Quote: kobashi "I know the game is dependent on sky money but this really isnt any different then other sports and competitions. The NRL clubs are all heavily dependent on TV money.
Look at the football league clubs when ITV digital collapsed. Clubs were under serious threat of going under.
Cricket relies massively on TV money. The English cricket clubs would be going under if they didn't have the huge TV money that get from sky.
That's the way of the world now. Sport organisations need TV money more then anything.'"
Nobody is saying that we don't. However, we are now in an environment where broadcasters are becoming more and more discerning about what sports they pay for, and how much they pay for them. This week we have seen BT Sport drop UFC and NBA, they have already dropped Serie A, whilst Sky has dropped La Liga in recent months, all citing the cost of those rights as the reason.
All of the sports you mention have worked hard to ensure that their 'product' is delivering value for broadcasters. Cricket has invested massively in limited overs and T20 cricket (arguably at the expense of the Test team) because that's what appeals to TV audiences. The PL is carving out more and more slots in its calendar for TV (Friday night football, additional Satuday slots, etc).
If Super League wants more from it's TV contract in this environment, it needs to start offering more. At the moment, we offer a sub-standard competition, where the best players flock to the other side of the world, an audience that is hard to sell to advertisers, and we have clubs actively diluting our own TV audience by playing at the same time as our TV games. Gee, why wouldn't Sky pay more for that?
