The Footie Thread

[GB72]

You’re not wrong - sky sports built up from owning the football prem rights

Wouldn’t surprise me if 90% of Sky and TNT subscriptions are because of the football , the rest is a bonus

The only difference now is that Sky have been forced to pay more and more due to other interested parties. I am not sure TNT or Amazon would bid for the full package and so, without the competition, Sky could start dropping the amount they pay.

As I said, the counter to that is that the Premier League set up their own channel. They could hire in all the expertise no longer needed by Sky and maybe dropping the blackout and showing all matches is the precursor to them doing that.

The worst case scenario, however, is if Sky have actually be holding the Premier League together. Collective bargaining is great when you get bigger and bigger deals every few years. If that starts to drop, you can bet that some clubs would see that as the excuse they need to pull out of collective bargaining and sell their own rights.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

The only difference now is that Sky have been forced to pay more and more due to other interested parties. I am not sure TNT or Amazon would bid for the full package and so, without the competition, Sky could start dropping the amount they pay.

As I said, the counter to that is that the Premier League set up their own channel. They could hire in all the expertise no longer needed by Sky and maybe dropping the blackout and showing all matches is the precursor to them doing that.

The worst case scenario, however, is if Sky have actually be holding the Premier League together. Collective bargaining is great when you get bigger and bigger deals every few years. If that starts to drop, you can bet that some clubs would see that as the excuse they need to pull out of collective bargaining and sell their own rights.

Sky being forced to pay more is down to them dominating for so long

With the way the packages are now it’s really only Sky that can get the main one - the Sunday games , Monday and one of them games on Saturday plus overseas

Because TNT spent a fair whack on UEFA rights they haven’t got much room outside the early Saturday game package

Amazon - can really only go for one of the smaller packages because of the stream only platform they have

Premier could have their own channel etc but it does cost a fair whack and they will prob earn more from selling the rights because I suspect the demand for prem only wouldn’t be enough

Unfortunately the demand from outside the UK is huge , they could not bother selling to Sky etc and just sell outside the Uk and still earn a fortune

 

[PJ87]

I am not quite as convinced. Without football, Sky sports does not exist. May sound dramatic but I just do not think that there is enough revenue from other sporting rights to keep the lights on. I could be wrong.

Then again, TNT are pulling back from that expense, Amazon have only been interested in showing a few matches and so are Sky becoming the only viable game in town. If so then they can look to cut the amount paid.

I suppose though that if Sky do not stump up the cash the Premier League has the funds and resources to go in house with it and set up Premier League TV.

One law I'd ditch is the anti monopoly law that's "supposed" to stop fans getting fleeced by one provider having the lot

Ofc there is no guarantee without the likes of prime, tnt etc that sky wouldn't just charge even more but as it stands you need to pay sky £35 a month, Amazon £7 a month and tnt sports £31

Sure deals to be had on bundles but the fan isn't getting protected it's just getting silly

 

[Pin-seeker]

One law I'd ditch is the anti monopoly law that's "supposed" to stop fans getting fleeced by one provider having the lot

Ofc there is no guarantee without the likes of prime, tnt etc that sky wouldn't just charge even more but as it stands you need to pay sky £35 a month, Amazon £7 a month and tnt sports £31

Sure deals to be had on bundles but the fan isn't getting protected it's just getting silly

So best part of £900 a year,no wonder so many have dodgy sticks for £50 per year which gets you movies & all ppv events

 

[Arthur Wedge]

One law I'd ditch is the anti monopoly law that's "supposed" to stop fans getting fleeced by one provider having the lot

Ofc there is no guarantee without the likes of prime, tnt etc that sky wouldn't just charge even more but as it stands you need to pay sky £35 a month, Amazon £7 a month and tnt sports £31

Sure deals to be had on bundles but the fan isn't getting protected it's just getting silly

what else do you get for that £900 a year though

The value for money is through the roof

How much is a ST to watch one team , how much is one ticket at some games

And for that you are getting more sports coverage across a massive spectrum than we have ever had before

Prem league alone - 200 live games out of 380 games

Add in every single CL , Europa , Conference-189 alone in the CL

And EFL games

That’s before even looking at the other sports offered

People use fire sticks etc because as it is with the modern world - they want something cheap

 

[GB72]

what else do you get for that £900 a year though

The value for money is through the roof

How much is a ST to watch one team , how much is one ticket at some games

And for that you are getting more sports coverage across a massive spectrum than we have ever had before

Prem league alone - 200 live games out of 380 games

Add in every single CL , Europa , Conference-189 alone in the CL

And EFL games

That’s before even looking at the other sports offered

People use fire sticks etc because as it is with the modern world - they want something cheap

I think part of the problem for some is that there is only value for money if you want to watch a lot of football or football in general. The splitting of the matches for any team between 3 platforms means that you still have to pay for the full cost of the subscriptions even if you are only interested in your own team's matches.

If you are a fan of another sport, you do not get that cheaper despite the fact that the rights can cost an absolute fraction of the football rights because you are subsidising the cost of football. The rugby rights cost about £30 million a year for the premiership but you still need a full subscription to view those.

Not in any way endorsing dodgy firesticks, I do not have one but, in an ideal world, and bearing in mind that a channel does not have to run 24 hours a day 7 days a week. I would be over the moon if there was a channel with all the rugby on that fell under one subscription. That would be worth a reasonable monthly fee to me, the same with cricket, golf and a few other sports. Pay for what you consume. You could then have a Premier League channel, an EFL channel, a champions league channel etc and then the consumer could really pick and choose what they wanted to watch with the fans of each sport paying an amount commensurate to the cost of the rights and the investment in match day broadcasting and subsequent analysis shows etc.

Whilst I would not get one, I can see the appeal of a firestick to someone like me who actually only wants to watch Leicester Tigers, England and Lions matches.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

I think part of the problem for some is that there is only value for money if you want to watch a lot of football or football in general. The splitting of the matches for any team between 3 platforms means that you still have to pay for the full cost of the subscriptions even if you are only interested in your own team's matches.

If you are a fan of another sport, you do not get that cheaper despite the fact that the rights can cost an absolute fraction of the football rights because you are subsidising the cost of football. The rugby rights cost about £30 million a year for the premiership but you still need a full subscription to view those.

Not in any way endorsing dodgy firesticks, I do not have one but, in an ideal world, and bearing in mind that a channel does not have to run 24 hours a day 7 days a week. I would be over the moon if there was a channel with all the rugby on that fell under one subscription. That would be worth a reasonable monthly fee to me, the same with cricket, golf and a few other sports. Pay for what you consume. You could then have a Premier League channel, an EFL channel, a champions league channel etc and then the consumer could really pick and choose what they wanted to watch with the fans of each sport paying an amount commensurate to the cost of the rights and the investment in match day broadcasting and subsequent analysis shows etc.

Whilst I would not get one, I can see the appeal of a firestick to someone like me who actually only wants to watch Leicester Tigers, England and Lions matches.

The issue is splitting up sports wouldn’t bring in the level of money , there is no value in it for both the broadcaster and the sport itself

Even if you only watch your own team then the lowest amount a team on is 10 times

When you consider how much a ticket is to the game plus other costs again that’s good value

Some teams are on 20 plus times - even bigger value

If you split up the sports you would prob end up paying a lot more

 

[Swango1980]

So best part of £900 a year,no wonder so many have dodgy sticks for £50 per year which gets you movies & all ppv events

My Sky is around £150, TNT £40 and Amazon around a tenner. So, I guess I'm paying around £200 a month. OK, Sky gets me other TV channels (which I rarely watch, and don't have Movies) and Broadband / Line Rental, but still handing them around £2,400 a year.

It is just sad that Sky is no cheaper than it was over a decade ago (even accounting for inflation), even when it did have a monopoly of football (including Spanish football which I watched a decent amount) and I actually watched a lot of golf. It seems to offer less than it did back then, yet costs a lot more AND I also need to get TNT and Amazon Prime. But, on a plus side, Rashford can earn £300,000 a week

 

[GB72]

The issue is splitting up sports wouldn’t bring in the level of money , there is no value in it for both the broadcaster and the sport itself

Even if you only watch your own team then the lowest amount a team on is 10 times

When you consider how much a ticket is to the game plus other costs again that’s good value

Some teams are on 20 plus times - even bigger value

If you split up the sports you would prob end up paying a lot more

This is is though, someone who watches one of the bigger football clubs gets decent value, others do not and so may look to cheaper sources to get that value.

