ALM/W TV deal

[Football us life]

The CEO said the ALM is running on a strict budget of $3m where the TV revenue covers it. No spending out side the cap. Robbie Slater has said they (The clubs) should be getting more since WU arent in it and there share should go to the remaining clubs.
As for the clubs getting nothing, i find that very hard to believe - They basically got nothing the last 2 season getting only just above $500k a season.

The Paramount/Network 10 deal was probably never as big as the original $200m headline once you strip out contra deals, KPIs and production costs which apprently the league itself has to carry.

After the Silver Lake money was largely burned (KeepUp digital play, COVID support, expansion costs, etc.), the league cut central distributions to the bone so it could stop haemorrhaging cash and post a small operating profit. I bet most of the broadcast revenue is currently covering things like....

League operating costs / production

Central overheads

Trying to get the organisation back to break-even

In conclusion very little, if any is flowing through as pure cash grants to clubs.

the cap is what they are allowed to soend, not the APL TV money distribution
fk knows what APL do with the TV money
I don't know how we still have a competition under these conditions

It exists because a handful of owners are still prepared to lose several million a year, and because the new hard-cap regime ($3m + marquee) is the APL’s attempt to force spending down so the losses become more “manageable”. The players’ union has rejected the latest CBA offers that try to lock that in, so it's my understanding that right now there is no agreed salary framework for the coming season either.....

The hard-cap push does address the immediate cash-burn problem. Clubs cannot keep losing $4–10m a year indefinitely on player wages when central funding is only as nomates says ~ $500kish.

Whether it solves the bigger problem is far less clear. If the on-field product thins out, crowds and broadcast value will stay depressed, and the talent pipeline eventually suffers because the league is no longer an attractive place for experienced players to stay, then the competition simply becomes a cheaper, smaller version of itself.

It's the classic "rock and a hard place" situation for professional football in Australia....

The “smell of an oily rag” has been the operating model for Australian football for decades. Clubs, the old NSL, state leagues, even the early A-League years all ran on passion, volunteer labour, and owners who were prepared to lose money because they loved the game more than the balance sheet.

The difference now is the scale and the exposure.

You’re not wrong to be sceptical Frankly....

 

[Frankly Speaking]

The Paramount/Network 10 deal was probably never as big as the original $200m headline once you strip out contra deals, KPIs and production costs which apprently the league itself has to carry.

After the Silver Lake money was largely burned (KeepUp digital play, COVID support, expansion costs, etc.), the league cut central distributions to the bone so it could stop haemorrhaging cash and post a small operating profit. I bet most of the broadcast revenue is currently covering things like....

League operating costs / production

Central overheads

Trying to get the organisation back to break-even

In conclusion very little, if any is flowing through as pure cash grants to clubs.




It exists because a handful of owners are still prepared to lose several million a year, and because the new hard-cap regime ($3m + marquee) is the APL’s attempt to force spending down so the losses become more “manageable”. The players’ union has rejected the latest CBA offers that try to lock that in, so it's my understanding that right now there is no agreed salary framework for the coming season either.....

The hard-cap push does address the immediate cash-burn problem. Clubs cannot keep losing $4–10m a year indefinitely on player wages when central funding is only as nomates says ~ $500kish.

Whether it solves the bigger problem is far less clear. If the on-field product thins out, crowds and broadcast value will stay depressed, and the talent pipeline eventually suffers because the league is no longer an attractive place for experienced players to stay, then the competition simply becomes a cheaper, smaller version of itself.

It's the classic "rock and a hard place" situation for professional football in Australia....

The “smell of an oily rag” has been the operating model for Australian football for decades. Clubs, the old NSL, state leagues, even the early A-League years all ran on passion, volunteer labour, and owners who were prepared to lose money because they loved the game more than the balance sheet.

The difference now is the scale and the exposure.

You’re not wrong to be sceptical Frankly....

I can only hypothesise that the clubs have been told that once the business is stabilised, the remuneration will improve. The problem is that no one actually wants the TV rights because the viewing figures are deeply unattractive. My take on Paramount is that they use it as low cost filler content. It may sound like they are still paying a lot, but in TV content terms, they are not. The A League is very, very cheap television that fills a lot of summertime when ratings are low anyway.

This is why Paramount do nothing to promote or grow the A League. It is of no value for them to do so. They don't even have to organise or pay for production on this deal. It is a dire situation, but none of the broadcasters wants the comp, so here we are. The difficult question is why viewing numbers are so low. I think that, in part, is due to a perception of the League as low quality, and, in part, to the deeply negative optics of games played in front of empty stadiums.

Where most people watch football on TV, they have a choice: you can spend X hours watching the A League or X hours watching the EPL or Champions League. No other sport faces this kind of competition. In terms of viewing optics, watching the A League on TV after watching the EPL or ECL on TV is deeply, deeply underwhelming unless it is something like the Sydney derby, and even those are full of empty seats now.

The only time the A League has worked on TV was when it was with the provider screening the EPL. Replicating this pairing is, I honestly believe, the only hope for the long term viability of the A League. The viewer numbers have to go up before the money goes up, and this is the only way history suggests that can be done.

 

[Football us life]

I can only hypothesise that the clubs have been told that once the business is stabilised, the remuneration will improve. The problem is that no one actually wants the TV rights because the viewing figures are deeply unattractive. My take on Paramount is that they use it as low cost filler content. It may sound like they are still paying a lot, but in TV content terms, they are not. The A League is very, very cheap television that fills a lot of summertime when ratings are low anyway.

This is why Paramount do nothing to promote or grow the A League. It is of no value for them to do so. They don't even have to organise or pay for production on this deal. It is a dire situation, but none of the broadcasters wants the comp, so here we are. The difficult question is why viewing numbers are so low. I think that, in part, is due to a perception of the League as low quality, and, in part, to the deeply negative optics of games played in front of empty stadiums.

Where most people watch football on TV, they have a choice: you can spend X hours watching the A League or X hours watching the EPL or Champions League. No other sport faces this kind of competition. In terms of viewing optics, watching the A League on TV after watching the EPL or ECL on TV is deeply, deeply underwhelming unless it is something like the Sydney derby, and even those are full of empty seats now.

The only time the A League has worked on TV was when it was with the provider screening the EPL. Replicating this pairing is, I honestly believe, the only hope for the long term viability of the A League. The viewer numbers have to go up before the money goes up, and this is the only way history suggests that can be done.

Yep.....Agree completely.....

History shows the A-League only ever gained real traction on television when it sat alongside the Premier League on the same fox sports platform. That accidental discovery effect is powerful. Casual football fans already paying for the EPL are far more likely to sample the domestic league when it’s one "click away".

Without that pairing, the A-League is forced to compete for attention against the very best football in the world on a completely separate service, and it loses almost every time.

The problem is that replicating the old arrangement is now extremely difficult. Paramount has the A-League locked in until at least 2028-29. Stan has the Premier League and is already negotiating a long-term, high-value extension because it drives subscriptions. For the two competitions to share a home again, either Stan has to decide the A-League is worth buying (at a price that actually helps the clubs) or Paramount has to somehow land the next EPL cycle — neither of which looks realistic right now.

Stan’s priority seems to be premium international club football and rugby union, competitions that move the needle on subscribers.

The A-League, with its current audiences and production costs, is a much smaller and riskier play. Paramount, meanwhile, has probably no path to the Premier League at a price it would be willing to pay....

I do keep my hopes up that one day they are all back together again on some sort of "Soccer-flix" (sorry Sutherland Fitba-flix) app but I'm probably deluding myself!!

 

[Frankly Speaking]

Yep.....Agree completely.....

History shows the A-League only ever gained real traction on television when it sat alongside the Premier League on the same fox sports platform. That accidental discovery effect is powerful. Casual football fans already paying for the EPL are far more likely to sample the domestic league when it’s one "click away".

Without that pairing, the A-League is forced to compete for attention against the very best football in the world on a completely separate service, and it loses almost every time.

The problem is that replicating the old arrangement is now extremely difficult. Paramount has the A-League locked in until at least 2028-29. Stan has the Premier League and is already negotiating a long-term, high-value extension because it drives subscriptions. For the two competitions to share a home again, either Stan has to decide the A-League is worth buying (at a price that actually helps the clubs) or Paramount has to somehow land the next EPL cycle — neither of which looks realistic right now.

Stan’s priority seems to be premium international club football and rugby union, competitions that move the needle on subscribers.

The A-League, with its current audiences and production costs, is a much smaller and riskier play. Paramount, meanwhile, has probably no path to the Premier League at a price it would be willing to pay....

I do keep my hopes up that one day they are all back together again on some sort of "Soccer-flix" (sorry Sutherland Fitba-flix) app but I'm probably deluding myself!!

