plus dual tv rights seems to work for the NRL...why not here?
Just to be clear, the pay TV market in Australia is much smaller than it is in the UK and there are fewer commercial restrictions. Australian networks can afford to compete for domestic sport rights and are the major partners in NRL and AFL with the pay TV companies buying what is left.
This is the exact opposite of what the situation would be here, where no major network would be able to afford to be the primary broadcaster, and Sky are in a much more powerful and dominant position than their Australian counterparts to need to whatever rights remain to build their business around.
The two markets are completely different. If it was so simple other spots would do it. No other sport in England has a professional domestic league with coverage on a free to air network, and when the BBC tried with the Football League between the combination of the ratings and cuts it was considered not worth it and so the deal was not renewed.
In Australia Seven, Nine and Ten can afford to spend more on sport than than Fox.
In the UK Sky can afford to spend more on sport than the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 or Channel 5.
And that not withstanding, as others have said, that the status of rugby league is completely different in Australia. It is more akin to what the Premier League is here, not Super League. Just because they are the same sport does not mean the two competitions have the same levels of interests or value in their respective countries.