BT Sport to get CL and EL

leaskovski said:
Is it though? Can BT handle actually spending silly amounts on TV rights? Do they have a shed load of money to fall back on if people don't go out of their way to sign up with BT to be able to watch the games?

I wonder if this will start the demise of BT, similar to OnDigital/ITV Digital?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/10/bt_sports_details/
Click to expand...

Setanta went bust with it but they never had other services like telephone networks and so on.
 
At this rate I'm tempted to ditch sky sports altogether and just rely on 5Live for live games, when this BT deal comes into force. Just fed up with it all tbh. As long as Eurosport HD remains accessible for general sport that will probably do me, although BT have nicked MotoGP off them as well.
 
Come 2015 I will be streaming football and possibly watching some of the knockout games down the pub.

No way am I giving money to BT.

Ironically, I'll probably have to ditch my current broadband provider as TalkTalk won't let me stream anything except YouTube :p Not sure if they have some funky packet inspection, but I've never been able to stream football matches over TT.
 
Participant said:
Has anyone worked out what it would cost the UK consumer to guarantee to be able to watch every single sporting event that they legally can, excluding pay-per-view events like boxing? Compare this to when everyone thing was on either BBC, ITV or Sky and it cost £30 per month. "Competition" in the TV market has hurt the consumer.

Combine this with the rip-off Britain effect = people will use "alternative" sources for their live sport.
Click to expand...

The comparison is that "when everyone thing was on either BBC, ITV or Sky and it cost £30 per month" [I don't remember this ever being the case], the list of events qualifying as "every single sporting event that they legally can" was much smaller.

edit: In fact it wouldn't surprise me if in terms of hours of sport available per pound spent, things are pretty much as good as they've always been since the launch of Sky Sports, in real terms. And that's not even with a like-for-like service, as back in the day there was no Sky+, no Sky Go etc.
 
Last edited:
Before people could buy sky sports and get everything.

Now you need espn, BT sports, box nation, etc etc.

It's getting more and more expensive with more competition.

But then again so is everything else like match tickets, fuel, food, etc.

Streaming is terrible, especially if you have a 50 inch TV and are used to HD, streaming cannot guarantee anything and you have to put up with Russian commentary, Lagg, drop outs, bans, loss of signal etc.

Personally I think the fa should not give exclusivity to anyone and have a set price for all their games.

That way virgin, BT and sky can show all the same matches avoiding any monopoly.

Customers can choose the best sub for them meaning better pricing due to real competition.

Same for champions league, a set price for the rights for the games so if a company is willing to pay the going rate they get the games along with the other companies
 
Stretch said:
The FA don't set the rules. The premire league, and therefor the clubs own the TV rights.
Click to expand...

Well whoever is in charge should just set a price that they all pay. Ofcom would regulate that the price is fair etc.

That's the only way it's going to be best for the consumer and not the billion pound businesses
 
Psycho Sonny said:
Before people could buy sky sports and get everything.

Now you need espn, BT sports, box nation, etc etc.

It's getting more and more expensive with more competition.

But then again so is everything else like match tickets, fuel, food, etc.

Streaming is terrible, especially if you have a 50 inch TV and are used to HD, streaming cannot guarantee anything and you have to put up with Russian commentary, Lagg, drop outs, bans, loss of signal etc.

Personally I think the fa should not give exclusivity to anyone and have a set price for all their games.

That way virgin, BT and sky can show all the same matches avoiding any monopoly.

Customers can choose the best sub for them meaning better pricing due to real competition.

Same for champions league, a set price for the rights for the games so if a company is willing to pay the going rate they get the games along with the other companies
Click to expand...

Whilst I know where you and others are coming from in terms of "I used to be able to just pay one sub and get everything, now I need multiple subs" the way you've posed this doesn't stack up. First of all, you say it is getting more and more expensive with more competition. Then you say, you want more competition because it will give better pricing. Which is it? Besides, having fixed pricing is about as uncompetitive as you can get.