The Paramount buyout by the Ellisons, once finalised, may change the situation. I would not be surprised to see the conglomerate go after the EPL as a marquee acquisition.

Stan is utterly inconsequential on that commercial level.

 

[Midfielder]

The only real option to increase revenue in the short term is increase crowd's.

Assuming a net after GST of 20.00.

Then every 100,000 extra fans thu the gate is two million.

With 156 games, adding 2,500 per game would be 390,000 at 20 per ticket or close to eight million.

Increasing crowd's is the only viable alternative we have, as crowd's also bring an increase in rating normally, increase in sponsorships, and more media space.

Beyond this with three dominant codes in front of us all connected to large media players, none wanting Football at club level to succeed.... Football across all professional and semi professional levels is fighting an uphill battle.

Being positive rather than negative as a community would help a lot...alas we have to many people believing they know best and arguing over a smaller and smaller price.

 

[Kitwally]

The only real option to increase revenue in the short term is increase crowd's.

Assuming a net after GST of 20.00.

Then every 100,000 extra fans thu the gate is two million.

With 156 games, adding 2,500 per game would be 390,000 at 20 per ticket or close to eight million.

Increasing crowd's is the only viable alternative we have, as crowd's also bring an increase in rating normally, increase in sponsorships, and more media space.

Beyond this with three dominant codes in front of us all connected to large media players, none wanting Football at club level to succeed.... Football across all professional and semi professional levels is fighting an uphill battle.

Being positive rather than negative as a community would help a lot...alas we have to many people believing they know best and arguing over a smaller and smaller price.

Good points Mid. If only the clubs would reduce prices to $20-25……..
I don’t live in Aus but every time I’m back I try to go to a game or two.

 

[Football us life]

The Paramount buyout by the Ellisons, once finalised, may change the situation. I would not be surprised to see the conglomerate go after the EPL as a marquee acquisition.

Stan is utterly inconsequential on that commercial level.

Would be great but honestly I'm not so sure.

The hope that an incoming American billionaire conglomerate will swoop in, splash cash, and rescue Australian domestic football by reshaping the wider football broadcast ecosystem in Australia might be missing the core economic trap...

In practice, global media giants trnd to prioritise corporate debt reduction, streaming profitability, and domestic US synergies leaving local players like Stan bound tightly to strict, localised cost-management.

I get that fans likw us often look to foreign mega-mergers or new owners as a deus ex machina that will magically restore the game to past financial heights. In reality, modern media companies are cutting costs, shedding unprofitable sports rights, and demanding strict financial discipline.

 

[Midfielder]

Good points Mid. If only the clubs would reduce prices to $20-25……..
I don’t live in Aus but every time I’m back I try to go to a game or two.

Was talking overall, kids concessions etc then take the GST off

 

[LFC]

Mid ?
156 games ? please explain ?

 

[someguyjc]

Mid ?
156 games ? please explain ?

A-League season has 26 rounds. Each round has 6 games. Total: 156 games per season.

 

[LFC]

A-League season has 26 rounds. Each round has 6 games. Total: 156 games per season.

ah huh, my bad.
So, when you have clubs playing in these over sized stads that cost a bomb as a business owner how can you drop your ticket sales so much in the hope your volumes increase in how many rounds ?
Also hasn't this been tried in the past ?
As well as countless alliances with Jnr association clubs - ticket offerings/coaching clinics/freebies etc ?

 

[Football us life]

The only real option to increase revenue in the short term is increase crowd's.

Assuming a net after GST of 20.00.

Then every 100,000 extra fans thu the gate is two million.

With 156 games, adding 2,500 per game would be 390,000 at 20 per ticket or close to eight million.

Increasing crowd's is the only viable alternative we have, as crowd's also bring an increase in rating normally, increase in sponsorships, and more media space.

Beyond this with three dominant codes in front of us all connected to large media players, none wanting Football at club level to succeed.... Football across all professional and semi professional levels is fighting an uphill battle.

Being positive rather than negative as a community would help a lot...alas we have to many people believing they know best and arguing over a smaller and smaller price.

Good post....

Agree that gate is the clearest short-term lever available. At roughly $20 net a head, the arithmetic is simple and the secondary benefits — better television optics, stronger sponsorship case, more media attention — are real. In a competition where central funding is stuck near $530k, an extra few million from the turnstiles would actually move the needle for clubs.

