How deep are BT's pockets? They paid almost £900m for 3 years worth of exclusive coverage for Champions League & Europa League football starting in August 2015. If they are to take on Sky for the prized Sunday afternoon games or more, then they are going to have to put in a huge bid.
The current Premier League packages won by BT & Sky came to a combined total of just over £3Billion. I'm guessing here, but I imagine this next round of packages will end up with a total cost exceeding this figure. Sky will not want to lose their prized slots so their bids will inevitably increase.
Of course, there is the possibility of another broadcaster coming up on the blindside and gaining a package or two for themselves. I seem to recall that nobody had BT on their horizons when the current packages were made available.
Does anyone think we will end up with packages awarded to Sky, BT and a 3rd broadcaster, or will Sky & BT have too much money to blow any new broadcaster out of the water?
How deep are BT's pockets? They paid almost £900m for 3 years worth of exclusive coverage for Champions League & Europa League football starting in August 2015. If they are to take on Sky for the prized Sunday afternoon games or more, then they are going to have to put in a huge bid.
Difficult for BT. They have no idea how their packaging and pricing for CL/EL is going to fare and if they've made a viable purchase. This, along with the possibility of re-purchasing O2 or acquiring EE to get back in the mobile market for a quad pay proposition, will make for tough decisions.
As you say, the number of weekend round games will actually be 156 (ie 168 total - 12 midweek/BH = 156).
So they are 4 games short from filling every Sat/Sun slot.
If there are only 2 games on the final day that reduces to being 2 games short.
So there are going to be very, very few blank slots - when bearing in mind things like the League Cup Final, FA Cup QF and SF weekends.
As we know games can be picked and then moved if there are clashes - though currently, eg, Sky doesn't pick two Sun games on League Cup Final day. Of course Sky may not win the Sun 4pm slot so BT (or someone else) could in theory show a PL game against the LC Final, just as Sky currently sometimes shows PL games against FA Cup games.
But all in all it looks to me as if the PL has handled it sensibly - they have left just a very, very small bit of slack in the system to cope with the above as sensibly as possible.
I hope a third broadcaster doesn't bid as we could end up having to pay 3 seperate subscriptions to watch all the games.
In my opinion I don't think there should be allowed to be 3 broadcasters having rights in this country, it's bad enough having to subscribe to two, three would mean monthly subs of around 70 odd quid!
As for the final day fixtures being available for auction, don't think this would work as how would they decide which broadcaster got which game? It only works for example in America where NBC have exclusive rights, I know last season they broadcast all the last day PL fixtures live.
I hope a third broadcaster doesn't bid as we could end up having to pay 3 seperate subscriptions to watch all the games.
That's why I don't buy this whole "competition is good for the consumer" argument people make. You just end up paying the same for less games, or more for the same games.
If you read the papers / news websites, analysts state there could be a 50% increase on this in this new bidding round.
Now say Sky keep their packages at the additional 50% - this would mean their outlay goes to £1140m per year or an extra £380 million per year. With 10.7 million subscribers (based on latest results), for Sky this would mean getting an additional £35 per subscriber per year which from a commercial point of view seems plausible as would not hurt profitability too much. (Does not factor advertising and commercials premises which affect this number which are not public). Also they just sold 80% Sky Bet for £600m which will help if required.
For BT - this would go to £369m per year - an extra £123m per year. Both stunning figures already. However as people state, what if BT want to take over the number 1 spot from Sky and take the 5 packages Sky currently have - then BT's spend would go from £246m currently to £1140m (same as Sky calculations above) - an extra £894 million per year. Perhaps more if they need to beat Sky if they bid about the same. How do BT recoup that when you also factor in their annual £299m Champions League payments starting in 2015. That is £1193m or £1.2 billion extra spend per year just on these two contracts.
Overall there are many factors to consider before Sky, BT or anyone else put in their bids.
That's why I don't buy this whole "competition is good for the consumer" argument people make. You just end up paying the same for less games, or more for the same games.
Exactly. But people don't want Sky to have all the rights, so what's the alternative? Maybe it will be acceptable if BT had all the rights though.
Exactly. But people don't want Sky to have all the rights, so what's the alternative? Maybe it will be acceptable if BT had all the rights though.
One broadcaster is not allowed to hold all of the rights. A minimum of two are required by whoever it was that set the rules on this. Can't remember who stipulated this, I just know that a minimum of two are required.
Don't they? It was a lot better for consumers before Setanta, ESPN and BT came along
What's better for Sky isn't always what's best for consumers. Not everyone can afford Sky Sports and are happy to watch some football for a cheaper price.
That's why I don't buy this whole "competition is good for the consumer" argument people make. You just end up paying the same for less games, or more for the same games.
Real competition would be multiple broadcasters showing the same games.
That's why I don't buy this whole "competition is good for the consumer" argument people make. You just end up paying the same for less games, or more for the same games.
A single broadcaster with exclusive rights wouldn't require the rights to 154 or 168 matches.
I've no doubt that Sky, for example, could successfully sell Sky Sports packages today, with exclusivity (so all the first picks!) to 60 matches per season- the number they had at the inception of the Premier League in 1992.
There would be no incentive for a single broadcaster with exclusive live rights to the Premier League to buy 168 matches or for the Premier League to sell so many, in my view.
I wonder how some of the DS posters who would like the rights to be exclusive to a single broadcaster, would react if the Premier League gave them their wish, and cut the number of games made available in half?
I wonder how some of the DS posters who would like the rights to be exclusive to a single broadcaster, would react if the Premier League gave them their wish, and cut the number of games made available in half?
I'm not terribly bothered if all the rights were exclusive to 1 broadcaster, I'm more bothered about people saying "competition is good for the consumer" when quite simply, if 1 broadcaster had 100 games and nobody else had any, you'd pay once for those 100 games, but if it was 50/50 with another broadcaster (or any split with another broadcaster) you'd be paying extra to get the same 100 games you had on 1 broadcaster the previous season. Realistically, especially with the cost of sports rights going up (and prices seemingly going up across the board with the various broadcasters, even if it's just 50p a month), it's not good for the consumer.
To put it bluntly, competition = increased prices for the same thing/amount of things for consumers.
What's better for Sky isn't always what's best for consumers. Not everyone can afford Sky Sports and are happy to watch some football for a cheaper price.
Indeed, and Sky had many years of exclusivity, where they could have catered for those consumers had they had the desire or incentive to do so.
It's only changes in the competitive landscape that have encouraged them to cater for the "pay-tv lite" market through their NOW TV brand.
I've often heard it said that the UK tends to go the way of the USA. Over there the NFL is shared with about four broadcasters...I'm just saying! I'd love BBC, ITV, (channel 4 probably would not be interested) and Channel 5 to put in a joint bid. However, I probably agree with those of you that say this would never happen. I still think ITV have a trick up their sleeves though. Just watch this space!
That's why I don't buy this whole "competition is good for the consumer" argument people make. You just end up paying the same for less games, or more for the same games.
Competition has worked in the Pay Movies market with the introduction of Netflicks et al. Prompting Sky to create NowTV - you can now get the movie packages much cheaper than the equivalent Sky add on package these days, and you don't need to take a basic package as a starter for ten.
Where the problem lies in the sports market is that its not actually true competition. Sky, BT, and any other broadcasters who wants to enter the market, should be allowed to bid for the same packages, first pick match against first pick match, thus allowing the consumer to then pick a broadcaster on price, and a range of other factors. If OFCOM had any balls, this would be the result of this latest investigation. Under the current rules, the best we can hope for is Sky and BT to win an approximately equal number of games, and quality of picks, then having to go head to head to the consumers gain.
Competition has worked in the Pay Movies market with the introduction of Netflicks et al. Prompting Sky to create NowTV - you can now get the movie packages much cheaper than the equivalent Sky add on package these days, and you don't need to take a basic package as a starter for ten.
Still like the football, though. Before Netflix, 99% of new releases were on Sky Movies, now you need to subscribe to both, to get them all.
Real competition would be multiple broadcasters showing the same games.
Exactly.
If you want to buy a pint of milk and a loaf of bread, and 5 local shops sell it then you're probably going to choose the cheapest option (presuming it is all the same quality.) Hence there is genuine competition to drive the prices down and give customers choice.
If there's just one shop selling the milk you want and another shop selling the bread you want then there's no competition at all because if you want that product there's only one place you can go to get it. Not to mention you're now having to use two companies instead of one.
At least before you could see all the first choice matches with one subscription. Currently you'd need two.
My hope is Sky keep the Super Sunday packages and the Monday Night Football package - those two programmes are far better than the Saturday offerings from either Sky or BT in my view. I wouldn't be at all bothered if BT took Saturday night rights from Sky - Dave Jones and Jamie Redknapp sat in a studio with cheering fans is perhaps the worst coverage of live Premier League football we've ever seen in this country. Winning more matches might also allow BT to improve their coverage a bit. I wouldn't be sorry to see Sky snap up all 38 1st pick matches, though I think that's unlikely. My prediction would be things will pretty much remain as they are.
Still like the football, though. Before Netflix, 99% of new releases were on Sky Movies, now you need to subscribe to both, to get them all.
I agree with you back in the 90's when I first got sky it was £29ish for all channels
Now I'm paying for sky bt Netflix and Amazon which is a lot more I admit I don't have to subscribe to them all but I do and it costs a lot more than it did when I only subscribe to just sky for everything
Comments
The current Premier League packages won by BT & Sky came to a combined total of just over £3Billion. I'm guessing here, but I imagine this next round of packages will end up with a total cost exceeding this figure. Sky will not want to lose their prized slots so their bids will inevitably increase.
Of course, there is the possibility of another broadcaster coming up on the blindside and gaining a package or two for themselves. I seem to recall that nobody had BT on their horizons when the current packages were made available.
Does anyone think we will end up with packages awarded to Sky, BT and a 3rd broadcaster, or will Sky & BT have too much money to blow any new broadcaster out of the water?
Difficult for BT. They have no idea how their packaging and pricing for CL/EL is going to fare and if they've made a viable purchase. This, along with the possibility of re-purchasing O2 or acquiring EE to get back in the mobile market for a quad pay proposition, will make for tough decisions.
To fill every Sat/Sun slot the number of games would need to be:
Sat/Sun: 4 slots @ 33 = 132
Mon/Fri : 28 (assume fixed)
Total = 160
As you say, the number of weekend round games will actually be 156 (ie 168 total - 12 midweek/BH = 156).
So they are 4 games short from filling every Sat/Sun slot.
If there are only 2 games on the final day that reduces to being 2 games short.
So there are going to be very, very few blank slots - when bearing in mind things like the League Cup Final, FA Cup QF and SF weekends.
As we know games can be picked and then moved if there are clashes - though currently, eg, Sky doesn't pick two Sun games on League Cup Final day. Of course Sky may not win the Sun 4pm slot so BT (or someone else) could in theory show a PL game against the LC Final, just as Sky currently sometimes shows PL games against FA Cup games.
But all in all it looks to me as if the PL has handled it sensibly - they have left just a very, very small bit of slack in the system to cope with the above as sensibly as possible.
In my opinion I don't think there should be allowed to be 3 broadcasters having rights in this country, it's bad enough having to subscribe to two, three would mean monthly subs of around 70 odd quid!
As for the final day fixtures being available for auction, don't think this would work as how would they decide which broadcaster got which game? It only works for example in America where NBC have exclusive rights, I know last season they broadcast all the last day PL fixtures live.
That's why I don't buy this whole "competition is good for the consumer" argument people make. You just end up paying the same for less games, or more for the same games.
Sky currently pay £760m per year for 116 matches and BT £246m per year for 38 as per the attached link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18430036
If you read the papers / news websites, analysts state there could be a 50% increase on this in this new bidding round.
Now say Sky keep their packages at the additional 50% - this would mean their outlay goes to £1140m per year or an extra £380 million per year. With 10.7 million subscribers (based on latest results), for Sky this would mean getting an additional £35 per subscriber per year which from a commercial point of view seems plausible as would not hurt profitability too much. (Does not factor advertising and commercials premises which affect this number which are not public). Also they just sold 80% Sky Bet for £600m which will help if required.
For BT - this would go to £369m per year - an extra £123m per year. Both stunning figures already. However as people state, what if BT want to take over the number 1 spot from Sky and take the 5 packages Sky currently have - then BT's spend would go from £246m currently to £1140m (same as Sky calculations above) - an extra £894 million per year. Perhaps more if they need to beat Sky if they bid about the same. How do BT recoup that when you also factor in their annual £299m Champions League payments starting in 2015. That is £1193m or £1.2 billion extra spend per year just on these two contracts.
Overall there are many factors to consider before Sky, BT or anyone else put in their bids.
You and million's mate im sure will be thinking the same.
Exactly. But people don't want Sky to have all the rights, so what's the alternative? Maybe it will be acceptable if BT had all the rights though.
One broadcaster is not allowed to hold all of the rights. A minimum of two are required by whoever it was that set the rules on this. Can't remember who stipulated this, I just know that a minimum of two are required.
Don't they? It was a lot better for consumers before Setanta, ESPN and BT came along
Competition has cost us big time.
Don't forget the vast majority have stayed with Sky as their sole provider and not taken additional matches from the new pretenders.
What's better for Sky isn't always what's best for consumers. Not everyone can afford Sky Sports and are happy to watch some football for a cheaper price.
Real competition would be multiple broadcasters showing the same games.
A single broadcaster with exclusive rights wouldn't require the rights to 154 or 168 matches.
I've no doubt that Sky, for example, could successfully sell Sky Sports packages today, with exclusivity (so all the first picks!) to 60 matches per season- the number they had at the inception of the Premier League in 1992.
There would be no incentive for a single broadcaster with exclusive live rights to the Premier League to buy 168 matches or for the Premier League to sell so many, in my view.
I wonder how some of the DS posters who would like the rights to be exclusive to a single broadcaster, would react if the Premier League gave them their wish, and cut the number of games made available in half?
I'm not terribly bothered if all the rights were exclusive to 1 broadcaster, I'm more bothered about people saying "competition is good for the consumer" when quite simply, if 1 broadcaster had 100 games and nobody else had any, you'd pay once for those 100 games, but if it was 50/50 with another broadcaster (or any split with another broadcaster) you'd be paying extra to get the same 100 games you had on 1 broadcaster the previous season. Realistically, especially with the cost of sports rights going up (and prices seemingly going up across the board with the various broadcasters, even if it's just 50p a month), it's not good for the consumer.
To put it bluntly, competition = increased prices for the same thing/amount of things for consumers.
It's only changes in the competitive landscape that have encouraged them to cater for the "pay-tv lite" market through their NOW TV brand.
but that's three!
Competition has worked in the Pay Movies market with the introduction of Netflicks et al. Prompting Sky to create NowTV - you can now get the movie packages much cheaper than the equivalent Sky add on package these days, and you don't need to take a basic package as a starter for ten.
Where the problem lies in the sports market is that its not actually true competition. Sky, BT, and any other broadcasters who wants to enter the market, should be allowed to bid for the same packages, first pick match against first pick match, thus allowing the consumer to then pick a broadcaster on price, and a range of other factors. If OFCOM had any balls, this would be the result of this latest investigation. Under the current rules, the best we can hope for is Sky and BT to win an approximately equal number of games, and quality of picks, then having to go head to head to the consumers gain.
Still like the football, though. Before Netflix, 99% of new releases were on Sky Movies, now you need to subscribe to both, to get them all.
Exactly.
If you want to buy a pint of milk and a loaf of bread, and 5 local shops sell it then you're probably going to choose the cheapest option (presuming it is all the same quality.) Hence there is genuine competition to drive the prices down and give customers choice.
If there's just one shop selling the milk you want and another shop selling the bread you want then there's no competition at all because if you want that product there's only one place you can go to get it. Not to mention you're now having to use two companies instead of one.
At least before you could see all the first choice matches with one subscription. Currently you'd need two.
My hope is Sky keep the Super Sunday packages and the Monday Night Football package - those two programmes are far better than the Saturday offerings from either Sky or BT in my view. I wouldn't be at all bothered if BT took Saturday night rights from Sky - Dave Jones and Jamie Redknapp sat in a studio with cheering fans is perhaps the worst coverage of live Premier League football we've ever seen in this country. Winning more matches might also allow BT to improve their coverage a bit. I wouldn't be sorry to see Sky snap up all 38 1st pick matches, though I think that's unlikely. My prediction would be things will pretty much remain as they are.
I agree with you back in the 90's when I first got sky it was £29ish for all channels
Now I'm paying for sky bt Netflix and Amazon which is a lot more I admit I don't have to subscribe to them all but I do and it costs a lot more than it did when I only subscribe to just sky for everything