£14:95 pay-per-view.

[johncrobinson]

Not interested in "Fitball"
Never have been. Never will

Interesting though how I am willing to overlook financial shenanigans
When not directly affected that is.

 

[JockyBrewer]

To be fair, I don't think the finger can be pointed at Sky or BT here. This has come from the Premier League and the money is going to the clubs - the TV companies are merely the platform for broadcast.

I wouldn't pay it personally, but there are no doubt thousands who will - and the Premier League is well aware of that.

The £14.95 price was set by Sky and BT. Premier League clubs were told that it was either that price or no TV coverage of the games. It all seems ridiculous given that the TV cameras are there for overseas live broadcast and UK highlight packages anyway.

 

[JockyBrewer]

I've long heard it discussed that the premier league should take matters into their own hands and broadcast the matches themselves, cutting out the parasites like sky and amazon completely. This would allow you to buy a season ticket for your own clubs games and that money goes, largely, to that club.

Until then, I'll stick to the radio and the dodgybox.

I think the Premier League will eventually do their own online service too. I always thought that they made more money by selling to Sky/BT/Amazon etc, but then thinking about it, if they had their own app showing every game and charged £20 per month for it and could get 10 million subscribers they'd make £2 billion in revenue. I don't know what their costs would be for running such a thing, but it seems plausible.

 

[QED]

...the thread is about SKY charging more for subscribers to watch live football, thanks.

Neither Sky nor BT had the rights to these matches, Sky and BT only have the rights to the matches that they show on their service as they bid on a bundle of games. Under normal circumstances, this remaining bundle would have been sold individually to BBC (and other services excluding Sky and BT) however in order to generate a better revenue for the clubs, ticket sales revenue that they have lost during Covid, revenue for the sales of these are going to the clubs. A lot more than they would have got if they went to the BBC.

 

[Leon103]

I think the Premier League will eventually do their own online service too. I always thought that they made more money by selling to Sky/BT/Amazon etc, but then thinking about it, if they had their own app showing every game and charged £20 per month for it and could get 10 million subscribers they'd make £2 billion in revenue. I don't know what their costs would be for running such a thing, but it seems plausible.

I think sky pay more than that for the games they show.

 

[QED]

I think sky pay more than that for the games they show.

£4.46bn between Sky and BT

 

[JockyBrewer]

£4.46bn between Sky and BT

For 3 years. So less than £1.5bn per year.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

if they had their own app showing every game and charged £20 per month for it and could get 10 million subscribers

Nowhere near. People love football, but paying Sky to watch it on TV is pretty niche - only 250k-1.5m will watch any one game, and Sky UK only has 8.41 subscribers total, including the people who just get Sky Movies etc.

And any moves towards the clubs doing it themselves have to resolve the tension between the clubs like Man Utd who would love to show every match on MUTV, and clubs like Burnley and Brighton who benefit massively from the current system of doing it centrally.

The current discussion about "Project Big Picture" is another facet of this, that the big PL clubs are offering some short-term financial handouts in return for the smaller PL clubs giving up some voting rights which in the long term will be used by the big clubs to benefit them at the expense of upstarts like Leicester who so rudely deprived Man Utd of their rightful place in the Champions League a few years ago.

 

[Leon103]

For 3 years. So less than £1.5bn per year.

Profit though. Doubt it is cheap to broadcast

 

[JockyBrewer]

Nowhere near. People love football, but paying Sky to watch it on TV is pretty niche - only 250k-1.5m will watch any one game, and Sky UK only has 8.41 subscribers total, including the people who just get Sky Movies etc.

And any moves towards the clubs doing it themselves have to resolve the tension between the clubs like Man Utd who would love to show every match on MUTV, and clubs like Burnley and Brighton who benefit massively from the current system of doing it centrally.

The current discussion about "Project Big Picture" is another facet of this, that the big PL clubs are offering some short-term financial handouts in return for the smaller PL clubs giving up some voting rights which in the long term will be used by the big clubs to benefit them at the expense of upstarts like Leicester who so rudely deprived Man Utd of their rightful place in the Champions League a few years ago.

My initial gut feel was right then, it is more profitable to sell the rights to others than keep it in house.

As for Project Big Club, it’s gifting control of football in England to 6 clubs while holding a gun to the head of a large chunk of the football league, with the crazy thing being they really don’t need it.

Hopefully they’ll just go off and play each other 4 times a season with lots of games all over the world.

 

[Neilos1988]

I had been toying with the idea of cancelling my Sky subscription for a while and this pushed me over the edge. I have since been setup with an alternative service shall we say and won't be looking back, there is only so much they can push you until you have had enough.

 

[QED]

I had been toying with the idea of cancelling my Sky subscription for a while and this pushed me over the edge

See my comment above, these are not Sky's to sell, Sky is selling them on behalf of the FA and the funds going to the clubs to compensate for loss of ticket sales. It's the FA you should be tipped over the edge by, not Sky, you have in effect shot the postman!

 

[JockyBrewer]

See my comment above, these are not Sky's to sell, Sky is selling them on behalf of the FA and the funds going to the clubs to compensate for loss of ticket sales. It's the FA you should be tipped over the edge by, not Sky, you have in effect shot the postman!

Kieran Maguire (https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire) spoke to sources among the Premier League chairmen said that the TV companies set the price, not the clubs, and the choice the clubs were given was either no live coverage in the UK or PPV at £14.95 a game. How the revenue from this will be split hasn't been agreed yet, but yes I'd expect some of it will flow back to the clubs in place of lost ticket revenue.

The FA has nothing to do with it, they have no regulatory powers and only deal with the England team, Wembley and non-league football.

 

[Falco]

The FA has nothing to do with it, they have no regulatory powers and only deal with the England team, Wembley and non-league football.

Correct, it's the English Premier League PLC, this from their website: "The Premier League is a private company wholly owned by its 20 Member Clubs who make up the League at any one time."

 

[Chippy_Tea]

About time, i wonder what "Clubs will instead look to devise a new solution that will cover the Christmas period" will mean.



The Premier League is likely to scrap the controversial pay-per-view method for matches after November's international window.

Clubs will instead look to devise a new solution that will cover the Christmas period.
A definitive decision was not taken at a shareholders' meeting on Thursday but discussions are said to be ongoing.

However, the £14.95 fee - which led to significant protests among fan groups - is expected to be dropped.

It is understood the model used in September, when all games were shown live by the Premier League's broadcast partners, is the likely direction of travel.

Pay-per-view remains on the table but a final decision is not expected this week.

In a statement, the Premier League said shareholders met on Thursday "to discuss a number of important issues", including the broadcast options for matches following the international break.

"Discussions with all stakeholders are ongoing and a broadcast solution will be announced in due course," it added.

More than £300,000 has been raised for charity by fans boycotting pay-per-view games, which were introduced in October after clubs voted 19-1 in favour of the "interim solution".

Liverpool's fan group the Spirit of Shankly described the decision to charge £14.95 as "disgraceful", while the Football Supporters' Association said many fans were "concerned" over the price and wanted it reduced.

Following Thursday's meeting, an FSA spokesperson said: "Supporters made clear their revulsion at the £15 cost to see their teams on Sky and BT Sport's pay-per-view platforms last month, an emotion running so deep that fan protests across the country even reached the ears of untouchable Premier League club owners.

"We await to see the detail of what the Premier League and its broadcasters will now offer supporters who remain locked out of grounds for the foreseeable future - they simply must come up with a solution that is affordable for all."

Newcastle owner Mike Ashley and manager Steve Bruce have said the fee for one-off matches is too high, while former Manchester United and England right-back Gary Neville, now a Sky pundit, said the system "just needs scrapping".

Pay-per-view will still be used for this weekend's fixtures, for games not selected for regular television broadcast, and whatever decision is made would come into force from 21 November and is due to last for the rest of the year.

Last month, Premier League chief executive Richard Masters said the £14.95 fee was "defensible", and the announcement of the model came at a time when top-flight clubs were lobbying for spectators to be allowed back into grounds.

However, England has since entered a second national lockdown, which will last until 2 December, and hopes of an imminent return of fans have faded.

In September, all 28 Premier League matches were shown live, with all broadcast partners - Sky Sports, BT Sport, the BBC and Amazon Prime - screening matches.

Meanwhile, the Premier League said its shareholders also reiterated that a rescue package remains on the table for EFL clubs suffering financially during the coronavirus pandemic.

"The offer guarantees no EFL club need go out of business as a result of the pandemic in the 2020-21 season, and our intention is to play an active role in helping clubs return to financial stability," it said in a statement.

"The Premier League will engage directly with any EFL club that is suffering severe financial losses due to the pandemic, and will remain in dialogue with the EFL on this important issue.

"The rescue package is on top of solidarity payments totalling £110m already advanced to the EFL this season, alongside additional financial support for youth development and community programmes."

 

[Richie_asg1]

I used to get Sky. Then I realised that I could live without it.
I now get Amazon Prime for the free delivery and get enough on the firestick TV which is a bonus.

What would happen if everyone just boycotted Sky for a year and supported their local clubs instead? Just turn your backs for 12 months and see what happens.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

I'd sky gave it up you can bet BT would snap it up, us plebs are forced to pay or never watch again legally.

 

[Benfleet Brewery]

A while ago an excellent sports writer, Clive Whittingham, sent the attached open letter to Sky telling them what he thought.
Clive is a QPR fan, as am I, which probably makes this a slightly better read for me being so close to home. Regardless, others I know have found the article to be a similarly good read since it‘s not only our club and the surrounding businesses, fans etc that are affected by them. It was also written some time Pre COVID which has of course since brought further issues.
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/queensparkrangers/news/44427

 

[Rodcx500z]

I am a fanatical Liverpool fan but i refuse to pay 14-99 to watch them on top of what i already pay, as Guy Martin ( very fast motor cycle rider) said its 22 blokes kicking a ball round in a field in their underpants

 

[terrym]

I'd sky gave it up you can bet BT would snap it up, us plebs are forced to pay or never watch again legally.

Nobody forces anyone in the UK to watch TV, whatever is available, from whatever source. But although we are 'blessed' with a seemingly infinite number of channels, what is actually worth watching can usually can be condensed into about 2 to 3 hours of viewing per week, and for many that includes football.