Televised Sports events
July 11th, 2008 at 11:00 am by David FarrarNot content with nationalising the planes and the trains, jim Anderton has a new target – sporting events. Yes he thinks these should be confiscated off sporting codes (with compensation) and made the property of the state to broadcast on free to air TV.
Frog Blog has a thread on this, and I’m pleased to say even over there the vast majority see this as a step too far.
My favourite quote is from Toad:
With essential services I’m not a great fan of user pays (because some users can’t afford to pay) but I don’t rate television sport in that category, so tend to agree with you on this one BB. I’m quite happy to fork out my Sky sub each month so I can watch live sport.
I don’t expect to get into the ground for free to see the match, so why should I expect to see it free on television?
Indeed the next logical step would be for the state to hand out free tickets to sports events on the grounds of fairness.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:07 am
you are really discounting that societal-glue/habit-forming of the family watching test matches ‘live’..dpf..
delayed broadcasts don’t ‘cut it’..
and pubs/clubs aren’t places to take the family..
rugby has removed that cause for the success of the game..
..and are killing the goose that has laid so many golden eggs for them..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Is he planning to have special motivational sesions for sportsmen who do not perform and will this involve an industrial shreader?
Jesus look whats talking about glue sniffing habits.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 11:11 am
What an odd election platform. Does Jim know that during the America’s Cup the time delay between live and delayed coverage was only a few hours? Kids should be in bed at 1am, not up getting inspiration from a sport that can deliver it’s inspiration just as well in the morning.
The reasoning that he is worried that kids won’t sail, run, jump, kick etc etc if they don’t first see it live on TV is a little thin. State ownership revolves around control and money. The only bonus I can see is that the government could sell advertising themselves for the event rather than let SKY or anyone else make the dollars. It’s one way to make up for tax cuts, I suppose.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 11:15 am
What appears ‘live’ to me quite probably appears ‘..delayed/deferred/reality-morphed..’ to phil.
Damaged neurons and all that.
Not a level playing field at all.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Completely irrelevant:
Did anyone else watch CloseUp last night, with the family that have fled to the UK for fear that CYFS were about to take the children away for questionable reasons? I think the family are probably correct in believing their children were at risk, they were willing to put their money where their mouth is and fly all the way to the UK as a result. But CYFS completely denies they threatened to remove the children, while at the same time refusing to give any assurance that if they return the children would not be taken away. CYFS certainly came across pretty badly, terrible situation for any family to be in.
It would be great to have a post we could discuss this under DPF, I’m sure D4J would have a few things to say along with many others. Thanks.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 11:22 am
I Jim wants kids to be inspired to play sport, then perhaps he could tell his mates in the Govt to spend more money on sporting equipment and facilities. You’ll get more kids into sport by having easy access to quality facilities than by sitting on their arses watching the box. As for watching sport, why not just go to a game and take in the real atmosphere, rather than the dilute experience that TV coverage is? (And the added bonus is not having to listen to the inane gibberings of the commentators.)
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 11:24 am
The obvious problem with this is that it will create a monopoly market and as we all know lower the value of the events. Lower value equates less money for professional sport and less money means less professional players who will obviously head off overseas (they are already doing it).
Where the anti-siphoning laws works, the audiences are significantly greater allowing the broadcaster to claw back a lot more from advertising.
Yet another example of ideology over common sense.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 11:38 am
The man is a dinosaur – maybe he doesnt have SKY at home and is using Parliamentary process for his own gain !
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 11:40 am
“and pubs/clubs aren’t places to take the family..”
PhilU must inhabit another planet as the clubs here in the depths of South Auckland’s Manurewa welcome families and kids.
Heck for $50 a year membership and beer at $3.00 per handle you are a mug not to belong. Any number of clubs here plus the local RSA welcomes any reciprical card holder and their family as well.
No, I wouldnt take the family to the Bellbird but the Thoroughbred, Jolly Farmer and most others pubs welcome kids and families in a very safe environment.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Is anybody really surprised that a bludger like Phul wants something else for nothing?
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
The proposal is preposterous, and I don’t think encouraging passive tv watching is necessarily the answer to getting kids active, but to throw a cat in there, how much money has NZGovt granted to NZRFU, America’s Cup challenges, etc over the years?? If sport is that independent of Government (and I think it should be) then it is about time we completely cut it loose financially as well…
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
>>Indeed the next logical step would be for the state to hand out free tickets to sports events on the grounds of fairness.
Shhhhh, you give them ideas
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
philu said: you are really discounting that societal-glue/habit-forming of the family watching test matches ‘live’..dpf..
Ah, the first punter either here or at frogblog to defend Anderton’s position. And guess what, it had to be Phil.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
In the days when the Free To Air networks had the rugby rights, they treated us viewers appallingly. TVNZ used to lie to us about the start time of the games so that we’d be forced to sit through overpaid, overopinionated sports announcers parading their ignorance in front of us — with way too many adbreaks stuffed with expensive ads. Not so much an experience as an endurance.
When TV3 had the rights they opted for the odious practice of time slippage in supposedly ‘live’ games — start at the same time, cut away during the games for ad breaks, with the result that the televised game got more and more out of sync with the live event. The only way to stay ‘live’ was either to go to the game or to listen on radio.
We should also remember that TVNZ had the rugby rights totally locked up for decades, and arrogantly brushed aside all comers. An ex-TVNZ staffer of my acquaintance told me how they lost the rights — a high-ranking TVNZ sports exec, negotiating on the broadcaster’s behalf, was invited to renew the rights at a pricetag reportedly just a million dollars too high for his budget. He felt unable to commit and went back to his superiors for further instructions. In the meantime, you-know-who slipped in and did the deal.
And then there was the little matter of the substantial shareholding that TVNZ used to hold in Sky — but let slip because the Labour Government was unwilling to increase its investment to meet calls on shareholder capital (obviously we were saving our pennies to invest in that glorious new technology called KiwiRail).
It’s impossible to feel sorry for TVNZ, who, both through government-mandated and own-goal-mismanagement incompetence, have turned decades of broadcasting monopoly into a slide towards irrelevance.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Hell Jim, Phil et al have you not heard “it is better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak up an remove all doubt.”
Vote:I am truely concerned for this country when pricks like Banderton can become a Minister. FFS! Maybe the Aussie invasion has merit.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I am sick of these fossils leerching onto the gravy train in parliament.
winston’s got to go. anderton. And a good few of the front rowers on both sides of the house.
Hopefully, Goff will get one more term.
I doubt Horomia will.
At least John Key and Bill English look like they still got a lot of moons ahead of them.
gerry Brownlee should go and make way for someone who can still look enthusiastic like David Bennett.
The biggest petition going this year should be to downsize parliament . and not as a guise to chuck out MMP.
its keeping the bastards accountable.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Is that thieving old communist loser still alive?? Oh yeah that’s right, thanks to his self focused political maneuvers, he’s living in one of the country’s most elegant Wellington residences with the rent paid by you and me, and like most of the shiny arsed nomenklatura, probably feeling none of the pain the real taxpayers of NZ feel. Has he ever had an idea that isn’t rooted in Marxist orthodoxy?? The sooner the cronyist Anderton and his flat earth ideas disappear from the political landscape, the nearer we are to regaining some degree of financial equilibrium and reality in this country.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
“Indeed the next logical step would be for the state to hand out free tickets to sports events on the grounds of fairness.”
There is already a precedent for that…
Remember all those carparks for cripples!
Now just wait for the parasites to circle their arguements, it will be law within 5 years.
Lawrence oO
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I’ve often been frustrated by the apparent year on year monopoly of live broadcast sports. This frustration is exacerbated by Sky who, from reliable sources, make a shed load of money with very little improvement in service or offerings but are so poorly run and managed that they actually broadcast porn during childrens viewing hours.