Also, I do not see attending a live event versus watching on TV as comparable experiences.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

This is is though, someone who watches one of the bigger football clubs gets decent value, others do not and so may look to cheaper sources to get that value.

Also, I do not see attending a live event versus watching on TV as comparable experiences.

If someone doesn’t see it as value then there is always the choice not too take it , there are other ways to watch the sport in pubs etc etc

People using sticks is just part of modern society of trying to get things cheaper regardless of the legality of it


There are two ways to get to watch the team - it’s mainly cheaper on the telly

Sports are packaged together to make it better financially for all

We now get to watch more live sport than ever before

To get that costs a bit

We could go back to the days of just the 4 terrestrial channels having the one live match a week and then highlights

It’s always the way - more gets provided but people don’t want to pay for that more

 

[GB72]

If someone doesn’t see it as value then there is always the choice not too take it , there are other ways to watch the sport in pubs etc etc

People using sticks is just part of modern society of trying to get things cheaper regardless of the legality of it


There are two ways to get to watch the team - it’s mainly cheaper on the telly

Sports are packaged together to make it better financially for all

We now get to watch more live sport than ever before

To get that costs a bit

We could go back to the days of just the 4 terrestrial channels having the one live match a week and then highlights

It’s always the way - more gets provided but people don’t want to pay for that more

It is not better financially for all, fans of other sports and lower league clubs are fleeced to subsidise the cost of Premier League football rights. Would fans of the Premier League clubs be happy with a fair situation where their Sky bill doubles or Trebles whilst everyone else pays and equitable amount. They could then decide if they got value.

The debate here is not one about defending illegal streams but rather a discussion about how a black market is created when something that is seen as almost an essential (and football is that ingrained into our society that some do see it as such) is priced out of the market. There will be exceptions but most people will be happy to pay a fair and equitable price for a product.

I have seen some debate on the cost of season tickets and match day tickets. Surely that is the same, you have a choice to take it or not to take it if you do not see the value. No need to protest the cost of them then, take it or leave it.

Actually, for most people, they were far better off with only 4 channels, cricket and rugby on terrestrial TV on Grandstand as well as a massive diversity of sport, highlights programs of more than just football. So much good going for it.

As it happens I did decide to leave it. Sport I wanted to watch was spread over to many subscriptions.

 

[Pin-seeker]

My Sky is around £150, TNT £40 and Amazon around a tenner. So, I guess I'm paying around £200 a month. OK, Sky gets me other TV channels (which I rarely watch, and don't have Movies) and Broadband / Line Rental, but still handing them around £2,400 a year.

It is just sad that Sky is no cheaper than it was over a decade ago (even accounting for inflation), even when it did have a monopoly of football (including Spanish football which I watched a decent amount) and I actually watched a lot of golf. It seems to offer less than it did back then, yet costs a lot more AND I also need to get TNT and Amazon Prime. But, on a plus side, Rashford can earn £300,000 a week

I recently cancelled sky after 20+years.
Don’t miss it at all.

 

[Pin-seeker]

If someone doesn’t see it as value then there is always the choice not too take it , there are other ways to watch the sport in pubs etc etc

People using sticks is just part of modern society of trying to get things cheaper regardless of the legality of it


There are two ways to get to watch the team - it’s mainly cheaper on the telly

Sports are packaged together to make it better financially for all

We now get to watch more live sport than ever before

To get that costs a bit

We could go back to the days of just the 4 terrestrial channels having the one live match a week and then highlights

It’s always the way - more gets provided but people don’t want to pay for that more

Surely you’re not that naive

 

[Arthur Wedge]

It is not better financially for all, fans of other sports and lower league clubs are fleeced to subsidise the cost of Premier League football rights. Would fans of the Premier League clubs be happy with a fair situation where their Sky bill doubles or Trebles whilst everyone else pays and equitable amount. They could then decide if they got value.

The EFL have other ways to watch their club outside sky

And before sky etc there was very little of any of the games on telly

The debate here is not one about defending illegal streams but rather a discussion about how a black market is created when something that is seen as almost an essential (and football is that ingrained into our society that some do see it as such) is priced out of the market. There will be exceptions but most people will be happy to pay a fair and equitable price for a product.

And what’s a fair price and who decides that

For £900 a year you get all the live sport there is that’s broadcast within the UK

Football is one of those sports

You get every rugby game going including

European , games from abroad -leagues all over the world

Cricket - you get every single major tournament

Golf - the same

The list is endless

And all for £900 a year

I have seen some debate on the cost of season tickets and match day tickets. Surely that is the same, you have a choice to take it or not to take it if you do not see the value. No need to protest the cost of them then, take it or leave it.

Yes people do have a choice on if they want to take it or not - but what clubs etc are doing is removing concessions for kids etc - prices increasing way beyond inflation because they know someone will spend it

Actually, for most people, they were far better off with only 4 channels, cricket and rugby on terrestrial TV on Grandstand as well as a massive diversity of sport, highlights programs of more than just football. So much good going for it.

As it happens I did decide to leave it. Sport I wanted to watch was spread over to many subscriptions.

So you had one day maybe two days of sport with Granstand that only showed a home test , very little other cricket

You had the 5 nations for a couple of weeks - no other tests outside that , even the Lions was limited broadcast

There was no sport Monday to Friday

There is no comparison to what you can now watch sport wise vastly improved

 

[GB72]

Ok I note your comments on the EFL but would you see it fair if you paid double or treble what you pay now to see premier league matches as an equitable solution to the cost of the rights. That is, after all, what you are asking fans of lower leagues and other sports to do. The best solution would be to charge a premium for a channel with Premier League matches and reduce the cost for everyone else. You are a fan of a top Premier League club, of course you are getting the most value out of it but you are getting subsidised by other people.

You also mention the amount of sport but not that many people want all that. Break it down and let people pay for what they want to consume and set the cost for each accordingly. That sound fair.

Season tickets, you have equated that with watching it on TV. There are no concessions on Sky. Should pensioners get cheap Sky, Students etc.

As for what you got before. You got every home test series pretty much, you got county cricket, you got all England international rugby, you got rugby union league matches, you got the Pilkington Cup, you got rugby special, you got a number of other sports across Grandstand and World of Sport. The cricket was shown on week days when played and rugby has only even been a weekend thing until recently with the advent of the Friday night matches.

 

[Pin-seeker]

what else do you get for that £900 a year though

The value for money is through the roof

How much is a ST to watch one team , how much is one ticket at some games

And for that you are getting more sports coverage across a massive spectrum than we have ever had before

Prem league alone - 200 live games out of 380 games

Add in every single CL , Europa , Conference-189 alone in the CL

And EFL games

That’s before even looking at the other sports offered

People use fire sticks etc because as it is with the modern world - they want something cheap

You’re talking about £900 as if it’s nothing.
It’s £900 for watching tv

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Ok I note your comments on the EFL but would you see it fair if you paid double or treble what you pay now to see premier league matches as an equitable solution to the cost of the rights. That is, after all, what you are asking fans of lower leagues and other sports to do. The best solution would be to charge a premium for a channel with Premier League matches and reduce the cost for everyone else. You are a fan of a top Premier League club, of course you are getting the most value out of it but you are getting subsidised by other people.

You also mention the amount of sport but not that many people want all that. Break it down and let people pay for what they want to consume and set the cost for each accordingly. That sound fair.

Season tickets, you have equated that with watching it on TV. There are no concessions on Sky. Should pensioners get cheap Sky, Students etc.

As for what you got before. You got every home test series pretty much, you got county cricket, you got all England international rugby, you got rugby union league matches, you got the Pilkington Cup, you got rugby special, you got a number of other sports across Grandstand and World of Sport. The cricket was shown on week days when played and rugby has only even been a weekend thing until recently with the advent of the Friday night matches.

But the lower league sports etc are now being broadcast because of the level of money coming in for people watching Premier League

The money from those subscriptions for Prem League has allowed Sky to get rights for every thing else

If there was no Prem League subscription there wouldn’t be enough money coming to be able to broadcast all the other sports - the media deals aren’t big enough to support the sport

If you break it down and people only pay for what they want to watch then most sports wouldn’t be broadcast

At the end of 91 there was approx 5000 hours of live sport on Sky - around 10 times more than terrestrial telly then now it’s more than 10 times than that a year across multiple outlets and channels

And you don’t need to spend the whole £900

You can just have sky sports for £27 a month ( or whatever deal Sky offer ) , could even be cheaper on Virgin etc ( it’s £20 a month on a winter deal )

