Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Six Nations insider fears sponsor backlash over £300m paywall deal

Getty Images

Six Nations chiefs have been warned they could face a backlash from sponsors if they take the Championship away from terrestrial television and behind a paywall under a new £300m deal with Sky.

ADVERTISEMENT

Guinness have a six-year deal worth an estimated £50m to the Six Nations which runs until 2024 and exposure on terrestrial television – the BBC and ITV currently share rights – would have been a major selling point.

Although a switch to a paywall channel would theoretically allow for more sponsors’ mentions, the audience will be much smaller compared to the 12.8m who tuned into the Rugby World Cup final between England and South Africa on terrestrial television last year.

Following the departure of RBS, Guinness, it is understood, are paying around £6m for the first year – a figure which will grow to double that by 2024.

Faced with this scenario, a Six Nations insider told RugbyPass that a new television deal could be structured similarly to Premier League football with various packages of matches sold to the highest bidder. He explained: “If, for example, Sky put forward the biggest bid then their package could revolve around first choice of match and kick-off time for each round of the Championship which would almost certainly be the one involving England. There would, under that system, be the ability to offer a limited package to a terrestrial channel. That would head off some of the criticism from those who do not want to pay to watch Six Nations games on TV.”

Continue reading below…

WATCH: The guys round up all the Guinness Six Nations and Premiership action.

Video Spacer

There has been, as expected, considerable anger on social media at the possibility of the Six Nations being put behind a paywall if a deal involving Sky, BT or Amazon is struck and Nigel Currie, industry expert and former joint chairman of the European Sponsorship Association, believes sponsors with existing deals will be closely watching developments. Besides Guinness as the headline sponsor, the Six Nations has deals with Amazon Web Services and Tissot.

Currie explained: “If Guinness have a good sponsorship deal, which I suspect they have given there were not that many companies bidding to take over the Six Nations, they would have a case to revisit the details of the deal.

ADVERTISEMENT

“While Sky audiences are growing, they are no where near the biggest terrestrial audiences. The Guinness deal would have been done on the basis it was on terrestrial channels. The Six Nations may have had some protection in the agreement but you would expect the sponsorship money to be dependent on the television deal.”

“Guinness are a big, canny operator and this is a big sponsorship deal and it would have been watertight. If goes onto Sky they may be able to offer sponsors more in terms of break bumpers and exposure because it’s a commercial channel. However, terrestrial television picks up millions of viewers who may like a bit of rugby but they would not be prepared to pay for the privilege.”

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

F
Flankly 1 hour ago
Hansen saga has no winners but rugby needs characters and referees – Andy Goode

Refs make mistakes and they make 50/50 decisions that people don't like. Everyone knows that. And if we're aiming for a world in which people can't discuss those decisions then we're being idiotic.


But there is a big difference between questioning a decision and questioning the integrity of a referee. I don't mind a player or coach saying that they disagree with a Busby decision about Barrett, for example. In fact I am fine if they want to go and produce a tape and a commentary about it. Refs are in the public eye just as much as players are, and it's cool for people to analyze their performances IMV.


What's not OK is to say that they are biased, have hidden agendas, or intentionally favor certain teams or individuals. Nor is it great to call into question their competence, notwithstanding the obvious fact that some refs are more talented and/or experienced than others. Stick to discussing what they did, not who they are or what there intentions may be.


Also, while I think it should be fine (and not penalized) for a player or coach to disagree with certain decisions, I would observe that great teams don't blame "uncontrollables" for their losses and failures. As a player Hansen should treat refereeing the same as the bounce of the ball, the weather or injuries in the team. Uncontrollables are part of the challenge, regardless of how fair you think they are in any particular case.

5 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Boost for Owen Farrell just days after he was labelled Top 14 flop Boost for Owen Farrell just days after he was labelled Top 14 flop
Search