Why the hell would the UFC go from BT to Premier Sports where their events are all but guaranteed to get a much, much smaller audience? Unless Premier has significantly outbid BT & other interested networks, it seems like it would be a backwards move for the sport wanting to grow its fan base
I agree, but it never stopped the NHL going there.
I agree, but it never stopped the NHL going there.
They never really had any choice, and it was not the NHL not making it.
AMI partnered with Medge Consulting to buy the broadcast rights from the NHL for the EMEA region. Rather than sell a pan-European deal, as the NHL had done previously, they looked to sell to individual markets where possible to maximize revenue.
Because Scandinavian countries were premium markets for hockey, as a niche service ESPN America could not compete with Modern Times Group on rights fees so lost access to the league.
Although ESPN eventually did pick up coverage for their European feed, as the U.K. shared the same feed with Scandinavia it could not cover the U.K. And the league was not popular enough to justify them creating a fourth variant of the channel.
It was also not popular enough to justify Sky Sports being interested, especially as at that time they still required their own studio for everything they broadcast. They meant the only option available to Medge/AMI was Setanta/Premier Sports. It also suited them well because as a niche broadcaster they could offer a comprehensive package that would specifically attract hockey fans.
Why the hell would the UFC go from BT to Premier Sports where their events are all but guaranteed to get a much, much smaller audience? Unless Premier has significantly outbid BT & other interested networks, it seems like it would be a backwards move for the sport wanting to grow its fan base
You answered your own question really.
Money.
If premier put down more than BT are willing to and Premier also willing to do a damn sight better job of it, then they'll win and UFC fans will make their move to Premier.
I know i will!!
You answered your own question really.
Money.
If premier put down more than BT are willing to and Premier also willing to do a damn sight better job of it, then they'll win and UFC fans will make their move to Premier.
I know i will!!
I honestly don't think they will follow (at least to Premier).
For sure, a certain minority of the current casual fans & non hardcore fans will sign up with Fight Pass, and an even smaller minority will sign up with Premier. However the majority of casual fans and the non-hardcore fans will slowly drift away from the UFC.
Look at what happened to Cricket when it moved from FTA to Sky. When it was FTA cricket was the 2nd biggest sport in England (with only Football having a larger following) yet now cricket is just another sport and it only gets attention outside the hardcore fans when English win the ashes or are completely humiliated in a test.
Another (possible) example in Formula 1. Earlier this year FOM announced that they had awarded the exclusive UK rights to Sky starting with the 2019 season (without going to tender/bidding, but that is another arguement) and since then a number of life-long dedicated F1 fans have made clear that after 2018 they will stop watching.
I sure the drop in potential viewership from BT Sports (especially given it availability on certain Virgin Media packages) down to Premier will have a similar effect that the drop between Channel 4 & Sky had on cricket.
However we don't even know if BT are interested in a new contract with UFC. BT may have came to the conclusion that with the 7 year ESPN deal that BT signed less than a year ago (the ESPN deal currently includes IndyCar Series, NCAA College sport coverage, X Games & AFL and a bunch of lesser rights) plus the NBA rights that they no longer need UFC or that dealing with the UFC is more hassle that its worth, for reason we have already debated in this thread.
I honestly don't think they will follow (at least to Premier).
For sure, a certain minority of the current casual fans & non hardcore fans will sign up with Fight Pass, and an even smaller minority will sign up with Premier. However the majority of casual fans and the non-hardcore fans will slowly drift away from the UFC.
Look at what happened to Cricket when it moved from FTA to Sky. When it was FTA cricket was the 2nd biggest sport in England (with only Football having a larger following) yet now cricket is just another sport and it only gets attention outside the hardcore fans when English win the ashes or are completely humiliated in a test.
Another (possible) example in Formula 1. Earlier this year FOM announced that they had awarded the exclusive UK rights to Sky starting with the 2019 season (without going to tender/bidding, but that is another arguement) and since then a number of life-long dedicated F1 fans have made clear that after 2018 they will stop watching.
I sure the drop in potential viewership from BT Sports (especially given it availability on certain Virgin Media packages) down to Premier will have a similar effect that the drop between Channel 4 & Sky had on cricket.
However we don't even know if BT are interested in a new contract with UFC. BT may have came to the conclusion that with the 7 year ESPN deal that BT signed less than a year ago (the ESPN deal currently includes IndyCar Series, NCAA College sport coverage, X Games & AFL and a bunch of lesser rights) plus the NBA rights that they no longer need UFC or that dealing with the UFC is more hassle that its worth, for reason we have already debated in this thread.
I've always had to pay for UFC so I'd definitely follow. Premier is also half the price of BT to non BT broadband customers. I also think think you can compare a sport that has been on free TV for donkeys years to a sport that has always been on pay TV and is a relatively new sport.
I don't know whether this has been mentioned in any thread, but in subscription website Broadcast it has been announced that BT Sport has secured the rights to the Henley Royal Regatta which will be broadcast next week for the first time in 50 years.
Ian,
However we don't even know if BT are interested in a new contract with UFC. BT may have came to the conclusion that with the 7 year ESPN deal that BT signed less than a year ago (the ESPN deal currently includes IndyCar Series, NCAA College sport coverage, X Games & AFL and a bunch of lesser rights) plus the NBA rights that they no longer need UFC or that dealing with the UFC is more hassle that its worth, for reason we have already debated in this thread.
BT are interested.
There was a big delegation of BT bosses attended UFC 194 and then had a 2 day meeting with Zuffa in Las Vegas, where Zuffa is HQ'd
The ESPN deal while is a good one, you cannot ignore the UFC has a solid fanbase here.
Its a loyal fan base and one that is growing all of the time
The NHRA sells its rights internationally through ESPN; as does IndyCar and the AFL (which isn't even an American sport afterall!).
re: NHRA Was told that ended when coverage changed to Fox Sports from this season and now the NHRA deals direct for international (both online and tv rights)
Not sure but if anything contradicts that but would like to know if you can prove different.
Looking at the CPL coverage on Dave those 1pm game highlights are 30 mins long (according to Sky EPG next Thursday 1pm). There is a preview programme before that Sunday 1pm.
BT are interested.
There was a big delegation of BT bosses attended UFC 194 and then had a 2 day meeting with Zuffa in Las Vegas, where Zuffa is HQ'd
The ESPN deal while is a good one, you cannot ignore the UFC has a solid fanbase here.
Its a loyal fan base and one that is growing all of the time
Cheers for this info. However if the last major corporate meeting was back in December 2015 (around UFC 194) before the negotiations then can you tell us the current situation between BT & UFC?
For example, Are BT wanting a better deal (ie including European, Middle East & Asian events or same as current deal at a low rate)? Or are UFC talking with Premier as a bargaining position with BT or are the UFC simply wanting the best financial deal regardless of effect on it product in the UK market?
Looking at the CPL coverage on Dave those 1pm game highlights are 30 mins long (according to Sky EPG next Thursday 1pm). There is a preview programme before that Sunday 1pm.
Really? Down for four hours on YouView, so presumably the whole game, and that was how the press releases read as well.
Cheers for this info. However if the last major corporate meeting was back in December 2015 (around UFC 194) before the negotiations then can you tell us the current situation between BT & UFC?
For example, Are BT wanting a better deal (ie including European, Middle East & Asian events or same as current deal at a low rate)? Or are UFC talking with Premier as a bargaining position with BT or are the UFC simply wanting the best financial deal regardless of effect on it product in the UK market?
That meeting was to extend the contract to give enough time to allow for a lengthy negotiation for a longer deal as the BT Sport / Zuffa deal only ran until Dec 31st. They signed a 7 months extension and that is where we are now!
BT want a better deal yes, they want the FP fights too.
In terms of state of relationship between BT & Zuffa, it has been prickly for a while, especially on the back of the FP 'pack' and Zuffa unhappy because BT unwilling to pay for them and having to essentially give them away for a tiny fee to Sky FTA.
That pissed BT off too because if they were going to do that, they could have given them to BT so it was seen more of a childish reaction by Zuffa, something they have a track record of doing. Just look at the immature reaction concerning Ariel Helwani and the subsequent childish comments from Dana White. So i don't see that relationship ever being buddy buddy again (BT - Zuffa) but they could agree on a TV deal.
I also believe that Premier coming into the talks was off the back of Zuffa asking for interested parties more than a bargaining chip.
No idea if Sky were at that table. Its been quite there and i know Sky and Zuffa have a history, not a pretty one at that despite some naive comments in press and message boards!
I personally do see FP playing a wider role in the UK rights.
The investment aswell as the UFC matchmaking fights for FP even in US events says alot about their plans for it.
And that expansion will continue.
That meeting was to extend the contract to give enough time to allow for a lengthy negotiation for a longer deal as the BT Sport / Zuffa deal only ran until Dec 31st. They signed a 7 months extension and that is where we are now!
BT want a better deal yes, they want the FP fights too.
In terms of state of relationship between BT & Zuffa, it has been prickly for a while, especially on the back of the FP 'pack' and Zuffa unhappy because BT unwilling to pay for them and having to essentially give them away for a tiny fee to Sky FTA.
That pissed BT off too because if they were going to do that, they could have given them to BT so it was seen more of a childish reaction by Zuffa, something they have a track record of doing. Just look at the immature reaction concerning Ariel Helwani and the subsequent childish comments from Dana White. So i don't see that relationship ever being buddy buddy again (BT - Zuffa) but they could agree on a TV deal.
I also believe that Premier coming into the talks was off the back of Zuffa asking for interested parties more than a bargaining chip.
No idea if Sky were at that table. Its been quite there and i know Sky and Zuffa have a history, not a pretty one at that despite some naive comments in press and message boards!
I personally do see FP playing a wider role in the UK rights.
The investment aswell as the UFC matchmaking fights for FP even in US events says alot about their plans for it.
And that expansion will continue.
If I recall didn't an EU decision result in the Premier League having to sell coverage to two broadcasters?
Could we see Sky go for broke, and get all Premief League games in the future?
I wonder if BT will lobby for review on such sports rights?
That requirement expired many moons ago. All it did was demonstrate to the PL how to further maximise profits ie it is solely now the Premier League's decision to sell separate packs and not allow a single broadcaster to purchase them all.
That requirement expired many moons ago. All it did was demonstrate to the PL how to further maximise profits ie it is solely now the Premier League's decision to sell separate packs and not allow a single broadcaster to purchase them all.
Even though it hasn't been done because of direct regulatory insistence, i.e. Because that expired, they continue to do it to avoid further regulatory intervention.
Now that the playing field has changed in terms of competition for the rights, i highly doubt we will see a single broadcaster again due to the increased sums the split brings.
The process has just been completed in Germany where there will be a split between Sky and Eurosport on the next Bundesliga contract so it's not just the Premier League doing it.
Even though it hasn't been done because of direct regulatory insistence, i.e. Because that expired, they continue to do it to avoid further regulatory intervention.
Inside information? Any intervention would just require them to do the same thing so it would surely be worth the risk if they wanted to sell to a single broadcaster...
Now that the playing field has changed in terms of competition for the rights, i highly doubt we will see a single broadcaster again due to the increased sums the split brings.
.
That's what I said ;-)
So which is it in your opinion? Fear of regulatory interference or profit margins?
Inside information? Any intervention would just require them to do the same thing so it would surely be worth the risk if they wanted to sell to a single broadcaster...
That's what I said ;-)
So which is it in your opinion? Fear of regulatory interference or profit margins?
No inside info, just common sense I suppose. Selling to a single broadcaster would only result in the restriction being imposed again so why would they go down that route when they know they'd face the wrath further down the line.
As for why they still do it... a mixture of both. They carried on doing it because they were required to but even now it's expired, they carry on because it brings in a fortune.
The only time I think we will ever see it again is when the bubble finally bursts. I'm sure it will burst one day but that's some way off yet IMO.
No inside info, just common sense I suppose. Selling to a single broadcaster would only result in the restriction being imposed again so why would they go down that route when they know they'd face the wrath further down the line.
As for why they still do it... a mixture of both. They carried on doing it because they were required to but even now it's expired, they carry on because it brings in a fortune.
The only time I think we will ever see it again is when the bubble finally bursts. I'm sure it will burst one day but that's some way off yet IMO.
The reasoning behind the original restriction was to help the consumer; It's debatable whether that has happened - and as there was an expiration date it's also fair to say that it is purely guesswork that it would happen again. In fact common sense says it wouldn't (but we are both expressing an opinion on that one).
Again, they either carried on doing it because it made financial sense OR for fear of interference. It can't really be both
Common sense very much suggests it was to maximise profits.
Common sense also says that nobody, let alone a behemoth, is going to continue to be legislated by a ruling that has long since expired if they no longer wish to be governed by it.
I don't se the PL stopping selling to 2 because it means there is a more fierce bidding process, more money as a result and that to the PL is a good thing.
Some reckon OFCOM could intervene but i am still perplexed at to how on the back of the regulatory they have and don't have and the fact it would be challenged in court if they did.
Its why they couldn't do anything when VM complained!
The reasoning behind the original restriction was to help the consumer; It's debatable whether that has happened - and as there was an expiration date it's also fair to say that it is purely guesswork that it would happen again. In fact common sense says it wouldn't (but we are both expressing an opinion on that one).
Again, they either carried on doing it because it made financial sense OR for fear of interference. It can't really be both
Common sense very much suggests it was to maximise profits.
Common sense also says that nobody, let alone a behemoth, is going to continue to be legislated by a ruling that has long since expired if they no longer wish to be governed by it.
Of course it can be both. They continued to do so after the ruling because they had to. Once the ruling expired, they continued to do it because all eyes were on them and had they allowed a single buyer, they know they would have faced a backlash.
In the interim, they got a taste of the money that can be gained from splitting the packages and maintaining the no single buyer rule.
It's entirely possible to be a mixture of both where one logically led to the other.
Of course we will never know what would have happened had they reverted to the single buyer system but I highly, highly doubt the EU ruling wouldn't have been imposed again.
Comments
I agree, but it never stopped the NHL going there.
They never really had any choice, and it was not the NHL not making it.
AMI partnered with Medge Consulting to buy the broadcast rights from the NHL for the EMEA region. Rather than sell a pan-European deal, as the NHL had done previously, they looked to sell to individual markets where possible to maximize revenue.
Because Scandinavian countries were premium markets for hockey, as a niche service ESPN America could not compete with Modern Times Group on rights fees so lost access to the league.
Although ESPN eventually did pick up coverage for their European feed, as the U.K. shared the same feed with Scandinavia it could not cover the U.K. And the league was not popular enough to justify them creating a fourth variant of the channel.
It was also not popular enough to justify Sky Sports being interested, especially as at that time they still required their own studio for everything they broadcast. They meant the only option available to Medge/AMI was Setanta/Premier Sports. It also suited them well because as a niche broadcaster they could offer a comprehensive package that would specifically attract hockey fans.
You answered your own question really.
Money.
If premier put down more than BT are willing to and Premier also willing to do a damn sight better job of it, then they'll win and UFC fans will make their move to Premier.
I know i will!!
I honestly don't think they will follow (at least to Premier).
For sure, a certain minority of the current casual fans & non hardcore fans will sign up with Fight Pass, and an even smaller minority will sign up with Premier. However the majority of casual fans and the non-hardcore fans will slowly drift away from the UFC.
Look at what happened to Cricket when it moved from FTA to Sky. When it was FTA cricket was the 2nd biggest sport in England (with only Football having a larger following) yet now cricket is just another sport and it only gets attention outside the hardcore fans when English win the ashes or are completely humiliated in a test.
Another (possible) example in Formula 1. Earlier this year FOM announced that they had awarded the exclusive UK rights to Sky starting with the 2019 season (without going to tender/bidding, but that is another arguement) and since then a number of life-long dedicated F1 fans have made clear that after 2018 they will stop watching.
I sure the drop in potential viewership from BT Sports (especially given it availability on certain Virgin Media packages) down to Premier will have a similar effect that the drop between Channel 4 & Sky had on cricket.
However we don't even know if BT are interested in a new contract with UFC. BT may have came to the conclusion that with the 7 year ESPN deal that BT signed less than a year ago (the ESPN deal currently includes IndyCar Series, NCAA College sport coverage, X Games & AFL and a bunch of lesser rights) plus the NBA rights that they no longer need UFC or that dealing with the UFC is more hassle that its worth, for reason we have already debated in this thread.
I've always had to pay for UFC so I'd definitely follow. Premier is also half the price of BT to non BT broadband customers. I also think think you can compare a sport that has been on free TV for donkeys years to a sport that has always been on pay TV and is a relatively new sport.
Ian,
BT are interested.
There was a big delegation of BT bosses attended UFC 194 and then had a 2 day meeting with Zuffa in Las Vegas, where Zuffa is HQ'd
The ESPN deal while is a good one, you cannot ignore the UFC has a solid fanbase here.
Its a loyal fan base and one that is growing all of the time
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/10244390/BT-Sport-signs-first-wholesale-deal-with-Virgin-Media.html
Did they renew this or is it still to be announced?
The BT ESPN deal was signed Jan 2015
http://sport.bt.com/sport-football/news/bt-sport-and-espn-extend-deal-S11363956012885
Withn the last year BT agreed rights to continue showing NHRA despite it no longer being covered by ESPN.
re: NHRA Was told that ended when coverage changed to Fox Sports from this season and now the NHRA deals direct for international (both online and tv rights)
Before that ESPN had multimedia rights up to 2016
http://www.motorsport.com/nhra/news/nhra-espn-extend-television-agreement/
Not sure but if anything contradicts that but would like to know if you can prove different.
Looking at the CPL coverage on Dave those 1pm game highlights are 30 mins long (according to Sky EPG next Thursday 1pm). There is a preview programme before that Sunday 1pm.
Cheers for this info. However if the last major corporate meeting was back in December 2015 (around UFC 194) before the negotiations then can you tell us the current situation between BT & UFC?
For example, Are BT wanting a better deal (ie including European, Middle East & Asian events or same as current deal at a low rate)? Or are UFC talking with Premier as a bargaining position with BT or are the UFC simply wanting the best financial deal regardless of effect on it product in the UK market?
Really? Down for four hours on YouView, so presumably the whole game, and that was how the press releases read as well.
Just had another look and it has changed now 1pm-5pm as you say.
That meeting was to extend the contract to give enough time to allow for a lengthy negotiation for a longer deal as the BT Sport / Zuffa deal only ran until Dec 31st. They signed a 7 months extension and that is where we are now!
BT want a better deal yes, they want the FP fights too.
In terms of state of relationship between BT & Zuffa, it has been prickly for a while, especially on the back of the FP 'pack' and Zuffa unhappy because BT unwilling to pay for them and having to essentially give them away for a tiny fee to Sky FTA.
That pissed BT off too because if they were going to do that, they could have given them to BT so it was seen more of a childish reaction by Zuffa, something they have a track record of doing. Just look at the immature reaction concerning Ariel Helwani and the subsequent childish comments from Dana White. So i don't see that relationship ever being buddy buddy again (BT - Zuffa) but they could agree on a TV deal.
I also believe that Premier coming into the talks was off the back of Zuffa asking for interested parties more than a bargaining chip.
No idea if Sky were at that table. Its been quite there and i know Sky and Zuffa have a history, not a pretty one at that despite some naive comments in press and message boards!
I personally do see FP playing a wider role in the UK rights.
The investment aswell as the UFC matchmaking fights for FP even in US events says alot about their plans for it.
And that expansion will continue.
Thanks
Could we see Sky go for broke, and get all Premief League games in the future?
I wonder if BT will lobby for review on such sports rights?
That requirement expired many moons ago. All it did was demonstrate to the PL how to further maximise profits ie it is solely now the Premier League's decision to sell separate packs and not allow a single broadcaster to purchase them all.
Even though it hasn't been done because of direct regulatory insistence, i.e. Because that expired, they continue to do it to avoid further regulatory intervention.
Now that the playing field has changed in terms of competition for the rights, i highly doubt we will see a single broadcaster again due to the increased sums the split brings.
The process has just been completed in Germany where there will be a split between Sky and Eurosport on the next Bundesliga contract so it's not just the Premier League doing it.
Inside information? Any intervention would just require them to do the same thing so it would surely be worth the risk if they wanted to sell to a single broadcaster...
That's what I said ;-)
So which is it in your opinion? Fear of regulatory interference or profit margins?
No inside info, just common sense I suppose. Selling to a single broadcaster would only result in the restriction being imposed again so why would they go down that route when they know they'd face the wrath further down the line.
As for why they still do it... a mixture of both. They carried on doing it because they were required to but even now it's expired, they carry on because it brings in a fortune.
The only time I think we will ever see it again is when the bubble finally bursts. I'm sure it will burst one day but that's some way off yet IMO.
The reasoning behind the original restriction was to help the consumer; It's debatable whether that has happened - and as there was an expiration date it's also fair to say that it is purely guesswork that it would happen again. In fact common sense says it wouldn't (but we are both expressing an opinion on that one).
Again, they either carried on doing it because it made financial sense OR for fear of interference. It can't really be both
Common sense very much suggests it was to maximise profits.
Common sense also says that nobody, let alone a behemoth, is going to continue to be legislated by a ruling that has long since expired if they no longer wish to be governed by it.
Some reckon OFCOM could intervene but i am still perplexed at to how on the back of the regulatory they have and don't have and the fact it would be challenged in court if they did.
Its why they couldn't do anything when VM complained!
Of course it can be both. They continued to do so after the ruling because they had to. Once the ruling expired, they continued to do it because all eyes were on them and had they allowed a single buyer, they know they would have faced a backlash.
In the interim, they got a taste of the money that can be gained from splitting the packages and maintaining the no single buyer rule.
It's entirely possible to be a mixture of both where one logically led to the other.
Of course we will never know what would have happened had they reverted to the single buyer system but I highly, highly doubt the EU ruling wouldn't have been imposed again.