The AFL wants 22 teams. Name your next four.

[Coolangatta]

Bearing in mind we are looking towards and up to 2050
Tas
WA 3 Perth
Canberra
SA 3 Adelaide / Brisbane 2 / WA 4 Perth / WA4 South West all subject to various factors, interest, population etc

I don’t think WA will get a 4th if they get a third as team 20.

I wouldn’t rule out a Sydney 3/Newcastle or New Zealand by 2050 depending on what happens with the secondary markets.

10-15 years of 1-2 games per year being played in Auckland or Newcastle could build momentum.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Unless the AFL can get a contractually binding agreement that the NT government will be funding it to the tune of tens of millions of dollars per year, there is virtually nil chance for an NT/Darwin team, for a multitude of reasons including population size, weather and wrong season for the sport. It's ridiculous. There'll be a NZ team before there's an NT team, even if I don't think there'll be either.

 

[Lorenzo DMH]

I don’t think WA will get a 4th if they get a third as team 20.

My thought as well. I am personally not the biggest fan of a 3rd WA team to begin with, given it eats into a market AFL is already in and I believe there are areas that should be looked for new teams in order to grow the game than I would preference over a 3rd team out west.

 

[Coolangatta]

My thought as well. I am personally not the biggest fan of a 3rd WA team to begin with, given it eats into a market AFL is already in and I believe there are areas that should be looked for new teams in order to grow the game than I would preference over a 3rd team out west.

I think there is potentially a place for a 3rd WA team but not yet.

I don't see too many new areas being viable. NT is too small, hot, humid, flooded; NQ similar - they've got more population but less interest in footy; NZ and Newcastle/3rd Sydney would be huge risks unlikely to pay off; Wollongong/Illawarra I'm not sure, not enough people, better off targeting northern NSW instead.

I really only see Canberra-Riverina as the last new market to target.

Beyond that, given Brisbane's projected population growth, growth in the game, the Sunshine Coast being close to the northern corridor, and the new Gabba that'll be built, I see a second Brisbane side as a very viable option in the next 25 years. However, we need to see the Lions growing to 80k+ members, selling out the new Gabba regularly, and a waiting list from locals to see them play first.

I think a 3rd WA team could work if it carves out its own unique identity - a team in the south-west region that plays 3 games a year at Optus against the Eagles, Dockers, and a big drawing club, plus two away derbies at Optus.

SA is too small for a third team and TAS too small for a second.

But I'm always interested in hearing others thoughts on new markets they think are viable and why.

 

[DEVO]

We can’t really be a national competition if we don’t have a team in the nation’s 7th biggest city.
Newcastle people would get behind a team very quickly but the ground, No 1 Sports Ground, would need an upgrade.

I didn't know this, but Newcastle's population is 100,000 less than Canberra's, so technically Canberra as Australia's 7th largest city. But if you include Lake Macquarie and Maitland as part of the Greater Newcastle area then the population is over 500,000 and greater than Canberra/Queanbeyan which is just below 500,000.

But I do agree, Australia's 7th largest city does deserve an AFL team. I would suggest Australia's 8th largest city also warrants consideration.

With Tassie all but guaranteed, Canberra (or the Canberra Region if you wish to include nearby cities such as Wagga Wagga, Albury) really has to be the next option, it is one of the fastest growing regions in the country and is expected to have a greater population than Tasmania and Greater Newcastle by 2030/31.

I can't really see any profitable options after Canberra, NT is too small and remote, and the climate may also be a factor. I can't see New Zealand being an option, especially if they get a second NRL team which is being discussed. Newcastle/Central Coast may warrant consideration, but does that area really have a strong AFL fanbase, I don't know.

 

[Coolangatta]

I didn't know this, but Newcastle's population is 100,000 less than Canberra's, so technically Canberra as Australia's 7th largest city. But if you include Lake Macquarie and Maitland as part of the Greater Newcastle area then the population is over 500,000 and greater than Canberra/Queanbeyan which is just below 500,000.

