Remember Kirch bought the live tv rights for the world cup football finals for 2002. 2006, 2010, 2014.
Kirch went bankrupt, I think that won't happen with discovery
That was a bit different, though, becaue Kirch definitely wanted to sell the rights to the highest bidder and they were making noises about lobbying the government to get the rules changed. But then they went bust and the rights were eventually sold in the usual way, but they were sold very late, I think they only signed the contract about six months before the 2002 World Cup (although both broadcasters clearly expected they'd get them and had clearly already made plans).
There is an example of sub-licencing listed events, I can't find it now but a while back on here there was a link to a document about the cost of sports rights over the years and it pointed out than when ITV had the FA Cup in 1997-2001, they were actually sub-licencing the matches from Sky rather than buying them directly from the FA. Clearly Sky had bought the entire FA Cup, rather than just X packages like now, but were required to sub-licence live games in every round to a terrestrial broadcaster.
On a serious note - we're discussing something which is impossible to talk about, 9 years ago iPlayer didn't even exist yet now it's part of daily life for some people, hell I don't even watch some TV programmes on my TV any more as they're available via apps on my tablet (another common day item which didn't exist in such prominence 9 years ago)
There's no point trying to use today's TV experience and compare it to 9 years from now - the landscape will be entirely different, hell we might not even have a BBC by then so what's the point in panicking before it happens?
Indeed, nine years ago Setanta were on the up, look at them now. When BT bought the Premier League rights they didn't even have a channel and they got that up and running in a year. Indeed when ESPN got the Premier League rights they got a channel up and running within a couple of weeks so it's ridiculous to look at today's Discovery channel lineup, programming and personnel and work out how it will cover an event in nine years' time like that.
I think Mark has it entirely correct when he says this...
Secondly, assuming Eurosport doesn't grow anymore in the UK, they'd make far more money selling the full UK rights to a FTA broadcaster than they would through subscriptions and ad revenue. I suspect that forms part of their business model - show the games directly in territories where they're already strong, then look to make a profit by selling on the rights in the UK, France etc.
...and I would agree with that. It all comes down to the market, in the UK Discovery and Eurosport has always been a minor player (I like sport and I have the channel but I can count the number of times I've actually watched it on the fingers of one hand). They are a very, very distant fifth behind the Beeb, ITV, Sky and BT and even the Olympics isn't going to change that. There's simply no appetite for another premium broadcaster. So I think it's far more likely they will indeed just sell the lot on to, probably, the Beeb and as far as viewers are concerned, the coverage will be no different to any other Olympics.
And if it is, in what form? Discovery has deep pockets; very deep pockets. Many posters on here seem concerned with how poor Eurosport's coverage currently is. I would suggest that it is equally probable that the parent company goes for a decent chunk of the next Premier League TV rights contract and looks to transform its British sports television offering.
Whilst it may seem a stretch of the imagination now, what is there to say that in 10 years Eurosport isn't the premier sports broadcaster in the UK?
Well, maybe. But I guess it all comes down to what else they can offer. It's like when the Premier League rights came up a few months ago, and there was speculation Al Jazeera might bid for them, but as was mentioned at the time, if they did, what else would they have? Everything else was under lock and key on the other broadcasters so they'd be trying to create a new premium channel with 38 Premier League games and nothing else. As it stands, that wouldn't have been a particularly impressive portfolio and with people already subscribing to Sky and BT, there would have been massive resistance to another broadcaster coming in.
The same is surely the case in the next rights deal, I think we're at the maximum number of premium channels and sports broadcasters, and there's only so much sport to go round, especially when Sky and BT are so big. I think the public would really not like another broadcaster with another subscription turning up, and unless they managed to seize an enormous chunk of Sky or BT's rights, enough for one of those to more or less call it a day, it wouldn't be worth it.
I mean, ESPN are an enormous company and have loads of money, but they didn't last in Britain because they did the sums and didn't think it was worth lavishing so much on it when other broadcasters were dominant. The same is true here, I think, Discovery would have to spend lots and lots and lots of money to make major inroads into the UK market and become dominant.
Crown jewels nonsense should be ended anyway. Why the hell should any government or regulator interfere in the free market of selling sports and events that they deem to be special?
Giving the BBC rights to broadcast certain events on the cheap is diabolical and wrong. They shouldn't be allowed to waste license fee payers money on events that can be commercially sold and broadcast in the UK. BBC is all about waste waste waste.
The same is surely the case in the next rights deal, I think we're at the maximum number of premium channels and sports broadcasters, and there's only so much sport to go round, especially when Sky and BT are so big. I think the public would really not like another broadcaster with another subscription turning up, and unless they managed to seize an enormous chunk of Sky or BT's rights, enough for one of those to more or less call it a day, it wouldn't be worth it.
I mean, ESPN are an enormous company and have loads of money, but they didn't last in Britain because they did the sums and didn't think it was worth lavishing so much on it when other broadcasters were dominant. The same is true here, I think, Discovery would have to spend lots and lots and lots of money to make major inroads into the UK market and become dominant.
Agree with that analysis - my only point was just how much could - and probably will - change over the next decade!
Agree with that analysis - my only point was just how much could - and probably will - change over the next decade!
Yeah, but I think you can argue that the moment has passed in terms of any new arrivals into the market. Ten years ago it would have been alright, because Setanta and ESPN were just channels and only had subscriptions and adverts as a revenue stream, so if they were outbid for the rights, that was it from them. But now you've got BT, you've got two massive broadcasters with numerous revenue streams and infrastructure, so going against that would seem pretty pointless. Sky and BT are clearly in it for the long haul. If you didn't really enter the UK market in a big way before, I don't know why you'd want to do it now.
But yes, it's all nine years away, and even Sky may have collapsed by then.
I guess we need to know are the 200 hours the IOC allow for live coverage? Or would (use BBC as example) cut off love at say midnight and have extended highlights, coverage going live 3pm to midnight?
The real interest in the rights is in the mobile and IP aspects. You could well see sub leasing of UK traditional TV rights with the other rights either being retained or offered in partnership with others Bt or Vodafone if such companies still exist as independent companies in 9 years time
Are the Olympics designated as a FTA event in the UK? Here in Ireland they are so either they launch on all platforms or they will have to do a deal with a FTA station in Ireland.
Love this quote from Marina Hyde in the Guardian that the Olympic motto will now read
Citius Altius Pay for Us
Also how much influence will Discovery want over the schedule? We know American broadcasters influence the schedule like having the swimming finals in Beijing in the morning - prime time USA morning
Are the Olympics designated as a FTA event in the UK? Here in Ireland they are so either they launch on all platforms or they will have to do a deal with a FTA station in Ireland.
It's from 2020 in Ireland that the deal kicks in.
If you had read the thread, you would know the answer to your question (many times over)
Crown jewels nonsense should be ended anyway. Why the hell should any government or regulator interfere in the free market of selling sports and events that they deem to be special?
Giving the BBC rights to broadcast certain events on the cheap is diabolical and wrong. They shouldn't be allowed to waste license fee payers money on events that can be commercially sold and broadcast in the UK. BBC is all about waste waste waste.
Not that I'm going to rise to the bait that the above quote is obviously trying to make me do, but I for one am happy by the 'interference of the government' to ensure that some sporting events remain totally free to air.
I'm happy that I don't have to pay any extra to watch events like Wimbledon, the FA Cup final, the Olympics, etc. How is that diabolical??? And where's your criticism of other FTA channels who have also broadcast these crown jewel events in the past?
But what we could end up with if Discovery sell sub right packages is a mish-mash of lets say the A list sports (Athletics Swimming etc) on BBC and B list sports (Basketball Volleyball etc) say on Chanel 4
I would have thought the IoC's main concern was what a poor return they've got for selling the rights. Were any other broadcasters involved in the bidding ?
Giving the BBC rights to broadcast certain events on the cheap is diabolical and wrong.
And is not required by law.
The legal position is pretty clear.
Article 14 of the EU's Audiovisual Media Directive specifically allows national governments to legislate to protect events deemed to be of "major importance for society" for a "substantial proportion of the population."
Further it requires legislation to prevent broadcasters from circumventing any such legislation in other member states.
This directive came into effect in 2007.
In 2011 FIFA and UEFA both challenged the European Commission over the British government protecting the UEFA European Championship tournament, and the British and Belgian governments protecting the FIFA World Cup tournament.
The court ruled against them finding that "restrictions on the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment may be justified when counterbalanced by the right to information." The court also noted that the two were listed as examples of events of such importance in the recitals to the directive.
Both organizations appealed this decision but in 2013 the Court of Justice confirmed the earlier ruling.
It is worth noting that the Olympic games was the the only other event included in the recitals to the directive.
So legally a broadcaster licensed in another EU member state broadcasting to the UK cannot bypass the listing of events by the British government.
And the IOC and Discovery could only challenge the listing of the games by showing that they are not considered by the public to be of such importance to justify being listed. Based on the previous court rulings that would be almost impossible as all the same criteria that justified the listing of the two soccer tournaments apply equally to the Olympic games.
Had the contract not allowed Discovery to sub-licence the rights, requiring them to act as broadcaster, the contract would have been void. But essentially all this IOC deal has done with regards to the law is make Discovery the rights holder rather than themselves. And it is quite common for sporting organizations to sell their rights to third-party agencies who then sell them to broadcasters on their behalf. So it is neither an illegal nor uncommon situation.
There is no reason for either the government, EU, or the IOC to intervene or either party to cancel the deal. Discovery would have been well aware of their legal requirements in each market before signing it.
Having bought the rights on a pan-European basis Discovery can choose how to exploit them based on each individual market, whether by retaining them for Eurosport or other channels they own, selling them to other broadcasters, or a combination of the two.
All Discovery cannot do with regards the UK is show them on Eurosport, or any of their other channels, without offering them to a listed free-to-air broadcaster. And they do not have to sell them "on the cheap".
So long as the terms and price requested are "fair and reasonable," based on criteria including market competition and revenue potential of the rights, then they would have fulfilled their legal obligation. A rights holder cannot demand an unrealistically high price to circumvent the legislation, and a listed broadcaster cannot use the legislation as a way to gain rights for an unrealistically low amount.
Good posts last evening re possibility of further entrants into Pay TV sports market.
All good points - wouldn't disagree with any of the specifics. However I would add as follows:
1) Size of market (both demand and supply) is increasing:
- BT entry has shown that market can be grown very significantly by stimulating additional demand - BT stratifying the market further, introducing new price points. It's not a zero sum game - new entrant doesn't have to take revenues from incumbents.
- Market is also growing by increase in supply - lots of content has moved FTA to Pay in last 10 years - eg cricket, F1, Champions League, Europa League, US Masters, Open golf. Plenty of scope for more movement. Tight Licence Fee settlement may provide additional push.
2) Technological barriers are decreasing:
Expensive technology initially provided barrier to growth of Pay TV (as a whole). Technology is now becoming much cheaper (and greater variety of options). So market grows and barriers to entry reduce (eg as new operator can enter more cheaply).
Demographic change will also provide stimulus - older generation less familiar with technology will move on so greater proportion of total population will become comfortable with wide variety of technological options - which in turn will provide scope for market growth.
3) Possibility of niche operators:
Both Sky and BT are what might be described as multi-sport "generalist" Pay TV sports operators. Whilst new entrants could also be multi-sport there is also scope for niche operators who could still be very substantial in size.
eg in next 10 years a Premier League TV channel (ie owned directly by the PL) must be a very distinct possibility and if so it could well be a very substantial player.
Perfectly possible other significant niche players could emerge - eg Motor Sport channel with F1 rights.
However I fully agree that it's impossible to know what will happen over the next 10 years. The purpose of my post is just to point towards broader factors which may influence how the market develops.
Finally back to the Olympics - notwithstanding all of the above I fully expect all of it (or at least most of it and all the key bits) to be on the BBC(!)
From the Telegraph article linked to in my post above
Discovery, which will show the Olympics live in some countries, decided it made more economic sense for it to bid on a pan-European basis and sub-let the rights in those areas in which it did not intend to broadcast itself.
Hutton revealed it won after just one round of bidding against almost 20 rivals offers, some of which covered individual territories and others the whole of Europe.
also this:
Discovery does have its own free channel, Quest TV, in Britain but Hutton all but ruled out the network keeping the Games exclusively for itself.
“That’s not our desired intention as it stands,” he said, revealing Discovery had assured the IOC it would make the Olympics available to as many viewers as possible.
That could mean coverage traditionally shown on terrestrial television being supplemented by additional content on Eurosport platforms.
“It’s not in our interests to jeopardise the history of the Olympics in the UK and the way that it’s televised,” Hutton added.
“We want to give more hours of coverage and make it more available to more people.”
I would have thought the IoC's main concern was what a poor return they've got for selling the rights. Were any other broadcasters involved in the bidding ?
Yes, according to the Torygraph article:
"Discovery, which will show the Olympics live in some countries, decided it made more economic sense for it to bid on a pan-European basis and sub-let the rights in those areas in which it did not intend to broadcast itself.
Hutton revealed it won after just one round of bidding against almost 20 rivals offers, some of which covered individual territories and others the whole of Europe.
He described the value of the deal as being a “single-figure percentage increase” on the cumulative amount the IOC currently received from European broadcasters."
I agree that the amount reportedly paid by Discovery seems low compared with what e.g. the US networks pay for similar rights. But the US is one, large, lucrative market, with numerous large commercial channels willing to outbid each other and risk making a loss on the Olympics because it serves as a platform to promote other programming.
I would have thought the IoC's main concern was what a poor return they've got for selling the rights. Were any other broadcasters involved in the bidding ?
I think it adds more fuel to the idea that the creation of the 'Olympic Channel' (clearly one of Bach's pet projects) was a major driving force behind the deal. Given the modest cost increase, it looks like Discovery/Eurosport didn't blow all others out of the water in financial terms - but instead just offered the best pan-Europe platform for launching a continual Olympics service.
Ultimately, it'll be fascinating to see what business model they pursue with it. In the UK, I think it could come down to exactly how far the government regulations stretch.
If the IOC's mandated 200 hours satisfies the UK legislation, then it may just be commercially profitable for them to sell the single channel broadcast coverage to FTA, holding back all the multi-channel, multi-platform, on demand stuff for their own paid service. However, if the legislation applies much further, and allows FTA to get more than the 200 hours, then that 'premium' tier service becomes less and less viable. Presumably, there would come some point where it simply makes more commercial sense to sell everything on to the BBC (or another FTA).
Not that I'm going to rise to the bait that the above quote is obviously trying to make me do, but I for one am happy by the 'interference of the government' to ensure that some sporting events remain totally free to air.
I'm happy that I don't have to pay any extra to watch events like Wimbledon, the FA Cup final, the Olympics, etc. How is that diabolical??? And where's your criticism of other FTA channels who have also broadcast these crown jewel events in the past?
Peace y'all...
I'm not against FTA at all. If a commercially-supported channel can fund bidding and winning the rights that's okay by me. I'm just against the government and regulators restricting how rights can be sold in this country.
I also have no problem with the BBC screening sport if no commercial rival is interested in the rights - be those live or highlights. But I do have a problem with license fee money being used to buy rights on the cheap because they are on some silly protected list - which keeps getting whittled down anyway. Just get rid of the protected list and let the free market dictate what sport gets screened where.
I'm not against FTA at all. If a commercially-supported channel can fund bidding and winning the rights that's okay by me. I'm just against the government and regulators restricting how rights can be sold in this country.
I also have no problem with the BBC screening sport if no commercial rival is interested in the rights - be those live or highlights. But I do have a problem with license fee money being used to buy rights on the cheap because they are on some silly protected list - which keeps getting whittled down anyway. Just get rid of the protected list and let the free market dictate what sport gets screened where.
Which would take sport away from the free to air channels, the viewer loses.
Comments
To borrow a phrase from Ginger Daddy
***QUEST TV KLAXON***
Nine. Years.
Anything can happen in broadcasting in nine years. Just look back at what we did and didn't have in 2006 if you're still struggle to grasp the idea.
That was a bit different, though, becaue Kirch definitely wanted to sell the rights to the highest bidder and they were making noises about lobbying the government to get the rules changed. But then they went bust and the rights were eventually sold in the usual way, but they were sold very late, I think they only signed the contract about six months before the 2002 World Cup (although both broadcasters clearly expected they'd get them and had clearly already made plans).
There is an example of sub-licencing listed events, I can't find it now but a while back on here there was a link to a document about the cost of sports rights over the years and it pointed out than when ITV had the FA Cup in 1997-2001, they were actually sub-licencing the matches from Sky rather than buying them directly from the FA. Clearly Sky had bought the entire FA Cup, rather than just X packages like now, but were required to sub-licence live games in every round to a terrestrial broadcaster.
Indeed, nine years ago Setanta were on the up, look at them now. When BT bought the Premier League rights they didn't even have a channel and they got that up and running in a year. Indeed when ESPN got the Premier League rights they got a channel up and running within a couple of weeks so it's ridiculous to look at today's Discovery channel lineup, programming and personnel and work out how it will cover an event in nine years' time like that.
I think Mark has it entirely correct when he says this...
...and I would agree with that. It all comes down to the market, in the UK Discovery and Eurosport has always been a minor player (I like sport and I have the channel but I can count the number of times I've actually watched it on the fingers of one hand). They are a very, very distant fifth behind the Beeb, ITV, Sky and BT and even the Olympics isn't going to change that. There's simply no appetite for another premium broadcaster. So I think it's far more likely they will indeed just sell the lot on to, probably, the Beeb and as far as viewers are concerned, the coverage will be no different to any other Olympics.
Well, maybe. But I guess it all comes down to what else they can offer. It's like when the Premier League rights came up a few months ago, and there was speculation Al Jazeera might bid for them, but as was mentioned at the time, if they did, what else would they have? Everything else was under lock and key on the other broadcasters so they'd be trying to create a new premium channel with 38 Premier League games and nothing else. As it stands, that wouldn't have been a particularly impressive portfolio and with people already subscribing to Sky and BT, there would have been massive resistance to another broadcaster coming in.
The same is surely the case in the next rights deal, I think we're at the maximum number of premium channels and sports broadcasters, and there's only so much sport to go round, especially when Sky and BT are so big. I think the public would really not like another broadcaster with another subscription turning up, and unless they managed to seize an enormous chunk of Sky or BT's rights, enough for one of those to more or less call it a day, it wouldn't be worth it.
I mean, ESPN are an enormous company and have loads of money, but they didn't last in Britain because they did the sums and didn't think it was worth lavishing so much on it when other broadcasters were dominant. The same is true here, I think, Discovery would have to spend lots and lots and lots of money to make major inroads into the UK market and become dominant.
Giving the BBC rights to broadcast certain events on the cheap is diabolical and wrong. They shouldn't be allowed to waste license fee payers money on events that can be commercially sold and broadcast in the UK. BBC is all about waste waste waste.
Agree with that analysis - my only point was just how much could - and probably will - change over the next decade!
Yeah, but I think you can argue that the moment has passed in terms of any new arrivals into the market. Ten years ago it would have been alright, because Setanta and ESPN were just channels and only had subscriptions and adverts as a revenue stream, so if they were outbid for the rights, that was it from them. But now you've got BT, you've got two massive broadcasters with numerous revenue streams and infrastructure, so going against that would seem pretty pointless. Sky and BT are clearly in it for the long haul. If you didn't really enter the UK market in a big way before, I don't know why you'd want to do it now.
But yes, it's all nine years away, and even Sky may have collapsed by then.
I guess we need to know are the 200 hours the IOC allow for live coverage? Or would (use BBC as example) cut off love at say midnight and have extended highlights, coverage going live 3pm to midnight?
Could the 100 metres be in Breakfast.
It's from 2020 in Ireland that the deal kicks in.
Citius Altius Pay for Us
Also how much influence will Discovery want over the schedule? We know American broadcasters influence the schedule like having the swimming finals in Beijing in the morning - prime time USA morning
If you had read the thread, you would know the answer to your question (many times over)
Not that I'm going to rise to the bait that the above quote is obviously trying to make me do, but I for one am happy by the 'interference of the government' to ensure that some sporting events remain totally free to air.
I'm happy that I don't have to pay any extra to watch events like Wimbledon, the FA Cup final, the Olympics, etc. How is that diabolical??? And where's your criticism of other FTA channels who have also broadcast these crown jewel events in the past?
Peace y'all...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/11706262/BBC-lose-TV-broadcasting-rights-for-Olympics-Games-to-Eurosport.html
But what we could end up with if Discovery sell sub right packages is a mish-mash of lets say the A list sports (Athletics Swimming etc) on BBC and B list sports (Basketball Volleyball etc) say on Chanel 4
Yes they can.
No they could not.
And is not required by law.
The legal position is pretty clear.
Article 14 of the EU's Audiovisual Media Directive specifically allows national governments to legislate to protect events deemed to be of "major importance for society" for a "substantial proportion of the population."
Further it requires legislation to prevent broadcasters from circumventing any such legislation in other member states.
This directive came into effect in 2007.
In 2011 FIFA and UEFA both challenged the European Commission over the British government protecting the UEFA European Championship tournament, and the British and Belgian governments protecting the FIFA World Cup tournament.
The court ruled against them finding that "restrictions on the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment may be justified when counterbalanced by the right to information." The court also noted that the two were listed as examples of events of such importance in the recitals to the directive.
Both organizations appealed this decision but in 2013 the Court of Justice confirmed the earlier ruling.
It is worth noting that the Olympic games was the the only other event included in the recitals to the directive.
So legally a broadcaster licensed in another EU member state broadcasting to the UK cannot bypass the listing of events by the British government.
And the IOC and Discovery could only challenge the listing of the games by showing that they are not considered by the public to be of such importance to justify being listed. Based on the previous court rulings that would be almost impossible as all the same criteria that justified the listing of the two soccer tournaments apply equally to the Olympic games.
Had the contract not allowed Discovery to sub-licence the rights, requiring them to act as broadcaster, the contract would have been void. But essentially all this IOC deal has done with regards to the law is make Discovery the rights holder rather than themselves. And it is quite common for sporting organizations to sell their rights to third-party agencies who then sell them to broadcasters on their behalf. So it is neither an illegal nor uncommon situation.
There is no reason for either the government, EU, or the IOC to intervene or either party to cancel the deal. Discovery would have been well aware of their legal requirements in each market before signing it.
Having bought the rights on a pan-European basis Discovery can choose how to exploit them based on each individual market, whether by retaining them for Eurosport or other channels they own, selling them to other broadcasters, or a combination of the two.
All Discovery cannot do with regards the UK is show them on Eurosport, or any of their other channels, without offering them to a listed free-to-air broadcaster. And they do not have to sell them "on the cheap".
So long as the terms and price requested are "fair and reasonable," based on criteria including market competition and revenue potential of the rights, then they would have fulfilled their legal obligation. A rights holder cannot demand an unrealistically high price to circumvent the legislation, and a listed broadcaster cannot use the legislation as a way to gain rights for an unrealistically low amount.
All good points - wouldn't disagree with any of the specifics. However I would add as follows:
1) Size of market (both demand and supply) is increasing:
- BT entry has shown that market can be grown very significantly by stimulating additional demand - BT stratifying the market further, introducing new price points. It's not a zero sum game - new entrant doesn't have to take revenues from incumbents.
- Market is also growing by increase in supply - lots of content has moved FTA to Pay in last 10 years - eg cricket, F1, Champions League, Europa League, US Masters, Open golf. Plenty of scope for more movement. Tight Licence Fee settlement may provide additional push.
2) Technological barriers are decreasing:
Expensive technology initially provided barrier to growth of Pay TV (as a whole). Technology is now becoming much cheaper (and greater variety of options). So market grows and barriers to entry reduce (eg as new operator can enter more cheaply).
Demographic change will also provide stimulus - older generation less familiar with technology will move on so greater proportion of total population will become comfortable with wide variety of technological options - which in turn will provide scope for market growth.
3) Possibility of niche operators:
Both Sky and BT are what might be described as multi-sport "generalist" Pay TV sports operators. Whilst new entrants could also be multi-sport there is also scope for niche operators who could still be very substantial in size.
eg in next 10 years a Premier League TV channel (ie owned directly by the PL) must be a very distinct possibility and if so it could well be a very substantial player.
Perfectly possible other significant niche players could emerge - eg Motor Sport channel with F1 rights.
However I fully agree that it's impossible to know what will happen over the next 10 years. The purpose of my post is just to point towards broader factors which may influence how the market develops.
Finally back to the Olympics - notwithstanding all of the above I fully expect all of it (or at least most of it and all the key bits) to be on the BBC(!)
Discovery, which will show the Olympics live in some countries, decided it made more economic sense for it to bid on a pan-European basis and sub-let the rights in those areas in which it did not intend to broadcast itself.
Hutton revealed it won after just one round of bidding against almost 20 rivals offers, some of which covered individual territories and others the whole of Europe.
also this:
Discovery does have its own free channel, Quest TV, in Britain but Hutton all but ruled out the network keeping the Games exclusively for itself.
“That’s not our desired intention as it stands,” he said, revealing Discovery had assured the IOC it would make the Olympics available to as many viewers as possible.
That could mean coverage traditionally shown on terrestrial television being supplemented by additional content on Eurosport platforms.
“It’s not in our interests to jeopardise the history of the Olympics in the UK and the way that it’s televised,” Hutton added.
“We want to give more hours of coverage and make it more available to more people.”
Yes, according to the Torygraph article:
"Discovery, which will show the Olympics live in some countries, decided it made more economic sense for it to bid on a pan-European basis and sub-let the rights in those areas in which it did not intend to broadcast itself.
Hutton revealed it won after just one round of bidding against almost 20 rivals offers, some of which covered individual territories and others the whole of Europe.
He described the value of the deal as being a “single-figure percentage increase” on the cumulative amount the IOC currently received from European broadcasters."
I agree that the amount reportedly paid by Discovery seems low compared with what e.g. the US networks pay for similar rights. But the US is one, large, lucrative market, with numerous large commercial channels willing to outbid each other and risk making a loss on the Olympics because it serves as a platform to promote other programming.
I think it adds more fuel to the idea that the creation of the 'Olympic Channel' (clearly one of Bach's pet projects) was a major driving force behind the deal. Given the modest cost increase, it looks like Discovery/Eurosport didn't blow all others out of the water in financial terms - but instead just offered the best pan-Europe platform for launching a continual Olympics service.
Ultimately, it'll be fascinating to see what business model they pursue with it. In the UK, I think it could come down to exactly how far the government regulations stretch.
If the IOC's mandated 200 hours satisfies the UK legislation, then it may just be commercially profitable for them to sell the single channel broadcast coverage to FTA, holding back all the multi-channel, multi-platform, on demand stuff for their own paid service. However, if the legislation applies much further, and allows FTA to get more than the 200 hours, then that 'premium' tier service becomes less and less viable. Presumably, there would come some point where it simply makes more commercial sense to sell everything on to the BBC (or another FTA).
I'm not against FTA at all. If a commercially-supported channel can fund bidding and winning the rights that's okay by me. I'm just against the government and regulators restricting how rights can be sold in this country.
I also have no problem with the BBC screening sport if no commercial rival is interested in the rights - be those live or highlights. But I do have a problem with license fee money being used to buy rights on the cheap because they are on some silly protected list - which keeps getting whittled down anyway. Just get rid of the protected list and let the free market dictate what sport gets screened where.
Which would take sport away from the free to air channels, the viewer loses.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2087488
Yes, I did, this thread was put elsewhere, but the mods decided to move it here anyway, even though there was already a thread about it!