Forum Home Forum Home > General Rugby > SA Rugby Issues
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Boks might never win World Cup again if Icasa proc
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


The Lions next play the Dragons in the URC in Newport on Saturday 21 May, kickoff 16:00.

Boks might never win World Cup again if Icasa proc

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
Transvaal View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: 30-Mar-2016
Status: Offline
Points: 35937
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Transvaal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Boks might never win World Cup again if Icasa proc
    Posted: 15-Jan-2021 at 9:07am
https://citizen.co.za/sport/south-african-sport/sa-rugby-sport/2420050/boks-might-never-win-world-cup-again-if-icasa-proceeds-with-remedies-sa-rugby/

According to SA Rugby, broadcast rights make up 58% of their income, and sponsorships, which are largely dependent on TV exposure, make up another 26%.

SA Rugby on Thursday submitted to the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) that the remedies proposed in draft findings into the broadcasting of sport by subscription television will lead to a severe reduction in the investment by these broadcasters in professional sport and will ultimately cost the Springboks the chance of adding to their 2019 World Cup victory.

Icasa have proposed that broadcast rights should not last longer than three years, that there should be no exclusive deals and that the rights should be split between multiple packages and broadcasters.

But in public hearings held virtually on Thursday, SA Rugby CEO Jurie Roux said the ‘remedies’ would be an unreasonable burden on the federation and would mean they were likely to lose their fight for survival in these times of Covid uncertainty, while senior counsel Ngwako Maenetje said Icasa would be acting “irrationally” and ultra vires (beyond their powers) if they enforced the changes.< width="1" height="2" border="0" style="-sizing: border-; display: block; margin: 12px auto;">< width="1" height="2" border="0" style="-sizing: border-; display: block; margin: 12px auto;">

“If the regulations go through in their current format then we may never see a day like the 2019 World Cup win again,” Roux said.

“SA Rugby needs to produce compelling content that is commercially viable so we can develop the game from grassroots level to winning national teams. We are 99.7% self-funded – we get only 0.3% of our income from government – and broadcast rights bring in R752 million.”

According to the SA Rugby presentation, broadcast rights make up 58% of their income, and sponsorships, which are largely dependent on TV exposure, make up another 26%.

“We are in a daily fight for survival,” Roux said.

“We are in financial difficulty, having made losses between 2016 and 2018. We recovered a little profit in 2019 on the back of the World Cup and we looked forward to capitalising on that, but no-one could have predicted what happened in 2020.

“Covid has pushed us into survival mode and had a massive detrimental effect. We’ve had to cut our budget by R1.2 billion.

“It has made insolvency a real and present danger. We’re on the brink, and if we had not been able to capitalise on broadcast rights, we would have been bankrupt by now.

“Exclusivity is the main source of our revenue and with less money it means there will be less rugby until we have to close our doors and only have club rugby. And then nobody will be interested in the game.”

Judging by the presentation of Maenetje, Icasa would probably face court action if they enforced the regulations.

“No regulatory impact assessment was conducted by Icasa, which makes the proposals irrational,” Maenetje said.

“They did not inform themselves of the adverse effect of these remedies. These effects are not proportional because they place such a burden on the rights holder, rather than broadcasters, such that they will not be able to sustain themselves. Icasa have paid scant regard to the dire impact we explained in our written submissions.

“By weakening one side of the equation you do not grow competitiveness in the market. SA Rugby will no longer be in a position to provide premium content and there will be an adverse impact on public interest.

“These remedies are irrational, not lawful and unconstitutional. They do not encourage investment so they undermine the Icasa mandate and exceed the statutory powers of Icasa.”

Icasa launched its inquiry into subscription television services to ensure the broadcast market was sufficiently competitive, but Roux said “these remedies will have the completely opposite effect to their noble intentions”.

“The obligation is on the broadcasters and not on the rights holders, which is where Icasa are acting ultra vires,” Maenetje said.

“There was no discussion of the economic impact in their draft findings.”

Back to Top
WitBoer View Drop Down
Koning Leeu
Koning Leeu
Avatar

Joined: 31-Mar-2016
Location: Bronkhorstsprui
Status: Offline
Points: 2155
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WitBoer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jan-2021 at 9:03am
Originally posted by Transvaal Transvaal wrote:

SA Rugby needs to produce compelling content that is commercially viable so we can develop the game from grassroots level to winning national teams. We are 99.7% self-funded – we get only 0.3% of our income from government – and broadcast rights bring in R752 million.”

According to the SA Rugby presentation, broadcast rights make up 58% of their income, and sponsorships, which are largely dependent on TV exposure, make up another 26%.

1. Daar is nie meer belangstelling in rugby in die land nie, juis omdat mense nie toegang het tot dit nie, net die wat R1000 pm kan bekostig of regtig uit hulle pad uit gaan om dit te kyk, kyk deesdae rugby. Niemand gee meer om wie speel wanneer nie. So as SABC die wedstryde kan uitsaai (Curriebeker, PRO14 en Springbok wedstryde) sal dit meer belangstelling kweek, dit sal veroorsaak dat meer kinders rugby wil speel en op die ou einde sal dit moontlik transformasie ook help, want meer swart kinders sal wil rugby speel, wat sal veroorsaak dat daar 'n groter poel swart spelers is waarvan gekies kan word. Dan het ons nie nodig om kwota spelers wat dit nie verdien nie, daar in te druk nie (soos 'n Mohoje, Paige, ens.)

2. Sponsorships wat afhanklik is van blootstelling maak tans 26% van die inkomste op. Dus as jy die blootstelling vergroot (deur die wedstryde op SABC uit te saai) dan behoort die % van die inkomste ook te styg...

Klink vir my meer asof hulle rede soek om Multichoice nogsteeds die monopoly oor rugby te laat hou. Miskien kry iemand by SA Rugby 'n bonussie by Multichoice....

"Believe nothing, No matter where you read it, Or who has said it, Not even if I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own common sense" - Buddha
Back to Top
valie View Drop Down
Koning Leeu
Koning Leeu
Avatar

Joined: 02-Apr-2016
Location: ver van hier
Status: Offline
Points: 2500
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote valie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jan-2021 at 9:29am
Originally posted by WitBoer WitBoer wrote:

Originally posted by Transvaal Transvaal wrote:

SA Rugby needs to produce compelling content that is commercially viable so we can develop the game from grassroots level to winning national teams. We are 99.7% self-funded – we get only 0.3% of our income from government – and broadcast rights bring in R752 million.”

According to the SA Rugby presentation, broadcast rights make up 58% of their income, and sponsorships, which are largely dependent on TV exposure, make up another 26%.

1. Daar is nie meer belangstelling in rugby in die land nie, juis omdat mense nie toegang het tot dit nie, net die wat R1000 pm kan bekostig of regtig uit hulle pad uit gaan om dit te kyk, kyk deesdae rugby. Niemand gee meer om wie speel wanneer nie. So as SABC die wedstryde kan uitsaai (Curriebeker, PRO14 en Springbok wedstryde) sal dit meer belangstelling kweek, dit sal veroorsaak dat meer kinders rugby wil speel en op die ou einde sal dit moontlik transformasie ook help, want meer swart kinders sal wil rugby speel, wat sal veroorsaak dat daar 'n groter poel swart spelers is waarvan gekies kan word. Dan het ons nie nodig om kwota spelers wat dit nie verdien nie, daar in te druk nie (soos 'n Mohoje, Paige, ens.)

2. Sponsorships wat afhanklik is van blootstelling maak tans 26% van die inkomste op. Dus as jy die blootstelling vergroot (deur die wedstryde op SABC uit te saai) dan behoort die % van die inkomste ook te styg...

Klink vir my meer asof hulle rede soek om Multichoice nogsteeds die monopoly oor rugby te laat hou. Miskien kry iemand by SA Rugby 'n bonussie by Multichoice....

Stem. my vraag was nog altyd hoekom jy op die goedkoper pakkette partykeer tot op 3 kanale kan sokker kyk, maar nie rugby nie. Die rugby kykende gemeenskap word al jare lank gespyker. Baie supporters wat tans rugby op pirate sites kyk, soos ek, sou die goedkoper pakket oorweeg het, indien hulle rugby sou uitsaai. Ek is meer as bereid om R350 tot maks R500 te betaal vir n kleiner pakket wat rugby insluit. Nou maak hulle niks uit my uit nie.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.