But I do agree, Australia's 7th largest city does deserve an AFL team. I would suggest Australia's 8th largest city also warrants consideration.

With Tassie all but guaranteed, Canberra (or the Canberra Region if you wish to include nearby cities such as Wagga Wagga, Albury) really has to be the next option, it is one of the fastest growing regions in the country and is expected to have a greater population than Tasmania and Greater Newcastle by 2030/31.

I can't really see any profitable options after Canberra, NT is too small and remote, and the climate may also be a factor. I can't see New Zealand being an option, especially if they get a second NRL team which is being discussed. Newcastle/Central Coast may warrant consideration, but does that area really have a strong AFL fanbase, I don't know.

The AFL needs to have 2 games per year hosted in Newcastle first to test the waters.

If Canberra-Riverina is team 20, then by the late 2040s and 2050s when I would expect team 21 and 22 to come in, I could see the AFL ignoring WA3 by then if Newcastle became viable. Something like Brisbane 2/Sunshine Coast and Sydney 3/Newcastle would probably be more attractive to the AFL than more service to an already completed market.

 

[DEVO]

The AFL needs to have 2 games per year hosted in Newcastle first to test the waters.

If Canberra-Riverina is team 20, then by the late 2040s and 2050s when I would expect team 21 and 22 to come in, I could see the AFL ignoring WA3 by then if Newcastle became viable. Something like Brisbane 2/Sunshine Coast and Sydney 3/Newcastle would probably be more attractive to the AFL than more service to an already completed market.

I'd ignore Sydney as an option for a third team and just combine the Newcastle and the Central Coast areas, there's 850,000+ people in those two markets and while I'm not sure how popular AFL is in those markets, it's growing at around 10-12% every decade so there is a real opportunity for growth that the NRL has been ignoring, to some extent.

I'd also ignore Brisbane and look at the Sunshine Coast as a single market, it's already over 400,000 and is the fastest growing area in the country. It will be larger than Canberra and Greater Newcastle by the middle of next decade.

No guarantee that any of these places will embrace an AFL team, but worth having a look at.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I didn't know this, but Newcastle's population is 100,000 less than Canberra's, so technically Canberra as Australia's 7th largest city. But if you include Lake Macquarie and Maitland as part of the Greater Newcastle area then the population is over 500,000 and greater than Canberra/Queanbeyan which is just below 500,000.

But I do agree, Australia's 7th largest city does deserve an AFL team. I would suggest Australia's 8th largest city also warrants consideration.

With Tassie all but guaranteed, Canberra (or the Canberra Region if you wish to include nearby cities such as Wagga Wagga, Albury) really has to be the next option, it is one of the fastest growing regions in the country and is expected to have a greater population than Tasmania and Greater Newcastle by 2030/31.

I can't really see any profitable options after Canberra, NT is too small and remote, and the climate may also be a factor. I can't see New Zealand being an option, especially if they get a second NRL team which is being discussed. Newcastle/Central Coast may warrant consideration, but does that area really have a strong AFL fanbase, I don't know.

I think Canberra-Queabeyan has now cracked the 500k milestone.

The mid-2023 projection had the ACT at 467k. Queanbeyan had 37k at the 2021 census. So we've just crept past the milestone at 504k (probably a bit more).

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

I'd also ignore Brisbane and look at the Sunshine Coast as a single market, it's already over 400,000 and is the fastest growing area in the country. It will be larger than Canberra and Greater Newcastle by the middle of next decade.

No guarantee that any of these places will embrace an AFL team, but worth having a look at.

I certainly wouldn’t be ignoring Brisbane. SE Qld is a pretty cohesive region, because the main rivalry in the state is North Qld v South, or more precisely SE Qld v everywhere else.

The Qld government’s medium series population projections give a reasonable indicator of where future growth will be within Qld LGA’s. Helpfully, this projection is until 2046, which would be possibly around the time when a 21st or 22nd club would enter the competition.

By 2046, here are the projected populations for the following areas:

Greater Brisbane - 3,652,250

Gold Coast - 983,004

Sunshine Coast - 545,523 (this probably doesn’t include Noosa - projected to have an additional 75k by then).

Even with Noosa, the Sunny Coast will be a fair bit smaller than what the Gold Coast is now. The Lions membership grew by 10k last year and they are aiming to grow it by another 10k this year. They are successful atm, but I’m predicting they’ll be a huge club in another 20 years if they have the whole city of 3.6m to themselves.

If a standalone team was placed on the SC, then the situation with the clubs could possibly be:

1. The Lions are a massive club
2. The Suns are a medium sized club
3. The SC are a small club, more than likely the smallest in the league.

Furthermore, the Lions would be playing at a 55k Olympic standard stadium for 11 games per year, while a whole new tier 1 stadium will need to be constructed on the Sunny Coast.

Brisbane’s Northern corridor is rapidly expanding. The LGA of Moreton Bay is forecast to have 796,515 by 2046. This borders the Northern suburbs of the Brisbane CC, which already comprises in excess of 200k+ people. Personally, I think it would be ludicrous to ignore a catchment like that. Particularly when the Lions have chosen to base themselves in Springfield (30km SW of the city) in Ipswich LGA.

If done right, a Northern corridor club could become the team for people from Northern Brisbane, Moreton Bay and the Sunshine Coast. They could potentially play 7-8 home games at a world class Gabba and 3-4 at a boutique, tier 2 venue on the Sunny Coast.

If expansion panned out this way then a probable outcome would be:

1. The Lions are a big club
2. The Suns are a medium sized club
3. The 3rd club (I like the name Moreton Bay) would be a good chance to be a medium sized club as well with the size of their catchment.

Don’t forget that the NRL had the option of a standalone team on the coast, but they opted for Redcliffe, and called them the generic name, ‘Dolphins’ so they could become a club for Brisbane’s Northern corridor (extending up to include the SC).

https://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/issues/5276/qld-population-projections-regions-reports-local-government-areas-sa2-report-2023-edn.pdf

 

[Coolangatta]

I

I certainly wouldn’t be ignoring Brisbane. SE Qld is a pretty cohesive region, because the main rivalry in the state is North Qld v South, or more precisely SE Qld v everywhere else.

The Qld government’s medium series population projections give a reasonable indicator of where future growth will be within Qld LGA’s. Helpfully, this projection is until 2046, which would be possibly around the time when a 21st or 22nd club would enter the competition.

By 2046, here are the projected populations for the following areas:

Greater Brisbane - 3,652,250

Gold Coast - 983,004

Sunshine Coast - 545,523 (this probably doesn’t include Noosa - projected to have an additional 75k by then).

Even with Noosa, the Sunny Coast will be a fair bit smaller than what the Gold Coast is now. The Lions membership grew by 10k last year and they are aiming to grow it by another 10k this year. They are successful atm, but I’m predicting they’ll be a huge club in another 20 years if they have the whole city of 3.6m to themselves.

If a standalone team was placed on the SC, then the situation with the clubs could possibly be:

1. The Lions are a massive club
2. The Suns are a medium sized club
3. The SC are a small club, more than likely the smallest in the league.

Furthermore, the Lions would be playing at a 55k Olympic standard stadium for 11 games per year, while a whole new tier 1 stadium will need to be constructed on the Sunny Coast.

Brisbane’s Northern corridor is rapidly expanding. The LGA of Moreton Bay is forecast to have 796,515 by 2046. This borders the Northern suburbs of the Brisbane CC, which already comprises in excess of 200k+ people. Personally, I think it would be ludicrous to ignore a catchment like that. Particularly when the Lions have chosen to base themselves in Springfield (30km SW of the city) in Ipswich LGA.