Letting all broadcasters have dibs on the football may be counter-productive for the EPL because they may end up getting less revenue than under the current system where the likes of Sky pay a premium to get exclusive games so that they have a differentiator for their subscription service. You could also end up with a situation where no broadcaster is willing to pay the fixed price.

The only advantage I can see to a fixed price free-for-all would be that possibly it might result in broadcasters needing to differentiate based on quality of coverage rather than simply the fact that they have exclusive rights (in other words, you choose to subscribe to broadcaster X rather than Y because they have better analysis, fewer ad breaks or whatever - kinda like what happens at the world cup when BBC and ITV are both showing a match). But that's pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

edit: in terms of the streaming debate, while I would agree that quality is sub-optimal the "russian commentary" thing only applies to dodgy streams. Legal streaming of Sky/BT etc gives you the normal commentary.
 
Last edited:
Again I'd point out that the premier league could quite happily set up a streaming service akin to Netflix, charge £50-100 a month for access in high quality to every single game in the premier league, they could bring in massively more money and offer something very simple, what the fans want, every game, to be allowed to watch any game they want.

I use nothing on sky except sport now and almost exclusively that is football. I'd save money going from sky/bt as is, to spending £50 a month on a football only streaming service.

Why can americans watch every single NFL/Basketball/whatever game for the team they choose, why can asian markets see every single Arsenal game, but me an Arsenal fan in London(well was in london) who can't make it to every Arsenal game can only see what 10(?) or so live games legally in the UK? No other country has attendance problems when allowing the live broadcast of every game, it's nonsense. I don't go to lower league games due to the absence of more prem league games at 3pm on a Saturday. If they really cared about that at all, just move all prem league to sunday and saturday evening.

The issue with competition is that you don't pay just for football from any of these companies. BT sport has all the espn content, so you don't pay for BT football, you pay for the football plus a couple quid for the espn crap and a couple quid for this and that and the other. Which you do with Sky, and with anything else, you can't pay for what you want, you pay for packages. TO get sky sports which has loads of crap you don't want, you already have to pay what, £25-30 a month on other crap you don't want to even be able to add sky sports to your package.

What is worth £10 a month in just the football, you end up paying £40-50 a month to get with all the other crap, HD, entertainment/basic package, cricket, tennis, rugby, etc.

I'd far prefer to pay one fee to see actual football and to have access to ALL of it and not HAVE to pay for everything else.

It's just beyond absurd that if I went and lived in Japan I could legally watch every game live, for a minimal cost, but living here as an Arsenal fan I have stupid limits based on what I can legally watch under some misguided attempt to force me to watch alternative football?

I'm a customer, I have money, I watch streams of all Arsenal live games, instead the FA/prem league could make more profit and provide me a better experience by offering the games streamed live in higher quality and massively increase their own profits.... instead they simply refuse to do so.
 
I think it (TV) will start to migrate more towards what you are looking for i.e. more choice about specifically what you want to watch. Bundles have just be "the way things are done" for a long time, not only as a way of getting people to pay more but also I suspect due to ease of maintenance and admin. I.e. basically with Sky despite there being hundreds of channels you'd pick from up to 6(?) entertainment/lifestyle/whatever packages, Sports, Movies and then a few random add-ons. In the days of all this stuff needing to be managed over the phone it would obviously be a nightmare constantly having people wanting to switch off channel X, switch on channel Y etc. Sky have traditionally never let you just have Sky Sports but things like NowTV iirc you can now just have Sky Sports (£10/day pass?) and it wouldn't surprise me if they let you just take Sky Sports via Sky Go eventually (currently £35/month bundled with Entertainment).

However moving forwards with the potential for internet streaming and online account management I think there is definitely scope for a 'football' package from somewhere or other. One reason all the sports get bundled on Sky is because in the traditional TV world, everything is based on channels, not products. So maybe in future with an online model, where channel becomes irrelevant, there are more possibilities for them to offer specific products (i.e. just football) instead of "Sky Sports 1/2/3/4" etc. I think if they went down this route the EPL would probably need to partner with someone to provide this and thinking about it maybe BT could be that prospective partner as they would not only have the suitable technical infrastructure but also now some background in the actual 'content' i.e. programming.

That said it is worth bearing in mind that until very recently streaming hasn't really been that mainstream and while there is probably a fair proportion of football fans that would be happy to pay £50+/month to watch every match, the idea of having to do it online might be off-putting to some. As more and more people get smart tv (or similar "easy" delivery mechanisms), and people get more familiar with the concept, these barriers will diminish. I'm fine with the concept of streaming but for me it is more about the technical limitations, my Sky satellite has about 4-5x the downstream bandwidth of my broadband so is the only option for watching live HD coverage AND it doesn't contend with everything else using the internet (i.e. I can watch Sky HD and download at the same time with no impact).

Of course maybe in future the collective bargaining of the EPL will fall by the wayside and we'll have a market more akin to some European countries where teams can negotiate their own rights and the natural progression of this is to have their own service (again probably via some third party partner that provides a white label product across many teams) so you can just watch Arsenal games. The impression I get however is that such a situation is a long way off.
 
Last edited:
HangTime said:
Whilst I know where you and others are coming from in terms of "I used to be able to just pay one sub and get everything, now I need multiple subs" the way you've posed this doesn't stack up. First of all, you say it is getting more and more expensive with more competition. Then you say, you want more competition because it will give better pricing. Which is it? Besides, having fixed pricing is about as uncompetitive as you can get.

Letting all broadcasters have dibs on the football may be counter-productive for the EPL because they may end up getting less revenue than under the current system where the likes of Sky pay a premium to get exclusive games so that they have a differentiator for their subscription service. You could also end up with a situation where no broadcaster is willing to pay the fixed price.

The only advantage I can see to a fixed price free-for-all would be that possibly it might result in broadcasters needing to differentiate based on quality of coverage rather than simply the fact that they have exclusive rights (in other words, you choose to subscribe to broadcaster X rather than Y because they have better analysis, fewer ad breaks or whatever - kinda like what happens at the world cup when BBC and ITV are both showing a match). But that's pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

edit: in terms of the streaming debate, while I would agree that quality is sub-optimal the "russian commentary" thing only applies to dodgy streams. Legal streaming of Sky/BT etc gives you the normal commentary.
Click to expand...

It's because of the way the system currently works

more competition = more exclusivity

more exclusivity = more subscriptions needed

more subs needed = more bills

more bills = you pay more

get rid of the exclusivity and you now have more competitive competition simples.


put it this way let's say sky buy the exclusive rights to X number of games for Z number of years for 100 million

then BT buy the exclusive rights to Y number of games for Z number of years for 80 million

total revenue = 180 million

now lets say they just price the full package for X and Y at 90 million for Z years.

now Virgin, Sky and BT all buy the above package for 90 million each = 270 million instead of 180 million with exclusivity deals.

all 3 companies can now offer ALL the games with no need for multiple subscriptions, therefore competition is truly taking place, people can now go with one company for all the football based on what they prefer.

i just don't see how the current system is better than the one i am talking about above
 
Psycho Sonny said:
i just don't see how the current system is better than the one i am talking about above
Click to expand...

Because you're making a few assumptions. Where as in reality exclusivity to a provider is worth greater than your assumed $10mill for no exclusivity as it gets you more bottom line customers who may have preferred to go with your competition etc.

The more exclusives your service can secure, football, boxing etc etc the more appealing your service is over the others and the more customers & advertisers you get and money you make.
 
Last edited:
uniQ said:
Because you're making a few assumptions. Where as in reality exclusivity to a provider is worth greater than your assumed $10mill for no exclusivity as it gets you more bottom line customers who may have preferred to go with your competition etc.

The more exclusives your service can secure, football, boxing etc etc the more appealing your service is over the others and the more customers & advertisers you get and money you make.
Click to expand...

your not getting it;

paying 100 million for exclusive rights to X number of matches or paying 90 million for rights to X and Y number of matches.

you pay 10 million less and get 2 sets of matches.

understand now?

so yeah you get a lot more for 10 million less but no exclusivity.

obviously these figures are all made up, but you can see how it would work.

the problem is exclusivity in itself, remove it and the market will become a lot fairer. there is no point in having competition if all the competition have exclusive rights. it basically means your still forced to choose them.
 
