Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsDomestic PolicyStreaming servicesMedia rightsAnti-siphoning lawsSports BroadcastingFree-to-air television•••Started 3mos agoActive 1mo ago

Should streaming services be banned from buying exclusive rights to major sporting events?

This debate centers on Australia's "Anti-Siphoning" list, which ensures free-to-air broadcasters get first refusal on iconic sporting events. With the rise of streaming giants, proponents argue these laws must be updated so events like the AFL Grand Final don't disappear behind paywalls, disenfranchising those without fast internet or disposable income. Opponents, including major sports leagues, argue that limiting bidding wars devalues broadcast rights, reducing funds available for player wages and grassroots development.

+
Expand

Knowledge quiz

How much do you know about Domestic Policy?

See if you know more than the average Australian.

Test your knowledge!

10 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...3mos3MO

Yes

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...3mos3MO

Yes, iconic moments like the Matildas or Grand Finals belong to the people, not behind a paywall.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...3mos3MO

No

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...3mos3MO

No, the government shouldn't dictate how private sports leagues sell their own product.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...3mos3MO

Yes, but only for "nationally significant" events; let the market decide the rest.

 @BD2FTK6answered…1mo1MO

Yes, these events should be publically broadcasted rather than held privately.

 @BCXPZK5Legalise Cannabisanswered…1mo1MO

All major sporting codes refer to their product as entertainment, not sport. This keeps the major codes safe from oversight. As we have seen around the world calling sport, entertainment gives the orgainsing bodies the right to script their events, which they do.

 @BBZG4BQIndependentanswered…2mos2MO

As it's a 'commercial relationship' govt should not be dictating, but perhaps 'exclusivity' could be negotiable, say next day for finals on live to air or other media..??
I don't watch sport, but it irks me that streaming requires a subscription to ONE channel.
What we perhaps should have is like iTunes for TV, or iTunes for sport, where I can pay once, a much smaller fee, for ONE viewing, and then let the market determine when and for how much.
Maybe the Grand Final is $10 to watch live as it happens, per viewer, but is half that next day or $1 per view the day after, or whatever.
Channels would probably make more money in the long run.
This whole 'silo-ing' of content needs to end.

 @BCRN7DGGreens answered…1mo1MO

No, but National Teams should be broadcasted on free to air TV and National Leagues should have restrictions on pricing.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...3mos3MO

No, sports leagues rely on that revenue to grow the game and pay players fairly.

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...…2yrs2Y

Do you support the government calling for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza?

Yes

▲  1.4k5 replies5 disagree