Sun newspaper on Merseyside

Yet Liverpudlians still watch the games on Sky and it didn't stop Jamie Carragher, Souness or Phil Thompson from working for Sky Sports either.
 
Sky is approx £600 a year. TV license is £130 ish a year. For sports is not that great, but thee are some good programs free to air.

My bad. I assumed the 130 was per month. But still, people are forced to pay it whether they want to or not. While cable is still a choice.
 
Yet Liverpudlians still watch the games on Sky and it didn't stop Jamie Carragher, Souness or Phil Thompson from working for Sky Sports either.

Tbh, his point was when cricket was free to air. I personally, wouldn't have paid £50 for Sky sports, if all I wanted to watch was Man U get thrashed by Chelsea.

F1 and Cricket do make Sky sports it good value for money. Never use sky movies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My bad. I assumed the 130 was per month. But still, people are forced to pay it whether they want to or not. While cable is still a choice.

Can't agree more. You need to pay for it even if you have cable. Same in Germany
 
Reality of the day is that if you want to watch any sort of sport on your TV and not stream it illegally then you simply have to pay for some form of subscription.

I dont know if its possible but I'd say the vast majority of people with Sky would pay only for the Sports section if it was possible. Alas as far as I'm aware you cant do that, you need the basic Sky package and then have to buy the Sports package also.

Junaids isnt correct IMO, I think its mostly an issue of cost if people could afford Sky they'd get it, because to me and to my knowledge the vast majority of young people free to air TV nowadays is pretty poor unless you want to watch soaps, the news and the occasional tv show.
 
What about Aussie Rules, Rugby Union and League? I've heard League is bigger than Union in parts of Aus?

Australian law protects certain sporting events from pay tv because the average Australian has the right to be able to watch them.

The AFL regular season and finals, the NRL regular season and final, every Ashes test match, every international cricket match in Australia featuring the Australian senior mens team, every cricket world cup match featuring Australia and the cricket world cup finals, every rugby union test featuring Australia, the rugby world cup, the Australian Open and Wimbledon and the soccer world cup and English FA cup are on this list.

We do not pay tv licenses in Australia.
 
Australian law protects certain sporting events from pay tv because the average Australian has the right to be able to watch them.

The AFL regular season and finals, the NRL regular season and final, every Ashes test match, every international cricket match in Australia featuring the Australian senior mens team, every cricket world cup match featuring Australia and the cricket world cup finals, every rugby union test featuring Australia, the rugby world cup, the Australian Open and Wimbledon and the soccer world cup and English FA cup are on this list.

We do not pay tv licenses in Australia.

I am sure every tax payer is. It is probably not called a TV license tax, that's all. Nothing is free, everything costs money. The money has to come from somewhere.
 
What is popularity of cricket in Australia. It seems like most of the country is just only mildly interested in it.


The Aussies I've met here in Canada have had a quite a nonchalant attitude towards the sport. One guy I met right after the WC victory and was making small talk with, I said to him "Hey you guys just won the cricket world cup", and his reply was "yeah I heard about that". I was like lolwut..

what part of Canada do you live in? I live in Vancouver and play for a cricket league out here. About half of players are white Aussies, Saffers, Englishmen and Kiwis/ The other half are desis. Keep in mind we have four divisions and so four teams and over 60 players in our club.
 
I am sure every tax payer is. It is probably not called a TV license tax, that's all. Nothing is free, everything costs money. The money has to come from somewhere.

Channel 9, 7 and 10 are fully privately owned
 
Good luck finding a Sky comedy or drama in the Top Hundred ratings for the week!

It's an ITV1 - BBC1 monopoly.

And that's down to the quality of the programming and not the fact that it's free is it?

Reality of the day is that if you want to watch any sort of sport on your TV and not stream it illegally then you simply have to pay for some form of subscription.

I dont know if its possible but I'd say the vast majority of people with Sky would pay only for the Sports section if it was possible. Alas as far as I'm aware you cant do that, you need the basic Sky package and then have to buy the Sports package also.

Junaids isnt correct IMO, I think its mostly an issue of cost if people could afford Sky they'd get it, because to me and to my knowledge the vast majority of young people free to air TV nowadays is pretty poor unless you want to watch soaps, the news and the occasional tv show.

Nah, us Brits are fine, upstanding people and a moral beacon for the rest of the world. We'd never give that nasty Rupert Murdoch chap a penny of our hard earned cash and boycott Sky on principle.

Just ignore the fact that The Sun is the best selling newspaper in the land and The Times is the second best selling "quality" newspaper.
 
A max 0.1% of the population (hardcore lunatic lefties) in Australia boycott Murdoch out of principle.
 
And that's down to the quality of the programming and not the fact that it's free is it?



Nah, us Brits are fine, upstanding people and a moral beacon for the rest of the world. We'd never give that nasty Rupert Murdoch chap a penny of our hard earned cash and boycott Sky on principle.

Just ignore the fact that The Sun is the best selling newspaper in the land and The Times is the second best selling "quality" newspaper.

It is not free. They are forced to pay for it.
 
It is not free. They are forced to pay for it.

No we don't.

ABC and SBS sure but that's taken out of regular government revenue.

It may as well be free given even if ABC and SBS were shut down tomorrow we'd still pay the same tax.
 
My bad. I assumed the 130 was per month. But still, people are forced to pay it whether they want to or not. While cable is still a choice.

Trust me, if you could only watch BBC1 and BBC2 by choosing to buy a TV licence still well over 90% of households would.

There is a massive cultural gap between the USA and the UK. The UK is more like France or Germany in that the vast majority of people's viewing is based around the free-to-air terrestrial networks.

The main Pay-TV provider is Sky, but their budgets for making non-sport TV shows are a fraction of what the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 can budget. So the stars are on the main channels and the best writers and biggest budget shows are there.

Most British people don't really want to watch much American TV. Absolute American staples from the 1990s like Seinfeld or Melrose Place were never watched by 95%+ of the British viewers.

It's true that the big budget American shows like Game of Thrones or House of Cards are first run on Sky, but their ratings are typically not in the Top 200 of the week.

Australia has incredibly strong laws to prevent major sporting events from being broadcast only on subscription channels, and hooray for that, it ensures that every boy in Victoria can watch Aussie Rules and every boy in Sydney can watch Rugby League.

Britain has a much weaker Ofcom Code, which ensures that the Euros, the football World Cup, the Olympics and Wimbledon have to be shown on free-to-air TV.

Lastly, outside London hardly anyone in the UK watches "cable" delivered TV. Pay-TV is overwhelmingly delivered by satellite.

There are 30 million households in the UK. Almost all - over 29.8 million - have free-to-air terrestrial TV.

11 million have satellite subscriptions, of which just over half subscribe to Sky Sports - so only 25% of British households have access to viewing international cricket live.

4 million have cable subscriptions.

You can watch the most popular channel - BBC1 - in high definition without a pay-tv subscription on Freesat and Freeview.

There is very little reason to subscribe to Pay-TV in the UK unless you want to watch sport, I find.
 
I too had a Saffer customer looking forward to the Indo-SA cricket series in 2013.

Apart from that....nothing.

Cricket is really not a respected sport at all. These days, I am happy if non desi people even know something like cricket exists.

In terms of following or knowing about cricket, I'd say it's like this:

Australians > Saffers > English.

All the ozs I've interacted with which is not a large number, know about cricket.

Most I've interacted frm UK don't care.

Still the craze they have can't be compared to an average subcont fan. But then again it's the only sport that's played in SC . Only major sport.
 
Last edited:
No we don't.

ABC and SBS sure but that's taken out of regular government revenue.

It may as well be free given even if ABC and SBS were shut down tomorrow we'd still pay the same tax.

I was talking about UK people. They have to pay for it.
 
Trust me, if you could only watch BBC1 and BBC2 by choosing to buy a TV licence still well over 90% of households would.

There is a massive cultural gap between the USA and the UK. The UK is more like France or Germany in that the vast majority of people's viewing is based around the free-to-air terrestrial networks.

The main Pay-TV provider is Sky, but their budgets for making non-sport TV shows are a fraction of what the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 can budget. So the stars are on the main channels and the best writers and biggest budget shows are there.

Most British people don't really want to watch much American TV. Absolute American staples from the 1990s like Seinfeld or Melrose Place were never watched by 95%+ of the British viewers.

It's true that the big budget American shows like Game of Thrones or House of Cards are first run on Sky, but their ratings are typically not in the Top 200 of the week.

Australia has incredibly strong laws to prevent major sporting events from being broadcast only on subscription channels, and hooray for that, it ensures that every boy in Victoria can watch Aussie Rules and every boy in Sydney can watch Rugby League.

Britain has a much weaker Ofcom Code, which ensures that the Euros, the football World Cup, the Olympics and Wimbledon have to be shown on free-to-air TV.

Lastly, outside London hardly anyone in the UK watches "cable" delivered TV. Pay-TV is overwhelmingly delivered by satellite.

There are 30 million households in the UK. Almost all - over 29.8 million - have free-to-air terrestrial TV.

11 million have satellite subscriptions, of which just over half subscribe to Sky Sports - so only 25% of British households have access to viewing international cricket live.

4 million have cable subscriptions.

You can watch the most popular channel - BBC1 - in high definition without a pay-tv subscription on Freesat and Freeview.

There is very little reason to subscribe to Pay-TV in the UK unless you want to watch sport, I find.

You are right. Judging from your post, Americans and American culture is way different that European and Australian culture.

I guess BBC has a huge budget because of access to tax payer money as opposed to Sky which has to come up with their own money?
 
I was talking about UK people. They have to pay for it.

Yes, but they would do so anyway.

The BBC is basically viewed by most of us as our national treasure.

Have you any idea how programmes like "Strictly" or "Bake off" rate?

Fifteen million people watched the Bake Off finale on BBC One this week. That's more than the top-rated show in the USA - which has SIX TIMES the population.

Saying "we have to pay for it" is like saying we have to pay for our National Health Service through our taxes.

If we were offered an opt-out, but it meant losing access, virtually nobody whatsoever would opt out.
 
You are right. Judging from your post, Americans and American culture is way different that European and Australian culture.

I guess BBC has a huge budget because of access to tax payer money as opposed to Sky which has to come up with their own money?

Sure, but ITV and Channel Four are advert-funded, and they get ratings between 10 and 20 times higher than any Sky shows too. They therefore generate far more advertising revenue per channel than Sky does from a combination of advertising and subscriptions.
 
Back
Top