The contest to deliver World Cup news

Richard Hinds

The answer to that potentially game-changing question will be revealed in the wee hours tonight (2am to be precise). And such is the intense interest, you will be able to choose between the two networks engaged in a running battle to be considered Australia's true home of soccer to find out.

SBS and Fox Sports both have teams in Zurich, which is hosting the vote to decide whether Australia, the US, Qatar or the Republic of Korea gets to put on the big show. Pertinently, both broadcasters feature strong advocates of the game who have significant emotional investment in Australia's bid.

SBS's brooding expert Craig Foster and Foxtel's almost equally earnest Andy Harper will be present when the announcement is made. Such has been their passionate crusading, you only hope that, should Australia fail to get the nod, neither are standing close to a window ledge.

Just as SBS still claims to be Australia's soccer network, while Foxtel soaks up more content with the A-League, World Cup qualifiers and Premier League, the competition is fierce to extract the most from these few dramatic moments. Foxtel boasts: "While other networks will cease their broadcast after the announcement . . . coverage on Fox Sports News will continue through the early hours of the morning with regular live crosses back to the team in Zurich."

This could be taken as a promise of in-depth analysis or a warning about excessive repetition of the one salient point — Australia did or didn't get the World Cup. (Oh and whether England, Russia, Spain-Portugal or Netherlands-Belgium got the gig in 2018).

Advertisement

Curiously, SBS's panel includes Tim Harcourt, chief economist at Austrade, who threatens to discuss the economic impact of a successful bid, which, given the ungodly hour, sounds like a great way of getting back to sleep.

■ AS MOST have observed — particularly self-interested media companies and football leagues — the proposed amendments to the anti-siphoning laws provide largely good news for viewers; both those who only have free-to-air TV and those who want a bit more bang for their Foxtel buck.

Most obviously, the ability of free-to-air networks to switch programming that runs into news and current affairs to their digital networks is commonsense. That should avert complaints of Channel Nine crossing to news with several overs still to be bowled in a Test or Channel Seven abandoning Australian Open coverage on the stroke of six.

However, there is still considerable devil in the detail. With some negotiations continuing — most importantly with the AFL and NRL about the quality of games to remain on the anti-siphoning list and those that will be sold directly to Foxtel — viewers will have to keep a close eye on how the new rules are applied.

But several issues are still to be resolved.

The networks have the ability to switch first-run sports (Tests, tennis, etc) to their digital channels but will they do so when it means splitting audiences and taking eyeballs away from their lucrative news programs? And can they be compelled to do so?

Such has been their passionate crusading, you only hope that, should Australia fail to get the nod, neither are standing close to a window ledge.

Will networks exploit the provision allowing for a four-hour delay before so-called Tier B programs (including AFL games) are shown "in full" on either main or digital networks, continuing to delay some sports and thus perpetuating Channel Seven's tedious Friday night AFL replay? Despite some forecasts, the new rules do not force Channel Seven to show those games live or even after a shorter delay.

Will Channel Nine use a digital network to show Melbourne Storm games — traditionally buried after midnight — live in Melbourne?

What will the punishment be for breaking the new rules that Communications Minister Stephen Conroy foreshadowed but has not yet announced?

No doubt, more quirks and complaints will arise but assuming the AFL and NRL don't sell free-to-air viewers down the river, we'll give the proposals a tick.