Amazon’s decision to stream the Women’s Cricket World Cup for free has reignited debate over whether Australia’s anti-siphoning laws still serve the public.
Amazon Prime Video’s decision to make the ICC Women’s Cricket World Cup available free to Australians should be seen less as a threat and more as proof that the country’s anti-siphoning laws no longer reflect how audiences watch sport.
Despite the claims from Free TV Australia in a Sunday morning media release, this is not a new rights deal.
– Advertisement –
Amazon acquired these cricket rights in 2023, as part of a broader five-year global agreement with the International Cricket Council, at a time when no Australian free-to-air network was willing to bid. What has changed is that Amazon has now committed to offering the matches at no cost — effectively expanding access rather than restricting it.
Free TV chief executive Bridget Fair argued the move demonstrated the need for urgent reform of the anti-siphoning list, claiming Amazon’s approach was designed to,
“grow their subscriber base, acquire user data and upsell.”
Yet data collection is not unique to international platforms. Domestic services such as 7plus, 9Now and 10play also require personal information — including names, gender, age and postcode — which is passed to advertisers.
Suggesting that Amazon’s practices alone are cause for alarm ignores the reality of how all modern broadcasters operate.
The larger issue is that Australia’s anti-siphoning rules actively disadvantage sporting bodies and consumers. Because sporting codes cannot accept the highest bids from subscription TV or streaming platforms, they can be forced to accept less lucrative free-to-air offers. That reduces the money available for reinvestment in talent pathways, grassroots programs and facilities.
And while Free TV presents itself as the guardian of universal access, free-to-air networks have themselves used the system to their advantage. After securing sports rights under the anti-siphoning list, broadcasters have increasingly shifted marquee matches onto their own subscription services.
– Advertisement –
A prime example is Channel 10, which secure rights to international football, but then went on to place key Socceroos and Matildas World Cup Qualifiers behind a paywall on Paramount+, limiting access for fans despite the supposed protections of the legislation.
These contradictions expose the anti-siphoning regime as less about protecting viewers and more about preserving the market position of traditional broadcasters. Far from promoting universal access, the laws limit innovation by tying major sports to traditional TV — a medium with a declining audience. Meanwhile, millions of Australians are shifting their viewing habits to digital platforms, where flexibility and choice are the norm.
While it’s undoubtedly true that putting sport behind a paywall limits viewership and risks lowering engagement as has been demonstrated with the decline of One Day International cricket, these are the challenging decisions that should be made by sports administrators, not by politicians.
Subscription TV providers have long argued that the anti-siphoning framework is outdated. Their position has weight: the rules were designed for an analogue world, not one where consumers expect to watch live sport on-demand, on mobile devices and across multiple services.
Amazon offering free coverage of the Women’s Cricket World Cup demonstrates that streaming services are not inherently a barrier to access. Instead, they highlight the contradictions in legislation that prioritises free-to-air broadcasters while sidelining platforms better aligned with how audiences consume content today.
If the aim is to ensure Australians can continue to watch their national teams, clinging to outdated laws that stifle competition and revenue may be the bigger threat.
– Advertisement –