Bishops have turned off the cameras on the Piley Rees. Their home rugby matches like the one against Stellenberg over the weekend won’t be streamed. At first glance it seems like a very unpopular decision and one that strong OD (Old Diocesan) Union would work to reverse.
Affies started off 2023 with the same intention and did not broadcast their home match against Helpmekaar.
The decision are made in the best interest of the boys. An attempt to relieve them of the added pressure wherever possible.
New Zealand schoolboy rugby broadcasting on a mass scale started a few years before the likes of School Sport Live and DigiTV came on the scene and brought about the same in South Africa. So it was interesting that the principals of the Auckland A1 division which represents some of the top schools in the most populated part of the two islands, decided that live broadcasts will be a no-go in 2023.
The schools include: St Peter’s College, Kelston Boys’ High School, Sacred Heart College, DeLa Salle College, Saint Kentigern College, King’s College, Mt Albert Grammar School, Dilworth School, Auckland Grammar School, Liston College, Tangaroa College, Aorere College and in 2023, potentially St Paul’s College and/or Macleans College.
One NZ newspaper publication used the word “subsume”. The principals believed they were acting in the best interests of SBR to stop it transforming into something else.
Anyways the move was expected to be hugely unpopular but so far a few weeks into the regular season, it just like everyone is fine with it and happy to move on.
@Kaya 85: dstv slapped them with a copy rights infringement strkke on youtube even though they always acknowledge dstv as the copyright owners ,they even promote supersport schools if you want you watch the full game….
@Smallies: what happened with Slapchips? didn’t see that story.
@Smallies: I dont think you’re taking it too far…I also suspect a broadcaster would want to take the ‘product’, exploit it for all that it is worth and ‘sell’ it back to us. I’m not (usually) prone to conspiracy theories …
@BoishaaiPa: you are right…it is a better ‘product’…but only because it is actually closer to the pure form of the game. But if becomes too much of a “product” there is a risk that it could be lost again.
@Snelvuur: die punt wat ek probeer maak is dat DSTV nie gaan stop nie ,hulle wil dir monopolie he van o 14 tot springbok …..dis fine as jy se ek vat dit te ver maar kom ons praat oor 5 jaar weer as jy slegs skole eerstespanne kan kyk as jy n DSTV premuim subscription het…..dit kom mark my words ,kan jy onthou to m-net rugby in oop tyd uitgesaai het ….selfde model wat hulle nou met skole rugby volg ….
@Smallies: ek dink dis maar hoe enige tipe “content” werk. Dis maar dieselfde met ouers wat fotos neem van kinders se rugby games en “watermarks” oor dit sit sodat mense die fotos moet koop liewer as dit net copy en paste.
Dit was altyd copyright infringement om iemand anders se content te gebruik sonder hulle toestemming (dieselfde as om fotos van die internet af te gebruik op jou website).
Persoonlik, dink ek jy vat die hele scenario bietjie ver. Die rede hoekom die copyright DSTV s’n is, is nie omdat hulle ‘n alleenreg het op skolerugby uitsaai nie, maar omdat hulle die spesifieke videos wat Slapchips gebruik geneem het.
Kyk na die situasie andersom – as die skole die geld spandeer het om kameras op te rig en die games af te neem en DSTV het die footage gevat en highlight videos gemaak vir hul eie sak, sou jy daarmee tevrede wees?
@Smallies: I tend to agree with you. I’m also not a big fan of the monopolisation of rugby broadcasting. It would be nice to have a few other companies in a healthy competition with them.
Amongst other things it might encourage them to sort out the AI cameras and the difficult to navigate app.
@Kaya 85: You are right. Coffers was a bit far-fetched a term. But I do stand by what I said about the opportunity to generate more revenue from jersey sponsorship now.
@beet: Yep, but it’s all come about from circumstance in SA, poor economy means it’s cat and dog out there, any opportunity to make money and I just don’t like kids being exploited in this way. There are other ways to generate income. Maybe I’m old school but so be it. The focus on schoolboy rugby is the wrong level to focus on, club rugby is where it should be thriving
Ek sien Slapchips op youtube is geslaan met n copyright infringement deur …………….you guessed it Supersport schools ……soos ek gese het daardie maatskappy sal nie rus voordat hulle n totale monopolie op rugby uitsendings het in Suid Afrika nie.
Ons skole moet vinnig wakker skrik voor dit te laat is ,een van die dae gaan jy nie eers n foto saam met jou seun kan neem na n game nie want die produk behoort aan DSTV
SBR is becoming a brand on its own. It is the T20 version of cricket. More people not affiliated to specific schools are watching it because of the actual brand of rugby being played. It is a better alternative than watching most prof rugby games. It is not just a bunch of old boys streaming games anymore. There is an actual market for it if managed correctly. If you are not promoting your brand out there you are going to loose out…this is the modern era of visual stimulation..the old era of couple of parents and old boys next to the sidelines are gone. It is becoming big and the spectators are growing. You need to satisfy that need by having it out there and available.
