Sky, now ESPN, and now BT?

How much of all this huge increase in TV revenue going to filter down to grassroots level where it's actually needed and where we can rebuild ourselves as a footballing nation again?

I'm going to guess nothing.

Don't be silly, the Premier League and all the hangers on including the clubs themselves are all about making dough off the back of the fans and giving F**k all back except the 'product'

It's just another money-making business now!

Billion-dollar TV football deal? It’s time to give some back to the fans

Fans from across the North West to march in London to demand the authorities start to take care of the game's lifeblood]It is one of the most  eagerly-anticipated dates in  football’s summer calendar.

The release of the fixture list  for the new season is enough to  spark debate, fuel optimism  and  begin the countdown. It is  when one campaign closes, and  the next opens.

For one determined group of  football supporters, however,  this year will be different. This  year,  fixture day is about  taking a stand, making a point,  being heard.

The Premier League’s  headquarters in London will  be the setting as supporters  stage a  demonstration against  the spiralling cost of ticket  prices across English football.

Fans from across the North  West, including  representatives from  Liverpool’s Spirit of Shankly   supporters’ union, Everton’s  Blue Union, and the Tranmere  Rovers Supporters Trust, will  march  from Regent’s Park to  Gloucester Square next  Wednesday, as part of the  ‘Football Without Fans  Is  Nothing’ campaign.

It is time, they say, that  football’s powers-that-be  started to address fans  concerns. Football  may well be  big business, but it is a  business that is in danger of  alienating many of its most  loyal  customers.

The call is for clubs, either  prompted by, or in conjunction  with, the Premier League and   Football League, to agree to  caps on ticket prices.

Campaigns such as the  Football Supporters  Federation’s ‘Twenty’s Plenty’,  which suggests  clubs limit the  price of tickets for away fans to  £20, believe co-operation from  clubs could help  improve not  just supporter relations, but  also attendances.

The FSF outlined their  campaign at a meeting of  North West supporters in  Liverpool last  month. Their  fear is that groups such as  OAPs, children and students,  as well as those on low  wages,  will be driven away from  football.

They will be represented at  Wednesday’s protest, and say  the issue has created real unity   amongst supporters.

“We support anybody who is  making reasonable effort to  draw attention to this  problem,” says  Malcolm  Clarke, chairman of the FSF.

“The thing that makes this  issue so galling is that the  extra money the Premier  League will be  getting from its  new media deals would enable  them to bring about huge  reductions in ticket  prices,  without affecting their overall  income.”

A feature in the Guardian  this week claimed that if  Premier League clubs were to  use the extra  £2.1bn they are to  receive in media income from  next season, they would be able  to cut ticket  prices by as much  as £50 per match.

It is an unlikely scenario, of  course, especially given the  fact average attendances in the   Premier League actually rose  by 3.6% last season, but the  FSF believe it is time clubs  began to  pass on the benefits of  the Premier League’s vast  financial muscle to its  supporters.

“It is high time that fans got  something back,” says Clarke.  “Without match-going fans,  there  would be no television  product that is worth billions  and billions of pounds.

“Would any broadcaster buy  a product that was played in  half-empty stadiums, with no   atmosphere and no passion?  No. The fans make the Premier  League’s product what it is,  and  yet they rarely receive any  benefits from it.

“The truth is, with the  money Premier League clubs  make, they could basically let  supporters  in for free!

“We will support next  Wednesday’s protest fully. Fans  are united on this, there are no  club  boundaries, and we will  look to the Premier League to  take real action on this issue,  because it  is a serious one for  football supporters.”

Spirit of Shankly are  providing a coach service, at a  flat rate of £10 per person, to  transport  supporters down to  London for the protest.

They say the idea for the  protest stemmed from a  meeting with Liverpool  managing director  Ian Ayre,  which discussed at length the  new tiered pricing structure  which the Reds will be   implementing from next  season.

“Change isn’t going to  happen overnight,” says Jay  McKenna, group spokesman.  “We have  to try, though.

“We hope this can just be the  starting point, something to  get this issue in the open. This  issue  matters, it affects all  supporters, and we want to get  that message across as best we  can.”

Ben Harrison, of the  Tranmere Rovers Supporters  Trust, agrees: “Tranmere’s  prices are  reasonably  affordable, but average gates of  5,000 suggest there is  something wrong. The  walk-up  supporters, who look to attend  individual matches, are being  priced out.

“Our club has put on special  initiatives, letting fans in for £5  and so forth, and that has been   successful. Tranmere actually  made more money in gate  receipts from those games.

“The market is there, people  want to watch live football. It  just needs to be made more   affordable, more inclusive.”

WHERE TO WATCH  YOUR FOOTBALL  NEXT SEASON

SKY

116 live Premier League matches to be shown.  Slots include Saturday evenings, Sunday  afternoons, Monday nights.

Exclusive live coverage of the Football  League, League Cup and Football League  Trophy.

Live coverage of La Liga, as well as home  internationals involving Wales, Scotland,  Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Champions League coverage, shared with  ITV.

BBC

Will continue to screen Premier League  highlights through its Match of the Day  programmes, as well as Football League and  League Cup highlights packages.

ITV

Champions League matches, one per week,  and England internationals. Also has rights to  screen live FA Cup matches.

BT

38 live Premier League matches, including 18  “first pick” matches. Games to be shown on  Saturday lunchtimes and midweek evenings,  with Boxing Day and New Year’s Day clashes  also to be screened.

Live coverage of Scottish Premier League  games. Live coverage of the FA Cup, shared  with ITV.

Live coverage of the Bundesliga and Europa  League.

Promises its service will be available on  Freeview, Virgin and Sky, and although no  pricing has been outlined, costs are likely to  start at about £10 a month – with fans having  to fork out for both.

ONLINE/MOBILE  HIGHLIGHTS

It is not just television rights that make up  Premier League clubs’ huge windfalls.

News International beat Sky to the rights for  exclusive internet and mobile highlights for  Premier League matches.

Their bid is thought to be worth about £30m  over three years, and enables them to use  Premier League clips on the websites and apps  for the all of its stable papers.

This is close to double the £17m the last  three-year deal is thought to have been worth,  according to sources.

Under the previous deal the rights were split  between Yahoo!, which had internet clips, and  mobile, which was controlled by ESPN.

The split of the £17m total value of the deal  is not known.

Under the current deal for internet video  rights Yahoo! has syndicated highlights to third  parties including the Daily Mail, Guardian,  Times, Daily Telegraph, London Evening  Standard and Independent.

News International has said that it has no  intention at this stage of offering the clips to  third parties.

The websites it operates use paywalls, which  means fans will have to pay to access highlights  clips online from August onwards.

Liverpool fans protest at Chelsea against the cost of modern football 

Why Premier League clubs are the real TV winners

Some call it the  phonecall that changed  the landscape of  English football forever.

It was in May 1992  that Alan Sugar, then  chairman of Tottenham  Hotspur, and one of the  driving forces behind  the new Premier  League, dialled the  number of Sam  Chisholm, an executive  at BSKYB.

Sugar had just  received a sealed  envelope, containing  details of ITV’s £262m  bid for the first set of  Premier League  television rights.  Calling from a public  phone in the lobby of  the Royal  Lancaster  Hotel in  London,  and  motivated in no small  part by the fact that his  company, Amstrad,  were the main supplier  of Sky’s satellite dishes,  Sugar says he told  Chisholm to “blow ITV  out of the water”.

Sky, of course, did.  Their bid of £304m,  around £60m a year for  five years, was  accepted, Sugar’s vote  decisive in ensuring the  required two-thirds  majority.

The rest, of course, is  history.

But how small those  initial figures look now.  Sky’s latest deal, agreed  last summer, will cost  them £2.3bn over the  next three years. The  battle for television  rights in English  football is becoming as  fiercely contested as the  sport itself.

And, as of next  season, Premier League  clubs will benefit from  unprecedented levels of  broadcast revenue.

In addition to the Sky  contract, which will see  them screen 116 live  matches a season for  the next three years, the  Premier League has  signed a deal worth  £738m with BT, which  will see a further 38  games shown on its  new, dedicated sports  channel. There is also  the small matter of a  £178m agreement with  the BBC for its Match of  the Day highlights  package.

It means the total  earned by domestic TV  rights deals is around  £3.2bn, an increase of  71% on the last deal,  signed in 2010. With  internet and overseas  rights factored in (see panel), the  figure reaches £5.5bn.

On an individual  game basis,  broadcasters will now  pay £6.6m per match, up  from £4.7m last year.

These are staggering  sums. Even Richard  Scudamore, the Premier  League’s chief executive,  admitted he was  “surprised” at the hike  in prices. He did,  however, express delight  that the restructured  deal provided “a degree  of financial security” for  clubs.

In truth it is more  than that. It is estimated  that all clubs will benefit  to the tune of at least  £14m as of next season.  Indeed, early projections  suggest that the club  finishing bottom of the  Premier League next  season could collect  more TV money than  this season’s champions.  There has seldom been a  better time to be a  Premier League club.

The arrival of BT has  upped the stakes  significantly. They will  take over from ESPN as  the “secondary” live  broadcaster, though  crucially have won  rights to almost half of  the “first pick” Premier  League matches.

BT will screen games  on Saturday lunchtimes  and midweek evenings,  with key Boxing Day  and New Year’s Day  fixtures also to be  shown. They have  already recruited a host  of big names to act as  pundits, including  Michael Owen, Steve  McManaman, Rio  Ferdinand and David  James. Current players  such as Gareth Bale,  Alex  Oxlade-Chamberlain and  Marouane Fellaini have  also signed up.

Their presence, of  course, means live  football will, as ever, be  omnipotent in this  country. There will be  154 live Premier League  games shown in this  country next season,  earning the league more  than £1bn in itself.

It will, though, lead  for calls for more money  to filter its way down the  game.

At the moment,  around 16% of what the  Premier League earns  works its way down,  though only 4% finds its  way beyond the Football  League.

Some MPs, prompted by organisations such as the Football Foundation, have proposed that a minimum of 7.5% of the Premier League’s revenue should be diverted towards grass roots football.

The fear is that the  benefits of the new TV  deals will not be felt by  those in most desperate  need. Premier League  wages topped £1.5bn in  2011/12, which was more  than the £1.2bn earned  through global  television rights. The  average revenue to  wages ratio in the  Premier League is 70%.

Calls for clubs to use  their extra revenue to  subsidise ticket prices  appear to have fallen on  deaf ears, whilst supporters continue to suffer through prohibitive kick-off times as the Premier League, unsurprisingly, seeks to satisfy its broadcast partners.

Tthere  are also fears that both  Sky and BT may be  forced to increase their  own subscription  charges, in order to  cover spiralling costs.

Football is big  business. We know that.  Judging by the latest  figures, and the  competitive nature of  the TV rights market, it  is likely to get bigger  still in the next few  years.

Why Premier League TV cash  is an American dream

The value of  overseas  television rights  to the Premier  League was  confirmed when  US broadcaster  NBC agreed a  three-year, $250m  (£163.9m) deal to  provide “total  live coverage” of  the league from  next season.

NBC beat off  competition from  both ESPN and  FOX for the  contract, which  dwarfs the  previous deal,  held with ESPN  and worth  around $80m  (£52.5m).

They will  broadcast every  live game from  the league as of  next season,  having enjoyed  considerable  success with its  coverage of  Major League  Soccer in the last  12 months.

NBC’s  English-language  networks will  televise six live  games a week.  One or two of the  company’s other  cable channels  will be used  along with NBC  Sports Network,  said Group chairman Mark Lazarus, whilst other  games will be  streamed live  online.

Overseas and  internet TV  rights brought in  around £1.4bn to  the Premier  League over the  past three years,  with that figure  set to rise again during the next three.

At present,  this income is  distributed  evenly between  the 20 clubs –  something  Liverpool MD   Ian Ayre, among  others, has  protested about  in the past –  while income  from domestic  rights is  allocated  according to a  sliding scale,  based on league  position and the  number of  appearances on  TV.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/billion-dollar-tv-football-deal-now-4309148

Fair enough

They are are bunch of greedy bas**rds

So if you were selling your product for $X and you could continue selling the same amount for $X + Y you would keep the price at X so as not to be "greedy"?

So if you were selling your product for $X and you could continue selling the same amount for $X + Y you would keep the price at X so as not to be "greedy"?

If the initial amount was enough cash for me, then yes. And by all accounts, there most definitely was enough cash to go around

What about you, would you continue to hike your prices?

If the initial amount was enough cash for me, then yes. And by all accounts, there most definitely was enough cash to go around

What about you, would you continue to hike your prices?

If I am in business to make money, then I would price my product at the point at which I maximize profit. Everyone acts like these companies have this one giant fat cat that sits back and collects all of the revenue. In reality, there are shareholders, employees, families of employees, etc... that rely on the success of the company for their well being. Yes there is usually a group of executives that make more money than most human's need to survive, but the reason they get paid so much (usually) is because they make the company a TON of money which makes shareholders money and allows employee's to keep their jobs and buy food for their families and by TV's and Cars and houses which injects cash into other areas of the economy.

It's easy to say that someone has "enough" money when you just look at one small piece of a much larger puzzle.

Who would I be to tell you or anyone else on this forum how much money is "enough". You should do as well for yourself as you can as long as you aren't doing anything illegal, unethical or something that intentionally hurts others.

ah that's the "I'm alright jack " response. Seen enough of businesses run with shareholders including floating private companies they all make money for the board members first shareholders second and somewhere down the line way down the line employees. It just the way it is and it ain't  going to change.I have BT vision and it is cheaper than SKY as they try to grab a foothold in this market as soon as they have prices will increase.

If I am in business to make money, then I would price my product at the point at which I maximize profit. Everyone acts like these companies have this one giant fat cat that sits back and collects all of the revenue. In reality, there are shareholders, employees, families of employees, etc... that rely on the success of the company for their well being. Yes there is usually a group of executives that make more money than most human's need to survive, but the reason they get paid so much (usually) is because they make the company a TON of money which makes shareholders money and allows employee's to keep their jobs and buy food for their families and by TV's and Cars and houses which injects cash into other areas of the economy.

It's easy to say that someone has "enough" money when you just look at one small piece of a much larger puzzle.

Who would I be to tell you or anyone else on this forum how much money is "enough". You should do as well for yourself as you can as long as you aren't doing anything illegal, unethical or something that intentionally hurts others.

There's no argument here, they charge too much. So much that some cannot afford to pay the subscription fee and have to resort to crappy streams on the internet

No amount of massaging the facts is going to change the fact they charge too much - and they don't have to do so

ah that's the "I'm alright jack " response. Seen enough of businesses run with shareholders including floating private companies they all make money for the board members first shareholders second and somewhere down the line way down the line employees. It just the way it is and it ain't  going to change.I have BT vision and it is cheaper than SKY as they try to grab a foothold in this market as soon as they have prices will increase.

Exactly

Greedy capitalistic parasites

There's no argument here, they charge too much. So much that some cannot afford to pay the subscription fee and have to resort to crappy streams on the internet
No amount of massaging the facts is going to change the fact they charge too much - and they don't have to do so

It's not a fact that they charge too much, it's only a fact for people that desire to pay the subscription but can't justify the amount. For the folks that plop down their money, they aren't charging too much.

Watching a football game on TV is not a "right" of any kind, it's a luxury. I could get Fox Soccer Sports and be able to watch premier league games but I choose not to because it's too expensive. I may complain that I wish it was cheaper but at the end of the day, it's not as important to me as other things I want/need to spend my money on so it is what it is. The company is able to get customers charging that rate, so they should do it. There are plenty of things I'd like to be able to afford that I can't, but I've found that typically when I blame the company for being greedy it's just because I wish I could afford to pay for the product. That's the materialistic side of me coming out.

There are people in this world that don't have clean water, healthy food and a roof over their heads at night so for me to complain about not being able to watch LFC on tv seems a bit petty.

It's not a fact that they charge too much, it's only a fact for people that desire to pay the subscription but can't justify the amount.

Kind of my point? Only every year people are feeling the price more and more. Me for one

For the folks that plop down their money, they aren't charging too much.

And for those that aren't plopping down their money - it's too expensive because they charge too much

Watching a football game on TV is not a "right" of any kind, it's a luxury.

Bollocks. Tell that to an empty stadium

I could get Fox Soccer Sports and be able to watch premier league games but I choose not to because it's too expensive.

Well there you go then, you can't afford it because they charge too much.

I may complain that I wish it was cheaper but at the end of the day, it's not as important to me as other things I want/need to spend my money on so it is what it is.

And what it is, is too expensive for you to justify having it - you just said so yourself.

The company is able to get customers charging that rate, so they should do it.

Sorry, typical greed motivated mentality. Just because you think you can get more doesn't mean you automatically should. There are repercussions and they have to be accounted for before you simply charge more because you just, can.

There are plenty of things I'd like to be able to afford that I can't, but I've found that typically when I blame the company for being greedy it's just because I wish I could afford to pay for the product. That's the materialistic side of me coming out.

You're going to have to give me your definition of what 'too expensive' and 'charges too much' is to you. Because you seem to be arguing with me but agreeing with my premise at the same time. If you blame a company for being greedy, it's more often than not because they are too greedy

There are people in this world that don't have clean water, healthy food and a roof over their heads at night so for me to complain about not being able to watch LFC on tv seems a bit petty.

Which has absolutely f@ck all to do with Sky being too expensive. Nobody is arguing there are better things to spend your money on, the focus is that Sky charge too much

Kind of my point? Only every year people are feeling the price more and more. Me for one
And for those that aren't plopping down their money - it's too expensive because they charge too much
Bollocks. Tell that to an empty stadium
Well there you go then, you can't afford it because they charge too much.
And what it is, is too expensive for you to justify having it - you just said so yourself.
Sorry, typical greed motivated mentality. Just because you think you can get more doesn't mean you automatically should. There are repercussions and they have to be accounted for before you simply charge more because you just, can.
You're going to have to give me your definition of what 'too expensive' and 'charges too much' is to you. Because you seem to be arguing with me but agreeing with my premise at the same time. If you blame a company for being greedy, it's more often than not because they are too greedy
Which has absolutely f@ck all to do with Sky being too expensive. Nobody is arguing there are better things to spend your money on, the focus is that Sky charge too much

Not going to be drug into this with you, it's all relative, Sky are only charging too much if no one is willing to pay it. If there are enough people there to support their rates then they aren't charging too much. You or I might wish they charged less so as to make the decision or sacrifice we have to make to sign up easier or justifiable, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to them running their business. If people stop signing up they'll have to lower their rates, plain and simple. So don't be mad at Sky, be mad at the people willing to pay what they are asking because those are the folks that keep the rates high. 

One single £500 payment and then £150 a year for every channel and box office event if you a man that can .

Not going to be drug into this with you, it's all relative, Sky are only charging too much if no one is willing to pay it. If there are enough people there to support their rates then they aren't charging too much. You or I might wish they charged less so as to make the decision or sacrifice we have to make to sign up easier or justifiable, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to them running their business. If people stop signing up they'll have to lower their rates, plain and simple. So don't be mad at Sky, be mad at the people willing to pay what they are asking because those are the folks that keep the rates high. 

You are absolutely right with that FL, I don't have Sky because I refuse to pay such a high price for it, I used to have it years ago but they priced themselves out of my market. Fortunately, I have BT Broadband and a Sky box with the Freesat deal I had a few years ago, so I will be able to get the BT games free.

I am under no illusions though, once BT have a decent share of the market the price will go up. Until then I shall enjoy it!

Bye bye Firstrow?

Bye bye Firstrow?

They will just change their domain name or move it to another country, no way they will ever be able to fully block them.

If they don't, someone else will.

They tried blocking the pirate bay .

That's what I was thinking

I'm pretty sure firstrow have been subjected to this in the past - they just changed their isp

Wish I could change my isp to something that won't lick ass when told to do so.

Wish I could change my isp to something that won't lick ass when told to do so.

Proxies and VPNs are easy bypasses.

Proxies and VPNs are easy bypasses.

I'm aware, but living in the country I get sh*te internet speeds so proxies are almost impossible to bare.