Why the rising price of TV football is bad for all of us

[Withdean and I]

Following BT's recent mega money deal for the rights to the champions league coverage, this is worth a read.

http://www.newstatesman.com/business/2013/11/why-rising-price-tv-football-bad-all-us

 

[Rugrat]

Good article. I can't see an end to it any time soon but totally subscribe to the growing gulf between the haves and have nots. Anyone not in the Prem is going to find things increasingly tough I think and unless improved distribution of TV money can be agreed (highly unlikely) then I'd expect a pretty massive restructuring before too long

 

[Vegas Seagull]

Bad article, BT have promised that the cost of Champions League games will be lower than Sky charge

 

[Deleted member 18477]

Bad article, BT have promised that the cost of Champions League games will be lower than Sky charge

This.

 

[Arthur]

Bad article, BT have promised that the cost of Champions League games will be lower than Sky charge

How can they claim that based on their subscription model? If you like sport and you can afford it Sky Sport is absolutely fantastic. It doesn't matter what time of year, what day of the week there is always some live sport to watch of an evening. BT have got a massive long way to go catch up to even getting close to what Sky offer which I can't see them doing in the next 18 months. Therefore comparing the cost of the two will be like comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Wozza]

Vast majority want/pay for football and consider other sports a bonus.

(Obvious exceptions around occasional events such as Ashes and Ryder Cup)

 

[Arthur]

Vast majority want/pay for football and consider other sports a bonus.

(Obvious exceptions around occasional events such as Ashes and Ryder Cup)

Whilst I don't disagree with you on the whole I find myself watching an awful lot of sport simply because there is feck all else on telly (I have everything apart from the movies and still can't find anything to watch!). Last night for example I flicked between the darts, greyhounds and 8 ball pool. The cricket throughout the summer is great and the golf every weekend is brilliant (European Tour during the day and US PGA in the evening). So yes I do primarily subscribe for the football but if Sky were to lose it I would still probably keep my subscription.

 

[father_and_son]

The last two paragraphs are the most interesting... at the point at which the pay-TV model doesn't need football to grow, the TV value of football will crash and PL (and FL) and the other bodies governing the game will start to look pretty stupid that they sold all ours souls for short term gain.

 

[El Presidente]

The last two paragraphs are the most interesting... at the point at which the pay-TV model doesn't need football to grow, the TV value of football will crash and PL (and FL) and the other bodies governing the game will start to look pretty stupid that they sold all ours souls for short term gain.

I'm not convinced.

There is always an alternative to pay TV, which is to not pay for it, and listen to matches on the radio. This is why there is such hostility towards the BBC from the Murdoch empire, who see the Beeb as a restrictor to its ability to squeeze cash from consumers. BSkyB have an average spend per subscriber of £539 a year, which is expensive compared to the licence fee of £145.50.

 

[Easy 10]

Bad article, BT have promised that the cost of Champions League games will be lower than Sky charge

Perhaps so, but if you want to watch Champions League AND Premier / Football League, you would have to take out 2 separate subscriptions - and that CERTAINLY won't work out cheaper. Most people will have to make a choice between the two.

Personally I'd stick with my Sky subscription for the Football League and Premier League stuff. If theres a Champions League game I particularly want to see, I'll go down the pub.

 

[El Presidente]

How can they claim that based on their subscription model? If you like sport and you can afford it Sky Sport is absolutely fantastic. It doesn't matter what time of year, what day of the week there is always some live sport to watch of an evening. BT have got a massive long way to go catch up to even getting close to what Sky offer which I can't see them doing in the next 18 months. Therefore comparing the cost of the two will be like comparing apples to oranges.

Agreed, if you get £539 of enjoyment from Sky, which as sports fans, many viewers do, then it makes sense to go for it.

 

[El Presidente]

Perhaps so, but if you want to watch Champions League AND Premier / Football League, you would have to take out 2 separate subscriptions - and that CERTAINLY won't work out cheaper. Most people will have to make a choice between the two.

Personally I'd stick with my Sky subscription for the Football League and Premier League stuff. If theres a Champions League game I particularly want to see, I'll go down the pub.

What BT are trying is to test the market. There are plenty of people who don't want to shell out £40-50 a month for Sky Sports, but may be prepared to pay £12 a month (which is BT's current subscriber price).

Personally if it involves Michael Owen, who makes Alan Shearer look like the most charismatic person on TV, I'm out of it.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Changing subject, it would be great if you could get Pay Per Match for Brighton away matches only. Think that would be an excellent idea for people who can't go.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Whilst I don't disagree with you on the whole I find myself watching an awful lot of sport simply because there is feck all else on telly (I have everything apart from the movies and still can't find anything to watch!). Last night for example I flicked between the darts, greyhounds and 8 ball pool. The cricket throughout the summer is great and the golf every weekend is brilliant (European Tour during the day and US PGA in the evening). So yes I do primarily subscribe for the football but if Sky were to lose it I would still probably keep my subscription.

Arthur you need an out door hobby
regards
DR

 

[El Presidente]

Changing subject, it would be great if you could get Pay Per Match for Brighton away matches only. Think that would be an excellent idea for people who can't go.

Or watch the match for free on a stream!

 

[gordonchas]

It would have been a better article if the writer understood what a monopoly and market competition actually are. Hardly surprising that he doesn't seeing as he's writing for the New Statesman.

In the case of English football the Premier League holds a monopoly on the product, the rights of which they can then licence to the highest bidder. In the case of the Champions League, UEFA hold the monopoly.

Once a broadcaster has a licence, they are then the ones in a monopolistic position.

The only way there can be competition in the market, and to the benefit of the consumer, is if the rights-holder is unable to offer exclusivity on live games.

 

[Arthur]

Arthur you need an out door hobby
regards
DR

Any suggestions?

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Any suggestions?

depends on how much you want to spend in relation to your TV expenditure ? IT NEEDS TO BE COST EFFECTIVE
regards
DR

 

[Easy 10]

What BT are trying is to test the market. There are plenty of people who don't want to shell out £40-50 a month for Sky Sports, but may be prepared to pay £12 a month (which is BT's current subscriber price).

Personally if it involves Michael Owen, who makes Alan Shearer look like the most charismatic person on TV, I'm out of it.

True, but for me its not just the soccerball. Ryder Cup, the Ashes and the NFL are also big draws for me, so as long as Sky hold those, its still the platform I'll stick with. If in time BT starts acquiring the rights to some of those then I might have a decision to make, but not until.

It'll be interesting to see what price BT come up with to tempt people in though. £897m over three years is not a crippling amount of money to a company that made a profit of nearly £2.5 BILLION in 2012. They're that big, so they're not having to try to recoup this outlay any time soon. So they're in a position to offer eye-opening, bargain basement subscription costs to hook consumers onto their platform for the long term.

 

[Mackenzie]

People might be forced to actually get of their arses and support their local teams......oh no!!!!!!