Motorsport Off Topic Thread
- Thread starter Shimmy
- Start date
People need to realise that viewer figures does not equal revenue.
If F1 goes to pay TV then while audences drop, people watching will be paying more. This has been shown over the last couple of years where even though viewer numbers have tumbled, FOM revenue has grown. As the F1 teams get half of that revenue then its good for them. The 2014 prize fund is significantly up on the 2013 one.
What they need to do is ensure that they keep a net increase, where the reduction in sponsorship money from smaller audiences is more than offset by the increased revenue from the teams share of TV money.
Going "OMG viewer figures are down Bernie is killing F1!" is short sighted, and wrong.
If F1 goes to pay TV then while audences drop, people watching will be paying more. This has been shown over the last couple of years where even though viewer numbers have tumbled, FOM revenue has grown. As the F1 teams get half of that revenue then its good for them. The 2014 prize fund is significantly up on the 2013 one.
What they need to do is ensure that they keep a net increase, where the reduction in sponsorship money from smaller audiences is more than offset by the increased revenue from the teams share of TV money.
Going "OMG viewer figures are down Bernie is killing F1!" is short sighted, and wrong.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Yup, any major sport moved from freeview, lost viewers but increased revenue.
You know what Prem league football viewing figures would look like if the same games were on BBC... but the revenue would be way way down. It's not difficult, BBC, ITV, they bid for it and Sky blew them out of the water. Well in reality BBC won it but offered WAY more than they could actually afford, yet less than Sky could afford, and ended up pretty much giving up the rights to Sky. The number of people watching really doesn't effect the sport in the slightest, amount that each viewer effective pays is the only meaningful metric and F1, football, NFL, whatever, anything that went to subscription based viewing has increased revenue drastically as a result.
1.5billion is pretty huge for a sport with maybe worldwide appeal but only 15-20 races a year. Sky put out 15-20 games a month. For the number of games/races taking place F1 must be up there as one of the biggest money sports in the world, it will never match football/NFL in total revenue purely down to vastly fewer number of games/races on show a year.
You know what Prem league football viewing figures would look like if the same games were on BBC... but the revenue would be way way down. It's not difficult, BBC, ITV, they bid for it and Sky blew them out of the water. Well in reality BBC won it but offered WAY more than they could actually afford, yet less than Sky could afford, and ended up pretty much giving up the rights to Sky. The number of people watching really doesn't effect the sport in the slightest, amount that each viewer effective pays is the only meaningful metric and F1, football, NFL, whatever, anything that went to subscription based viewing has increased revenue drastically as a result.
1.5billion is pretty huge for a sport with maybe worldwide appeal but only 15-20 races a year. Sky put out 15-20 games a month. For the number of games/races taking place F1 must be up there as one of the biggest money sports in the world, it will never match football/NFL in total revenue purely down to vastly fewer number of games/races on show a year.
Renault don't want the big regulation changes in 2017, and don't seem to think they will happen anyway.
www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117996
Seems the "moar powaa" argument is running out of steam.
www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117996
Seems the "moar powaa" argument is running out of steam.
Of course it matters how many viewers there are, its no good having 2 viewers paying £200 each per race.
There are an awful lot of live footie games so interest is kept alive in millions of viewers, also the BBC football focus and final score keeps attention alive.
F1 only has 20 races and is really pretty niche .
But tbh I don't care, I will find the most cost effective way too watch it, but anywhere near 50% of the sky full price is too much for me.
I'm not going to Silverstone this year either as I just don't think it offers enough to justify the price.
F1 should be working to maintain an audience, not shrinking it.
There are an awful lot of live footie games so interest is kept alive in millions of viewers, also the BBC football focus and final score keeps attention alive.
F1 only has 20 races and is really pretty niche .
But tbh I don't care, I will find the most cost effective way too watch it, but anywhere near 50% of the sky full price is too much for me.
I'm not going to Silverstone this year either as I just don't think it offers enough to justify the price.
F1 should be working to maintain an audience, not shrinking it.
It has to be, as they have to pay the silly fees. Where pretty much every other track, government picks up the tab. Don't know what the solution is other than f1 not charging so much.
There was a bit on sky f1 earlier today about it.
Also the Toto wolf interview was great. Totally unrelated, but he dies good interviews. When asked about Lewis sticking 44 on the car, it was don't care, number doesn't make us go faster.
Also really good reply about the helmet designs and why they've done it.
Wow just looked at the ticket prices, quite a few grandstands are sold out.
£175 for 3 day general admission, I can remember when it was £9...
Copse is sold out with was the cheapest covered grandstand, I'm bored with that after 2 years there.
£370 for Beckets, who is paying for this!!
£175 for 3 day general admission, I can remember when it was £9...
Copse is sold out with was the cheapest covered grandstand, I'm bored with that after 2 years there.
£370 for Beckets, who is paying for this!!
Its not the fees, its the fact they have to pay back the investors that funded the massive developments from a few years back.
Slam, go to Spa. £85 for weekend GA.
You can pay at the gate for GA tickets. I want to go back to Spa, was talking to one of my customers about it today actually, he used to do sidecar racing there heh.
As for Silverstone myself the missus and Jenson will be sitting at the Farm Curve grand stand for race day. Do love Maggots and Becketts complex but one of the most enjoyable days I've been was when we had centre access GA tickets, before they went main stream, it was much more chilled out just strolling around in the middle of the circuit
As for Silverstone myself the missus and Jenson will be sitting at the Farm Curve grand stand for race day. Do love Maggots and Becketts complex but one of the most enjoyable days I've been was when we had centre access GA tickets, before they went main stream, it was much more chilled out just strolling around in the middle of the circuit
Tickets may well be a lot cheaper but then again other costs mount up... Silverstone you literally pay for a bit of petrol and ticket (being an hours drive away helps tho
)Spa you have to pay for flights or Ferry (plus petrol if driving), then accommodation as well, and food, unless you're going back the same day or camping, which I guess is cheap enough.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 19,494
- Location
- LU7
Surely Red Bull and Ferrari could use an ERS on their "moar powaa" argument to retain some of the thermal energy in the steam?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
In the prem league they are getting not far off the 10billion mark for uk and worldwide tv rights.... which includes(in the uk at least more outside of the UK) 168 matches, vs what has recently become around the 20 mark for F1 races. There is simply at least 8 times the amount of actual content for viewers to watch. More adverts, more sponsorship, more money. There are also more teams, more players, and more support.
Do you think the prem league rights would still be worth approaching 10billion worldwide IF there were only 20 games being shown a year?