News24

SAFA want R1bn for Bafana

2011-01-24 09:44

Johannesburg - The South African Football Association has finally sought to put more value on brand Bafana Bafana by demanding R1bn from the public broadcaster for the rights to host the national team's matches.

The SABC are currently coughing up a meagre R150m to exclusively screen Pitso Mosimane's men in action, according to The Times - and SAFA still subsidises around R700 000 worth of production costs for every televised encounter.

The price hike is the latest in a series of friction between both parties, which came to the fore when the broadcaster failed to air an African Nations Cup qualifier against Sierra Leone in October last year.

The SABC revealed its equipment was grounded in Freetown and thus they could not air the crucial fixture.

SAFA raised another concern a week ago when they frowned at the "preferential treatment given to cricket."

The body's CEO Leslie Sedibe was shocked to find the SABC could alter its schedule to fit in one-day internationals or Test matches, but complained whenever Bafana games were requested to be moved to an earlier time slot.

"I was shocked by the preferential treatment given to cricket," Sedibe said at the time.

"I went home at 19:00 last night to watch the news live [on SABC3] and saw the Proteas versus India one-day cricket match instead.

"We were told by the SABC our matches could not be moved from 20:30 to a more suitable 19:00 kick-off because of news and other programming scheduled, and yet the SABC can replace its entire schedule for a day-night cricket match," he said.

SABC spokesperson Kaizer Kganyago is hoping both parties can reach a mutual understanding by the end of March as weekly negotiations intensify.

"Our target is March 31 and we hope everything will have been finalised," he said.

"There is no animosity between us and SAFA as reported in the media and we are confident that we will renew our contract.

"I cannot divulge more because the negotiations are still ongoing but everything is going very well."

The SABC can ill-afford to lose the rights to Bafana games after SuperSport beat them to the broadcasting of PSL matches.

The pay channel may choose not to splash the cash for national team games, but e.tv are waiting in the wings if the SABC scores another own goal.

Football411

Comments
  • Goofster - 2011-01-24 10:02

    Surely it should read 'sought" and not sort.....?

      bobbi.za - 2011-01-24 11:44

      in terms of viewership, soccer draws more viewership than cricket... which in turn yields better ad revenue. on business basis, they should fork out regardless of whether u like the national team or not

      Goofster - 2011-01-24 18:35

      All soughted now.......:)

  • Durasmart - 2011-01-24 10:06

    SAFA should rather pay the SABC R1bn for some airtime to screen this crap they are trying to make us believe is soccer.

      Neo - 2011-01-24 10:13

      Just checked the date and noticed that it is not the 1st of April, so it must be smoke sumtin good day at SAFA ;o))

      JustinC. - 2011-01-24 10:16

      Jeeez "Mr. Negative" You do realise we are 51st on the FIFA rankings? that is pretty good for a team that was 90th a while back. So you still reckon that Bafana Bafana is still "this crap they are trying to make us believe is soccer" material???

      Thor - 2011-01-24 10:25

      Good point..

      mike - 2011-01-24 10:25

      51st bwahahaha... we are joke in international football. Please don't try convince yourself any different. I'm not saying don't support the boys etc etc I'm just saying get real man 51st, seriously!

      bobbi.za - 2011-01-24 11:45

      in terms of viewership, soccer draws more viewership than cricket... which in turn yields better ad revenue. on business basis, they should fork out regardless of whether u like the national team or not Reply to bobbi.za

      Zondo - 2011-01-24 11:55

      @Mike, 51 out of 200 plus soccer playing nations. almost the same as holding position 1 or 2 out of less than 15 Rugby / Cricket playing nations.

      mike - 2011-01-24 12:05

      Oh Zondo, go be ignorant somewhere else... There where 86 nations who tried to qualify for the 2007 rugby world cup. I'm sure in the country who rank 51st in rugby they also support there team but are realistic about there propects. And in coutries that don't rate soccer I'm sure they also think only 10 or so sides actually play the sport, about the same number of realistic winners of the rugby WC as there are of the soccer one actually.

      lenand40 - 2011-01-24 13:32

      @Mike Soccer is the sport that is supported by most people in South Africa regardless of the rankings of the various teams. Business decisions are made on business issues and not on rankings. consider that England have a crap national team but their lead is rated highly. As for realistic teams that can win the world cup, they do not come close to 10. England, France, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia have a reaistic chance of winning. With several surprises, Ireland, Wales and Argentina have a distant chance. I am not sure if you would consider Italy and Scotland to have a realistic chance of ever winning and if you do, then I over estimated your intelligence. In football, a team ranked outside of the Top 20 can still beat a team ranked inside the top 10. Ghana beat Serbia and ran Germany and Uruguay close. South Africa ranked very low beat former champions France and had a credible draw against Mexico, a team ranked 50 ahead of them. That NEVER happens in rugby. In fact, the World Cup draw in rugby can easily lead to a prediction of which teams will make it to the quarterfinals. Only minor surprises (like Argentina beating France) changes the script. No one is asking you to like football or even support it, but get your facts straight. If SABC cannot afford what SAFA is asking for, they must negotiate with conditions (if SABC screws up, they cannot expect me to pay my TV licenses ever again)

      mike - 2011-01-24 13:42

      @ ienand Maybe read my comments and the ones I'm responding to before you get your panties in a bunch. I actually enjoying watching football, I preferr the English premiership to the local crap we call soccer but thats another dicussion. All I was saying is why do soccer supporters always try take a shot at cricket and rugby by using number of teams etc etc.. There are lots of countries out there that play all those sports the fact that number 100 cant beat number 1 in cricket and rugby vs soccer probably says more about soccer then anything else. As for SABC not being able to afford it well I actually don't care, I was just trying to answer these idiots who list rugby as only having 10 teams. By the way Ienand, how long and how many soccer world cups have there been? and how many different countries have actually won the tournament? I guess you missed Argentina in the last rugby world cup or the fact that Ireland is more then capable of winning a rugby world cup.

  • sqc - 2011-01-24 10:09

    Jeez man ....get the spelling right for goodness sake!!!

  • Mossie - 2011-01-24 10:09

    If they loose the football rights,what sport will they have left to broadcast ? Maybe its time for the sabc to push for chior competitions to be regonised as n sport.

      Thunukenenxe - 2011-01-24 12:07

      Cricket

      IandI - 2011-01-24 12:36

      I suggest they show re-runs of all ANCYL conferences and Juju's speeches..now that will keep us laughing till 2014!!

  • Raggy - 2011-01-24 10:11

    If SABC have to pay 1bn we will be probably start have "program shedding" at different times of the day

      Only Truth - 2011-01-24 10:44

      Nope...licence fees are gonna sky rocket. Surely they must have learned something from Eskom.

  • Allin - 2011-01-24 10:15

    I don't pay SABC licence fees so I don't really care if they waste their scarce resources on cr@p like Bafana matches

      Grant - 2011-01-24 13:21

      I TRIED to pay my fees, but they wanted to charge me for fees during the years that I lived in England too...and wouldnt LET me pay for a current licence until I did!

  • blessedstarchild - 2011-01-24 10:25

    Well, lets just put in the contract that Balosers Balosers should pay it back if the don't win a single game.

  • TastiTom - 2011-01-24 10:44

    It's disgusting to see national teams being treated differently by the public broadcaster. It is up to SAFA to stand up as the client who pays. Correctly so, SABC shift all schedules including shortening their news bulletins to accomodate cricket, but when coming to soccer we rather be made to wait until after stupid Generations to watch our national tean in action. So, SAFA must have balls to make sure Bafana's games on TV are not disturbed.

      simodi - 2011-01-24 12:29

      i agree with on this one bra Generations cums first,instead of watching a national team but criket will take the whole day,dats i don't bother paying tv licence

      GP - 2011-01-24 13:22

      You may be aware that most of Bafana fans can't miss an episode of Generations.

      Grant - 2011-01-24 13:24

      Equal rights for all. Same amount of airtime should be allowed for cricket, rugby and soccer. Oh yes, and hockey... and waterpolo...and chess... and badmintin...and archery...and surfing...and bodyboarding...and ice skating...and tennis...and squash... and darts...and horse racing... and ping pong! Otherwise its DISCRIMINATION! (Sounds dumb, doesnt it??)

      jwill - 2011-01-24 14:33

      Ja tastic, ...and how often does the SABC actually televise cricket games? Also, you forgot one major component to your shoddy logic: Supersport has got the primary broadcasting rights for cricket in South Africa: they are the ones that negotiate the finer details with CSA and whoever is involved. You can't really blame the SABC for not having a say in when cricket matches are played. The SABC buys into the broadcasting of Protea games when it's local. They then have to broadcast at either live-time (which apparently interferes with Generations) or they actually have a choice to do a delayed broadcast.

      Albo - 2011-01-24 16:36

      @Grant - "same amount of airtime" - soccer = 90mins, cricket = 8 hours ??????

  • bill - 2011-01-24 10:48

    These clowns at the SABC don't have any money and they have to give their latest failure CEO a golden handshake.Given that the national team can scare beat Reunion perhaps it will be money well saved.

  • njabulo.nxele - 2011-01-24 10:51

    Give it to Etv

  • Martin - 2011-01-24 10:57

    Eich, the World cup is finish... Bafana = less value until they can start winning some of the <50 Fifa ranked teams!

      Greg - 2011-01-24 11:10

      Tell me how many teams play cricket. Not enough to count on all my fingers. Only one country in Europe plays cricket, one in the Americas (Windies) and the rest are Australasian. I can tell you there are 230 countries that play soccer. thats why Bafana are ranked 51st - and there's no shame in that at all.

      Anchorman - 2011-01-24 11:17

      agree with you Greg

      Michael - 2011-01-24 11:26

      I agree Greg... @Martin, you must note that all teams that Bafana Bafana played in world cup were ranking number 18 or better, according to FIFA. One can't be harsh on them based on how they performed against world best.

      mike - 2011-01-24 12:15

      Greg I will tell you how many, there are 105 cricket playing nations that I'm aware of. I'm sorry did that come as a shoch to you. This notion that only 10 or so countries play cricket and rugby is bs, seriously people just cause we don't get excited by number 51 or even play matches against them because what would be the point really doesn't mean they don't exist. Its like when the top soccer teams have to play bafana, they probably think oh a nice SA holiday and we'll kick the ball around a bit too for a light training run, or the coaches go ah we can give our youngsters a run.

      Greg - 2011-01-24 12:42

      @Mike You are trying to be smart. I mean Test cricket because the rest of it is rubbish. The rest of the countries are called associate members of the ICC but they hardly play cricket.

      mike - 2011-01-24 13:30

      @Greg Well you cant really call what Bafana do playing top class football now either. I mean I think some 3rd division sides in England would beat them. So are we comparing apples to apples here or what? Just because the ICC has a different way of trying to develope the sport doesn't change the fact that number 51 in cricket is probably on par with number 51 in football.

      lenand40 - 2011-01-24 13:49

      @Mike New Zealand were unbeaten in the World Cup. They end up with 3 points. South Africa and Mexico both beat France while South Africa ended up with a credible draw against Mexico and should have actually won. Now ask yourself, when 105 ranked team plays against 104 ranked cricket team, does the media even show up?

      mike - 2011-01-24 14:07

      @Ienand You wanna now compare the sports themselves. Ok so lets do this, you take perfectly primed sports stars with years of training and work and play them against what basically amounts to amatuers in there minds.. And they loose, is that sport truely then a reflection of ability or more a lack of something. I mean you send a player off a rugby field for 10 minutes at the top level and the game as a contest is usually over. You send a soccer player off for the entire remainder of the game and the team with 10 can still go on to win. Really, I mean is that really a good measure of sporting ability and application. Soccer is popular becuase it requires the least resources and a below avergae IQ to comprehend.

      mafilo - 2011-01-24 14:50

      hahahaha...Mike you are veeeeeeeeeeeery funny mate. "Soccer is popular becuase it requires the least resources and a below avergae IQ to comprehend" wow!

  • Will99 - 2011-01-24 11:03

    Let Etv show the games

  • mupet-killer - 2011-01-24 11:25

    GIVE IT TO ETV, atleast we will get some decent commentary instead of incoherrant screaming. safa should pay sabc in fact. banana bafoona are a joke, ever since we came 3rd in the afcon 2000 we went on to achieve sweet fk all in the next decade and went on to be ranked close to 100th just before being the 1st host ever to bomb at a world cup.what about rugby? world champs are worth 1 billion. as a whole, all football broadcast on sabc is very low on quality as a product.

  • mupet-killer - 2011-01-24 11:30

    WHAT ABOUT RUGBY? our world champs are worth 1 billion. show us all bok games 'live' home and away and super 15 and currie cup on sabc. we dont even get a highlights show. instead we are stuck with pathetic psl games played on cabbage patch pitches on which fans throw . . wait for it . . cabbages on. sa football is embarrassing

      Will99 - 2011-01-24 11:58

      Sadly that's because SABC ''hasnt got'' the amount of money as Supersport placed on the table.

  • Phineas - 2011-01-24 11:38

    Please remind me again, what is SABC? What are they doing? I do not understand why SAFA is sucking up to this broadcaster. eTV is available, what's procrastination about?

  • Calmone - 2011-01-24 12:13

    Wtf,what a joke.1bn for theses clowns.

  • Thingamebob - 2011-01-24 12:37

    ARE THEY FRIGGING CRAZY

  • Leonard - 2011-01-24 12:55

    Why not pay that money for us to see the English Premier league then baffana much better football

  • Keaobaka - 2011-01-24 12:59

    Its about time our national team get what is worth, SABC has been taking us for a ride for so long,that money can be best be used to improve SAFA lower leagues like LFAs and REGIONAL teams for developmet of this raw talent.

      John Seloa - 2011-01-24 13:16

      The money will be used to increase bonuses for SAFA executives, just as it happened with the FIFA injections.

      GP - 2011-01-24 13:30

      So, Bafana are worth R1bil while ranked 51st? Wonder how much more would they be worth if they went back to the glory days when they once cracked into the top 20 in world rankings.

  • Ingie - 2011-01-24 13:31

    Well this will surely go into someones pockets to line. Can you tell me besides the WC who actually watches Bafana when they play. I dont even though I like soccer and watched all during the WC. I would rather anyday watch cricket.

  • GP - 2011-01-24 13:34

    SAFA care less about the development of soccer. Most successful football associations broadcast their matches on pay tv only. That's why most of us don't know how those stadia look like inside.

  • Jack - 2011-01-24 13:44

    SABSC CANNOT AFFORB EVEN 150M SOCCER SHOULD BE LUCKY THE WC IS OVER AND THE HYPE IS LONG GONE.SHAUN

  • Claude - 2011-01-24 13:54

    hahahahahahahahahahaha..........bbbbbwwwwahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....................aaahhhhh, best joke I have read in a long, long time. Keep them coming SAFA

  • barker - 2011-01-24 14:02

    HEY GUYS LETS COMPARE APPLES WITH APPLES. IT IS NOT A SLAM DUNK THAT SOCCER HAS THE MOST VIEWERSHIP OVERALL AT ALL AND EVN IF IT IS RUGBY WILL BE A CLOSE SECOND I AM SURE. BUT TO BE FAIR LETS FIRST ASK WHAT IS BEING PAID FOR TELEVISON RIGHTS FOR CRICKET AND RUGBY AT A NATIONAL LEVEL OR PER GAME. R1 BILLION RAND SOUNDS MIGHTY HIGH!!

  • Aj - 2011-01-24 14:14

    Let's break it down. Soccer ranking 51st - USELESS Cricket ranking Tests (2) Odi (4) sooooo and this summer we were playing the nr (1) test team a nr (2) odi team I will support bafana out of national principle... but they don't deserve my love. I only love those who try and become better. And those who focus national pride and perform not because of expectation. But they perform because of Love of the game. btw Rugby ranking (3) We constantly with cricket and rugby play against the top 5 nations in the world. Maybe that's why we are better... or are some racists going to comment of the white makeup of the team. Our soccer players have no drive to be the best in the world. Maybe it's lacking in soccer in general... these days it's seen as an easy ride. Not enough stats in soccer to push people to perform. No legends will survive. And being arrogant enough to ask for 1Bn without any performance to back it up. Disgusting.

  • Benny66 - 2011-01-24 14:15

    This is why you will never get anywhere SAFA! Always thinking small. Why not just make it a round US $1bill? And while you're on this aberration trip why not demand FREE use of the 2010 stadiums and, what the hell, go the full hog and demand appearance money from the stadium administrators for the honour of hosting your crowd pulling games.

  • vizion24 - 2011-01-24 16:01

    Cricket gets preferential treatment? We only ever see Cricket on SABC when the Proteas are playing here at home but soccer on the other hand we see no matter where on the world they playing... And who actually plays more matches ? If SAFA strikes then SARU and CSA can also then

  • Julius - 2011-01-24 16:03

    Who is watching any way

  • Justinus - 2011-01-24 16:06

    1billion is too,they rather call for a decent n reasonable amount while shifting this Brocasting from SABC(South Africa Baboons Cartoon) to a Etv or Supersport n SABC will buy this rights elsewhere!

  • dickmb - 2011-01-24 17:53

    all very well but is this not another loophole to fraud tax payers moneythrough the S A B Cin to the chosen fews pockets

  • RIAAN - 2011-01-25 08:52

    Hope the SABC don't fall for this. I would think 90% of the "watchers of soccer" is the lot that does NOT PAY their TV -licence anyway. That is why cricket can be shown. The advertisers will get their money's worth.....

  • jonathank218 - 2011-02-03 08:28

    Let e-Tv take the rights, SABC can go score another own goal ass usual!

  • pages:
  • 1