@Snelvuur: also make good points …schools should talk to each other and form a united front to protect their interests…it is an ever growing market with more and more demand, as the semi-pro and pro unions play to dwindling crowds ( Stormers the exception Sharks and Bulls maybe 3 or 4 full ish games each)
@Toffee: good points, agreed
@beet: I hear you ,but I don’t trust them ,they certainly did not get in to this just to help schools ,they have a long game witch is to achieve a total monopoly on rugby broadcasting in South Africa, they want us bound to them from u 14 level to the Springboks…..I might be wrong about it but I doubt it ….
@Smallies: Hey Smallies. I think you have to consider if this relationship between SSS and the schools is mutually beneficial. I think at this point in time most schools involved are of the opinion that it is. So for SSS to win they need to generate revenue. For the schools to win, perhaps revenue, perhaps marketing to fill the school with fees payers, maybe a bit of both.
Personally I’m not convinced SSS will make money out of this venture. If they backed rugby especially 1st XV rugby and created a rugby like structure for soccer that would generate interest, then they would be styling. But to support all these other national sports at school level that have limited interest, surely they realise at some point that the economies of scale are not working.
@Grasshopper: The point about branding is an interesting one because my opinion on it was that since Supersport came on board and offered this wider audience platform, the value of a jersey sponsorship must have surely increased, which is good for a school’s coffers.
@Smallies: because SARU is a company that needs to make a profit with ever increasing salaries to pay. Schools do not have to make a profit from rugby, so there is nothing really that DSTV can threaten them with, UNLESS those in charge of the schools become greedy and want to make more money.
Schools already make more than enough from money at the gate, to be honest. I know Paul Roos, since the advent of streaming, has seen no reduction in the number of people attending the sports days – they even erected extra stands now to accommodate everyone.
@Snelvuur: At the start of Supersport Saru held all the cards ,they had the product Supersport wanted to sell……now SARU is complete at the mercy of DSTV …..
@Kaya 85: in the end DSTV will rake in millions at the expense of the schools.You could even take it further….not long from nownyou will have the option of the free app ,killing you with adds ,or for only R50 you can get the premium ad free app ….
@Kaya 85: I really doubt that the threat is as big as it is made out to be. The schools hold all the cards since they have the product which SuperSport wishes to sell. They are under no obligation to use SuperSport as a streaming service – they could very well use YouTube already should they wish to.
Since they hold all the cards, monetisation of SuperSport Schools could only take place with their consent.
The real danger is not SuperSport, but rather that schools’ leadership structures will want to benefit more financially.
I dont mind paying if I know the funds are going to the school I support and it is not an excessive fee. I know Wynberg like other other schools have a supporters club where one can contribute monthly and you could also make it part of your offering to supporters club members (like parking and talks). Generally I go to watch games live. If the schools run it they could do it as a school club/society where the pupils are involved and upskilled in the skill of videography (my son is a videographer by profession in the UK). The schools should be very careful when signing contracts with SSL or anyone else.
@Toffee: that’s exactly the benefit…but also the threat of them putting a pay wall “pay per view” …I agree with Smallies that the broadcasters will eventually push for this…at the moment they are happy to build the market…but for them there is a huge upside…where does that leave the schools? Or the schoolboy players?
@Toffee: I have a question for you.Would you rather watch a Wynberg game live on a dedicated Wynberg youtube channel for free knowing all income generated go towards the school ,or on supersport schools ?
@Rainier: @Snelvuur: @Smallies:
The benefit of having one platform is big, for the ‘broadcaster’ as well as the schools. Otherwise schools would have to buy equipment, employ people to record, manage and monetize…now schools would be straying away from their core mission, I.e. education. But you don’t want the broadcaster to be in the position to extract all the value…
Maybe SBR schools should rather form a ‘Union’ where they could exercise more authority and prevent broadcasters from taking the bulk of the value….
At one of the Easter festivals a number of Years back, a producer threatened me when I took out a video camera…he claimed he had the sole rights to record the games…it was before SS…just as streaming was coming in…a well known rugby TV journalist
During the first year of Covid, when no schools games in SA were happening I was watching schools rugby live on YouTube in Australia and New Zealand. The Australian rugby was in Queensland/The GPS and it was excellent viewing. The following year they decided to go the pay for view route and I was not prepared to pay what I remember to be a fairly high dollar fee. A lot of old boys reside out of town/overseas and I think you can build connections with old boys/potential donors by streaming games. I am involved with a local Rugby Club and have had emails from old boys overseas who want to stream the clubs matches and are frustrated if they cannot. Also as someone who is older and having knee and other health problems, I like the fact that if I am not feeling up to watching the game live I am able to catch it on streaming.
