Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

TV Sports Rights


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 15-09-2012, 14:46
dean michael
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,594

With everything going on with BT,SKY and ESPN. I thought it would make it easy if all the talk about sports rights was put on one thread
dean michael is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 15-09-2012, 16:54
suffolkblue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,294
Good idea hopefully only boring rugby and prem football on BT. ESPN and sky keep the rest.
suffolkblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2012, 17:55
RadioKnower
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,100
No it wasn't.
RadioKnower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2012, 18:19
Caxton
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 20,675
The only disadvantage I can see about sports being distributed by a number ofd providers is that is will ultimately cast more money to the end user.

Take for just an example that Sky get 50% Premiership soccer and BT gets the other 50%, that means, for those who want to take advantage of watching Premiership matches to the full has to take out 2 subscriptions, one to BT one to Sky this applies to any sports scenario.

If it happens that BT takes 50% sports from Sky it will not half the Sky subscription, and BT will not charge half what Sky does now, it also involves two systems and two basic subscriptions.

The loser is the viewer. So all those jumping with joy with BT coming on the scene, think again, it may not be so damn jolly as you think. It will just ultimately cost more money to the user, not less, the more providers that come on to the scene splitting the goodies.
Caxton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2012, 18:21
stej86
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 773
The only disadvantage I can see about sports being distributed by a number ofd providers is that is will ultimately cast more money to the end user.

Take for just an example that Sky get 50% Premiership soccer and BT gets the other 50%, that means, for those who want to take advantage of watching Premiership matches to the full has to take out 2 subscriptions, one to BT one to Sky this applies to any sports scenario.

If it happens that BT takes 50% sports from Sky it will not half the Sky subscription, and BT will not charge half what Sky does now, it also involves two systems and two basic subscriptions.

The loser is the viewer. So all those jumping with joy with BT coming on the scene, think again, it may not be so damn jolly as you think. It will just ultimately cost more money to the user, not less, the more providers that come on to the scene splitting the goodies.
This is not correct. The BT and Sky Sports Channels will be available on both platforms. Therefore you can get one of the services and have it all.

It will all come down to which provider gives the cheapest monthly price and any additional extras.

As there is competition the consumer will get a better deal.

Simple business sense mate, ever thought about doing a business course before you comment on such matters?
stej86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2012, 18:27
dean michael
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,594
how much will the BT Sports cost me per month. If its £10 yes anything over that then the answer is no.
dean michael is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2012, 18:29
stej86
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 773
how much will the BT Sports cost me per month. if its £10 yes anything over that then the answer is no
I have heard rumours it will be free (For BT Vision subscribers)

£15.99 a month for everyone else.

BT have promised they will be the cheapest provider in the UK to see every premier league game live on Sky Sports and BT Vision sports.
stej86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2012, 18:33
blueisthecolour
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 6,362
The only disadvantage I can see about sports being distributed by a number ofd providers is that is will ultimately cast more money to the end user.

Take for just an example that Sky get 50% Premiership soccer and BT gets the other 50%, that means, for those who want to take advantage of watching Premiership matches to the full has to take out 2 subscriptions, one to BT one to Sky this applies to any sports scenario.

If it happens that BT takes 50% sports from Sky it will not half the Sky subscription, and BT will not charge half what Sky does now, it also involves two systems and two basic subscriptions.

The loser is the viewer. So all those jumping with joy with BT coming on the scene, think again, it may not be so damn jolly as you think. It will just ultimately cost more money to the user, not less, the more providers that come on to the scene splitting the goodies.
But the actual reality is not that the existing amount of sport is split between providers, it's that more sport in total is being shown. Regardless of ESPN/future BT deal, Sky is showing more PL games now then it did 5 years ago and will continue to do so. I'm sure there are lot more examples of sport being shown now which wouldn't be if it was left to just one provider.

Of course, if you're an extreme hardcore fan and feel the need to watch every single televised game of your sport then having it split between two providers will probably cost you more. The same is true for ardent fans of multiple sports. However I would suggest that for most viewers it simply provides increased choice, not just of sports channels but also platforms. At the moment it is almost impossible to watch premium sports without subscribing to some level of Sky channels. It's likely that that will soon change.

I for one would prefer to see much much more choice, with many more providers.
blueisthecolour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2012, 21:57
stato77
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 379
At the moment it is almost impossible to watch premium sports without subscribing to some level of Sky channels.
Are you quite sure about that?
stato77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-09-2012, 00:56
Mr Teacake
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,944
People are overlooking the fact that the minimum cost of watching live pl football in your living room is now much lower than when sky had all six packages.

And as for the disparity in games, Sky broadcast too many live fixtures.
Mr Teacake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-09-2012, 07:06
gs1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,820
BT have promised they will be the cheapest provider in the UK to see every premier league game live on Sky Sports and BT Vision sports.
I've not seen that promise, but are they actually in a position to make it?

FT reported that BT's contract for the supply of Sky Sports 1 & 2 runs to next summer; and with uncertainty following the Competition Appeal Tribunal ruling on the “wholesale must-offer” of Sky Sports 1 & 2, are BT in a position to guarantee Sky Sports 1 & 2 on its platform and that all of Sky's Premier League games will continue to be broadcast on them?

These sort of claims have been made in the past, but are no guarantee of commercial success either. Having access to all the live Premier League games at the cheapest price sounds appealing, but how many people would be sufficiently bothered to change their equipment, channel choices, bundles etc. to theoretically save a few quid per month on the price of having all the Premier League football?
gs1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-09-2012, 09:26
dean michael
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,594
What is the next big sports contract up for grabs?
dean michael is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-09-2012, 12:31
stato77
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 379
People are overlooking the fact that the minimum cost of watching live pl football in your living room is now much lower than when sky had all six packages.
You are quite right, it benefits the "casual" fan who wants to watch a match now and again. However, people who want to have access to every televised match end up paying more needlessly.
stato77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 17:02
dean michael
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,594
Any news if Sky Sports have the rights for this year's US Open Tennis?
dean michael is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 17:10
suffolkblue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,294
I have heard rumours it will be free (For BT Vision subscribers)

£15.99 a month for everyone else.

BT have promised they will be the cheapest provider in the UK to see every premier league game live on Sky Sports and BT Vision sports.
What !!!!! BT can shove that up the dark place for that price esp when I'm only paying 10 quid right now for much more sport. 16 quid for a bit of football and rugby and women's tennis your having a laugh ain't you.
suffolkblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 18:04
packerbully
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,726
What !!!!! BT can shove that up the dark place for that price esp when I'm only paying 10 quid right now for much more sport. 16 quid for a bit of football and rugby and women's tennis your having a laugh ain't you.
Completely agree - that can not be right. ESPN £10 - for 2 channels in HD and a whole mix of sport. For what BT have signed up so far £8.99 seems for reasonable.
packerbully is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 18:22
mlt11
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 15,351
Completely agree - that can not be right. ESPN £10 - for 2 channels in HD and a whole mix of sport. For what BT have signed up so far £8.99 seems for reasonable.
ESPN are spending £47m per year at the moment on PL rights. Add in all their other sports and their total rights cost is well, well under £100m.

BT is spending £246m per year on PL rights alone.

Plus BT aren't aiming at Sky / VM customers - they want BT Vision to be as attractive as possible so want a big price gap between BT Sport on BT Vision and BT Sport on Sky / VM.

For both the above reasons, BT Sport on Sky and VM will cost far, far more than ESPN. I'd expect around £15 per month.
mlt11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 18:28
packerbully
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,726
ESPN are spending £47m per year at the moment on PL rights. Add in all their other sports and their total rights cost is well, well under £100m.

BT is spending £246m per year on PL rights alone.

Plus BT aren't aiming at Sky / VM customers - they want BT Vision to be as attractive as possible so want a big price gap between BT Sport on BT Vision and BT Sport on Sky / VM.

For both the above reasons, BT Sport on Sky and VM will cost far, far more than ESPN. I'd expect around £15 per month.
So in reality they overpaid. Anyway it will be interesting to see how many subscribe if it is £15 a month or what additional rights they pick up. Or further, how many people can get BT Vision / will get BT Vision with less channels (esp HD) than Sky.
packerbully is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 18:29
Glenn A
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 15,074
What is the next big sports contract up for grabs?
The FA Cup contract is being renegotiated this summer, and aren't the England football rights due at the same time? I can see the BBC making a serious bid for the FA Cup, as ITV coverage has been heavily criticised, but ITV will probably want the England rights as they get more viewers.
Glenn A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 18:57
Steveaustin316
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 11,334
I prefer the old days where Sky had exclusive Premier League rights. Much better to have one sports subscription rather than two.
Steveaustin316 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 19:19
suffolkblue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,294
Yes pay tv is getting stupid in this country esp compared to other countrys which would scream at the prices we pay to watch sport.
suffolkblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 22:07
wolvesdavid
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,955


Simple business sense mate, ever thought about doing a business course before you comment on such matters?
I have done a business course, and in this case theory does not match practice.
wolvesdavid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 22:16
Andy23
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,470
? I can see the BBC making a serious bid for the FA Cup, as ITV coverage has been heavily criticised.
You can see the BBC bidding because ITV's coverage has been criticised? That doesn't make sense
Andy23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 22:19
eljmayes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 662
Any news if Sky Sports have the rights for this year's US Open Tennis?
Considering they have held them for twenty years I doubt any other broadcaster is that interested.
eljmayes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 22:20
wolvesdavid
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,955
But the actual reality is not that the existing amount of sport is split between providers, it's that more sport in total is being shown. Regardless of ESPN/future BT deal, Sky is showing more PL games now then it did 5 years ago and will continue to do so. I'm sure there are lot more examples of sport being shown now which wouldn't be if it was left to just one provider.

Of course, if you're an extreme hardcore fan and feel the need to watch every single televised game of your sport then having it split between two providers will probably cost you more. The same is true for ardent fans of multiple sports. However I would suggest that for most viewers it simply provides increased choice, not just of sports channels but also platforms. At the moment it is almost impossible to watch premium sports without subscribing to some level of Sky channels. It's likely that that will soon change.

I for one would prefer to see much much more choice, with many more providers.
This is NOT true for the Premier League.

In total between 2004-2013 in all TV deals 138 matches have been broadcast on TV in each season.

Between 2004-2007 this was on Sky Sports and Prem Plus, before the deals with Setanta and now ESPN came through. However the total number of matches between 2007-2013 certainly did not increase.

Next season yes there is an increase (from 138 to 154.) I bet the cost per match for every match is more expensive though. Prem Plus did 50 games for £50, working out at an average of £1 per game.
wolvesdavid is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:11.