If this is correct then BT must be laughing again.

Its driven up the price of a sports rights package, that isn't going to get Sky more subs however if Sky had lost it, then it could have lost subs, as some could move over to BT sport for F1 as it is "cheaper".

Sky have some very expensive rights now and will have to get this revenue back. There will come a point where customers are going to refuse to pay, however what that tipping point is, well who knows? Sky will always have the "loyal" customers who will pay anything, however its when the mass market drop away, they have a problem.

It depends if anyone is going to want to buy the package at the price Sky want? I suspect most channels will not be interested and leave it until the last minute to see if it gets offered at a very low price. Its not really offering the broadcasters anything as F1 really only has the appeal when live. The current setup of live with highlights has some attraction, however take the live element away and I suspect the appeal really declines.

We shall have to wait and see though.

Well the BBC were paying £15m and C4 £24m for the current rights. For brief highlights and only 1 live race I would expect those figures to drop to at least £5m/£10m, maybe even less than that which is an absolute pittance compared to Sky's outlay of approx £170m.

As I said in an earlier post, the GP2. GP3, Porsche races are all cheap filler material, it makes sense for Sky to show them on Sky Sports F1 the way it is currently, as it means there is more content on what is for most of the time showing a preview loop.

If they decide to turn Sky Sports F1 into Sky Sports 6 or to close it, then other content will be shown on the channel so there won't be as much need for filler material.
I personally cannot see them retaining them if the above does happen.

Yes, but Eurosport are still a regular TV broadcaster who are simply simulcasting their main 2 TV channels online, with the odd extra feed.

I said that before all this came out tbh. They'll use FOM's tech as a backend, rather than using their own servers. With a frontend tied into your Sky account or something like that. But heck, it's 3 years away. Sky's streaming setup could all change & we don't know what Sky will be offering in general.

I guess it's better for Sky as they don't need to worry about designing & hosting a backend system - they just sync a frontend up with FOM's servers & that'll be it.

Got an E-mail from Sky today informing me that the price of my subscription is going up yet again this year by £3.75 a month from 1st June.


Something thats slightly annoying this year is that FOM are spreading there online content between the website, Youtube, Twitter Instagram & Facebook with exclusive video's & stuff been posted to each which makes it really easy to miss something.

They have some nice content on facebook but then I decided to check out there Instagram & found some nice super slow-mo stuff on there that I don't believe i've seen them link to on any of there other pages.

If there going to be spreading the content like that then I think they should at least use the website as a way of linking all of it together for those who don't check every different social media site every day.

From what I can see, YouTube hasn't been getting exclusive videos. anything uploaded to YouTube is also uploaded to the F1 website. I can't speak for instagram or Facebook but from what I can see, the only platform with exclusive content is Twitter (those snappy TV clips).

Some of the videos they post on Facebook aren't included in the main videos page of the F1 website, but are actually embedded within the news articles on the website.

Actually, It seems they are posting some exclusive videos onto Facebook (and possibly putting those same videos onto twitter too), without putting them on the Main F1 website.

BT have really spooked Sky with their entrance into the market- I have my doubts if they had any serious intention of broadcasting F1 and just wanted to make Sky pay well over the odds as they did with the Premier League rights.

As for the highlights they are of little value unless the sport grows in popularity majorly over the next three years. I'd say only ITV would be interested given the BBC's fiscal position and Channel 4 being treated rather terribly over this whole facade. Also why on earth would a terrestrial broadcaster want to help Sky out in showcasing their content for one race/highlights?

As for the streaming option it's totally viable for the powers that be to launch and to make an additional profit on.

I notice that D.M.N. has confirmed on his excellent F1 Broadcasting Blog that Channel 4 won't have access to the extra feeds for live streaming because Sky seem to have exclusive rights to them now:
http://f1broadcasting.co/2016/03/24/...lusive-access/

Since the BBC did have access to them I guess that Sky's contract was altered when C4 came in to give them this exclusivity, Or perhaps it was some sort of pre existing clause that was activated when BBC pulled out?

Either way a bit disappointing for those without Sky who liked to watch the extra's for the non-sky races.

Don't be too rude about Eurosport; they are Bernie's pay TV friend in Portugal.

Re. that James Allen article - this quote: ..."the new Sky deal obliges them to show the British GP live and all highlights on a free platform, available in 90% of homes."

Do we think that:

a) James Allen has been told that this is the condition of the FTA component of the Sky/FOM deal by the same person who gave him the other information, and thus we can treat this as a good source and that Sky will either sublicense the FTA rights or have to get a channel onto full Freeview (Pick is not available on Freeview-lite presently).

b) James Allen is erroneously quoting the legislation for listed sporting events, which does not apply here as F1 is not a listed event

Which do we think it is? If a) is correct, then that would point towards the likelihood of Sky doing a sub licensing deal with an FTA broadcaster for highlights rights and live coverage of the British GP. If b), then we're none the wiser, obviously.

Maybe you have to pay more to be able to get the extra feeds & Channel 4 didn't think it would be worth the expense compared to the amount of people who actually would bother to watch the feeds?

Ofcom's listed event code specifies 95% coverage, not 90%, so not relevant as F1 is not listed.

Pick fulfills the 90% on DTT and almost 100% as it's now free on satellite.

The press release clearly says all coverage is exclusive to Sky, so no third party channels will be involved.

So Pick it is, unless Sky get another Freeview slot (or close Pick, Sky News or Challenge - highly unlikely).

There is no mention of whether the deal is UK only or if all of the Newscorp worldwide channels are party to it. UK, Italy and Germany are known to be sharing resources now, there is also Fox Sports in Asia and South America and Sky Mexico and NZ that could be involved. I suspect there are very few people that know exactly what Bernie was offered.

I know that it is not relevant as F1 is not listed (although I hadn't twigged the 90% vs 95%) - what I was wondering was whether JA made the point based on erroneously believing that F1 was listed. From what you've said, it sounds like the 90% criteria has been defined by FOM.

I wouldn't necessary rule out a sub licensing deal - Discovery held exclusive rights for the Olympics, for example, until they sublicensed a portion of them to the BBC. It depends if Sky think that sub licensing highlights could get them more money, both through a sale of the rights and then through the fact that this would give F1 more exposure and possibly drive people to purchase Sky subscriptions through a desire to see the races live, having had exposure to the highlights programmes.

I still think that this is one that could go either way.

The Olympics are a listed event and Discovery don't have sufficient DTT capacity, just Quest.

A sub-let was a given for an event of such enormity.

Will just contribute to the decline of F1 in my opinion. Die-hard fans are presumably already watching it via Sky and everyone else will slowly forget it exists.

We've focussed a lot on the negative aspects of this deal, but there are a few positives. The fact is, British F1 fans are now massively important to F1. This deal is pumping £1bn into the sport, does any other country get close in terms of tv rights?

This has a few implications I reckon:

i) The British GP is secure for as long as Sky are involved in F1. Wouldn't be surprised if Sky insisted on it appearing on the calender as part of the deal.

ii) The calender will be a lot more geared towards avoiding clashes which Sky would consider important. So no races on the final day of the PL season, stuff like that.

iii) If you're an up and coming British racing driver, your odds of reaching F1 just increases massively. British drivers doing well is suddenly an issue for the sport.

iv) Ultra HD coverage from next year, thought I'll add that for you

Why? The money from the British TV is already 'locked in' to the sport. If fewer eyeballs are watching each race, then sponsorship and advertising to specifically British companies is less important to the teams. Unless you mean something that I've missed, teams won't be taking on British drivers just because Sky are putting more money into the sport than any other country's broadcaster. It's not like, say, there are tons of Britons watching each race through sky-high (pun *not* intended!!) viewing figures, so loads of British companies are sponsoring teams, so teams want to get British drivers in seats.

Do you think that the Sky deal means that British pay-drivers will become more prevalent, for example? Why would that be?

(I agree with the rest of your post, though, Ben)

I agree about the money being "locked in" now, but when things roll around to the next set of negotiations, having British F1 driver(s) doing well can only help FOM when it comes to negotiating an ever better price for the next set of rights in the UK market. It certainly wouldn't decrease the value !

Yes, very good thinking.

I guess the unknown is exactly what details Sky has got into the contract in return for so much money.

Certainly the British GP continuing would seem like a no brainer.

I guess some sort of say in the schedule is also possible - but it's complex and there are many factors to consider so not sure exactly how that might work.

But what else? I wonder if there could be something about race start times. 1pm is much earlier than optimal for European races - we know Sky's preferred kick-off time for its biggest Sunday football matches is 4pm (and arguably even later would be better in the middle of summer).

I can't imagine the race time being moved back that much but how about say 3pm?

For the long term, I think it's bad news for the British GP.

Basically, the only reason a race will stay on the calendar is if they can afford to pay FOM enough. In order to pay FOM the BRDC need a sell out crowd and can just about turn over a small profit in this instance. As the number of F1 fans start to dwindle, fewer kids will get interested in the sport and attendances will suffer.

And you can be pretty confident Sky aren't going to foot the bill for any shortfall!

There's no way Bernie would be dictated to by a broadcaster about the race venues, he gives the historic venues a discount on their fee but he'd happily wipe them off the calendar if there were enough alternatives.

I can think of a billion reasons why that will change now.

I mean, what is the British GP race fee? Something like £20m per year isn't it? To put it into perspective, Sky will give Bernie more money in 1 year than Silverstone will in 6 years.