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

[beorhthelm]

the title and argument is flawed by making a massive assumption that most consumers, even of football, want to watch everything. two problems, one not everyone has the time and two not everyone has the devotion to Premier League to watch Hull vs Everton on a Monday evening. so not everyone needs to buy two subscriptions, only a small numbe rof die hards. i'm quite happy to watch a game a week, fits nicely into my Saturday at 12:45. going forward, if BT do follow a pay per game model, which is far more likely and practical with their platform, i could watch those games that interest, or when convenient. not pay £45 to Sky to get 1000 channels i dont watch, to see a team i have no interest in, play on a Sunday afternoon when im doing something else.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

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

this all day long
regards
DR

 

[El Presidente]

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.

Yup, fully understand that, but if someone is on a tight budget it might be out of their reach.

You're also forgetting what I considered to be Sky Sports flagship program, until I actually watched it, WATERSPORTS WORLD, which turned out to be a complete waste of a pound of liver and a couple of wet wipes.

 

[Arthur]

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

Well that rules out going to the pub! Drinking and sport (watching mainly) are about my only interests and quite frankly the only ones any self respecting gentleman should have!

 

[Easy 10]

Yup, fully understand that, but if someone is on a tight budget it might be out of their reach.

You're also forgetting what I considered to be Sky Sports flagship program, until I actually watched it, WATERSPORTS WORLD, which turned out to be a complete waste of a pound of liver and a couple of wet wipes.

Well, theres always Aerobics Oz Style for a bit of full-on intrusive stretched spandex gusset action.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Well that rules out going to the pub! Drinking and sport (watching mainly) are about my only interests and quite frankly the only ones any self respecting gentleman should have!

THOUGHT ABOUT BEING A REF , walking ,cycling, golf, fishing ,TAKE YOUR PICK
regards
DR

 

[cunning fergus]

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.

Not a level playing field is it............let the consumers decide if they want SKY or BBC or an alternative. How many licence fee payers would have SKY only if they were not forced to pay the licence?

Let's see if those who are happy with the increase in competition for sporting television rights are consistent in their outlook and and would extend the same principle to the BBC licence fee.

Would you be happy to make the licence fee voluntary?

 

[cunning fergus]

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.

I agree with you on the New Statesman bit, however with regard to the monopoly I think there is a different point to be made.

The European Commission (gawd bless their unelected souls) intervened in the way that the Premier League sold its television rights which prevented SKY from having exclusive rights. This was on the face of it to encourage competition although it set the precedent for the viewers having to pay for multiple subscriptions which was inevitably more expensive for the subscribers (hooray).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4156138.stm

This ruling now means that BT (previously ESPN and Setanta) have rights to some games but not the major games.

For the Champions League however UEFA have been able to sell exclusive rights to BT for all the games.................but not a peep yet from the Politiburo.

Plus ça change.............non?

 

[Triggaaar]

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

this all day long

And to be honest, that's all I need. I can get my footy fix at the Amex, share it with the children, and do without premier league games.

 

[willyfantastic]

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

that doesnt make any sense

 

[beorhthelm]

... This was on the face of it to encourage competition although it set the precedent for the viewers having to pay for multiple subscriptions which was inevitably more expensive for the subscribers (hooray).

this arguement is the same arse backwards nonsence as the article. you dont "inevitably" have to pay more, because you dont *have* to subscribe to the new services.

 

[Billy the Fish]

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

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

I would put myself in that category, but when I think about it I actually watch other sports more than football. It's the stuff on a weekday evening that kills a bit of time after work - cricket in summer, Darts, PGA tour. When football's on at weekends I usually have other stuff to do.

 

[El Presidente]

Would you be happy to make the licence fee voluntary?

Nope, BBC is a public service IMO, in the same way as the NHS or schools. I wouldn't elect to opt out of my taxes going to pay for those services just because I have private medical insurance and sent my kids to private schools.

 

[vegster]

It's no great loss, the set up of the Champions League and Europa league is arranged in such a way that the first group stages are virtually irrelevant. Due to the seeding process the top seeds will usually always go through as although they may have a poor game and lose there are enough matches against weaker opposition to restore the damage.

It's only when you get to the last 16 of the Champions League that vaguely has an interest.As for the Europa League, It seems to be regarded as a curse by the teams who just miss out on the really good money of the Champions League. As I rarely watch them it's no loss to me whatever company controls the rights. However, the oft quoted saying " There is no such thing as a free lunch " applies here, BT will have to get that ridiculous amount of money back somehow.

 

[Brighton Mod]

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

Interesting article written on a macro level, in terms of how it affects individuals I have friends who have already unsubscribed to Sky because Dagenham v Bristol Rovers has the same little relevance as Fiorentina v Siena. Too much of the same and when a whole game is watched we can all see how many opportunities Messi misses etc. thus taking the mystique from such 'great' players. I would suggest that football has already reached saturation point on television with matches from all over the world available and no matter how ardent a supporter of the game you are, we all have a tipping point. Clearly Sky used football as a vehicle to promote its product to a male dominated viewership and maybe recognises that although football is a majority sport in this country, there are other streams of viewers that have different tastes.

From a personal point of view I feel the current glut of coverage offers little quality in terms of matches covered and the sycophantic comments from the majority of 'pundits', I actually feel that little respect is given to the viewer when excuses are made for poor control, passing or dead ball situations. I am an Albion supporter and gain a hundred times more pleasure from a live game than that which I see on the television. Football in its current form has a limited shelf life until I don't know when and is becoming more like the concept of the film 'Rollerball'

 

[keaton]

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

How could anyone ever figure out how much Sky Sports charge for Champions League coverage? That's nonsense.
It willalso be more expensive than ITV's coverage which is free

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

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

I disagree , instead of a monopoly it will now be a cartel because Sky won't reduce the cost of their sports package and if you want to watch all the games it will be two separate subscriptions.

 

[James Dempsey]

I may be wrong and I haven't read that article but was it not the intention of BT to use this package to increase its market share in the much larger broadband market?

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

I may be wrong and I haven't read that article but was it not the intention of BT to use this package to increase its market share in the much larger broadband market?

I believe they are sending Sky a clear message they intend to aggressively muscle in and beat Sky at their own game over TV sports rights. Sky will have a battle to retain the percentage of Premier League matches it currently has because EU competition rules stipulate the rights deal has to be split up into segments.

 

[Wozza]

I don't understand. Why don't all the TV companies get together and offer say £1m each for an equal share of the football.

Because they don't want an equal share...