While SuperSport has been throwing millions at sporting events in an attempt to prevent new competitors from gaining a foothold, it appears to have sewn up rugby for a steal.
The R700-million broadcast deal that was announced by SuperSport and SA Rugby this week has drawn fierce controversy, especially because no other broadcaster was invited to bid.
But while industry insiders are claiming that SA Rugby sold the sport short by ignoring free-to-air broadcasters and tying up a deal months before the new pay-TV entrants are set to launch, it appears the controversy must be viewed against the backdrop of the South African Rugby Union (Saru) elections next month.
Saru president Oregan Hoskins is locked in a fierce power struggle with deputy president Mike Stofile, brother of Sports Minister Makhenkesi Stofile, which appears to be splitting the country’s rugby administrators down the middle.
Regardless of the political storm, it still appears that SuperSport is the big winner, securing the right to broadcast the Currie Cup, Vodacom Cup and incoming Sprinbok tours between 2011 and 2015 for a steal.
SA Rugby has heralded the deal as a huge success, while Hoskins claims the deal is worth double the previous broadcasting rights contract. But with three new pay-TV entrants about to hit the market, all eager to build their own sports offerings, rushing into a deal without allowing all parties to bid is a hugely questionable strategy.
One industry insider said Supersport has consistently over-bid for sports broadcasting rights to prevent its newly licensed competitors from gaining a foothold in the sports broadcasting market.
‘SuperSport has been very heavy over-pricing rights when tenders come up,” said the industry insider. ‘They up the rights value to the point where it doesn’t make sense to anyone else.”
The industry insider also claimed that the R700-million price tag for the rugby rights was seriously undervalued, as none of the other broadcasters could bid.
The five-year PSL rights deal concluded last year by SuperSport was valued at R1,6-billion, and the station is rumoured to have recently concluded a deal for the 2011 Cricket World Cup in India for a whopping US$35-million (R266-million), even though it will only run for six weeks.
‘It’s an absurd deal. They [Saru] are almost giving it away,” said the industry insider, who also claims an opportunity has been missed to grow the sport on the back of the Springbok World Cup success by making rugby available on free-to-air channels.
But the arrogance with which the SABC handled the PSL broadcasting rights negotiations last year suggests that even if it had been given an opportunity to bid, it would not have been willing to go head to head with SuperSport.
Stofile’s camp, which appears to be headed by Eastern Province Rugby’s co-president, Cheeky Watson, has attacked the broadcasting rights deal, calling for an investigation and the agreement to be declared invalid.
But Hos-kins says that late last year a decision was taken at an SA Rugby board meeting for managing director Jonathan Stones to begin negotiations with SuperSport. Mike Stofile, who was present, did not object.
When the Mail & Guardian contacted Stones, he refused to comment — beyond complaining that he was ‘tired of accusations and innuendos”.
‘I’ll stand before my board and I’ll stand before my council,” he said. ‘I’ve reached the end of my patience.”
Hoskins maintains that the deal is the best that could be secured and that nobody received a cent in commission — a reference to the debacle of the R1,6-billion PSL rights deal, where it emerged that R150-million was paid in commissions to leading soccer administrators.
Watson is reported to have written to Minister of Sport Makhenkesi Stofile and the parliamentary sports portfolio committee requesting an investigation into the deal. Stofile’s spokesperson, Lerato Mogorosi, said as far as she was aware the minister had not received letters regarding the broadcasting rights deal and would not comment until he had.
South African rugby administrators, who agreed to talk on condition of anonymity, claim that the public outcry is political posturing ahead of the elections on March 28.
The Mail & Guardian‘s attempts to contact Watson were unsuccessful.