@Snelvuur: veiws accumulate over time the longer a video is up the more revenue it generates….you also get paid an advertising fee,getting hd streaming cameras will be a one time investment wich will benefit the whole school,not just sport.I think a school like Grey would very easily be able to generate a lot more than R35000 a game from youtube if they went that route….they would also remain independent
@Smallies: not sure schools would make more money from YouTube channels. They would then have to source their own advertisers, pay for their own camera equipment (which, at least for big games, is being supplied by SuperSport). Not to mention the fact that they would be responsible for ensuring that the stream runs smoothly (often easier said than done).
The average YouTuber makes $0.018 per view, or $18 per 1000 views. In other words, if 100 000 people watch a schools game on YouTube, the school would generate $1800 or R34 200. That’s before any of its expenses to stream the game. Schools get paid far in excess of that by SuperSport.
Even if they get a smaller slice of the pie from SuperSport, the pie is probably much bigger. Getting the whole pie rather than a more filling small slice is not more beneficial to the schools.
@Rainier: ek sal persoolik veel eerder subscribe by Grey PRG ,Boishaai Gim Affies ens ens se youtube kanale as supersport schools….ek sal eerder dat my veiw Die skole finasieel baat as wat ek geld in DSTV se sakke prop
@Rainier: my point is this I think that Bishops have seen the danger that big buisness is to schoolboy rugby and the boys, and that all schools should be very careful before getting in bed with them,rather do it yourselfs and benefit long term from a youtube channel income ,yes I’m very much opposed to dstv getting involved in schoolboy rugby ,because they will NEVER have the benifit of schoolboy rugby at heart….
@Smallies: The article refers to no live streaming, nada niks. You seem to have a problem with DSTV, not showing SBR on streaming/youtube etc.
@Rainier: keep the SSL model ,keep DSTV as far away from schoolboy rugby as possible ,better yet let every school run and stream their product on youtube ,it will create a nice income stream FOR THE SCHOOL,not DSTV ,we must remember dstv is not in this for the love of schoolboy rugby ,theirs is a shelfish profits driven objective, they will be the death of schoolboy rugby …If you dont believe me ,look at what they did with the Craven week ,it was only after DSTV that the so called final of Craven week bacame a big thing …..
@Smallies: So what is your solution?
@Snelvuur: give it time ,pretty soon DSTV will come with contracts and shit trying to monopolize schoolboy rugby ,like they did senior rugby….just you wait in 5 years from now you’ll be paying a R200 supersport schools subscription and no school will be able to take their brand elsewhere because they will be tied up in contracts ….
@Smallies: not sure that DSTV is in a really strong bargaining position to dictate terms to the schools, as the schools hold the “product” which DSTV wants to sell. I mean, even before DigiTV DSTV was paying schools to broadcast their games since these games drew more viewers than Currie Cup games.
I’m not sure on what basis DSTV would be able to dictate any terms to schools.
@Grasshopper: @Rainier:When Digitv and SSL started out it was a revolution in schoolsports ,especially SSL, hd streams on youtube free of charge …..it was the shit, it was also very very popular.
DSTV who we all know is a giant who is dying a slow death saw this new platform as a potential rival,think of the consequences if the Sharks for instance decided to go the same route , therefore DSTV being the greedy bastards that they are made SSL an offer they couldn’t refuse ….suddenly games could not be downloaded any more and soon afterwards you had to log in to the supersport schools website or app to watch your favorite schools team play ,you are allready restricted on the amount of devices you can use and before long there will be a subscription fee,witch I can guarantee will not benefit any of the schools ….DSTV basically are now comersializing schoolboy and pretty soon will start dictating tearms to schools regarding everything…..
Maybe we should also return to ox wagons and smoke signals and stop using modern medicine and cut a hole in the skull of migraine sufferers.
Anyone trying to put the genie back in the bottle is delusional.
I understand the rationale, but I think streaming is just awesome for families who live far apart. Whereas my grandparents maybe saw me play sport twice in my life because they lived hundreds of kilometers away, the families of kids in similar positions now can share in their joy and be a more active part of their lives.
It’s probably easy to say that people should just show up to games live, but for many that simply is not an option (think about parents working on oil rigs, for example, or kids that get scholarships to schools a thousand kilometers from where their parents live).
Love this! Finally some proper decision making. School sport needs to remain that, grounded. Let people go and watch it ‘live’ that is the best, feel it & enjoy the war cries etc. Selling streamed feeds to advertisers etc is professional. I live overseas & streaming helps me watch it but I would prefer to keep it amateur & local. Good decision by Bishops & the Auckland schools. I would even remove all the branding on the kit & around the school.
Food for thought ..as much as I love watching a livestream, I can understand where those principals are coming from…they want to protect the schoolboy game from being hijacked. Would be interesting to read the minutes of those NZ school league meetings, since they will have discussed merits, drawbacks, pros, cons etc. and not that we would follow suit necessarily, but if we can learn from similar setups where people are such ardent rugby followers.