Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Football] Live streaming for upcoming season



N

Neville's Breakfast

Well-known member
May 1, 2016
13,423
Oxton, Birkenhead
From Talk Sport website (EFL not PL):


An agreement has been reached between the English Football League and Sky Sports to enable fans to stream non-televised matches while attendance at games is restricted due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Season ticket holders at EFL clubs will be able to stream home league matches involving their side subject to the agreement of the individual clubs, while in the Championship season ticket holders will also be able to watch their side's midweek away matches.

For weekend away matches in the Championship, and for supporters of League One and Two clubs playing matches away from home at the weekend or in midweek, a match pass priced at £10 must be bought.

The framework will be reviewed in October, at the point when fans are first scheduled to be allowed to return to stadiums on a strictly limited, socially distanced basis.

The only matches not available to stream will be matches assigned for broadcast on Sky Sports, which in the coming season will screen 130 league matches across the three divisions.

The EFL announced it has also reached an agreement allowing supporters to buy £10 match passes for any Carabao Cup first-round tie which is not televised.

It is understood discussions are ongoing regarding rounds two to four – where Premier League clubs will be involved – which will also take place before any spectators are allowed into stadiums.
 




Green Cross Code Man

Green Cross Code Man

Wunt be druv
Mar 30, 2006
19,706
Eastbourne
Sky and BT will take a huge hit from fans not buying their expensive, over-priced product which is detrimentally affected by lack of fans. Many more people will find a free stream when they can't watch their team and this will encourage them not to subscribe.
 


B

BHAFCLive

Member
Sep 21, 2018
48
It makes sense for the EFL to do this, the value of the Premier League broadcasting rights make that idea a whole lot trickier for the top flight.

Sky Sports and BT Sport would almost certainly lose a big percentage of football subcribers if the Premier League clubs were able to stream their own games, even if it's just the non-televised matches. For Brighton, we've had 1 in 3 of our Premier League games televised pre-Covid. If you could buy the the other 25 League games per season from the club to stream, how many would feel the need to keep hold of both Sky and BT subscriptions on top of that for essentially 6 or 7 games per broadcaster? I suspect not many. Which devalues the money paid for the contract, which in turn means less money for PL clubs.
 


B

blue-shifted

Banned
Feb 20, 2004
7,645
a galaxy far far away
I'm certainly happy to pay a tenner a week to watch an EFL game if it might help keep a few going during this crisis
 










Mr Putdown

Mr Putdown

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2004
2,899
Christchurch
BHAFCLive said:
Sky Sports and BT Sport would almost certainly lose a big percentage of football subcribers if the Premier League clubs were able to stream their own games, even if it's just the non-televised matches.
Click to expand...

I don’t get this argument at all. If a Premier league club wanted to broadcast all their games live to season ticket holders then they would have to buy the rights to show them.

From Sky..
 




D

Deleted member 37369

Well-known member
Aug 21, 2018
1,994
Green Cross Code Man said:
Sky and BT will take a huge hit from fans not buying their expensive, over-priced product which is detrimentally affected by lack of fans. Many more people will find a free stream when they can't watch their team and this will encourage them not to subscribe.
Click to expand...

I have had Sky Sports since it first existed ... but I cancelled it just over a month ago!
 


trueblue

trueblue

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
10,377
Hove
BHAFCLive said:
It makes sense for the EFL to do this, the value of the Premier League broadcasting rights make that idea a whole lot trickier for the top flight.

Sky Sports and BT Sport would almost certainly lose a big percentage of football subcribers if the Premier League clubs were able to stream their own games, even if it's just the non-televised matches. For Brighton, we've had 1 in 3 of our Premier League games televised pre-Covid. If you could buy the the other 25 League games per season from the club to stream, how many would feel the need to keep hold of both Sky and BT subscriptions on top of that for essentially 6 or 7 games per broadcaster? I suspect not many. Which devalues the money paid for the contract, which in turn means less money for PL clubs.
Click to expand...

At the same time, it will be a very odd situation if 2/3 of the Premier League's football going public are unable to watch their teams' matches legally - despite having already purchased season tickets etc. With every match already available and televised somewhere in the world, it shouldn't be impossible to devise a pay per view system that keeps the clubs and TV companies happy by splitting the income.
 






Easy 10

Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
61,748
Location Location
Mr Putdown said:
I don’t get this argument at all. If a Premier league club wanted to broadcast all their games live to season ticket holders then they would have to buy the rights to show them.

From Sky..
Click to expand...

The current Sky/BT broadcasting deal only runs until 2022. There are going to be streaming services in the market who could comfortably blow them out of the water when the PL rights are next put out to tender, not least the likes of Amazon who have already had a successful dabble in it now.

I can't see it going to individual clubs any time soon, as it would take a 14 - 6 vote to bring that in - and not many outside of the "big six" are likely to vote in favour of that. Not when they know they'll get far more TV cash from a major broadcaster buying up the overall rights.

I was in Christchurch last weekend btw. Stayed in a Premiere Inn - the pub adjoined to it shut at NINE, ffs.
 


father_and_son

father_and_son

Well-known member
Jan 23, 2012
4,646
Under the Police Box
Easy 10 said:
The current Sky/BT broadcasting deal only runs until 2022. There are going to be streaming services in the market who could comfortably blow them out of the water when the PL rights are next put out to tender, not least the likes of Amazon who have already had a successful dabble in it now.

I can't see it going to individual clubs any time soon, as it would take a 14 - 6 vote to bring that in - and not many outside of the "big six" are likely to vote in favour of that. Not when they know they'll get far more TV cash from a major broadcaster buying up the overall rights.

I was in Christchurch last weekend btw. Stayed in a Premiere Inn - the pub adjoined to it shut at NINE, ffs.
Click to expand...

You say Amazon was successful but how many additional Prime subscriptions were sold? I'll imagine very, very few.

I'll bet most people signed up for a "free month" and then cancelled it. And all it takes it an email address and it's not like you can't get a new one of those for free in a few seconds.

The Amazon model doesn't (yet) work because they are far too keen to give away the product for free. Netflix seem uninterested and, so at present, there are no challengers to the dominance of Sky/BT.
 


Green Cross Code Man

Green Cross Code Man

Wunt be druv
Mar 30, 2006
19,706
Eastbourne
father_and_son said:
You say Amazon was successful but how many additional Prime subscriptions were sold? I'll imagine very, very few.

I'll bet most people signed up for a "free month" and then cancelled it. And all it takes it an email address and it's not like you can't get a new one of those for free in a few seconds.

The Amazon model doesn't (yet) work because they are far too keen to give away the product for free. Netflix seem uninterested and, so at present, there are no challengers to the dominance of Sky/BT.
Click to expand...

Amazon will have well known that their dabbling wouldn't likely make money in the short term. They will look at the data and decide in a calculated manner whether they can make money on top of Prime subscriptions, which is something they already do. They have a PPV system in place and could offer bunches of matches or season passes as well. If they think it is a go-er, then they will blow BT and Sky away.
 




Beanstalk

Beanstalk

Well-known member
Apr 5, 2017
2,521
London
Green Cross Code Man said:
Amazon will have well known that their dabbling wouldn't likely make money in the short term. They will look at the data and decide in a calculated manner whether they can make money on top of Prime subscriptions, which is something they already do. They have a PPV system in place and could offer bunches of matches or season passes as well. If they think it is a go-er, then they will blow BT and Sky away.
Click to expand...

They won't even have the opportunity. The Premier League will do it themselves.

They'll take it inhouse internationally at least. Currently under the current tv deal (19-22), all games are broadcast by Premier League Productions (The Premier League's inhouse production company currently managed by IMG) internationally to an average audience of 200million households (some sources say this could even be as high as 730million) per match. They do this currently, through broadcasters such as NBC and DAZN. The long term aim of the Premier League is to bring this inhouse completely and provide a global OTT platform akin to Netflix, offering every Premier League game live for a low monthly cost.

Previously, the TV package went for £9.2billion globally (£5billion domestic, £4.2billion overseas) across 3 seasons. If they decided to charge a mere £10 a month for direct access to every premier league game as part of their OTT platform, the Premier League (with a lower estimate of 200million paying subscribers overseas) could stand to make £2billion a month just from overseas subscriptions (providing there is no drop off). Even with a worst case scenario 50% drop off they are looking at an income of £36billion over a three season (current deal length) period. (£1.4billion a year vs £12billion a year).

Domestically, it's a bit more complicated. The average Sky Sports audience for last season (pre-lockdown) stood at around 200k viewers per game but ratings peaked post lockdown at 3.4million viewers. BT Sport currently have 1.8 million subscribers. With an estimated 3million uptake in a domestic OTT package it would be near impossible to find a good value for the customer (though £76 a month is the current average cost for all three packages). A package of about £45 a month would in theory cover the income of the current deal, but would they be willing to make it cheaper to have a bigger market share, and ultimately, complete control over their project.

Personally, I think the Amazon deal was about getting rid of TV rights whilst they are tied to the broadcasters, also putting pressure on the old-style satellite broadcasters. We'll start to see a move away internationally, and I really wouldn't be surprised if they went out on their own in the English speaking markets first come 2022.
 




W

Wardy's twin

Well-known member
Oct 21, 2014
8,433
surely the way forward is the club and sky agree a bulk purchase of licenses to cover season ticket holders (as a minimum) or maybe those with proven track records of support and supply them as they did the free licenses. quite happy if they charged be a £10 a game but what i don't want to do is have contracts with all the suppliers. I don't think this is difficult. BT might whinge about it but they could just get a %fee based on their %percentage allocation of games.This does not interfere with their existing customers and actually opens up a bit more of a market for them. It also might stop some of the piracy. This would cover both home and away games an as such means they might sell more games than they previously would have.
 






Beanstalk

Beanstalk

Well-known member
Apr 5, 2017
2,521
London
Wardy's twin said:
surely the way forward is the club and sky agree a bulk purchase of licenses to cover season ticket holders (as a minimum) or maybe those with proven track records of support and supply them as they did the free licenses. quite happy if they charged be a £10 a game but what i don't want to do is have contracts with all the suppliers. I don't think this is difficult. BT might whinge about it but they could just get a %fee based on their %percentage allocation of games.This does not interfere with their existing customers and actually opens up a bit more of a market for them. It also might stop some of the piracy. This would cover both home and away games an as such means they might sell more games than they previously would have.
Click to expand...

Feeling from the league and broadcasters is that it weakens the subscription model. You'd lose A LOT of subscribers who are also season ticket holders at well supported clubs and only want to see their club. Currently, the financial model benefits the whole league because we have to pay for a subscription that covers every team. If they offered season ticket holders a club-exclusive pass there would be space for big clubs to ask for a better share of the income as the only games watched by neutrals are the big games. The collective broadcasting deal protects all 20 teams.

Added to this, there are around 540,000 season ticket holders in the Premier League. The majority will have a Sky Sports subscription, lets say for the sake of argument at least 50% of these would happily just watch their team only. That's a drop off of the entire average ratings a premier league game gets on Sky (between 200k-300k). Games like Brighton vs Burnley will have hardly anyone paying to watch (as you'd have at least 40,000 covered by a season-ticket holder pass) but the clubs would still expect the £8.2million income per match.
 


M

Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,641
Fiveways
Beanstalk said:
Feeling from the league and broadcasters is that it weakens the subscription model. You'd lose A LOT of subscribers who are also season ticket holders at well supported clubs and only want to see their club. Currently, the financial model benefits the whole league because we have to pay for a subscription that covers every team. If they offered season ticket holders a club-exclusive pass there would be space for big clubs to ask for a better share of the income as the only games watched by neutrals are the big games. The collective broadcasting deal protects all 20 teams.

Added to this, there are around 540,000 season ticket holders in the Premier League. The majority will have a Sky Sports subscription, lets say for the sake of argument at least 50% of these would happily just watch their team only. That's a drop off of the entire average ratings a premier league game gets on Sky (between 200k-300k). Games like Brighton vs Burnley will have hardly anyone paying to watch (as you'd have at least 40,000 covered by a season-ticket holder pass) but the clubs would still expect the £8.2million income per match.
Click to expand...

Two interesting posts. Thanks for providing them. Do you work in the industry, TV finance, finance more broadly, something related, or something else?
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here