Or you could have just TNT at £20 a month or even cheaper if you get BT Broadband - lots of deals around

They are the two main sports only subscriptions - so for under £50 you can get 99% of all live sport

That’s going to be cheaper than if they split up the sports and only charged for specific leagues or sports

There isn’t a sport these days that’s not broadcast - where as before you were very limited

 

[PJ87]

But the lower league sports etc are now being broadcast because of the level of money coming in for people watching Premier League

The money from those subscriptions for Prem League has allowed Sky to get rights for every thing else

If there was no Prem League subscription there wouldn’t be enough money coming to be able to broadcast all the other sports - the media deals aren’t big enough to support the sport

If you break it down and people only pay for what they want to watch then most sports wouldn’t be broadcast

At the end of 91 there was approx 5000 hours of live sport on Sky - around 10 times more than terrestrial telly then now it’s more than 10 times than that a year across multiple outlets and channels

And you don’t need to spend the whole £900

You can just have sky sports for £27 a month ( or whatever deal Sky offer ) , could even be cheaper on Virgin etc ( it’s £20 a month on a winter deal )

Or you could have just TNT at £20 a month or even cheaper if you get BT Broadband - lots of deals around

They are the two main sports only subscriptions - so for under £50 you can get 99% of all live sport

That’s going to be cheaper than if they split up the sports and only charged for specific leagues or sports

There isn’t a sport these days that’s not broadcast - where as before you were very limited

I cant believe you think sky sports and alike are actually good value



You really just play devil's advocate all the time because no way on god's earth can anyone think sky is good value.

 

[Pin-seeker]

I cant believe you think sky sports and alike are actually good value



You really just play devil's advocate all the time because no way on god's earth can anyone think sky is good value.

Hope you’ve nothing planned this evening

 

[GreiginFife]

But the lower league sports etc are now being broadcast because of the level of money coming in for people watching Premier League

The money from those subscriptions for Prem League has allowed Sky to get rights for every thing else

If there was no Prem League subscription there wouldn’t be enough money coming to be able to broadcast all the other sports - the media deals aren’t big enough to support the sport

If you break it down and people only pay for what they want to watch then most sports wouldn’t be broadcast

At the end of 91 there was approx 5000 hours of live sport on Sky - around 10 times more than terrestrial telly then now it’s more than 10 times than that a year across multiple outlets and channels

And you don’t need to spend the whole £900

You can just have sky sports for £27 a month ( or whatever deal Sky offer ) , could even be cheaper on Virgin etc ( it’s £20 a month on a winter deal )

Or you could have just TNT at £20 a month or even cheaper if you get BT Broadband - lots of deals around

They are the two main sports only subscriptions - so for under £50 you can get 99% of all live sport

That’s going to be cheaper than if they split up the sports and only charged for specific leagues or sports

There isn’t a sport these days that’s not broadcast - where as before you were very limited

Bold bits above highlight the problem (that's always been a problem, and knowingly so internally) with the Sky model.

They use the marketing techniques of "how much" rather than "how valued" and people buy in to it. Half the sports that Sky broadcast probably shouldn't be for the audience sizes and the RoI that Sky would get in isolation from those sports.

The volume question also comes up in the hours of sport argument to justify cost. Many of the sports, and a lot of golf is included in this, Sky don't actually pay all that much for in relative terms. Certainly not enough that it bridges the considerable gap that the loss of football rights to the bidding wars.

An example from my time at Sky was when they acquired the rights to badminton (I think it was 2004 or 05) and for the cost (again, I think it was about £900k for the three year deal) averaged viewing was less than 1% of subscribers. At that time, subscription figures were around 8m, so less than 13% of the population and less than 1% of that were watching the content. Needless to say it was pulled and penalties were paid.

Sky's only "large" (again, in relativity) spending is the Premier League rights. When the package break-up happened, Sky allowed themselves to get suckered in to a bidding war that was, for all intents and purposes, false (BT had no intention of paying hundreds of millions) and so what we ended up with was an over inflated contract and those costs passed on to the consumer for less content that was part of the previous deal. In a fair world, the cost to subscriber should have gone down with the content reduction but instead it continued to rise on the false premise that "all these other sports are now being shown to fill the gaps".