The caution is in the scale required. Adding 2,500 fans per game across the season is a big lift, not a marginal one. It means sustained growth at almost every club, not just the usual big-city derbies. That is hard when several grounds regularly look half-empty!

Brisbane Roar, my local A-League club are a clear example of the problem.

Home averages have sat in the low-to-mid 6,000s for the last three seasons (around 6,200–6,600). That is a long way from the 12–15k+ they regularly pulled a decade ago, and it leaves Suncorp looking sparse as a Tuesday night reserve-grade game at a suburban ground on most matchdays.

On-field results have matched the atmosphere — 12th and then 11th in the last two seasons — so there is little positive momentum to sell in that respect.....

The club has also been through repeated financial stress, including ATO winding-up action over tax debts in 2025. When a club is simultaneously struggling for crowds, results and balance-sheet stability, it becomes very hard to reverse the slide. Incremental improvements in the matchday experience or pricing can help at the margins, but they rarely produce the kind of sustained, large-scale growth Midfielder’s numbers require when the underlying product and institutional confidence are this weak.

 

[someguyjc]

ah huh, my bad.
So, when you have clubs playing in these over sized stads that cost a bomb as a business owner how can you drop your ticket sales so much in the hope your volumes increase in how many rounds ?
Also hasn't this been tried in the past ?
As well as countless alliances with Jnr association clubs - ticket offerings/coaching clinics/freebies etc ?

Yeah it's a bit of a tricky one and a balancing act.
It only really makes a difference if cost is a major deciding factor in whether people go to games or not. I'm sure for some it is and others it really doesn't matter.
For the purposes of this calculation, lets say a club gets 10,000 into the venue at $25 per ticket. That's a total of $250,000.
At $20 per ticket, they would need to sell 12,500 tickets to make the same amount of money.
So in that scenario, the club would need to gamble that at least 2,500 would buy a ticket if it was $5 cheaper. I'm not so sure that would happen currently. Definitely not at every club.
One thing that I think some clubs could do is to re-zone their seating areas. Back when MV were pulling big numbers, they re-zoned the more expensive areas to make more money. At the time I had a premium-B seat, this was re-zoned to premium-A along with a price rise. As a protest, my mates and I all dropped our memberships down to general admin. I'm pretty sure it was a similar story when the new WSW stadium was completed. A lot of the areas were zoned at the higher price tiers which didn't go down well with the fans. Selling more individual tickets more regular is a difficult task. Selling memberships is easier if the value (perceived value) is higher.

 

[Frankly Speaking]

Would be great but honestly I'm not so sure.

The hope that an incoming American billionaire conglomerate will swoop in, splash cash, and rescue Australian domestic football by reshaping the wider football broadcast ecosystem in Australia might be missing the core economic trap...

In practice, global media giants trnd to prioritise corporate debt reduction, streaming profitability, and domestic US synergies leaving local players like Stan bound tightly to strict, localised cost-management.

I get that fans likw us often look to foreign mega-mergers or new owners as a deus ex machina that will magically restore the game to past financial heights. In reality, modern media companies are cutting costs, shedding unprofitable sports rights, and demanding strict financial discipline.

Agree, but I'm not suggesting that they sweep in and do anything. They have the A League dirt cheap to fill a lot of low rating summertime hours and to tick the sport box. There is no reason to drop the coverage and plenty of low cost reasons to keep it. The "rescue" would be purely by association if they did pick up the EPL as a statement acquisition.

 

[Football us life]

Agree, but I'm not suggesting that they sweep in and do anything. They have the A League dirt cheap to fill a lot of low rating summertime hours and to tick the sport box. There is no reason to drop the coverage and plenty of low cost reasons to keep it. The "rescue" would be purely by association if they did pick up the EPL as a statement acquisition.

Of course.....If Paramount ever made a serious play for the Premier League rights as a statement acquisition, the A-League would simply benefit by association — the same platform, the same discovery effect that used to exist when both competitions lived together.

That would be driven by the EPL’s value, not by any sudden desire to grow the domestic league.

Until or unless that happens, their rational behaviour is to hold the rights, do the minimum, and treat it as tidy filler. The A-League stays on air, but it stays in the cheap seats.

However.....The highest-probability path remains internal, better crowds, better optics and a stronger product by the time the rights come up again in 2029.

External rescues (new broadcaster, EPL pairing, sudden big investment) are possible but require someone else to decide the league is worth more than the market currently prices it.

 

[LFC]

Agree, but I'm not suggesting that they sweep in and do anything. They have the A League dirt cheap to fill a lot of low rating summertime hours and to tick the sport box. There is no reason to drop the coverage and plenty of low cost reasons to keep it. The "rescue" would be purely by association if they did pick up the EPL as a statement acquisition.

Thanks someguyjc, makes sense and also above for me is the major curve ball that counters bums on seats.
P+ equals - for me.
Whilst people will carry on above the amount of subscribers this medium gets/has as some kind of success or maybe Hope.
On one hand for many subscription is dirt cheap - so why bother getting to a ground unless your invested in the club attending "live" games.
We see people get out to attend exhibition games as one off’s but regular APL just isn't ticking peoples box's that I don't think price drops will be very effective again but hope in the meantime the clubs as a franchise cop the hit/loss.
It needs some marketing hype possibly @ peak times ? SM bombardment with some kind of clash build/turf war (not just about derbies)
SM is cheap for clubs to bomb OTT.

Can't wait for broadcast rights to change re EPL for eg.

 

[Dinamo]

Does the A League have the pricing power to raise prices? AFL cut ticket prices by 25% a few months back and if they have no pricing power then I'm not sure other leagues in Australia will have it.

I think the real opportunity to improve the league's finances that has been missed is in better youth development and export. Herrington is a very good example of this. There is a lot of raw talent in Australia but the clubs do such a poor job in maximising it. C-Suite also tends to be very myopic, just look at Brisbane selling the rights to Herrington's sell-on clause which is going to end up costing them $6 or $7 million in lost revenue.

 

[Monoethnic Social Club]

The only real option to increase revenue in the short term is increase crowd's.

Assuming a net after GST of 20.00.

Then every 100,000 extra fans thu the gate is two million.

With 156 games, adding 2,500 per game would be 390,000 at 20 per ticket or close to eight million.

Increasing crowd's is the only viable alternative we have, as crowd's also bring an increase in rating normally, increase in sponsorships, and more media space.

Beyond this with three dominant codes in front of us all connected to large media players, none wanting Football at club level to succeed.... Football across all professional and semi professional levels is fighting an uphill battle.

Being positive rather than negative as a community would help a lot...alas we have to many people believing they know best and arguing over a smaller and smaller price.

Mid I think its almost impossible to expect the clubs to all evenly increase their revenue and match day crowds by a similar amount (whether that is 2,500 or even just 1000 per match) and that is, I suspect why the centralised revenue split and distribution model that works in the US is shooting the APL in the foot here. All markets are NOT equal in Australia. Melbourne divided into 3 or 4 or even 5 clubs is still always going to have a bigger growth potential than say Newcastle ...thats just population dynamics.

 

[Midfielder]

Fully agree mate...

But they can help steam the losses...

This is not purely my idea but comes from that evil MLS...but why not play all matches Saturday night that's when we get the best crowd's...

As I often say we need all boats to lift together I want all clubs to succeed regardless of history and background

Not sure if you saw my post the other day...I went to the Mariners v Sydney United match...what I found was a very knowledgeable and respectful crowd...cheering loudly for their side and lots of conversations about a upcoming or recent match against Manly who come from the northern beaches in Sydney.

Had dinner at the club with my Mariners cap and scarf people we overly polite very friendly and welcoming not the BS the media go on with.

But to your point we need to average about 16k per match to break even ...no way now but it should be the goal of everyone NJ r as a healthy A-league lifts everyone's else as well

 

[patjennings]

Fully agree mate...

But they can help steam the losses...

This is not purely my idea but comes from that evil MLS...but why not play all matches Saturday night that's when we get the best crowd's...

As I often say we need all boats to lift together I want all clubs to succeed regardless of history and background

Not sure if you saw my post the other day...I went to the Mariners v Sydney United match...what I found was a very knowledgeable and respectful crowd...cheering loudly for their side and lots of conversations about a upcoming or recent match against Manly who come from the northern beaches in Sydney.

Had dinner at the club with my Mariners cap and scarf people we overly polite very friendly and welcoming not the BS the media go on with.

But to your point we need to average about 16k per match to break even ...no way now but it should be the goal of everyone NJ r as a healthy A-league lifts everyone's else as well

Sydney United are fine - don't be a dickhead and you have no problems.