• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Broadcasting
UEFA Champions League on TV
<<
<
21 of 120
>>
>
mlt11
30-10-2013
Originally Posted by loyalsince:
“Lets say bt did pay £100m for one first pick. In group stages probably 2 big games, 3 r16, 2 qf, 1 sf (most years). Crazy money.”

Not necessarily. Look at it this way:

1st pick package gets you:

PO - 2
Group - 6
Last 16 - 4
QF - 2
SF - 2
Final - 1
Super Cup - 1

So 18 1st pick games in total.

I take your point re how many are truly "big" blockbuster games but still 18 games in total.

Average game cost = 100m/18 = £5.6m.

That compares to Sky and BT who both have average PL game cost of £6.5m.

So question then becomes is the average CL 1st pick game quality = the average PL game quality (average across all PL packages - because £6.5m is the PL average across all packages).

I would say answer to above question is "Yes" and then you also must add in that every CL game is in prime-time as well.

You would also have to factor in the negative of competition from 2nd picks but that only really applies at group stage (as almost certainly no UK game competition once you get to the last 16).
loyalsince
30-10-2013
I wonder what itv are prepared to pay!?

Does anyone know ball park figures that sponsors pay?

Slightly OT but a large increase on the scale presumed would make top 4 finish even more important
loyalsince
30-10-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Not necessarily. Look at it this way:

1st pick package gets you:

PO - 2
Group - 6
Last 16 - 4
QF - 2
SF - 2
Final - 1
Super Cup - 1

So 18 1st pick games in total.

I take your point re how many are truly "big" blockbuster games but still 18 games in total.

Average game cost = 100m/18 = £5.6m.

That compares to Sky and BT who both have average PL game cost of £6.5m.

So question then becomes is the average CL 1st pick game quality = the average PL game quality (average across all PL packages - because £6.5m is the PL average across all packages).

I would say answer to above question is "Yes" and then you also must add in that every CL game is in prime-time as well.

You would also have to factor in the negative of competition from 2nd picks but that only really applies at group stage (as almost certainly no UK game competition once you get to the last 16).”

2 of those likely to be simulcast and play off round doesnt usually get much interest.

Roughly 10 games of value. £10m a pop. I know bt model different, but fag packet 700k extra subscribers (£12 a month) required to recoup.

Although different, with 40 pl games (not far off bt quality as sky showed just 66), exclusive football lge and champs league, itv digital not a success. Likewise setanta with england games.

Its another big outlay.
hendero
30-10-2013
Originally Posted by loyalsince:
“I wonder what itv are prepared to pay!?

Does anyone know ball park figures that sponsors pay?

Slightly OT but a large increase on the scale presumed would make top 4 finish even more important”

I should probably be deferring to the experts on here who actually know what they're talking about, but I believe ITV paid £40 million last time. Sports rights are ever more valuable for advertisers as they help reduce instances of people recording and fast forwarding through the adverts. It would seem to me it would be a blow to ITV Sport to lose the CL, and they probably hope that UEFA will pick them over one of the two pay channels so long as their bid isn't dwarfed.

If we're using £100 million as a measuring stick for what BT/Sky may have to pay for a first pick package, I'd say ITV would be willing to go into the region of £75 - £80 million.
derek500
30-10-2013
Pubs will be happy if ITV lose their CL night to Sky or BT.

In France where CL is all pay, the final is 'listed' and must be on FTA, not here though (I believe).

Sky/BT would be happy to get that as an exclusive.
hendero
30-10-2013
Originally Posted by derek500:
“In France where CL is all pay, the final is 'listed' and must be on FTA, not here though (I believe).”

Correct, as per Appendix 1 of the Ofcom list (page 8/9).

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...e_on_sport.pdf
Readingfan
30-10-2013
Originally Posted by BenFranklin:
“mlt11, do BT gain enough from only having one first pick? Feels like their coverage would be swamped by the fact Sky have 15 matches a week to their 1.”

I'm sure mlt11 will provide a far more informed answer than I can but I think BT would be very happy if they took 1 first pick. As the prices indicates that's where most of the value is. Yes Sky might have the other 15 games but how many of them are going to attract much of an audience? It's only really 1st and 2nd picks that are of decent interest (and maybe a 3rd pick as there's often more than 4 British teams in the competition.) In an ideal world for BT they might get 1st and 2nd pick to take away that element of competition - but reasonably often the first pick is clearly the standout game.

And when you get to the knockout stages the 2nd picks won't feature a British team unless there's more than 2 in the quarter finals (and then if they're all drawn against non-British teams) - if BT get exclusive coverage of 8 knockout stage ties and a decent proportion of them feature an English side then I think they'd have done very well.
mlt11
30-10-2013
Originally Posted by Readingfan:
“I'm sure mlt11 will provide a far more informed answer than I can but I think BT would be very happy if they took 1 first pick. As the prices indicates that's where most of the value is. Yes Sky might have the other 15 games but how many of them are going to attract much of an audience? It's only really 1st and 2nd picks that are of decent interest (and maybe a 3rd pick as there's often more than 4 British teams in the competition.) In an ideal world for BT they might get 1st and 2nd pick to take away that element of competition - but reasonably often the first pick is clearly the standout game.

And when you get to the knockout stages the 2nd picks won't feature a British team unless there's more than 2 in the quarter finals (and then if they're all drawn against non-British teams) - if BT get exclusive coverage of 8 knockout stage ties and a decent proportion of them feature an English side then I think they'd have done very well.”

I can't give a more informed answer than that! I agree 100% - that is exactly what I would say re the issue.

Almost all the value (literally approx 98%) is in the 1st and 2nd picks because the non-British group games attract miniscule audiences.

With one 1st pick package, BT faces:

- competition from one English team in group phase
- no English competition at all from last 16 onwards (basically 99% certain)

OK, there is the possibility of a Scottish team as well but that doesn't make a significant difference commercially.
mlt11
30-10-2013
Originally Posted by loyalsince:
“2 of those likely to be simulcast and play off round doesnt usually get much interest.

Roughly 10 games of value. £10m a pop. I know bt model different, but fag packet 700k extra subscribers (£12 a month) required to recoup.

Although different, with 40 pl games (not far off bt quality as sky showed just 66), exclusive football lge and champs league, itv digital not a success. Likewise setanta with england games.

Its another big outlay.”

Yes, agree re BT economics.

It has to be highly questionable whether it is worth it for BT but BT does have very deep pockets and if it wants to pursue BT Sport accepting that it is a long term strategy which will mean substantial losses for some time then CL 1st picks have to be the most obvious addition which can make a major impact prior to the next PL cycle.

There is nothing else available that can give BTS really significant additional impact pre August 2016.

Re your 3rd paragraph - many people underestimate the importance of all of Sky's prime non-football sports rights. It's when you add them all together that it creates an overall package that is very difficult to challenge even if prime football rights split 50:50.

Challenger would need at least a 60:40 prime football split to make a significant % of the public regard them as the number 1 for Pay TV sports unless they can get a significant amount of prime non-football rights and as we know almost nothing is available for a very long time. That long list of very lengthy Sky contract retentions is key to Sky's position.
casinoman13
30-10-2013
Just looking at all these figures and reports I would say ITV must be very very worried that they will end up with nothing, I have said all along it's going to be down to money and if BT way out bid ITV, no reason to doubt they wont if they really want a package, then UEFA will be silly to turn down such mega money, exposure is one thing but money is a different ball game for the future of the competition.

I believe Aruiusk has already mentioned ITV will bid more but not go way over the top so with that in mind and the figures being branded around there is no way they would get anywhere near an offer BT put down.

For me ITV only hope is that BT are playing mind games just to make Sky increase their offer by a substantial amount and in turn taking most of the rights for the Euopa Cup.
hendero
30-10-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Re your 3rd paragraph - many people underestimate the importance of all of Sky's prime non-football sports rights. It's when you add them all together that it creates an overall package that is very difficult to challenge even if prime football rights split 50:50. ”

That is exactly why I'm more than happy to pay my monthly Sky Sports subscription. The football is great, but also all the England cricket, lots of golf, US Open tennis, Tri-Nations rugby (or whatever they're calling it now), NFL, F1 (if it ever becomes an exciting sport again). And the ever dependable SSN, and the Saturday football studio shout-a-thon. There is almost always something I'd at least at least consider watching on one of the SS channels.

BT Sport has a long, long way to go before they get there. Even if they did get one of the 1st pick packages, and I didn't already have BT for free, I'm not sure I'd be that bothered if I had to miss one night of CL football a week. Definitely not if there were 7 other matches to choose from on Sky.
mlt11
30-10-2013
Originally Posted by loyalsince:
“Does anyone know ball park figures that sponsors pay? ”

OK, here's the revenue split for the 2011/12 CL (last year of old TV rights cycle).

These numbers are obviously for the whole of Europe - ie total revenue generated by UEFA. Amounts are in Euros:

Broadcasting rights - 892.3m (77.4%)
Commercial rights - 260.9m (22.6%)
Total rights revenue - 1,153.2m (100.0%)

Link - page 30 (32/40):

http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/...5_DOWNLOAD.pdf

The total revenue expected to be generated by the 2013/14 CL is 1,340m Euros - ie about 16% higher than 2011/12.

Don't know the breakdown but reasonable to assume it won't have changed much from the percentages for 2011/12.

So TV rights really are the driving force - if UEFA can get much more revenue from going Pay TV only the loss of sponsorship is very unlikely to be anything like as much the other way.

Link:

http://www.uefa.org/management/finan...d=1979893.html
mlt11
30-10-2013
Just to give a feel of the UK share of the broadcasting rights:

2011/12:

Total = 892m Euros (as above) = £743m (using £ = 1.2 Euros as at 31 Dec 2011)

UK TV rights = £130m

UK share = 17.5% of total

2013/14:

UK share will have fallen a bit as UK contract fell marginally whilst total European revenue has risen as above (assume broadcasting must have risen as total has risen and broadcasting is main component).
SamuelW
30-10-2013
Personally I hope it all goes to Sky. It would be great for Sky customers to have every match on Sky sports. Second best option would be a mixture of Sky and BT. Itv dont deserve Champions league rights due to their poor quality of coverage.
THOMO
30-10-2013
Originally Posted by SamuelW:
“Personally I hope it all goes to Sky. It would be great for Sky customers to have every match on Sky sports. Second best option would be a mixture of Sky and BT. Itv dont deserve Champions league rights due to their poor quality of coverage.”

But some customers unlike myself who has both Sky and BT Sports, some customers only have Freeview or Freesat, so personally I would like one match to be free to air.
Ian.
Igloo_Man
30-10-2013
Some excellent posts on here today, and this one stands out to me:

Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Average game cost = 100m/18 = £5.6m.

That compares to Sky and BT who both have average PL game cost of £6.5m.”

If BT were able to secure a first pick package for £100m, then a rate of £5.6m per game looks decent compared to the £6.5m for PL games considering that many of BT's PL games are second tier in quality and in a poor timeslot. Something which wouldn't be the case with the CL. They'd be near guaranteed a blockbuster game and/or a leading club (Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, maybe even Liverpool!) in every game.

A lot now comes down to the path BT want to take. The initial aim was to win back and retain broadband customers. I believe this is something they can still achieve without the premium of CL rights - instead they should look to enhance their offering with cheaper rights when the time comes which are still in the top tier (eg. PGA Tour, Super League).

If BT take even just a first pick in this CL auction I think we could be looking at them trying to build a foundation to take on Sky in the sports broadcasting sector, as it is becoming clear that the levels of money being spent on rights is not going to be recouped by broadband retentions and gains.
channelsurfer
30-10-2013
this is the only really big contract not sown up by sky since BT came along and if BT really want to compete they need ALL of it not some of it.
Sky on the other hand have such a variety of sports that they wont loose too much sleep if they loose it just yet.
Are BT seriouse enough or do they have the resolve? They started with a lot of bravado but now its seems to have gone a lot more grave and they have realised that they are in for one hell of a fight that they might not win.
casinoman13
30-10-2013
Originally Posted by channelsurfer:
“this is the only really big contract not sown up by sky since BT came along and if BT really want to compete they need ALL of it not some of it.
Sky on the other hand have such a variety of sports that they wont loose too much sleep if they loose it just yet.
Are BT seriouse enough or do they have the resolve? They started with a lot of bravado but now its seems to have gone a lot more grave and they have realised that they are in for one hell of a fight that they might not win.”

I think you will find if Sky did lose these rights it would be a huge blow for them, perhaps the second most important rights to the prem rights.
ArchieArchivist
30-10-2013
Well, I for one would cancel my Sky subscription - movies, included.

I get Sky for the football - Champions League, Spanish League, and Premier League - in that order. I have BT for the Bundesliga and Serie A. Ligue 1 is a bonus. I like Sky's coverage of F1 and the US Open tennis, but I'd live without them.

Sky's coverage of the Champions League is revolutionary in the UK and Ireland. Access to 15 of the 16 matches is a sensational proposition. Personally, as a huge football fan, I think it's worth the subscription alone.

However, if they lose the rights to the Champions League - or even to seven or eight of the matches on the red button - I'd question that subscription. It's not cheap, so you need to be getting your money's worth. BT Sport provide an excellent European domestic football service, so I'm not sure I could justify shelling out for Sky (I've got the full package) if I can get an adequate hit from BT at a much cheaper price.

I take the movies simply because there's not much value in NOT taking them when you take the sports pack. However, that house of cards would collapse for me if the CL rights are seriously compromised (i.e., Sky lose a night of red button choice). I'd be asking myself if I watch enough Premier League matches on Sky to justify the layout. I don't - and I can watch the Barclay's Premier League Review show (my personal preference for highlights over MOTD) on BT, along with whatever games they are showing. I'd also be asking myself if the Spanish League coverage justifies the layout. There's no easy alternative to this, but that would be a flimsy basis on which to continue lashing out quite as much as I am every month...

I realise I'm very much an exception - and I doubt too many think like me - but I do think the loss of even one night's CL coverage would be a hugely significant defeat for Sky. All of a sudden, people would be faced with a new reality that Sky are no longer the dominant provider, that others can successfully strip them of rights that they did have and did want to keep hold of. Sky charge a premium because people think that Sky is, effectively, the only game in town. Lose the CL and that perception changes.

For some people, paying for Sky provides them with the option of watching a match (or selection of matches). They may not actually watch a massive amount of games, but they like the option of watching a game if the mood takes. In that sense, I think the loss of CL rights would affect that "luxury good" sector of their audience - those that pay for the option of seeing something when they fancy it, rather than appointment-to-view types. If Sky lose the CL rights for even one night, my choice is restricted. I'm prepared to pay for the option of watching, say, Borussia Dortmund in the Champions League or to flip between match screens as a night progresses. Take that away from me, and I don't think I'll keep the movies. They've bugger all got to do with sport, but a plank of what makes the entire package attractive/essential to me is gone and then everything can collapse...

Archie.
ftakeith
31-10-2013
Originally Posted by ArchieArchivist:
“Well, I for one would cancel my Sky subscription - movies, included.

I get Sky for the football - Champions League, Spanish League, and Premier League - in that order. I have BT for the Bundesliga and Serie A. Ligue 1 is a bonus. I like Sky's coverage of F1 and the US Open tennis, but I'd live without them.

Sky's coverage of the Champions League is revolutionary in the UK and Ireland. Access to 15 of the 16 matches is a sensational proposition. Personally, as a huge football fan, I think it's worth the subscription alone.

However, if they lose the rights to the Champions League - or even to seven or eight of the matches on the red button - I'd question that subscription. It's not cheap, so you need to be getting your money's worth. BT Sport provide an excellent European domestic football service, so I'm not sure I could justify shelling out for Sky (I've got the full package) if I can get an adequate hit from BT at a much cheaper price.

I take the movies simply because there's not much value in NOT taking them when you take the sports pack. However, that house of cards would collapse for me if the CL rights are seriously compromised (i.e., Sky lose a night of red button choice). I'd be asking myself if I watch enough Premier League matches on Sky to justify the layout. I don't - and I can watch the Barclay's Premier League Review show (my personal preference for highlights over MOTD) on BT, along with whatever games they are showing. I'd also be asking myself if the Spanish League coverage justifies the layout. There's no easy alternative to this, but that would be a flimsy basis on which to continue lashing out quite as much as I am every month...

I realise I'm very much an exception - and I doubt too many think like me - but I do think the loss of even one night's CL coverage would be a hugely significant defeat for Sky. All of a sudden, people would be faced with a new reality that Sky are no longer the dominant provider, that others can successfully strip them of rights that they did have and did want to keep hold of. Sky charge a premium because people think that Sky is, effectively, the only game in town. Lose the CL and that perception changes.

For some people, paying for Sky provides them with the option of watching a match (or selection of matches). They may not actually watch a massive amount of games, but they like the option of watching a game if the mood takes. In that sense, I think the loss of CL rights would affect that "luxury good" sector of their audience - those that pay for the option of seeing something when they fancy it, rather than appointment-to-view types. If Sky lose the CL rights for even one night, my choice is restricted. I'm prepared to pay for the option of watching, say, Borussia Dortmund in the Champions League or to flip between match screens as a night progresses. Take that away from me, and I don't think I'll keep the movies. They've bugger all got to do with sport, but a plank of what makes the entire package attractive/essential to me is gone and then everything can collapse...

Archie.”

totally agree

I would add the ERC rugby would be a small loss to sky also as well
Pizzatheaction
01-11-2013
Don't know why, but I have a feeling ITV will retain one live match from each week of CL fixtures.
mlt11
04-11-2013
Bidding deadline - 12 noon (CET) tomorrow!

http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/...0_DOWNLOAD.pdf
PaulLFC
04-11-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Bidding deadline - 12 noon (CET) tomorrow!

http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/...0_DOWNLOAD.pdf”

Assuming it's going to be at least a couple of weeks before we'll hear anything about who won what, though?
Darren_Hayward
05-11-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Bidding deadline - 12 noon (CET) tomorrow!

http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/...0_DOWNLOAD.pdf”

11am in UK/Ireland/Portugal
sn_22
05-11-2013
Originally Posted by hendero:
“I should probably be deferring to the experts on here who actually know what they're talking about, but I believe ITV paid £40 million last time. Sports rights are ever more valuable for advertisers as they help reduce instances of people recording and fast forwarding through the adverts. It would seem to me it would be a blow to ITV Sport to lose the CL, and they probably hope that UEFA will pick them over one of the two pay channels so long as their bid isn't dwarfed.

If we're using £100 million as a measuring stick for what BT/Sky may have to pay for a first pick package, I'd say ITV would be willing to go into the region of £75 - £80 million.”

You can't really use BT/Sky as a measuring stick for how much ITV will bid, though - because they're all operating under completely different business models.

I don't really see how ITV could ever make £4m a match profitable. The Champions League does well for them, and serves a young, male demographic that the channel can otherwise struggle to reach. But very few matches do genuinely mega ratings to justify that sort of outlay.

Sadly for ITV, the numbers just don't add up for them like they do for the others - they just have to do what they can and hope the carrot of FTA exposure wins out.
<<
<
21 of 120
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map