If done right, a Northern corridor club could become the team for people from Northern Brisbane, Moreton Bay and the Sunshine Coast. They could potentially play 7-8 home games at a world class Gabba and 3-4 at a boutique, tier 2 venue on the Sunny Coast.

If expansion panned out this way then a probable outcome would be:

1. The Lions are a big club
2. The Suns are a medium sized club
3. The 3rd club (I like the name Moreton Bay) would be a good chance to be a medium sized club as well with the size of their catchment.

Don’t forget that the NRL had the option of a standalone team on the coast, but they opted for Redcliffe, and called them the generic name, ‘Dolphins’ so they could become a club for Brisbane’s Northern corridor (extending up to include the SC).

https://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/issues/5276/qld-population-projections-regions-reports-local-government-areas-sa2-report-2023-edn.pdf

Agreed.

If you're going to combine Newcastle and Central Coast (say, Newcastle 8 games, Gosford 3) then why not combine Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast? The latter would be a much bigger catchment than the former.

I do like the idea of a third WA club in the next 25-30 years but I could see the AFL targeting NSW and QLD for licence 21 and 22.

But Moreton Bay Bullsharks just sounds awesome.

Hunter Valley Vikings for a Newcastle-Central Coast team.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Agreed.

If you're going to combine Newcastle and Central Coast (say, Newcastle 8 games, Gosford 3) then why not combine Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast? The latter would be a much bigger catchment than the former.

I do like the idea of a third WA club in the next 25-30 years but I could see the AFL targeting NSW and QLD for licence 21 and 22.

But Moreton Bay Bullsharks just sounds awesome.

Hunter Valley Vikings for a Newcastle-Central Coast team.

Other factors to consider are the size of each catchment’s economy and the real prospect that the NRL will admit a 3rd Brisbane side within the next 20 years. There have been strong previous bids from Brisbane Tigers (based on the Southside) and Ipswich Jets.

The Lions would have their work cut out to progress the growth of the game in Australia’s third biggest city if they were competing against 3 NRL clubs all by themselves. Having another club to gain media coverage, conduct community and school visits etc would help the game significantly.

Personally, I’m all for a 3rd WA club as well. I like the idea of allowing the South West to grow until they’re big enough (which puts them in line for 21 or 22). Creating 4 x extra Western derbies per season will add heaps to the sport and slightly alleviate the huge travel disadvantages the Perth clubs have each year. Might strengthen player pathways for youth talent from SW WA as well, so a rapidly growing traditional footy area can contribute more to the talent pool.

 

[Coolangatta]

Other factors to consider are the size of each catchment’s economy and the real prospect that the NRL will admit a 3rd Brisbane side within the next 20 years. There have been strong previous bids from Brisbane Tigers (based on the Southside) and Ipswich Jets.

The Lions would have their work cut out to progress the growth of the game in Australia’s third biggest city if they were competing against 3 NRL clubs all by themselves. Having another club to gain media coverage, conduct community and school visits etc would help the game significantly.

Personally, I’m all for a 3rd WA club as well. I like the idea of allowing the South West to grow until they’re big enough (which puts them in line for 21 or 22). Creating 4 x extra Western derbies per season will add heaps to the sport and slightly alleviate the huge travel disadvantages the Perth clubs have each year. Might strengthen player pathways for youth talent from SW WA as well, so a rapidly growing traditional footy area can contribute more to the talent pool.

Yes, a 3rd WA team down the south west has a lot going for it, but I also think the Hunter Valley region has a lot of potential as does NZ, so I would actually like to see it get to 24 teams if possible.

I know a lot of people would be pissed if we ever went to that many teams and it didn't include SA3 or the NT but they have to look at what is actually going to work, but what people want from the heart.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Yes, a 3rd WA team down the south west has a lot going for it, but I also think the Hunter Valley region has a lot of potential as does NZ, so I would actually like to see it get to 24 teams if possible.

I know a lot of people would be pissed if we ever went to that many teams and it didn't include SA3 or the NT but they have to look at what is actually going to work, but what people want from the heart.