Last edited:
But in that situation a company such as Sky has a huge advantage because of the resources they already have in place and their existing customer base.
 
MissChief said:
But in that situation a company such as Sky has a huge advantage because of the resources they already have in place and their existing customer base.
Click to expand...

They have built those up over decades of dominance. Sure its going to take time for the new system to even out but it should over time.

If sky are dominating then virgin would compete on price or broadband speeds or cheaper packages etc. Until they have a larger market share.
 
MissChief said:
But in that situation a company such as Sky has a huge advantage because of the resources they already have in place and their existing customer base.
Click to expand...

Quick search says that BT has 50% larger (broadband) customer base than Sky - 6m+ for BT vs about 4m for Sky

Now I dont know for sure, but I would bet that a vast majority of those Sky subscribers have the broadband because of the TV deal (rather than choosing Sky solely for broadband) -IE Sky isnt going to have a much larger customer base than that (of people just for satellite TV)

Of course BT are only starting to grow their content / TV subscribers, but they already have the way through each front door via bb /phone line packages so its not like they have to generate completely new sales leads



How many live games do Sky / BT cover per weekend 4 or 5 on average with the others being highlights only? IF "Football" packages start coming out, isnt that going to mean that sooner or later the EPL will turn into La Liga with two or three super clubs getting majority of the TV money - because the lesser clubs will get fewer subscribers (if any at all) and the bigger /more popular teams will be viewed every weekend? Therefore pouring even more (tv) money into their coffers

Not to mention Sky having to double their staff to cover all ten matches, also all the infrastructure has to be tested for the bandwidth increase (when lots of matches are being played simultaneously at any rate).

Also because the season is only 9 months long (not to mention international breaks during the season which must take out an additional month or two all together) - season long subscriptions or annual? Each subscriber would have to be worth at the very least £500 a season / year (worked from £10/day pass over 38 EPL games + CL etc etc).

you also have to consider the advertising revenue for sky built into the packages - which would now drop considerably because with 45 minute half's (even with pre=match and post -match analysis ) there are going to be FAR fewer breaks for the adverts to fill, therefore packages will get far more expensive.

I could easily see it being £200+ a month just for football because of the above reasons and it just not being viable to majority of the punters given how little spare cash most have these days
 
Psycho Sonny said:
your not getting it;

paying 100 million for exclusive rights to X number of matches or paying 90 million for rights to X and Y number of matches.

you pay 10 million less and get 2 sets of matches.

understand now?

so yeah you get a lot more for 10 million less but no exclusivity.

obviously these figures are all made up, but you can see how it would work.

the problem is exclusivity in itself, remove it and the market will become a lot fairer. there is no point in having competition if all the competition have exclusive rights. it basically means your still forced to choose them.
Click to expand...

No you're not getting it. I understood exactly what you said, you obviously on't understand the benefits of exclusivity to the provider.
 
To help him get it I'll create an equivalent scenario also using numbers plucked out of the air:

put it this way let's say sky buy the exclusive rights to X number of games for Z number of years for 200 million

then BT buy the exclusive rights to Y number of games for Z number of years for 80 million

total revenue = 280 million

now lets say they just price the full package for X and Y at 90 million for Z years.

now Virgin, Sky and BT all buy the above package for 90 million each = 270 million instead of 280 million with exclusivity deals.
 
Do what the NFL do, pay £140 a year and you can stream all games in HD with NFLgamepass or pay £90 for just your team, seriously the prem league need to do this!
 
I'm not sure the Premier League can do that with laws on showing 3pm Saturday kick-offs.

And all this talk of the PL should be doing this that or the other. They'll do what's best for them and what makes them the most money. The emergence of BT as a serious rival to Sky will have the PL licking their lips.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom