SABC and SAFA renew football contract for another 4 years but want to keep broadcast deal price tag a secret.

by Thinus Ferreira

The South African public broadcaster and the South African Football Association (SAFA) have renewed their SABC football broadcast deal for another 4 years that will include all SAFA matches and events.

The SABC refused to divulge the cost of the 4-year contract which will run through 2028 although the financial terms of deals like these - especially not with a publicly funded broadcaster - isn't and should be any secret.

"It's my great honour to announce that SAFA and the SABC have renewed their partnership that has held us in good stead for the past 32 years and that has allowed South Africans to be part of the football journey. We have an agreement in place for another 4-year cycle," Nomsa Chabeli, SABC CEO said at an announcement at the SABC's Auckland Park headquarters.

"What's exciting about this new cycle is also that it's not just limited to the senior teams, for example Bafana Bafana. It's also got the Banyana Banyana matches and the women's Hollywoodbets Super League."

"For me personally I love that we are going to be able to showcase grassroots leagues, which are critical for this country in terms of people coming out in numbers and playing and the future stars of football in South Africa, and also having the opportunity to play globally."

Nomsa Chabeli refused to say what the SABC's new 4-year deal with SAFA was worth.

"From the SABC's perspective, we don't discuss the contents of our contracts. That's important because they're confidential, but broadcast deals help maintain the sporting ecosystem" she said.

"We're bringing in the audiences and once you bring in audiences you're bringing in other sponsors. SAFA is then able to package a proposition and go on and sell it to commercial sponsors who are looking for rights and opportunities to leverage their presence and to target the audiences the SABC is bringing to this."

"This partnership is not about rands and cents. It's also about the SABC giving universal access to all South Africans to be part of this. t has to be looked at in terms of a bigger, national issue rather than just how much is exchanging hands."

She said the SABC's broadcasting deals for Rugby Championship matches between South Africa, New Zealand and Argentina in August and September will be announced soon should the broadcaster have anything in place.

Danny Jordaan, SAFA president, said "If your matches have no broadcast, your value of those matches and your properties are of a lesser value than when it is exposed on national television. That is the important thing. I'll calculate that and then come back about the monetary worth. It's a complicated calculation but ultimately we have to bring the figures."

Keletso Totlhanyo, SABC head of sports, said the renewed SAFA deal with the SABC will include broadcasting "Bafana Bafana and Banyana Banyana matches and all SAFA events".

"We'll still continue the Bafana team announcements here at the SABC, and we are going to have a weekly magazine programme where we are going to cover everything about South African football."

"We'll also give SAFA sponsors the opportunity to tell us about their involvement and relationship with SAFA."

"It will also give us the opportunity to cover more of the development side of football and where possible we will be streaming these matches from the provinces on SABC+, but definitely live matches of Bafana, Banyana, Abantwana [South African women's U-17s], and Hollywoodbets still every Sunday on SABC1."

After 2 years of animosity a thaw in the broadcast divorce as SABC signs a new 4-year deal with the South African Football Association (SAFA) to return the showing of national soccer teams matches to the public broadcaster.

After an acrimonious split since October 2017 due to SABC non-payment and not keeping to contract stipulations as well as conflict over price, the South African Football Association (SAFA) and the SABC has signed a new 4-year agreement to broadcast matches of South Africa's national male and female soccer teams, starting with today's Bafana Bafana match against Mali in Port Elizabeth that will be broadcast on SABC1 at 15:00.

The SABC didn't want to disclose how much the new deal is worth and what the SABC will be paying for the contract.

The previous and now-expired deal between SAFA and the SABC was R110, with SAFA that made a new offer of R200 million. The SABC however, pleading poverty initially offered R150 million but then dropped its offer to only R10 million which led to the breakdown in the relationship between the sports body and the broadcaster.

The new 4-year agreement between the SABC and SAFA comes after a tumultuous and ugly contractual divorce between South Africa's public broadcaster and SAFA - one of several sports bodies the struggling and cash-strapped SABC severed ties with over the past 3 years.

SAFA blamed the SABC for the failure to conclude a broadcasting rights agreement in October 2018, saying the SABC made a "discourteous offer" regarding what the SABC is willing to pay for the broadcasting rights to international football matches that Bafana Bafana is playing in inside South Africa.

"It is interesting to note that even the apartheid-run SABC of old made a better offer to the association for their rights in this country," Safa said at the time.

The new deal between the SABC and SAFA will include the broadcast of 6 Bafana Bafana matches per year, including 3 home AFCON qualifiers; 2 international friendlies and the Nelson Mandela Challenge); 5 Banyana Banyana home friendly matches, inclusive of the Winnie Mandela Challenge; as well as domestic competitions.

These will include the U/19 Women’s National Championship Final, Burger King U/20 National Championships Final, U/23 Men’s National Championships FINALS, ABC Motsepe National Play Offs Final, KAY Motsepe Schools Final, Futsal and Beach Football National Championships FINALS as well as the SASOL Womens League Finals and various SAFA National Womens League matches.

As part of the deal the SABC will once again do a weekly SAFA-centred magazine sports show and broadcast the annual South African Football Association awards.

"In negotiating this deal with SAFA, the SABC needed to find a balance between fulfilling its public mandate and entering into an agreement which was commercially viable," says Madoda Mxakwe, SABC CEO, in a statement released on Sunday morning.

"We understand the role we play in promoting sports of national interest, and inspiring the next generation of sports stars."

Dr. Danny Jordaan, SAFA president said that "As SAFA, we are pleased to have finally come to an agreement with the public broadcaster which is in the public interest and the good of the game".

"After protracted negotiations, it is great that the public will once again get to watch Bafana Bafana, Banyana Banyana and other national teams matches on SABC, in addition to various other important football development programmes, that has seen SAFA make a major impact on football on the continent."

Safa slams SA broadcasting regulator, Icasa's destructive changes to TV sports rights regulations, warns it 'will have a devastating effect on football in South Africa'.

The South African Football Association (Safa) is slamming the broadcasting regulator's destructive, highly-criticised and apparently idiotic, ill-informed plan for changes to TV sports rights regulations in South Africa, saying it will have a devastating effect on football in the country.

The Premier Soccer League and sport bodies have already spoken out publicly about how the proposed changes to TV sports licensing regulations will destroy sporting codes like rugby, soccer as well as broadcasters like MultiChoice and SuperSport who pay a lot of money - funnelled to sports - to acquire broadcasting rights that stay-at-home viewers in turn pay for.

In a strongly-worded and lengthy statement, Safa slams Icasa - and the SABC - over the shocking and daft draft regulations (published here).


ALSO READ: Serious harm awaits sports and sports broadcasting in South Africa in daft and shocking proposed new rules about TV sports rights from South Africa's broadcasting regulator.

ALSO READ: Premier Soccer League boss Irvin Khoza slams South Africa's broadcaster regulator; warns that Icasa's dumb and destructive sports rights regulations will destroy and dump SA sports back in the 1980's.


Safa says that it as "taken note of Icasa's proposed amendments to the Sports Broadcasting Services Regulations, and like most sporting federations in the country, cannot agree with the proposals being made by Icasa, and will vehemently oppose them in the current format."

"It is common knowledge that sporting federations in South Africa and the world at large, rely on the sale of their broadcast rights to broadcasters, to help sustain their development programs and unfunded projects for the growth of the sport – and Safa is no different in this respect," says Safa.

"In Safa's case, this funding by and large - probably as close as 80% - comes directly from revenue generated in the sale of broadcast rights.

"It is therefore very easy to see that the effects of the proposed Icasa regulations will have a devastating effect on the development and growth of football in this country, if Safa is prohibited from securing the appropriate market related financial value associated with broadcast rights, from prospective broadcasting partners."

"One only has to listen to the chairman of the National Soccer League to appreciate the effects it will have on their segment of the game, and when you consider the impact he speaks of and the effects it will have on participants of around 2000 players, all generally living well above the bread line."

"If the impact on the National Soccer League will be so great, just imagine the effects on Safa, whose 3 000 000 plus members, by and large, are either living just on the breadline or generally below the breadline."

"Furthermore by virtue of Safa being listed under Category A: Compulsory Must-carry Live and in full; the impact on Safa's commercial program will be even more severe," warns the organisation.


'Clear Icasa hasn't considered the impact'
"It is clear that Icasa has not considered the effects and impacts of this on sporting federations, let alone the broadcaster - and in this case as they wish to dictate the free to air broadcaster."

"Neither does it seem Icasa considered the practice of what they propose, or for that matter the actual role players."

"Let’s just consider the current landscape of free-to-air broadcasters in South Africa. There is the SABC and e.tv who in this case does not even have a sports footprint, so one is limited to the SABC by and large".

"It is clear that if the SABC was mandated to ensure the live broadcast of the events that Icasa wishes them to broadcast, they would not have sufficient airtime or TV hours to do all of this as and when they occur despite having 3 channels".

"Where will the SABC get the necessary infrastructure - camera’s, OB units, vehicles etc. - and human resources (cameramen/women) to produce live? And if they do acquire these, it would increase their operating expenses more than 3 fold."

"It would, therefore, appear that the free-to-air broadcaster would have to approach the sporting federations to play matches at times which they are not accustomed to, and this then has a further knock-on effect."

"Fans wanting to attend these events live would be inconvenienced and as such not be able to attend, thus further affecting commercial revenue for the federations as well as the atmosphere at events."

"Costs for event staging would go up, as facilities would be required to operate on times/days that they usually do not. Furthermore and quite importantly too, advertising revenue to the broadcaster will be affected, as the TV audience and timing of the event may not be as they have wanted."

"The effects on not wanting to allow sporting federations to negotiate contracts that offer exclusivity to a broadcaster is also absurd, in that the very essence of deriving greater revenue for the rights holder is exactly this offer of exclusivity," says Safa.

"When broadcasters are offered exclusivity by the rights holder, they are able to pay the rights holder a higher fee, as they themselves as the broadcaster is able to offer advertisers an opportunity of a bigger audience watching their adverts and as such charge these advertisers at a higher rate card."

"When a product/event is available anywhere and everywhere, it loses its value and does not become commercially viable for the buyer of the rights to exploit in a manner which serves their business or for that matter to pay the value the rights holder attaches to their property," says Safa.

"Ironically, perhaps the greatest unintended consequence of the regulations is that it will once and for all remove any possibility for the entry of a new subscription broadcast competitor to the local market – which as we understand it, was one of the main objectives of the regulations."

"Without the possibility of ever securing exclusive broadcast rights (pay-TV and free-to-air) for the most sought-after sports content in the country, the likelihood of growing a subscriber base is severely limited, particularly now when faced with the added competition from the wrath of unregulated global over-the-top players, such as Netflix, with budgets that dwarf even the largest of players currently in our market."


'SABC quite silent'
"It is quite significant through all these debates on the proposed Icasa regulations, that the SABC itself has been quite silent on this matter and not expressed a view, much the same for the other free-to-air broadcaster e.tv, but e.tv is probably understandable given their non-existent sports footprint and moreover because they do not have channel/airtime capacity as matters stand," says Safa.

"The SABC has been quite vociferous in their commentary about sports broadcasts, claiming that it costs them millions of rands in displacements costs. So if they would have to broadcast more sport live, where will they find the airtime and TV hours to broadcast their soapies?"

"Which again, if they are not able to do, will be part of this vicious circle where they lose more money in advertising revenue if they can't show soapies," says Safa.

"It's also interesting to note that Icasa lists the IAAF in their proposed regulations - so given that the IAAF is not a federation in South Africa, nor is it an event - how do they plan to regulate them, and exactly what will they be regulating?"


'ignorant regulations poorly drafted'
"On the whole, it must be said that the regulations are poorly drafted and open to varying interpretations," says Safa.

"The fact that Icasa, in the case of football, listed CAF and FIFA matches down, without clarity of which matches these are, also shows ignorance to the sport."

"If for example, they remain as broad as it reads now, this would have a negative impact on the very people they wish to support, as the rights would not be of any value in South Africa, as prospective broadcast buyers of these rights from CAF and FIFA would not have exclusivity and as such not capitalize on viewership and advertisers and therefore not be in a position to mitigate their rights costs," says Safa.

"There would thus be a strong possibility of these matches/world class events not being shown in South Africa. This would the same in the case of the other sporting federations major international world events."

"Safa has over the years been very diligent on compliance with what Icasa had regulated before, ensuring that the masses of our country were able to have access to all of the national teams and tournaments."

"We remain committed to the objective to ensure that the masses will always have access to their national teams as well, but we alone cannot be doing so at the expense of our members, the development of the game and or its growth."

"The proposed regulations in its current format will thus have a drastic effect on sports federations, and Safa, in particular, will find itself hard-pressed to deliver on its social mandate of growing the game and providing opportunities for the ordinary South African to achieve sporting excellence on the football field."

"More importantly, it will not be in a position to provide career/employment opportunities that football offers through becoming professional football players, coaching, refereeing, administration of clubs etc."

Serious harm awaits sports and sports broadcasting in South Africa in daft and shocking proposed new rules about TV sports rights from South Africa's broadcasting regulator.

The serious, uninformed and shocking impact of the regulations proposed by South Africa's broadcasting regulator to force changes to TV sports rights in South Africa will not just break the perceived "monopoly" of sports content broadcast by MultiChoice and SuperSport but will break sports broadcasting in its totality in South Africa.

If the new draft regulations proposed by South Africa's broadcasting regulator, the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) were to become law, Icasa will destroy sports broadcasting in South Africa that will devolve into a downward spiral of mediocrity, as well as different sporting codes heavily dependent on the influx of money and the sponsorships funnelled to sport groups because of televised licensing rights.

Icasa has released its Draft Sports Broadcasting Services Amendment Regulations 2018 that is trying to correct a perceived imbalance in televised sports licencing rights in South Africa with the public and South Africa's TV industry, sports bodies that have until 4 February 2019 to comment.

Interestingly Icasa has failed to make the Draft Sports Broadcasting Services Amendment Regulations 2018 available on the broadcasting regulator's website, limiting the public and the TV and sports industries' access who have less than a month to respond.

The essence of the South African broadcasting regulator's inquiry into TV sports rights in South Africa - and evident in the draft regulations - is that the regulator wants a lot more free access, in other words, free televised sporting events for all South Africans, meaning on free-to-air television.

What Icasa forgets or doesn't understand is that watching sport on television can't be free. Even spectators physically attending sporting events in stadiums pay, and if a specific broadcaster isn't paying for sports rights, a sponsor or somebody else has to since costs are involved.

Naspers' MultiChoice and SuperSport pays hundreds of millions of rands annually to buy and secure sports rights - a lot of it exclusively since there's no reason for the consumer or pay-TV viewer to pay for subscription television to watch sport or other content if it's going to be shown for free.

That is how the traditional pay-TV model works. The money received from pay-TV operators by sports groups are used to pay for organising tournaments and players, stadium and staff hire, sports kit, administration and a litany of other things that elevates and improves the professionalism of sporting tournaments, for instance the Premier Soccer League (PSL) and Super Rugby, but also those sports in general.

Look for instance how the PSL in terms of look, organisation, prestige, reach and general overall administration professionalism increased since the SABC refused to renew its sports rights contract and SuperSport was willing to take it over years ago.

This is what happens worldwide. The money from selling rights to pay-TV operators improves the quality of the game - money that sporting codes don't get when sports rights are given freely to free-to-air broadcasters.

While a sportscaster like SuperSport acquires a lot of sports content exclusively, what the broadcasting regulator doesn't realise or want to know, is that those rights are not offered exclusively. Any broadcaster of TV channel has the opportunity to bid for it - they just choose not to, or doesn't have the money to pay the price that the rights are being offered at.

If Icasa enforces a hard rule preventing a MultiChoice, SuperSport, StarTimes, StarSat from acquiring certain international, national or provincial TV sports rights - whether non-exclusively or exclusively - it doesn't mean that another broadcaster or free-to-air broadcaster will necessarily pick it up, acquire it or be able to pay for it. It will just mean that that sport is gone and becomes unavailable and not shown on TV.

Icasa in its Draft Sports Broadcasting Services Amendment Regulations 2018 wants big sporting events to be broadcast live and for free in South Africa on free-to-air television.

e.tv doesn't have the money or willingness to pay for big sporting tournaments and the SABC is commercially insolvent.

Yet, even if the South African public broadcaster wasn't in dire financial trouble, it still doesn't mean that the SABC would fork out the massive amounts of money on TV sports rights since it doesn't have a SABC Sport channel and limited channel schedules on which to broadcast sports that compete with other programming genres.

In November 2018 the SABC told parliament that it lost R2.3 billion in the past four years paying for sports rights that it couldn't monetise - meaning the SABC paid for sports it broadcast but that it didn't get a return on, and didn't make the money back.

Now Icasa wants a broadcaster like the SABC to pay even more, or at least continue to pay for free-to-air sports rights when it's clear that the SABC can't and doesn't know how to properly channel the broadcasting of it into revenue; while preventing pay-TV operators who do know, from doing so.

Quote daft and completely out-of-touch with reality and how TV licensing rights work globally, Icasa in the Draft Sports Broadcasting Services Amendment Regulations 2018 says it proposes that big sporting events like the Summer Olympic Games, FIFA World Cup, Rugby World Cup, ICC Cricket World Cup. Africa Cup of Nations (CAF), ICC T20 Cricket World Championships, International Boxing Federations, national netball, the Commonwealth Games, and the International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) should be broadcast not just on a free-to-air broadcaster like the SABC or e.tv, but also live.

This doesn't happen anywhere else in the world and can and will never happen.

Icasa's Draft Sports Broadcasting Services Amendment Regulations 2018 also requires that free-to-air and pay-TV operators broadcast at least two minority sporting codes like golf, tennis, martial arts, basketball, squash, and motorsport.

This proposed regulation from Icasa isn't a problem and doable and has been happening already by both free-to-air and pay-TV broadcasters like SuperSport, although it's not been a regulation and not enforced.

What Icasa fails to realise or doesn't want to realise is that the proposals in the Draft Sports Broadcasting Services Amendment Regulations 2018 will seriously damage both sport in general and sports broadcasting in South Africa.

Besides better quality sports broadcasting being taken away from viewers (both free-to-air viewers as well as pay-TV subscribers who for instance watch SuperSport), the regulations definitely will inflict huge damage on sports bodies and sporting codes like South African Rugby and the South African Football Association (SAFA).

SAFA is already suffering and experiencing massive financial problems directly caused by the SABC that is far behind in payments for soccer rights, which was part of an existing free-to-air deal, and the SABC's failure to sign any new deal and offering very little money.

Now Icasa - that can see that forcing sports rights on free-to-air broadcasters or wanting to them to get more access to sports rights - wants to make an existing situation worse by blocking those who can pay for sports rights, and forcing those who can't to pick it up (and who won't).

The issue of TV sports rights are hugely complex, and yes, somewhat of a "problem" in South Africa although not a huge problem, and definitely not the massive issue that Icasa is making it.

It's also not a"problem" or issue unique or specific to South Africa. It's a global issue - how to find a balance, or what the dispensation should be between public access viewing and private viewing of sports on television.

It's the issues found globally between public and private (access to) healthcare, public and private schooling, transport and in many other spheres.

Instead of artificially trying to limit and to impose blocks and sanctions in an uninformed top-down approach on those-who-can, Icasa should rather look how it can improve and set regulations that help from the bottom-up those-who-can't to be supported to be able to do more.

A private school and a public school are playing a series of soccer matches again each other. The private school has a great football field. The public school is too poor and doesn't have any.

It's not great and like everything in life unequal but it hasn't been a big "problem" - both schools agreed that matches would all be played on the private school's ground and the private school even helps with and pays the fuel for the public school's bus.

Now new regulations come in saying "No, soccer matches are not allowed to all be played at the private school. Matches must also be physically played at the public school".

Where must the public school get the money? If the public school somehow does manage to build a stadium and soccer field, will it be of the quality and care similar to the private school? Must the private school that is a business build a stadium for the public school? Where does it leave the pupils who just want to play soccer?

Instead of enforcing an abrupt "no game" rule at the private school, where is a comprehensive support plan focused on, and to help the public school to get it what it needs as a real, long-term solution?

Serious harm awaits sports in South Africa as well as sports broadcasting in general in the current Draft Sports Broadcasting Services Amendment Regulations 2018 should sports bodies not be allowed to maximise the money it can make from selling sports licensing rights, and broadcasters not be able to secure exclusive and non-exclusive sports rights in as much as they're freely able to and have the money to pay what the price is.

In just four years the SABC lost R2.3 billion on paying for sports rights that it failed to monetise properly with advertising and sponsorships for broadcast, says Bongumusa Makhathini, SABC chairperson.

The SABC has lost R2.3 billion in paying and acquiring sports rights but not properly working at monetising it through broadcast with proper selling of advertising and acquiring sponsorships, Bongumusa Makhathini, SABC chairperson, told the Sunday Times.

The SABC failed to work at securing sponsors and advertisers to make back the money and more it paid for sports rights the past 6 years.

Bongumusa Makhathini told the Sunday Times that the SABC board is under huge pressure from "political and commercial interests" without explaining and naming the political parties and names pressuring the SABC, or naming the commercial interests pressuring the SABC.

Bongumusa Makhathini said the SABC will continue to be devoid of any coverage of South Africa's national football team, Bafana Bafana, because for the public broadcasting acquiring the sports rights from the South African Football Association (Safa) doesn't make "commercial sense".

"The sports rights are overpriced and we are not able to commercialise these sports rights. After you have paid for sports rights, you then need to cover costs for production."

Between 2012 and 2016 the SABC the SABC spent R1.6 billion on rights to broadcast Premier Soccer League (PSL) matches live on television, in addition to R522 million on production costs. The SABC only made R466 million in revenue.

The SABC also paid Safa R462 million during 2012 and 2016 for the broadcasting rights to Bafana Bafana matches, spent R65 million on production costs, and only made R48 million in revenue.

Between 212 and 2016 the SABC paid E269 million for the broadcasting rights to the Confederation of African Football (CAF) football rights, another R14 million on production costs, and only made R20 million.

Bongumusa Makhathini said he and the SABC are pushing ahead with the retrenchment plan at the SABC and that he doesn't care about being popular or liked.

The SABC's highly controversial retrenchment plan will see up to 981 SABC staffers getting fired - a third of the entire full-time workforce - as well as 1 200 of the 2 400 freelancers being let go by February 2019.

Bongumusa Makhathini said the SABC board has ended the practice of free biscuits and bottled water for SABC staff, and that the printing of documents are now also strictly monitored as part of cost-cutting efforts.

War between the SABC and the South African Football Association over broadcasting rights escalate as Safa gets ready to ask parliament for permission to dump the SABC and not be forced to sell rights to the struggling public broadcaster.

The South African Football Association (Safa) is ramping up it fight with the SABC and now plans to go to parliament to request that it be allowed to dump the SABC when it comes to the sale of local Bafana Bafana football rights and be allowed to sell rights commercially for what it's really worth to broadcasters who are actually able to pay for it.

Safa is sick of the SABC and no longer wants to be compelled to sell broadcasting rights of the national men and women's football matches to the basically bankrupt South African public broadcaster that isn't able to pay for it or to pay what the matches are worth.

Safa wants to be allowed to sell its rights commercially to broadcasters able to pay what Safa can get for licensing rights, in line with what national rugby and cricket get for broadcasting rights.

Safa and the beleaguered SABC are in a growing standoff over the broadcasting rights of the Bafana Bafana and Banyana Banyana national soccer teams, with the minister of sports, Tokozile Xasa and the minister of communications, Nomvula Mokonyane, who lied earlier this year when they said they had intervened to settle problems between Safa and the SABC - but who have both since been completely silent on the matter.

The Sunday Times reports that Safa plans on going to parliament's portfolio committee on sports in the escalating war between Safa and the SABC.

The cash-strapped SABC has made an extremely lowball offer of only R10 million for the Safa broadcasting rights, while it reportedly paid R235 million for the Confederation of African Football (CAF) rights.

Safa demanded R200 million for the Bafana Bafana and Banyana Banyana broadcasting rights for the new season after it got R150 million previously for the season that ended in April, and which the SABC was extremely late with paying.

Safa said it was however willing to renew its deal with the SABC for soccer rights for R110 million per year, but even this was too much for the SABC.

Russell Paul, acting Safa CEO, called the situation with the SABC unable and unwilling to pay for Bafana broadcasting rights and what it's worth, "untenable".

"We said, guys, if it's a problem for the public broadcaster to be able to pay this, then remove us from this stipulation [of having to work with the SABC over sport of national interest] so that we can then exploit our rights commercially in the same manner as cricket and rugby," said Russell Paul.

South Africa's local national rugby rights are worth R670 million and the local national cricket rights are worth R200 million.

"In the last two discussions we have had with them - and this is with the top leadership of the SABC - the position was we do not have money and we want to be a responsible broadcaster and therefore we cannot spend money," Safa said.

The SABC said it would make a submission to parliament's portfolio committee on sport about the issue, if asked.

With a Bafana blackout on the SABC as negotiations between the public broadcaster and Safa broke down and devolves in nasty mudslinging, SuperSport steps in and says it will broadcast Saturday's Afcon qualifier match to all DStv subscribers.

While the South African Football Association (Safa) and the SABC engage in trashy mudslinging after negotiations failed over the broadcast of upcoming Bafana Bafana Afcon matches resulting in a blackout of South Africa's national football team on the public broadcaster, SuperSport has stepped in saying it will broadcast Saturday's match between South Africa and the Seychelles and will be making it available to all DStv subscribers.

In a statement SuperSport says South Africa's vital Africa Cup of Nations qualifier match again the Seychelles on Saturday will be broadcast live on Saturday on SuperSport, and that in an unprecedented move, MultiChoice and SuperSport will make the match available to all DStv subscribers.

Saturday's match between Bafana Bafana and the Seychelles will be broadcast live on SuperSport 4 (DStv 204) and SuperSport 10 (DStv 210), with kickoff at 15:00. SuperSport says that "scheduling the Soweto match across all DStv packages will ensure that as many football fans as possible view the crucial clash".

SuperSport's announcement comes after the ugly implosion of negotiations, followed by as nasty war of words between Safa and the SABC over the broadcasting rights.


Safa says ...
Safa, that started negotiations with the SABC in October 2017, slammed the South African public broadcaster in a statement for the failure to conclude a broadcasting rights agreement, saying the SABC made a "discourteous offer" regarding what the SABC is willing to pay for the broadcasting rights to international football matches Bafana Bafana is playing in inside South Africa.

"Safa rejected this offer outright, and places on record that the offer is so minuscule that it amounts to an effective no offer," says Safa in a statement.

"It is interesting to note that even the apartheid-run SABC of old made a better offer to the association for their rights in this country. Safa further notes that the SABC recently concluded deals with the English Premier League (EPL) to broadcast British football in this country, and on 25 September announced a deal with Cricket South Africa (CSA) to broadcast the T20 League in Sub-Saharan Africa which will include South Africa."

"Safa has been repeatedly told by SABC management that it is in no position to conclude a contract whilst it is in a financial state of disarray."

"However, it is now patently clear that the SABC actions over the past few weeks in signing deals with EPL and CSA, is calculated towards engineering the financial downfall of Safa, which the association will not stand for," says Safa in its statement.

"It is common cause that there is no other sport in South Africa that draws a larger TV audience attendance than Bafana Bafana - in excess of 4 million viewers regularly."

"It is also regrettable that the nation and the football loving public missed out on a great opportunity to witness Banyana Banyana defend their Cosafa title recently."

"Safa offered the SABC the matches (including the final) at no cost, whilst negotiations were taking place - but the SABC declined," says Safa.

"Safa has written to both the SABC and the broadcasting regulator Icasa and informed the ministry of sport and recreation and the ministry of communications, that it wishes the SABC and Icasa to issue Safa with a letter that will relieve the SABC of its obligations towards sports of national interest - football in particular - which would consequently allow SAFA to conclude an agreement with another broadcaster for the Safa rights in line with the commercial value Safa attributes to such rights."

"It is common cause now that Safa, in good faith, allowed the broadcast of the last Afcon qualifier versus Libya to be broadcast by the SABC, despite there being no contract in place - but on the promise and agreement that a contract would be concluded prior to the next Bafana Bafana Afcon qualifier, being the Seychelles match at FNB Stadium on Saturday, 13 October 13 at 15:00."

"With the SABC showing no meaningful interest in concluding an agreement on terms and conditions that would give respect to the Safa rights, the association regrets to inform the public that all future international football matches involving national teams - the U/23, U/20 and U/17 - as well as regional football championships run by Safa, will not be broadcast on any SABC platforms," Safa says in its statement.

According to Safa, the matches in question, among others are all Bafana Bafana 2019 Afcon qualifiers, home and away; all Bafana Bafana 2022 World Cup qualifiers, home and away; all Bafana Bafana international friendly matches; the annual Nelson Mandela Challenge, involving Bafana Bafana; all Banyana Banyana matches; all U/20 international matches; the ABC Motsepe National Play Off final; the SAB National Championships final; the Sasol League Women's National play-offs final and the U/19 Men's National Championship final.


The SABC says ...
The SABC in a statement says it has "noted the statement by Safa" and that the SABC "made a commercially-viable offer that would enable the SABC to deliver football matches to South African audiences on SABC platforms and this offer was rejected by Safa".

"On the previous contract there were obligations and milestones which the SABC has met, including the payment milestones of that contract, albeit late given the SABC's dire financial situation."

The SABC says "the outstanding Safa obligations due to the SABC from the previous contract are the two remaining 2019 Afcon qualifier matches which are the Bafana Bafana versus Seychelles match on 13 October and the Bafana Bafana versus Nigeria match on 17 November."

"The Seychelles versus Bafana Bafana match scheduled for 16 October will be broadcast by the SABC since these rights do not reside with Safa."

"With reference to Safa allowing the SABC to broadcast the last Afcon qualifier match, Bafana Bafana versus Libya, we contend that the broadcast of the match had nothing to do with a promise of a new agreement but was based on the payment milestone which the SABC has since met from the previous contract."

"The SABC's financial position is a known fact and has been made public by the SABC, despite this, the SABC has ensured that it met all its financial obligations to Safa. The SABC is therefore prepared to broadcast the two remaining 2019 Afcon qualifiers."

"It is unfortunate that the SABC and Safa legal dispute is in the public domain but the SABC remains committed to engaging Safa on fair terms," says the SABC.


War of words as SABC is chased from FNB Stadium
Meanwhile the SABC, its journalists and vehicles have been chased away from Soweto's FNB Stadium.

Chris Maroleng, SABC chief operating officer (COO), said the SABC had already deployed an outside broadcasting (OB) van to the FNB Stadium in Soweto "and did this in good faith, anticipating we would be able to broadcast. However Safa denied us access to the venue and we have returned out equipment to our headquarters".

Safa slammed the SABC and Chris Maroleng's claims, saying "there were no SABC OB trucks at the stadium. There were one or two SABC cars but not OB trucks at the gate that were turned away. Anyway had they arrived, they would have been turned away in any case".

"Safa finds it surprising that there has been talk of good faith when there has been no contact with SAFA by the SABC since the last communication. In any event, there is no contract between Safa and the SABC, so why were trucks allegedly sent to the FNB Stadium when the SABC insists, 'No contract, no broadcast'?"


SABC only offered to pay R10 million
Danny Jordaan, Safa CEO, on Thursday evening in an interview on SABC radio with Robert Marawa, revealed the SABC only offered to pay R10 million for the rights that decreased from an initial R150 million.

"If broadcasting money diminishes from R150 million to R10 million you can see the implications," said Danny Jordaan.

"This is the offer we received from the SABC. The recently expired TV deal was set at R110 million and Safa made a new offer of R200 million."

The SABC then countered by offering to pay just R10 million.

"Rugby gets R2.8 billion over 5 years [R560 million per year], while cricket gets R1.24 billion [R248 million per year] where football must get R50 million per year."

"When the SABC was under apartheid we used to get R37 million, so it's just unthinkable," said Danny Jordaan. "So now we have to approach government to say release us from this agreement as we have offers from outside the country who want to pay us in dollars."

SABC, South African Football Association confirm that the public broadcaster will show the national football team's 2019 Afcon qualifier against Libya on Saturday on SABC1.

The SABC on Thursday confirmed that despite problems with the South African Football Association (Safa) that the South African public broadcaster on Saturday will broadcast the 2019 Africa Cup of Nations (Afcon) qualifier match between the South African national football team, Bafana Bafana, and Libya.

It comes after a drawn-out payment dispute between Safa and the SABC with the public broadcaster that owes the football organisation millions of rands in non-payment, and with both organisations who have been at loggerheads over ongoing broadcasting rights of Bafana matches.

Safa gave the SABC an ultimatum to either pay a third of the R50 million owed in the previous overdue contract, or face a complete blackout.

Danny Jordaan, Safa president, and members of the SABC board met on Wednesday night to try and hammer out a resolution but the crisis was only resolved on Thursday.

Neo Momodu, SABC spokesperson told the soccer site KickOff that the upcoming 2019 Afcon qualifier on Saturday between Bafana Bafana and Libya at the Moses Mabhinda stadium in Durban will be broadcast on SABC1. The kick-off time of the game is 15:00.

"Yes, we will be broadcasting it live on SABC1, including all of our African language radio stations, as well as Radio 2000," Neo Momodu said.

"I don't know if you can call it a problem or a challenge or whatever you wanna call it. Discussions between SABC and Safa, they are still ongoing. What is relevant to the SABC at this stage is the fact that they will be getting the game," Neo Momodu said.

The match will also be broadcast on SuperSport on Saturday at 15:00.

Danny Jordaan, Safa president in a statement late on Thursday said "we are pleased to announce that we have resolved the outstanding issues and I would like to thank the SABC in making sure that the nation will watch their favourite sport on the national broadcaster."

"I would also like to thank the ministries of sport and recreation and communications for working hard to resolve this matter."

SABC lying over having Bafana Bafana TV broadcasting rights say Siyaya TV and SAFA; Siyaya TV says its actually busy negotiating with e.tv.

The SABC is lying over claims to have secured Bafana Bafana TV rights to show any national team soccer games on television and no valid contract with the SABC exists, pay-TV operator Siyaya TV and SAFA say.

In a joint statement, the South African Football Association (SAFA) and Siyaya TV, the new pay-TV consortium, said the SABC is lying.

It comes after the public broadcaster's famously matricless and highly controversial chief operating officer (COO) Hlaudi Motsoeneng on Wednesday said the SABC and SAFA have reached a 3-year agreement over the broadcasting rights to show all local Bafana Bafana games, Banyana Banyana, as well as the men's under-20 and under-23 games.

Hlaudi Motsoeneng went on SABC2's Morning Live on Wednesday to announce the deal - which Siyaya TV and SAFA say doesn't exist.

Siyaya TV which got its pay-TV licence from the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) in November 2014, now threatens to sue the SABC if for instance the Banyana 2016 Olympic qualifying game on Sunday against Gabon is broadcast.

Siyaya TV owns the rights to all of the national soccer games after the consortium last year signed a R1 billion contract with SAFA in a 6-year deal and says it's actually busy negotiating with Sabido's free-to-air commercial TV channel e.tv to show the national soccer games.

After Hlaudi Motsoeneng bragged on Morning Live over securing the rights, the SABC also issued a press statement in which it said the SABC's agreement to show Bafana and other national team games will run from 2015 to 2017, with the SABC giving soccer-loving South Africans "an opportunity to see their national teams in action".

"The SABC will continue to prioritize sports of national importance," said Hlaudi Motsoeneng, while the SABC statement also included a quote from SAFA CEO, Dennis Mumble, saying "We value the loyal audience that the SABC has always delivered to our national teams and have agreed to partner with the SABC to strenghten that bons with our supporters. We thank the SABC for ensuring the South African public enjoys the national teams on live television and radio".

In a joint statement from SAFA and Siyaya TV, the two organisations say "SAFA wishes to place on record that Siyaya TV is and will remain a long-term strategic broadcast partner of SAFA. We emphatically reject any speculation or statements to the contrary."

"The partnership between the two parties [SAFA and Siyaya TV] has enabled SAFA to take its broadcast platform to an entirely new level, which will now enable soccer-loving fans greater access to the beautiful game".

In another separate statement Siyaya TV's founder Aubrey Tau launched a scathing attack on the SABC and Hlaudi Motsoeneng's claims, saying the public broadcaster is lying over having any broadcasting rights.

"The SABC does not hold any of the broadcasting rights to Bafana matches, and therefore cannot claim otherwise. Any position taken by the SABC that it holds the Bafana Bafana broadcast rights is false and misleading," says Siyaya TV.

"Siyaya TV is the sole and exclusive owner of these rights, in terms of its signed contract with SAFA".

Aubrey Tau says Siyaya TV approached the SABC two months ago in order to discuss the granting of free-to-air broadcasting rights to the SABC, but that Siyaya TV was "summarily rejected by the SABC who refused to deal with Siyaya TV on the matter".

"Siyaya TV has since not heard directly from the SABC, but has in the meantime been in talks with SAFA regarding the possible granting of free-to-air broadcast rights to the SABC, and is at the same time also engaged with e.tv in similar discussions".

"Siyaya TV has made no commitments to and signed no contracts with any other broadcasters regarding the soccer broadcasting rights, and remains the sole and exclusive owner of these rights at this point in time," says Aubrey Tau.

South African soccer TV rights sold to new Siyaya pay-TV service by Safa; live local soccer coverage gone for millions on SABC.

The soccer TV rights of live South African soccer has been sold to the new pay-TV entrant Siyaya Free to Air which is set to start Siyaya TV, and which will mean that millions of South African TV households will be cut off from access to watching live soccer matches on the SABC.

The Siyaya Free to Air consortium has already paid R25 million to the South African Football Association (Safa) in an exclusive 6 year deal that will be worth R1 billion and which will remove live TV broadcasts of Bafana Bafana games from the SABC.

The SABC last month complained in parliament and warned that the public broadcaster can no longer afford to pay for rising sports rights, and that continuing to do so would bankrupt the SABC.

The SABC's existing soccer broadcasting rights for Bafana Bafana games ends in April 2015 and the South African Football Association with its new deal with Siyaya, won't renew it.

The SABC will have to buy the soccer rights from Siyaya Free to Air, and not Safa, if the public broadcaster wants to show national soccer games - and won't be able to do so live. The SABC, if it's willing to pay up, will at most be able to show some games, and on a delayed basis.

Siyaya Free to Air is one of 5 new pay-TV entrants who were granted provisional licences by the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) recently to start new subscription television services in South Africa.

Siyaya TV has talk show host Dali Thambo as one of the investment backers. Siyaya is a 100% black-owned media consortium whose major shareholder is the Bakgatla Ba Kgafela tribe in the North-West with a 40% interest, as well as shareholders like the South African Post Office chairperson Vuyo Mahlati, Transnet Freight CEO Siyabonga Gama, and Siyaya board member Aubrey Tau.

Siyaya wants to start its own local soccer league and broadcast those matches for a monthly subscription fee of R70 with a PVR. Siyaya TV has now grabbed the Bafana Bafana soccer rights as well.

According to reports, the deal between Siyaya Free to Air and the South Africa Football Association (Safa) means that all Bafana Bafana and junior national soccer games will be shown on Siyaya TV, along with Safa TV as a magazine show, and the annual Safa Awards. 

Other exclusive soccer broadcasts on Siyaya TV form part of the deal, like showing the ABC Motsepe League (First Division) and the Sasol Women's League.  

Viewers who've been watching the national soccer and Bafana Bafana on the SABC will now have to buy a decoder and pay a monthly subscription fee when Siyaya TV plans to launch from June 2015 in South Africa.