I would love to see the game expand into those regions; it would be a clear indication of the game’s increasing popularity. A lot would have to go right for that to occur, however. From my understanding, Newcastle is about as staunch rugby league as you can get, without the benefit of being a huge metro area. Meanwhile, NZ has population on its side and a unique identity, but that is about it atm.

We’re always spitballing ideas here, which is fun, although I’m not sold with those particular regions because Auckland and Newcastle don’t even have a suitable venue for FIFO games yet, so they’re really the great unknown. Alternatively, out West, there sits the second largest AFL market in existence: waiting lists for members, a fast growing population and evidence of 50k+ crowds for neutral games.

You’ve mentioned that a 3rd WA team may not be necessary cause it’s a captive market, although if it’s an under-utilised market and there’s a slam dunk option for a successful expansion side, then that is what I would be prioritising for the next round of expansion.

 

[Coolangatta]

I would love to see the game expand into those regions; it would be a clear indication of the game’s increasing popularity. A lot would have to go right for that to occur, however. From my understanding, Newcastle is about as staunch rugby league as you can get, without the benefit of being a huge metro area. Meanwhile, NZ has population on its side and a unique identity, but that is about it atm.

We’re always spitballing ideas here, which is fun, although I’m not sold with those particular regions because Auckland and Newcastle don’t even have a suitable venue for FIFO games yet, so they’re really the great unknown. Alternatively, out West, there sits the second largest AFL market in existence: waiting lists for members, a fast growing population and evidence of 50k+ crowds for neutral games.

You’ve mentioned that a 3rd WA team may not be necessary cause it’s a captive market, although if it’s an under-utilised market and there’s a slam dunk option for a successful expansion side, then that is what I would be prioritising for the next round of expansion.

You make good points. I mean, Newcastle isn't Western Sydney, if they were already sitting on at least 1 million people, that'd be a different story, but they aren't that big yet, and they need to be, relative population growth being what it is.

Brisbane 2 makes sense, given the games growth, Vic's that are moving there, and so on. Plus, there's something about there being two teams each in Perth, Adelaide, Sydney, and Brisbane that has a nice symmetry to it.

Besides, one of the criticisms of going to 24 teams is too many teams that no one gives a s**t about. So if we're to expand that far, it should probably go to places that care about footy.

And I think 24 should be the max because it's nice for everyone to play each other once instead of every second, third, or fourth year.

So, 22 would be a good place to leave it unless somehow, down the track, NT can become viable, which would have to be through being funded from sources outside the AFL.

NT could be a good wildcard 23rd team if the miracle happened, then you'd need a 24th team. A 3rd in SA or a second Tassie team would be good for traditional footy and more exciting than New Zealand or Newcastle.

But we'll see, expect the unexpected with AFL expansion.

 

[JackFlash]

22 is insane, but so are the AFL.

They should stop at 20, but if they were going to go completely bonkers and have 22, then we must lose another Vic team along the way'
So as it is Tassie will be 19
I'll go for Canberra at 20
21 another team in WA
22 another team in SA

Lose a Vic team and go Northern Australia splitting NT and North Qld.
It will never happen though

 

[eth-dog]

20. Canberra/Southern NSW. Primarily in Canberra but with a couple of home games in Wagga Wagga and Albury
21. Joondalup Falcons. They're the obvious third WA team.
22. Norwood. The team who should have been around already instead of Adelaide

 

[Coolangatta]

22 is insane, but so are the AFL.

They should stop at 20, but if they were going to go completely bonkers and have 22, then we must lose another Vic team along the way'
So as it is Tassie will be 19
I'll go for Canberra at 20
21 another team in WA
22 another team in SA

Lose a Vic team and go Northern Australia splitting NT and North Qld.
It will never happen though

There’s no way WA3 or SA3 would be team 21. They are there to even up the number of teams and feed strong footy markets, not grow the game in new markets.

If the AFL wanted what you suggested, it’s more likely there’d be an ACT relocation and WA3 as the 20th side. NT and SA3 would be teams 21 and 22.

Since I don’t think any Vic side will ever relocate, it’s more likely to be ACT or WA3 as the 20th side. NT or ACT would be the 21st side and WA3 or NT would be team 22.

I could see it happening if the NT ever somehow gets all the funding it needs for a team. But if the AFL does think there’s more it can get out of Brisbane market, then one of WA3, ACT, or NT will miss out on what would likely be the last round of expansion.

I think 20-22 will be the max as the AFL won’t want to lose double up derbies and probably won’t switch to a conference system.

 

[JackFlash]

There’s no way WA3 or SA3 would be team 21. They are there to even up the number of teams and feed strong footy markets, not grow the game in new markets.

If the AFL wanted what you suggested, it’s more likely there’d be an ACT relocation and WA3 as the 20th side. NT and SA3 would be teams 21 and 22.

Since I don’t think any Vic side will ever relocate, it’s more likely to be ACT or WA3 as the 20th side. NT or ACT would be the 21st side and WA3 or NT would be team 22.

I could see it happening if the NT ever somehow gets all the funding it needs for a team. But if the AFL does think there’s more it can get out of Brisbane market, then one of WA3, ACT, or NT will miss out on what would likely be the last round of expansion.

I think 20-22 will be the max as the AFL won’t want to lose double up derbies and probably won’t switch to a conference system.

I go along with that, i'm just guessing anyway, it is possible a team from the south of Perth is possible and a possible SA/NT new team, but where will they be based? The AFL appear committed to Queensland, but the Olympics could put a huge dampener on things for a while?

 

[Aussie in exile]

I go along with that, i'm just guessing anyway, it is possible a team from the south of Perth is possible and a possible SA/NT new team, but where will they be based? The AFL appear committed to Queensland, but the Olympics could put a huge dampener on things for a while?

There wont be any taxpayers money left in the kitty for sure for any sport.

 

[Coolangatta]

There wont be any taxpayers money left in the kitty for sure for any sport.

That’s why Brisbane 2 would make more sense than Sunshine Coast. They’ll already have the Gabba and all the infrastructure required to set something up. Or at least, the cost would be much lower I’d imagine than a SC only based side.

 

[kranger]

Fitzroy Lions and South Melbourne Swans have to return to their homeland.

Look at the ratings:

Metro FTA Audience​

​

​

• Sydney average 22,000 (-21% Year on Year)
• Melbourne average 219,000 (-1.35%)
• Brisbane average 30,000 (+11%)
• Adelaide average 77,000 (no movement)
• Perth average 56,000 (-23%)
• Sydney/Brisbane combined average 39,000

Swans games in Sydney averaged 41,000 in 2023 (-19%), while GWS managed 19,000 per game (-20%). Games involving neither side averaged 15,000.​

​

In Melbourne, the two games that didnt involve Melbourne sides rated an average of 154,000. Games involving Melbourne sides averaged 225,000.​

​

In Brisbane, the Lions averaged 48,000 in 2023 – +17% YoY – (including a season high of 80,000), while the Suns managed 22,000 per game (no movement). Games involving neither side rated 26,000, (To be fair the Suns are Gold Coast based, but did struggle at the lower end of the ratings).​

​

In Adelaide, the Crows averaged 94,000 a game (+10%), while the Power averaged 87,000 (-4%). The Showdowns rated 150,000 and 143,000, although the Crows/Blues round 5 magic round opener splt the two at 148,000. Games involving neither Adelaide side rated an average 68,000.​

​

In Perth, West Coast matches averaged 74,000 – down 22% – while Fremantle games fared worse – down 28% YoY and averaged 69,000. The Western Derby rated 155,000 and 154,000. Games involving neither Perth side averaged 45,000.​

​

State of the Game 2023: AFL Attendance, Social Media, Support, Participation, Memberships and TV Ratings - Sports Industry AU

After a record breaking season and a huge grand final, its time to wrap up the season with a nice

www.footyindustry.com

The poor ratings in Perth rules out the Joondalup bid.

Relocate Giants and Suns to Bendigo and Casey.

Add the Nauru Hotshots as the 20th team since it's the only country in the world to have Aussie rules as its national sport.

Sorry to bump this post, but I found the data interesting. It’s a pretty cool breakdown and comparison. One factor that is difficult to allow for, is timeslot of the games.

For example, Thursday and Friday night games average higher tv viewers than Saturday night games.

Saturday night games average higher viewers than Saturday and Sunday day games.

Let’s focus on the non-Vic comparisons of local teams vs no local team viewers.

If GWS (random non-Vic team used as an example without looking at the fixtures) tend to have day games, they are playing in a timeslot that would have a lower viewership compared to if that game was played at night.

Meanwhile, if the games that don’t involve Swans or GWS tend to be night games, the viewership will be higher compared to if that same game was played and broadcast during a day timeslot.

It means without the timeslot bias, the local teams might actually be achieving better viewerships compared to non local teams than what this data suggests.

It would be interesting to know how that nuance plays into these numbers, but I don’t think anyone has the time to go into that level of analysis.

 

[Bjo187]

Sorry to bump this post, but I found the data interesting. It’s a pretty cool breakdown and comparison. One factor that is difficult to allow for, is timeslot of the games.

For example, Thursday and Friday night games average higher tv viewers than Saturday night games.

Saturday night games average higher viewers than Saturday and Sunday day games.

Let’s focus on the non-Vic comparisons of local teams vs no local team viewers.

If GWS (random non-Vic team used as an example without looking at the fixtures) tend to have day games, they are playing in a timeslot that would have a lower viewership compared to if that game was played at night.

Meanwhile, if the games that don’t involve Swans or GWS tend to be night games, the viewership will be higher compared to if that same game was played and broadcast during a day timeslot.

It means without the timeslot bias, the local teams might actually be achieving better viewerships compared to non local teams than what this data suggests.

It would be interesting to know how that nuance plays into these numbers, but I don’t think anyone has the time to go into that level of analysis.

I would also imagine most footy fans in nsw and qld watch via kayo or foxtel. Especially considering 7 shove afl games off to secondary channels in those markets (and Perth). Thanks 7 for your great work, as if your coverage isn't crap enough already.

 

[Coolangatta]

Sorry to bump this post, but I found the data interesting. It’s a pretty cool breakdown and comparison. One factor that is difficult to allow for, is timeslot of the games.

For example, Thursday and Friday night games average higher tv viewers than Saturday night games.

Saturday night games average higher viewers than Saturday and Sunday day games.

Let’s focus on the non-Vic comparisons of local teams vs no local team viewers.

If GWS (random non-Vic team used as an example without looking at the fixtures) tend to have day games, they are playing in a timeslot that would have a lower viewership compared to if that game was played at night.

Meanwhile, if the games that don’t involve Swans or GWS tend to be night games, the viewership will be higher compared to if that same game was played and broadcast during a day timeslot.

It means without the timeslot bias, the local teams might actually be achieving better viewerships compared to non local teams than what this data suggests.

It would be interesting to know how that nuance plays into these numbers, but I don’t think anyone has the time to go into that level of analysis.

Won't stop the hardcore Vic bias mob from insisting that they're the heavy lifters of the TV rights money and therefore deserve to retain 10 teams and even bring back more.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Won't stop the hardcore Vic bias mob from insisting that they're the heavy lifters of the TV rights money and therefore deserve to retain 10 teams and even bring back more.

They do.

 

[Coolangatta]

They do.

Yes, but how much of that is because of the timeslots is up for debate. Of course, more Vic teams is going to mean more prime time games but a better distribution of prime time games will help the emerging markets.

I haven’t gone through the new fixture but I’m sure it’ll get better over time.

How many Friday night games have the Dockers or Suns had in the last five years? And so on.