sunshine
Well-known member
You really can’t understand how increased earnings could drive better performance standards?
Golf on TV (paying for it)
- Thread starter balaclava
- Start date
You really can’t understand how increased earnings could drive better performance standards?
Mel Smooth
Hacker
So the level of performance has increased pro rata with individual earnings for let’s say, footballers has it?
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
No, but a lot more people watch a lot more games on telly and pay a lot more money for doing so.
That money has to go somewhere.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Very hard to judge isn’t it
If someone is that key to a team winning trophies that being in millions into a club then they are going to be rewarded for that
It will come down to an individual basis on if a player is worth the money they are being given to play - that’s the same with any sport
Mel Smooth
Hacker
That’s not really the point I’m making.
In 1990, the wage bill of Man United was £4.7 million
It is now £203 million.
Factor in inflation and that’s the equivalent wage bill in 1990 of £88 Million - 18 x more than it actually was. The players clearly aren’t 18 x better than they were back then, which supports the point that paying over the odds for Sky Sports hasn’t improved the performance levels pro rata.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
The wages bills haven’t just gone up because of how much we pay
Around 25 years ago if you want the two sports channels and two movie channels as a package it was around £27 a month plus the overall subscription so your monthly bill was around £50
Right now I pay just under £60 for all the sport channels and movie channels , add in £9 for the BT sports channels
The improvement in the sport and the quality we see is far superior than what we had 25 years ago
Wages that a club pays comes from many streams - increases in sponsorship, add in the worldwide viewing the money coming then the clubs will reward their players for helping bring in that extra money.
The players back in 91 wouldn’t get near the players now - the advancement in the sport even just on the fitness side is massive.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Of course, I was being facetious.
The money goes to the shareholders of the tv companies not footballers. Those shareholders, of course, thoroughly deserve every penny for the fantastic service that is provided.
Bdill93
Undisputed King of FOMO
But then in turn the TV companies buy the rights to the prem games for billions again and then the clubs use that money to pay players more.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Oh, I hadn't thought about it that way, thanks.
Ultimately then, if the tv companies didn't charge so much, they wouldn't be able to pay so much for tv rights and the footballers wouldn't earn so much.
Or have I got that round my neck as well?
Last edited:
GB72
Money List Winner
OK, let us look at what existed then and now.
The free to air channels provide exactly the same content as they did then. Football is FA cup and match of the day (OK will admit you got some european cup matches as well) but in general, you get exactly the same mix of sport, drama etc as you did at any stage in my lifetime. You get a bit more with commercial, digital freeview channels and so what you get is pretty much the same. As far as sport is concerned, as far as the BBC is concerned, that is all on them. They do not want golf, they do not want niche sports, they only want the crown jewel events ideally at a lower price becasue they are protected. There are enough cheap rights options that the BBC could easily still run something like Grandstand on a Saturday (remember the mainstays of that were FA Cup Football and Rugby League which are still available, and some rugby union that would cost the BBC something like £30 million year for rights). Wrestling was world of sport but I am sure that there are UK events that could be shown, it does not have to be WWE but I suspect a highlights package of that would be cheap enough.
So, what do you have on the pay channels, sport that the BBC and ITV have never shown, high end US series and recent release films. Yes, in an ideal world, they would all be available to everyone on the old terrestrial stations but do you really think that this could be done on the current licence fee. You up the cost of that then it becomes a possibility but then you would be paying similar amounts to those payable to Sky etc. It all costs. It seemed great 40 years ago because there was nothing to compare it to, there were no have and have nots. To think that you could run the necessary additional channels buy in the content and stream it all for the standard licence fee is a pipe dream. Your licence fee still gets you what it always has done, it is just set now against a background of far wider choice.
My complaint is the selling of sport across half a dozen networks in the interests of competition which is a veiled excuse for getitng more out of subscribers but that is not a slight on subscriptions in general but rather the need to get so many to see all of one sport.