I don’t want to pay Sky $720 a year to watch a few tests and I don’t want to have to stand in a pub either if I’m not going to make a night of it. I’d be quite happy to pay $10 to watch a test at home and invite friends around. It’s cheaper than a round of drinks and I can sit for the game. Does anyone know of the liklihood of a pay-per-view model that doesn’t require a Sky box turning up? Was this model ever developed with the introduction of digital TV to NZ? It seems a much smarter way to do it than taking control of all sport’s TV revenue just because you don’t like sky or making money.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Well, I’d rather not have “had” to lay out some serious cash for my better half’s birthday present — good seats to a very popular show. Why not pass a law forcing (say) The Rolling Stones to give a free concert the next time they push their walkers through customs — those old pricks don’t need any more money, do they? It would also be damn nice if I could walk into Borders tonight and walk out with an armful of stuff I don’t “want” to pay for — but a shoplifting conviction is a bad look on the cv.
Here’s the dirty little secret: AFAIK, there was an open and competitive bidding process. Sky won, TVNZ and Three lost. Eat that.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Good way to miss the point Craig. Not sure where you thought I was advocating Jim’s stance.
I think Sky is losing a lot of viewers which means there’s an opening in the market place. I’m interested (from more informed readers) if the digital TV framework the government has rolled out had any facility in which to implement this pay-per-view model that wasn’t dependant on Sky. How you managed to get stealing from that beggars belief.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Labrator: no, I’m pretty sure the digital TV model doesn’t include pay per view without a specialised set top box. It doesn’t come baked in to the digital tv broadcasting.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Labrator:
The next generation of Sky’s Online service is intended to offer Pay Per View of live events (in my opinion, probably including the rugby) to non-subscribers, streamed live to your computer via the internet. That might meet your needs more effectively than an annual subscription.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Thanks paull and damocles. damocles, I knew there was a market for it, I was just wondering by who and when it would be filled. Pay per view rugby over the internet sounds like something I’d certainly be willing to pay for.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Here in Oz there have those kind of rules. X number of sporting events must be on free-to-air. The free-to-air stations offer pretty poor coverage and don’t pay the sports well. It’s lucky that Melbourne plays its own game and doesn’t have international leagues to steal their stars. I don’t believe that the league and union fair as well though.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
@ Labrator
There is pay per view rugby over the internet. SANZAR sold the rights to a US firm called Media Zone. Of course to protect Sky etc it isn’t available with a NZ IP address.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
You’re right Dazedmw! I knew I’d seen some streamed rugby in a pub in london before! Right in the price range too $10US per game and cheaper per game for the bundle…
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Well, if I got the wrong end of the stick and gnawed it to splinters, my apologies. But, hell, isn’t that what it boils down to – “I don’t wanna” so gimmie and make muggins pick up the tab. Chris Rock’s only live show in New Zealand sold out in twenty minutes, and I’m pretty sure there are plenty of people who’d like a law saying that show had to be filmed and broadcast on free-to-air television for those who’d like to see it but weren’t in quick enough, or couldn’t swing the price of a tix. But it’s not going to happen. Ditto for the excellent productions done by live theatre, classical music ensembles, dance and opera companies in this country. Not the cheapest night out, and seldom commercially viable to tour to any great extend.
I don’t expect the tax-payer to pick up the slack because my tastes in live arts far exceed my income, so what’s so fragging special about live sport.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Nah Craig, labrator was saying he didn’t want to pay $720 a year for lots of crap, he wanted to be able to pay $10 a match just for the matches he wanted to see. And wondering why the bozo’s at Sky hadn’t worked out how to make money from that – cause plenty of people would sign up for it.
For me, the point is that they use those big sports games to sell all the other filler. If they let you buy just the games, nobody would subscribe to the other crap, and there’s no way they’d make money. Unless they charged a fortune per game. It’s basically a loss leader.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Labrator – you made some good points. I would also like to just pay for the sports I want to watch. I am not interested in tennis or endless golf matches (rather watch live chess).
“The biggest petition going this year should be to downsize parliament .”
You mean like a Parliamentary New Zealand’s Biggest Loser? Clark has it wrapped up I think.
Vote:July 12th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Good on ya Phil,
All that was holding the NZ family together was rugby and free-to-air live test matches are now vital for rebuilding those tender bonds shattered by the filthy robber barons of pay TV.
Viva La Revolución!
Vote: