MultiChoice and eMedia secretly settle TV feud over channel carriage and sports sublicensing showing

by Thinus Ferreira

MultiChoice and eMedia have secretly settled their long-running TV feud regarding both the carriage of e.tv channels on DStv, as well as the blackout on Openview of SuperSport content acquired by the SABC.

While the details of the confidential settlement agreed to in September are not yet known, e.tv's additional TV channels continue to remain available on MultiChoice's DStv which means that a channel carriage extension deal was signed.

On the sports rights sublicensing issue, if the SABC were to acquire rugby or football matches from SuperSport again - and if this is also shown on the version of the SABC's TV channels carried on eMedia's Openview - that would mean that MultiChoice has entered into an amended deal with the SABC and e.tv as well.

Neither MultiChoice nor eMedia will be able or allowed to keep the details of the part of their so-called "confidential" settlement regarding the sports sublicensing matter secret.

This is because their months-long skirmish and public fight pertains to, and involves, the SABC as South Africa's public broadcaster which was dragged into the squabble, with even Gayton McKenzie, South Africa's latest minister of sports, arts and culture, who told MultiChoice, eMedia and the SABC to settle the issue or the government will become involved.

In its half-year results until the end of September, eMedia Holdings notes that "The Competition Commission's complaint against MultiChoice South Africa by eMedia for removing eMedia's four entertainment channels from the DStv bouquet as well as DStv's preclusion of the Rugby World Cup matches from the Openview platform has resulted in significant legal fees for the Group."

"The matter has, however, been satisfactorily settled by both parties in September".

Issue 1: e.tv channels to remain on DStv

The settlement means that eMedia's long-running TV fight over its TV channels on DStv has been settled exactly two and a half years after it started in March 2022.

At the time MultiChoice decided to dump the e.tv-packaged TV channels of eExtra (DStv 195), eToonz (DStv 311), eMovies (DStv 138) and eMovies Extra (DStv 140) from DStv, following the termination of a five-year channel carriage agreement that MultiChoice didn't want to renew, opting to keep only e.tv and eNCA (Dstv 403).

eMedia then took MultiChoice to the Competition Commission and accused MultiChoice of an abuse of marketplace dominance under the Competition Act. 

MultiChoice was forced to keep all of the e.tv channels it wanted to remove on DStv until the conclusion of the case.

Issue 2: Sub-licensed SuperSport rights

On the second matter the heat was really turned up in a really acrimonious fight between MultiChoice and eMedia after MultiChoice decided to resell SuperSport content to the SABC.

MultiChoice however forced the public broadcaster to black out the SuperSport content on the SABC's version of its SABC1, SABC2, SABC3 and SABC Sports channels carried on eMedia's Openview.

eMedia argued that content that is on the SABC should be available wherever the SABC's TV channels are carried and shown.

MultiChoice argued that eMedia is "free-riding" and that eMedia "wants to broadcast content to their Openview customers without paying a cent to do so".

This case also went to court after eMedia dragged MultiChoice to the Competition Commission and the Competition Tribunal.

In response to a media query MultiChoice on Tuesday told TVwithThinus "The terms of the settlement are confidential but we can confirm that the litigation between MultiChoice and eMedia Holdings has been settled amicably between the parties".

eMedia in response to a media query on Tuesday told TVwithThinus "The issues between the parties have been satisfactorily resolved by agreement, which brings to an end to the legal proceedings between MultiChoice and eMedia. We have entered into a confidential settlement agreement on the matter. We are very pleased with the outcome."

South African government to intervene over Sprinbok rugby broadcast block and sports rights fight between MultiChoice, SuperSport, eMedia's Openview and the SABC.

Thinus Ferreira

An explosive TV keg is on the verge of erupting as untenable pressure is building up over millions of South African TV viewers who continue to be blocked from watching Springboks rugby on free-to-air television, with South Africa's government that said it is now going to intervene.

The ongoing TV sports sublicensing fight between South African broadcasters continue to block South African viewers from seeing Springbok rugby tests on television and specifically on the South African public broadcaster - content that qualifies as sport of national interest and importance.

Two of South Africa's new ministers - Solly Malatsi as minister of communications and Gayton McKenzie as new minister of sports, arts and culture - both now say they want to meet as soon as this week in a sit-down meeting with all of the stakeholders that include MultiChoice and SuperSport, the SABC, eMedia and the South African Rugby Union (SARU).  

Gayton McKenzie says he will summon MultiChoice and SuperSport, eMedia and e.tv, as well as the SABC to meetings. 

"We are very close to a roundtable with all decision-makers. We shall not rest until all can watch the national teams. The nation owns the national teams and the owners must watch their teams playing," he said.

"We are actively dealing with this matter. It is inexcusable and a huge shame on us. We shall very soon revert back after concluding talks."

Gayton McKenzie said he "felt anger, disappointment and sadness that so many South Africans can't watch. We need them to share the Springbok joy. We can't say we are a pro-poor country but don't have the Springboks on SABC. This needs to change. It must change. It's going to change."

The fight over TV sports sublicensing rights revolve around money and the millions paid to broadcast these, as well as the reselling or sublicensing of it and which viewers then get access to it.

MultiChoice's SuperSport is willing to pay hundreds of millions to sports bodies, content distributors and licensors for something like the past two Saturdays' Springbok test matches against Ireland. This money is then used to fund sport organisations and bodies, as well as pay players.

DStv subscribers in turn pay to watch this sports content on pay-TV services like SuperSport-packaged channels on DStv.

SuperSport sold and sublicensed the rights of the Springbok test matches to the SABC but with a contract stipulation that the content is not allowed to be shown or be accessible on the version of the SABC channels carried on eMedia's Openview satellite service.

MultiChoice argues that eMedia and e.tv would otherwise get free access to premium sports content that e.tv isn't and hasn't paid for.

eMedia argues that what is being shown by and on the SABC should be accessible everywhere the SABC's TV channels are carried and that SuperSport is deliberately not willing to sell or sublicence sports rights to eMedia en e.tv but just to the SABC.

Since eMedia dragged MultiChoice to the Competition Commission Tribunal which is still to hand down judgment in this matter - the SABC, which originally agreed to buy and sublicence the rights from SuperSport had to backtrack and break the deal to broadcast the content.

While MultiChoice and eMedia are duking it out over sports sublicensing rights, the SABC and South African Rugby are caught in the middle with viewers sitting without access.

Mark Alexander, South African Rugby Union president, in a statement said SARU supports the SABC's decision to backtrack on its planned agreement with SuperSport to broadcast the Springbok test matches but also says SARU support the SABC's desire for Springbok matches to be broadcast on the public broadcaster.

"This may appear to be a minor and obscure issue to the general public but it is critically important to the Springboks and the future of rugby in South Africa, affecting to just the broadcasters but the sport itself."

He says it's not SARU, SuperSport or the SABC which are fighting with each other.

"It was the intervention of eMedia and its demand that Openview be permitted to broadcast the rugby without any financial contribution by eMedia that put an end to this agreement."

"eMedia's attempts to put an end to exclusivity in sports broadcasting rights would slash the rights fees, with the sport itself suffering the most, severely impacting our programme delivery from the grassroots level to the back-to-back Rugby World Cup-winning Springboks."

"It is absurd that eMedia should be allowed to broadcast sport without contributing to its support and development."

Khalik Sherrif, eMedia CEO, says SARU is wrong.

"It is an absolute shame when the real facts of a dispute in which there is a court decision in favour of the public is distorted by a national body such as SARU. SARU should act in the interests of all South Africans and not only the privileged few," says Khalik Sherrif.

Sheriff says SARU is simply parroting MultiChoice's views.

According to eMedia, it is "the SABC's decision which resulted in the rugby not being aired by it".

"It is clear that MultiChoice and SuperSport and the SABC are solely responsible for the broader public not being able to watch these sporting events, such as the Springbok/Irish test matches and the cricket T20 final. eMedia has been in the public’s corner trying to ensure the widest access to these events."

MultiChoice told TVwithThinus in response to a media query that MultiChoice is "sympathetic to the position of the SABC in guarding against free-riding by a commercial competitor and using its limited funds in a manner that would serve to further the commercial interest of a private commercial entity".

"The allegation that SuperSport gave too little time for eMedia to bid for the rights is completely false."

"Despite having known about the test matches for months, eMedia belatedly approached SuperSport to inquire about the rights and, after being probed, made an offer to sublicense the rights."

"Their bid was inferior to what the SABC offered and was therefore rejected. Even as late as last week, eMedia repeated its patently sub-commercial offer for the rights to the second test in spite of it having been made aware that its offer was not commercially viable."

"It appears to us that eMedia prefers to free-ride on the investments made by SuperSport and the SABC rather than to itself invest at the level which Springbok rugby deserves."

"Sports broadcasting requires a careful balancing act. While fans would understandably like to watch everything for free, the fact is our sports federations depend on the licensing of exclusive broadcasting rights to keep sport alive."

"SuperSport makes a substantial investment in South African rugby and as a country, we have witnessed the fruits of that investment with the World Cup-winning performances of the Springboks."

"SuperSport must protect its investment in exclusive broadcasting rights. But even so, SuperSport is mindful of the desire of audiences to also see the Springboks play on the channels of the public broadcaster."

"We have therefore endeavoured to reach appropriate sub-licensing arrangements with the SABC. It is eMedia alone who has disrupted those arrangements in pursuit of its own commercial interests."

The SABC in response to a media query told TVwithThinus "the SABC will not be pressurised to use public funds to finance private third parties for sports rights".

"The SABC remains committed to broadcasting sports of national interest."

The SABC said it had acquired the rights for the Olympics games directly from the rights holder, International Olympics Committee in 2017 and will show the upcoming 2024 Olympic Games on the SABC TV channels.

ALSO READ: SABC backtracks on promises to broadcast Springbok Test rugby, cites ongoing Competition Appeal Court case over SuperSport sublicensing rights.

eMedia drops Openview TV sport rights case against MultiChoice and SuperSport, will now pay wasted court costs.

by Thinus Ferreira

eMedia has suddenly dropped its Openview TV sport rights case it brought against MultiChoice and SuperSport and will now pay MultiChoice's court costs.

Last week eMedia lost in court when the Gauteng High Court scrapped its urgent application from the roll after eMedia took MultiChoice and SuperSport to court demanding that its Openview satellite service get access to the 2023 Rugby World Cup.

eMedia told MultiChoice it's withdrawing its court case and will pay "the wasted costs of the respondents", in this case MultiChoice.

eMedia didn't approach the Rugby World Cup organisers in Dublin, Ireland directly in 2018 when the rights became available for sale like SuperSport which bought the rights five years ago, and didn't approach SuperSport for a sublicensing agreement like the SABC which did sublicense the right last month from SuperSport to show 16 matches.

eMedia argued that since it carries SABC2 which shows the 2023 Rugby World Cup Matches it should get the content for free since there shouldn't be one version of SABC2 as a digital terrestrial television (DTT) TV channel and on DStv and StarSat showing matches, and a SABC2 version for Openview showing filler content.

MultiChoice South Africa CEO Marc Jury slammed eMedia's case as a "classic example of free-riding" and accused the Hyde Park-based broadcaster of trying to profit from content it didn't pay for.

After abandoning its high court case and now having to pay costs, eMedia has now again lodged a case with the Competition Commission where another case of e.tv against MultiChoice is winding its way through the system after MultiChoice over a year ago decided it no longer wanted to carry the set of e.tv-packaged TV channels on DStv.

eMedia's second case at the Competition Commission now centres around MultiChoice's sport rights acquisition process and allegations that it locks out other broadcasters like e.tv through imposed restrictions. The SABC has lodged a similar long-winding complaint with the Competition Commission which is still being heard.

"Almost immediately after filing an application before the Competition Tribunal, eMedia has now formally abandoned its high court litigation and will have to pay MultiChoice's legal costs," MultiChoice told TVwithThinus in a statement after eMedia withdrew its court case.

"This confirms our view that eMedia litigation was entirely without merit," the Randburg-based pay-TV operator said.

MultiChoice said "This is the third attempt by eMedia to launch urgent proceedings in the last two weeks with the first two attempts being rightly rejected by the High Court. eMedia decided not to acquire the broadcasting rights in any form. It cannot now use the judicial system to free-ride on the investments made by MultiChoice. MultiChoice considers the latest application to be entirely without merit and will oppose it vigorously."

In response to a media query, Philippa Rafferty, eMedia group executive for legal and business affairs said "Due to the court striking the matter from the roll for urgency, we have decided to withdraw the high court matter for now while we proceed with our complaint to the Competition Commission and application to the Competition Tribunal for interim relief".

"We will reconsider the high court matter in due time. We are still confident of the merits of the case."

ALSO READ: eMedia takes sports rights fight with MultiChoice to Competition Commission.

ALSO READ: Court sides with MultiChoice in 'free-riding' e.tv TV rights fight over 2023 Rugby World Cup.

ALSO READ: MultiChoice slams Openview over 2023 Rugby World Cup TV rights legal action: 'A classic example of free-riding'.

ALSO READ: e.tv takes SuperSport to court over SABC's sublicensed Rugby World Cup TV rights.

ALSO READ: eMedia's e.tv channels to stay on MultiChoice's DStv for another few months after latest Competition Appeal Court decision.

MultiChoice takes South Africa's broadcasting regulator to court over inquiry into broadcasting sports rights.

The MultiChoice Group that runs the DStv satellite pay-TV service and includes brands ranging from M-Net, and kykNET to SuperSport to Mzansi Magic is taking South Africa's broadcasting regulator to court over its inquiry into broadcasting sports rights.

MultiChoice has filed papers in the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria against the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa), saying that MultiChoice will go out of business if Icasa goes through with its proposed broadcasting rights regulation changes.

The Star newspaper on Wednesday reported that the court application was filed on Monday and MultiChoice wants the regulator to "provide "all the information, evidence and research" that went into its draft findings that it published on 12 April 2019.

Icasa plans to hold public hearings this week in Pretoria on the controversial draft sports broadcasting services amendment regulations that the regulator published in 14 December 2018 and that many different groups including sporting codes in South Africa have said would severely damage broadcasting in South Africa as well as the ability of different sporting interests to get funding from broadcasting through licensing rights.

In a statement about the public hearings Icasa said that "The review of existing regulations is common within the regulatory environment, and this process is no exception. As developments happen and new information come to the fore, Icasa is required to re-look the relevance of its existing regulations and where necessary initiate a process for the review of such regulations".

"This review is intended to identify and list national sporting events while ensuring that subscription broadcasting service licensees do not acquire exclusive rights that prevent or hinder the free-to-air broadcasting of national sporting events."

MultiChoice losing subscribers at the very top because consumers no longer see expensive DStv Premium offering as providing value for money - academic.

MultiChoice is losing subscribers at the very top - its most valuable customer base - because consumers no longer see the expensive DStv Premium offering as providing value for money.

So says the academic and senior lecturer, Musawenkosi Ndlovu, an associate professor in media studies in the Centre for Film and Media Studies at the University of Cape Town (UCT).

For the first time ever in South Africa, MultiChoice will not be increasing the monthly subscription fee in 2019 for DStv Premium subscribers as the pay-TV operator tries to stem the churn and tide of South African consumers rapidly abandoning DStv Premium that's no longer offering enough value for money.

MultiChoice is now also taking away DStv Premium subscribers' print magazine worsening the content discovery process and its customers try to find out what is on DStv and showing where, with MultiChoice that has also constantly been diluting the DStv Premium offering the past few years by not giving these subscribers enough additional services and premium content.

In addition, MultiChoice has been downwards enabling a lot of the add-in services like Naspers' streaming service Showmax and other TV channels over the past two years that previously were for DStv Premium subscribers only and opening multiple premium TV channels for marketing purposes to lower-tiered subscribers in "open window" promotions.

While DStv subscribers are paying more, MultiChoice is actually making less and less per individual DStv customer because of this ongoing drop in its most valuable payers: the DStv Premium subscribers.

The term for this is ARPU, or "average revenue per user". For the 6 months to 30 September 2018 MultiChoice's ARPU fell 3% from $27 (R347) a year ago to $25 (R335) currently.

South African consumers who can pay for television and have a high disposable income no longer want DStv Premium with Calvo Mawela, MultiChoice Group CEO, that in 2018 blamed Netflix South Africa for the significant drop in DStv Premium subscribers.

Calvo Mwela said that the global video streaming giant has been the cause of the loss of over 100 000 DStv Premium subscribers in MultiChoice's previous financial year, including another 40 000 in 2018.

Musawenkosi Ndlovu was interviewed on Saturday morning by Africa Melane on his Weekend Breakfast with Africa Melane show on the CapeTalk radio station.

Asked if DStv Premium is good value for money, Musawenkosi Ndlovu said "that's why people would stop consuming your product - not necessarily because it is expensive, but only because they no longer see the value for money. That's why MultiChoice is losing subscribers at the very top."

"So what is going to happen is, MultiChoice is going to offer the very same content but relatively cheaper. DStv has received a lot of criticism because of repeats, because of older content - people want newer content, they want good content, and they want it wherever they are."

"The consumers where MultiChoice is growing are basically of the view that they're getting value for money. The consumer at the top feels that a premium package that is R50 short of R1000 is not value for money."

"So MultiChoice is facing a situation where the consumer is saying DStv Premium is not value for money, there are competitors who are able to offer me something of a similar kind or better, relatively cheaper."

Musawenkosi Ndlovu also said during the interview that "MultiChoice's battle isn't only among the top among DStv Premium subscribers, it is also at the bottom", and that MultiChoice is going to face a battle in the television and video market going forward.

Musawenkosi Ndlovu said it's not true that MultiChoice will be completely taken over by video streaming service rivals like Netflix South Africa and others, where consumers simply switch en masse to fibre broadband lines into their homes to stream and download huge quantities of shows.

"If you look at the entirety of the South African topography, you may not have fibre optic rolled out to everywhere. That's where the DStv advantage is; satellite can cover vaster areas of the globe than the other alternatives."  

On the looming possible changes to sports rights regulations in South Africa that will have a massive, devastating impact on MultiChoice and the collection of SuperSport channels carried on DStv that stand to lose showing exclusive sports content if the current draft regulations become law, Musawenkosi Ndlovu said "if DStv competitors were to get the rights to the English Premier League (EPL), I tell you, this will be the end of DStv as we know it".

"It will have to hold on to some of the rights that give it a certain exclusivity and allow it to be able to dominate the market as it has been for quite some time."

Musawenkosi Ndlovu, asked if he has DStv, said he lives in two places and has DStv in the city but the competitor in KwaZulu-Natal "because with respect to DStv I get what it offers me at 55 percent less".

South Africa's broadcasting regulator, Icasa, pushes deadline date to mid-March for comments on controversial draft regulations for TV sports rights.

South Africa's broadcasting regulator has pushed out the deadline date for written comments on its controversial draft sports rights regulations from 4 February to mid-March.

The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) published its Draft Sports Broadcasting Services Amendment Regulations that envisions sweeping changes to South Africa's TV industry and sporting bodies, as well as how sports content broadcasters like SuperSport are able to do business and acquire television rights.

At the moment it looks as if serious harm awaits sports and sports broadcasting in South Africa according to the shocking proposed new rules that is attempting to regulate sports rights acquisition in the country.

The impact of the regulations proposed by South Africa's broadcasting regulator to force changes to TV sports rights in South Africa will likely 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 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.

After 4 February 2019 was set as the initial deadline, Icasa has now announced that the date for written comments has been moved from 4 February to 15 March 2019, following written requests filed with Icasa from some of the affected stakeholders.

"The granting of this request is mainly based on our public interest mandate and to encourage full participation by affected stakeholders," says Palesa Kadi, Icasa councillor.

"These written comments will indeed assist us to make an informed decision and we would like this process to be as transparent and open as possible."

TV NEWS ROUND-UP. Today's interesting TV stories to read from TVwithThinus - 8 January 2019.

Here's the latest news about TV that I read and that you should read too:

■ The 76th Golden Globes were an embarrassment.
Show flung trophies to inexcusably problematic and misguided films, ceremony bizarrely paced with no cohesive sense of spirit, purpose, or tone, and the TV side you can scratch your head for days.
■ And the TV awards show host is dead.
■ And the Fii water girl photobomber Kelleth Cuthbert at the Golden Globes is revealed to be a married Canadian model who married her Playboy photographer husband.
■ And Melissa McCarthy wanted people to feed and handed out secret ham sandwiches at the Golden Globes after she snuck in snacks.

■ LG's mind-bending, rollable TV is real and it goes on sale later in 2019.
LG's latest OLED TV is completely flexible and rolls away into its base when not in use.

■ Netflix's upcoming content crisis.
The biggest shows on Netflix are owned by other companies.

■ Why is Netflix enabling Saudi Arabia's crackdown on press freedom?

■ The first global decline in pay-TV subscribers.
The total number of pay-TV subscribers of the 100 leading services in the world fell slightly by 0.11 million in the third quarter of 2018 - the first decline ever.

■ When will sport on pay-TV reach a breaking point?

■ ITV's Dancing on Ice in a terminal downward spiral as ratings tank.
Lowest viewership for the Brit-show yet after losing 1 million viewers in the first episode of 2019 season.

■ The Sopranos at 20: How did the show change TV - and us?


■ A quiet, far-reaching change: India is following Canada with a dramatic pay-TV change.
From 1 February 2019 India's broadcasting regulator, TRAI, has ordered pay-TV operators to change and introduce a new pricing and TV channel selection system. The new system will "free" viewers from having to pay for a specific set of TV channels in a bouquet or package.
India's pay-TV subscribers will pick and pay for only the channels they choose - with the regulator even capping a fixed maximum price per channel of Rs19 (R3.78).

- There's still a catch: Subscribers will still pay a base monthly "connection fee" and this will come with 100 standard definition (SD) free-to-air channels. Further channels will be added by choice at an individual price. Will watching pay-TV in India get costlier? Well, once the heavy discounts to maintain current pricing levels stop, yes.


■ Premature ending: Amazon Prime Video self-censoring Hindi films.
Movies on Amazon Prime Video in India are shorter than the same film on Netflix in that country.

■ TV shows that were too disturbing to finish.

■ Sky News (DStv 402) live interview interrupted by Brexit protesters.

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.