The free to air channels provide exactly the same content as they did then. Football is FA cup and match of the day (OK will admit you got some european cup matches as well) but in general, you get exactly the same mix of sport, drama etc as you did at any stage in my lifetime. You get a bit more with commercial, digital freeview channels and so what you get is pretty much the same. As far as sport is concerned, as far as the BBC is concerned, that is all on them. They do not want golf, they do not want niche sports, they only want the crown jewel events ideally at a lower price becasue they are protected. There are enough cheap rights options that the BBC could easily still run something like Grandstand on a Saturday (remember the mainstays of that were FA Cup Football and Rugby League which are still available, and some rugby union that would cost the BBC something like £30 million year for rights). Wrestling was world of sport but I am sure that there are UK events that could be shown, it does not have to be WWE but I suspect a highlights package of that would be cheap enough.
So, what do you have on the pay channels, sport that the BBC and ITV have never shown, high end US series and recent release films. Yes, in an ideal world, they would all be available to everyone on the old terrestrial stations but do you really think that this could be done on the current licence fee. You up the cost of that then it becomes a possibility but then you would be paying similar amounts to those payable to Sky etc. It all costs. It seemed great 40 years ago because there was nothing to compare it to, there were no have and have nots. To think that you could run the necessary additional channels buy in the content and stream it all for the standard licence fee is a pipe dream. Your licence fee still gets you what it always has done, it is just set now against a background of far wider choice.
My complaint is the selling of sport across half a dozen networks in the interests of competition which is a veiled excuse for getitng more out of subscribers but that is not a slight on subscriptions in general but rather the need to get so many to see all of one sport.
GB72
Money List Winner
That is just a matter of competition. Football is the main driver of subscriptions to many channels. If Sky did not pay the money, Amazon or BT or another company would. It is unrealistic to expect all companies to step back and limit their spending on what is an essential part of their subscription startegy. You now have DZone looking to but alll EFL rights including 3.00 kick offs and I suspect they will be in on the next round of premiership bidding to up the price again.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
I get your point overall, because what you say is a good factual account of what has come about.
But, "Your licence fee still gets you what it always has done" is not true with regards to golf, The Open, The Masters, Ryder Cup used to have full live coverage on BBC.
This is not the BBC's fault.
Big business stepped in and took it away from the consumer and forced them to pay more, if they wanted to see the same stuff.
The BBC still has the facility to get out there and point cameras at stuff that is going on in the world.
We did protect some sporting events by legislation, but the power of money did for that eventually.
But, "Your licence fee still gets you what it always has done" is not true with regards to golf, The Open, The Masters, Ryder Cup used to have full live coverage on BBC.
This is not the BBC's fault.
Big business stepped in and took it away from the consumer and forced them to pay more, if they wanted to see the same stuff.
The BBC still has the facility to get out there and point cameras at stuff that is going on in the world.
We did protect some sporting events by legislation, but the power of money did for that eventually.
Last edited:
fundy
Ryder Cup Winner
I see as a cost cutting exercise the BBC will be cutting 1,000 hours of tv programming this year, and half of that is from sport!
GB72
Money List Winner
This is the BBCs fault, they ditched The Open coverage with a year to go on their contract and did not bid to renew, they did not bid for the usual masters package this year, the Ryder cup is more understandable. Reports are that the BBC have been offered gold package for nothing and they still turned them down. The BBC do not want golf and that is the sad reality of it.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Its a damned if they do, damned if they don't for the BBC. Only income stream tv licence, raise that by a huge amount to keep golf on the telly - not going to be popular.
Free tv licence for ALL over 75s - now means tested only. etc etc.
People get to see what they want - but the amounts of money paid and circulated are excessive.
This is not a good value for money for the tv consumer in the end.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
BBC it appears need to find £400mil worth of savings
People watching highlights of events that have already happened and been televised are just not going to appeal to the masses anymore. It’s just a waste of programming
GB72
Money List Winner
I thnk that you are roping everything in with football but it has the power to garner those prices. Rugby is on its knees financially, athletes are not exactly rolling in cash save for a few, most sports are not rolling in it. As for TV, you want top shows that cost hundreds of millions ot make, you have to sell them to networks at a decent price.
GB72
Money List Winner
Very much agree but then again, match of the day does just that. Ditch match of the day and that is 25% of those savings done. You can get goal highlights online within minutes of the ball hitting the net.
The point was that the BBC does not want golf or, in fact, much of any other sport.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Or an indecent price, depending on your point of view.
Bdill93
Undisputed King of FOMO
Massively agree.
They had a NFL highlights show on a Monday night - why bother? All the Sunday games highlights are free to watch on the NFL website and apps at the drop of a hat about 10 mins after the final whistle
