Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[j0hn]

Your completely overlooking that people pay Sky for Sports, not just football.

Their £20 a month (or whatever Sky currently charge for Sports, likely more) covers cricket, golf, tennis etc.
You're assuming people would stop paying Sky to solely pay for football or they would pay for both.

The EFL currently sell their games abroad on an individual game basis, PPV.
If the EPL followed suit I'd expect them to also sell PPV on an individual game basis. That risks people only buying the big games (probably why Sky only do annual contracts). So that leaves season packages.

No experience of what EFL/EPL charge but a couple Scottish clubs sell packages to their games directly to non UK/Ireland subscribers for £10 a week, which is often 1 game.

£20 a month from the EPL directly? You wouldn't get that for 1 teams worth of games never mind the entire league.

Sky have purpose built studios, production teams, teams of camera operators. Years of experience of the logistics involved.
They have dedicated sports reporters and a 24 hour news operation to back them up. A dedicated sports news channel.
That's just Sky and just in the UK. There's BT Sport with rights here too.

Take a look at the amount of broadcasting partners that have bought the next 3 years worth of rights...

https://www.premierleague.com/news/970151

The EPL are going to do all that themselves, in all those countries and languages, competing with every 1 of those broadcasters trying to take some of their marketing share (some of those are practically monopolies in their countries).

They are going to go to all that trouble, expense/investment, risk, what because they can?

Why is some Spanish customer going to pay the EPL for PPV access when they already pay their own local broadcaster for a Sports package that includes Spanish football and football from around Europe.

While we're at it why don't UEFA and FIFA do the same.

Rather than me just paying for my Sky Sports package and BT Sports for access to live Scottish, English, Italian, French, German, Spanish, European and International football, I could pay the SPFL, EPL, EFL, UEFA and FIFA directly, and get less!
I'll also need to keep paying Sky and BT for the cricket, golf, tennis, MMA, etc. I'll lose domestic European football as they'll also go the PPV route.

What makes you think the EPL is so special they can go down this route, alone, with everyone jumping on the bandwagon and then still making Billions, while massively disrupting a market that has worked for years?


I'm confident in 2022 we'll see similar deals done as last year, with simple rights being sold for huge sums with little work involved other than signing contracts.
Leave it to the broadcasters who know how, who tend to sell Sports as a package. Not everyone only cares about football, or English football specifically.

I for 1 wouldn't give them a penny.

[Chrysalis]

you appear to be forgetting that if the EPL took everything in house and provided their own service they would need to provide their own customer services, their own billing systems, their own platform costs as well as taking on the production costs.

why is that "better" than simply selling the rights to a company and letting them deal with all those overheads? the EPL get the money and leave everything else to the rights holders.

the clubs, which are the EPL, are never going to vote for something that is going to cost them money and essentially mean they end up getting less income personally.
broadcast methods may change in the future, but the preference is always going to selling the rights and counting the money.

I think you have said this twice, I havent forgotten it, just I dont believe that would be a major obstacle.  BT entered the market with absolutely no TV experience whatsoever and set everything within the space of a few a months.

Here is the thing.

I think we are both right.

You advocate what is the "safe" option, to keep things as is, although inevitably the value of the rights will go down as the model is not sustainable for sky/bt.  But it is safe in respect to its something that is already setup.

However in life if you want growth and progression, you take risks, and the EPL is a risk taker.  Most of the owners of the clubs are non British, which reflects this.

Lets say e.g. you sell something to someone to sell on, they pay you £10 but it costs them £1 to sell it and sell it for £30, then you decide to cut them out and sell it for £20, are you going to worry about that £1 cost when you are making an extra £10 anyway?

There is history of this.

F1 now sell direct to consumers, as their new model, the only reason they not doing it in the UK is because sky are been stubborn and wont release their exclusivity, but most of the world now has consumers able to buy F1 footage directly from F1.

NHL went from using cable tv companies to doing it directly to consumers, its not like I am talking about something that no one has ever done, its a proven model.

The EPL would I expect either hire a company to handle it but sell under their own brand name, or they may still use a 3rd party, which could be amazon, netflix, sky, BT whoever is willing to do the streaming, but for me its the shift from schedule based TV to VOD type services I am predicting, with or without 3rd party.

[chenks]

I think we are both right.

i don't

[Chrysalis]

Well i am not in a argumentative mood as you so for me the discussion is over.