Football and the Coronavirus

But these games were never intended to be televised. This reaction is exactly the reason why the PL didn't want to broadcast all games at the end of last season and only agreed to as a condition of allowing football to return - because supporters got these games free, they now expect them free again.

From a financial/business point of view the PL have done nothing wrong here. This is an extra service that's being offered and not an additional cost for something included in what you're paying your subscription for. It's perfectly reasonable to expect that this extra service needs to be paid for. The only issue I see is that this sort of arrangement will only encourange supporters to watch the games in groups.

edit: Iinm the Championship had the same arrangement in place even before covid, where supporters could pay £10 per game to watch a non televised game. The value of PL games has got to be at least 50% more than Championship games.
 
I should have added to the initial post, Sky and BT won't be profiting from this. All profit will go to the clubs to cover some of their lost match day revenue. Again, this set-up isn't designed to make more money out of people subbing to Sky or BT, it's simply a short term replacement for supporters who previously attending games.
 
BaZ87 said:
But these games were never intended to be televised. This reaction is exactly the reason why the PL didn't want to broadcast all games at the end of last season and only agreed to as a condition of allowing football to return - because supporters got these games free, they now expect them free again.

From a financial/business point of view the PL have done nothing wrong here. This is an extra service that's being offered and not an additional cost for something included in what you're paying your subscription for. It's perfectly reasonable to expect that this extra service needs to be paid for. The only issue I see is that this sort of arrangement will only encourange supporters to watch the games in groups.

edit: Iinm the Championship had the same arrangement in place even before covid, where supporters could pay £10 per game to watch a non televised game. The value of PL games has got to be at least 50% more than Championship games.
Click to expand...

Surprised you're defensive of it. Its pretty steep , something I could maybe stomach out of pandemic scenario to 'protect' the lower leagues and attendances but as it stands broadcasting them funnily enough won't have any impact on what was being 'protected' before.

EDIT: Your latest post makes it seem less bad
 
Purdy said:
Surprised you're defensive of it. Its pretty steep , something I could maybe stomach out of pandemic scenario to 'protect' the lower leagues and attendances but as it stands broadcasting them funnily enough won't have any impact on what was being 'protected' before.

EDIT: Your latest post makes it seem less bad
Click to expand...

I don't like the hypocrisy and entitlement of most football supporters tbh. You only have to look at posts on here or twitter during every transfer window and you'll find countless supporters bitching and moaning about their club not paying 10s if not 100s of millions on transfers but then these same people will complain when clubs are trying to claw back some of the revenue they've lost.

I probably should have also added that this isn't going to benefit the biggest clubs much, if at all. Liverpool, Utd etc are shown on Sky pretty much every week anyway. You might be looking at 1 game every 5-6 weeks that these clubs will be on PPV and this is a match that wouldn't have been broadcast at all under normal circumstances and won't be as soon as supporters return. The clubs that this set-up is going to effect the most are the Burnley's and West Brom's. They're not shown every week on Sky, they're also the sorts of clubs who's finances are probably most delicately balanced and could do with getting back a small chunk of match day revenue that they've lost.
 
It’s a bit like the boxing PPV that everyone moans about. Every time a night of boxing goes to PPV, they have a moan about having to pay £20 for it when they already pay sky. Sky include a lot of boxing in their usual sub, but the fact is, a lot of people just have no idea of how much the big nights at the likes of Wembley, the o2, Millennium stadium etc actually costs. It’s figures like you wouldn’t even believe existed. This money just cannot be recouped though normal subs, it literally need worldwide TV and PPV rights to make it into a profitable evening.
 
BaZ87 said:
I don't like the hypocrisy and entitlement of most football supporters tbh. You only have to look at posts on here or twitter during every transfer window and you'll find countless supporters bitching and moaning about their club not paying 10s if not 100s of millions on transfers but then these same people will complain when clubs are trying to claw back some of the revenue they've lost.

I probably should have also added that this isn't going to benefit the biggest clubs much, if at all. Liverpool, Utd etc are shown on Sky pretty much every week anyway. You might be looking at 1 game every 5-6 weeks that these clubs will be on PPV and this is a match that wouldn't have been broadcast at all under normal circumstances and won't be as soon as supporters return. The clubs that this set-up is going to effect the most are the Burnley's and West Brom's. They're not shown every week on Sky, they're also the sorts of clubs who's finances are probably most delicately balanced and could do with getting back a small chunk of match day revenue that they've lost.
Click to expand...

I mean they're just supporters with dreams of their team achieving x y z, most won't be thinking about the economics as they just assume the owner is rich enough to do it regardless at the higher level so I don't think you can hold it against them. (Also kinda moot point also as you go on to say it doens't help clubs like Liverpool lol)

I'm not going to pay to watch Burnley/West Brom though, like ever. Not potential to recoup more through advertisers during those games because I can't even imagine 10000s paying for that? I'd even take a small hike in my sports package

robfosters said:
It’s a bit like the boxing PPV that everyone moans about. Every time a night of boxing goes to PPV, they have a moan about having to pay £20 for it when they already pay sky. Sky include a lot of boxing in their usual sub, but the fact is, a lot of people just have no idea of how much the big nights at the likes of Wembley, the o2, Millennium stadium etc actually costs. It’s figures like you wouldn’t even believe existed. This money just cannot be recouped though normal subs, it literally need worldwide TV and PPV rights to make it into a profitable evening.
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem an apt comparison. They make their money off 3-4 fights a year max?
At least 40 football matches also some pretty exortionate profits made on some of them
 
Purdy said:
I mean they're just supporters with dreams of their team achieving x y z, most won't be thinking about the economics as they just assume the owner is rich enough to do it regardless at the higher level so I don't think you can hold it against them. (Also kinda moot point also as you go on to say it doens't help clubs like Liverpool lol)

I'm not going to pay to watch Burnley/West Brom though, like ever. Not potential to recoup more through advertisers during those games because I can't even imagine 10000s paying for that? I'd even take a small hike in my sports package
Click to expand...
They should stop dreaming and wake up to the reality. If more of them stop screaming at their clubs to "sign x" then maybe clubs wouldn't be pushing the limits of what supporters can and will pay for tickets, shirts etc. Everybody bangs on about greed in football but pretty much no football club makes a real profit. With the exception of a few clubs, every penny a club makes gets put back into the club.

And of course it's not a moot point to say that the clubs that will benefit from this are the poorest clubs in the League. Clubs are losing money, have their supporters going crazy because they didn't sign x and are being told they need to bail out EFL clubs. Where do people expect this money to come from? As above, football supporters need to wake up and decide what's more important for them, not being asked to stump up £100s to watch football each month or giving Willian a £200k+ per week contract? You cannot have both.

You're not going to pay to watch Burnley - West Brom but probably wouldn't have watched it if it was free to air and certainly wouldn't have watched it had it not been televised at all, which is meant to be the case. The only people that would have watched it was the Burnley and West Brom fans that had a ticket to watch it at the stadium. This set-up allows these supporters the next best option and at £15 for 2/3+ people, it works out considerably cheaper than a match ticket. It's a compromise that allows supporters to watch their side but also brings in a trickle of cash for clubs that desperately need it.

The only reason for people being upset by this situation is because for a short period we got these games free. Had this PPV set-up (for all these additional games) been launched pre-covid I don't think there would have been much outrage. I don't remember any outrage at the launch of ifollow, where EFL clubs streamed non televised games at £10 a go.
 
I've never really looked into the financials, but how much do countries like China, the United States etc pay for their Premier League broadcast deals compared to the £5bn odd here in the UK? I assume it's drastically less. The point I'm trying to make (albeit clumsily) is that they should probably be stumping up more for an incredibly lucrative product to offset things like this for fans in the UK who are shafted time and time again...
 
It's crazy that there are people defending this when football fans have to pay for Sky Tv, and BT Sport and Amazon Video, and then on top of that it's £15 per game.

Pay the players less, don't rip off the fans to maintain the status quo.

Imagine living abroad and being able to watch every single game for a fraction of the price....

How can anyone defend this.
 
BaZ87 said:
They should stop dreaming and wake up to the reality. If more of them stop screaming at their clubs to "sign x" then maybe clubs wouldn't be pushing the limits of what supporters can and will pay for tickets, shirts etc. Everybody bangs on about greed in football but pretty much no football club makes a real profit. With the exception of a few clubs, every penny a club makes gets put back into the club.

And of course it's not a moot point to say that the clubs that will benefit from this are the poorest clubs in the League. Clubs are losing money, have their supporters going crazy because they didn't sign x and are being told they need to bail out EFL clubs. Where do people expect this money to come from? As above, football supporters need to wake up and decide what's more important for them, not being asked to stump up £100s to watch football each month or giving Willian a £200k+ per week contract? You cannot have both.

You're not going to pay to watch Burnley - West Brom but probably wouldn't have watched it if it was free to air and certainly wouldn't have watched it had it not been televised at all, which is meant to be the case. The only people that would have watched it was the Burnley and West Brom fans that had a ticket to watch it at the stadium. This set-up allows these supporters the next best option and at £15 for 2/3+ people, it works out considerably cheaper than a match ticket. It's a compromise that allows supporters to watch their side but also brings in a trickle of cash for clubs that desperately need it.

The only reason for people being upset by this situation is because for a short period we got these games free. Had this PPV set-up (for all these additional games) been launched pre-covid I don't think there would have been much outrage. I don't remember any outrage at the launch of ifollow, where EFL clubs streamed non televised games at £10 a go.
Click to expand...

No, as in your first point is kinda irrelevant as the people by and large complaining about spending are those supporting the rich clubs which will do fine regardless as you've said due to the frequency at which they are already televised? The group you point at being hypocritical are not likely the fans of teams that benefit most of this scheme so the hypocrisy pair with this decision?

I mean I've watched a lot of garbage match ups since lockdown that I most likely wouldn't have before, I'm sure others are the same. And for your final point yeah agree I pretty much said the same initially, but thats not the scenario we're in.
 
rickjames said:
I've never really looked into the financials, but how much do countries like China, the United States etc pay for their Premier League broadcast deals compared to the £5bn odd here in the UK? I assume it's drastically less. The point I'm trying to make (albeit clumsily) is that they should probably be stumping up more for an incredibly lucrative product to offset things like this for fans in the UK who are shafted time and time again...
Click to expand...
Domestic rights are worth approx £5bn and overseas rights are worth around £4bn. As for overseas broadcasters stumping up more money to offset costs to domestic rights holders, we've already seen the PL lose one of it's biggest overseas contracts and we're likely to see reductions in the value of overseas rights moving forwards.
Stumble Bum said:
It's crazy that there are people defending this when football fans have to pay for Sky Tv, and BT Sport and Amazon Video, and then on top of that it's £15 per game.....
Click to expand...
This isn't for supporters that are paying for Sky, BT etc. This £15 option is replacing the £20-100 match day ticket. How can people not understand this?

Football supporters that watch matches on TV are not being asked to pay any more for what they were paying for. They've been given an option, along with match going supporters, to pay for additional content and in the case of match going supporters it will actually work out cheaper for them. If you've got 3 Arsenal supporters paying near £100 each to attend a game watching this through 1 TV, it now only costs them £5 each.
 
BaZ87 said:
This couldn't be more wrong. The big clubs won't be shown on PPV as much as the smaller clubs, therefore will make less money from this than the smaller clubs will.
Click to expand...

If the PPV model is embraced who do you think is going to benefit more?

Man Utd have 650m fans Worldwide.
 
Who will be making money out of the adverts that Sky will include for good measure with your £15? To pretend Sky/BT won't be making money off the back of this is laughable.

My favourite is the one you get where there's barely a minute to kick off, go on squeeze a Bet365 advert in there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom