Yes, that's upset a lot of customers, when the phone prices went up way above inflration for Sky (ie the increase in "anytime" there was very little tangible benefit to the non-sports customers, and it created a lot of anger (and, no doubt, loss of subscribers) as everyone knew the increases were to pay towards the football rights.

It maybe the case but did BT put there prices up. I think jointly bidding with a overseas broadcaster could work for them though am sure sky won'tgwant to risk been complacent though because it could happen.

I'm not sure why a foreign broadcaster, that would presumably only be interested in the rights for their country/region would want to help Netflix aquire UK rights? Maybe I'm missing something?

I would say £6m would be the minimum, and it would likely be higher than that. Assuming that BT regards the ratio of the value of first picks relative to lesser picks similarly to Sky and ITV, then it is already paying more than £6m for them.

Additionally, if Five was to pick up some live rights, then it would also have to pay for the highlights rights, as I don't believe UEFA would go for a three way split on the Champions League.


Before the last auction all the talk was of BT wanting better picks and more control, rather than more games.

In the end they got fewer first picks than they had had before, deciding that actually time slot was better than pick order.

The bigger picture is the telecommunications industry; sports rights are just a means to an end as far as BT are concerned. They just want control of their market share.

I don't disagree in that respect. They do want it their own way and they've had it as such for decades. As someone else has pointed out on here: Sky beat off ITV Digital, Setanta and had ESPN play the bitch, they got it their own way where as with BT, they are able to beat Sky with the stick and in brutal fashion and they don't know what to do.
BT got them paying stupid stupid money for PL rights and its cost them massively in other area's too.

Because of the foreign broadcaster already held the rights to certain games that can be shown in the UK all Netflix would have to do is pay them to rebroadcast there coverage here win win for both broadcasters who are sharing the cost. However I did only say a bid from them can't be ruled same with Eurosport but I would expect sky to go as far as possible to keep what they have and more likely it BTs packages that more at risk.

Away from the Premier league there like with cricket I can see BT and possibly either BBC or channel 5 going for the football league rights next time they come up. How big a loss would that be for sky if it happened?

Not quite how I see it, yes they wanted a better slot but as to picks but they had little choice re first picks as the PL spread them between packs more, in the end they went for the second best pack. To maintain first picks they would have had to pick up more packs.

2013/16 .... 3 packs with first picks
20 (Sun 4pm) , 13 (Sat 12.45pm) and 5 (Midweek, Bank Hol)

2016/19 .... 5 packs with first picks
15 (Sun 4pm), 9 (Sat 5.30pm), 6 (Sat 12.30pm), 3 (midweek), 2 (Bank Hol)

Overall BT are better off this year anyway, they can pass back 6 first picks to Sky, the midweek pack has increased max team quota, they have 2 more second picks and the remaining picks have shifted from being mainly 4th picks to 3rd picks. The seven 5th picks is the only negative.

I think the shift in 4th picks from BT to Sky and third from SKY to BT is significant. Stops Sky taking all the games with the tittle contenders towards the end of the season.

I can't see Netflix or Amazon entering this market.

Netflix are facing enough financial pressure meeting revenue targets to keep up with acquisitions due to studios increasing the cost of content coupled with a reluctance to supply content meaning future original productions have to be their priority which will undoubtedly increase costs.

Amazon are much in the same position as Netflix regarding content but are also having to catch up with Netflix and domestically Hulu. Although no update on their plans have been unveiled as to how or to what extent their prime streaming service will be rolled out worldwide it is clear the intention is to broaden the service which will require significant investment.

I also think SKY will face significant pressure on renewing entertainment contracts especially HBO they may face a battle on two fronts BT and HBO themselves. It certainly is going to cost more than the current contract. Sterling will also play a part because much of their movie and entertainment is paid in dollars.

There is also the question of the market. After SKY secured the current EPL contract there was a negative reaction by investors and those worries still exist coupled with the expansion into Europe and more recently sterling increasing content acquisition. Shares have been struggling around the 750 -800 mark for sometime now and not only because of Brexit.

I have a gut feeling that the bidding won't be as high next time round as both BT and SKY have strengthened their communications adding mobile to the mix where it gives them even more opportunities of bundling phone, broadband and mobile.

They should come with a way of creating the packages before the fixture calendar has been released so the broadcasters bid and get stuck with what they've got.

What is with this non-stop notion with Netflix?? The UK broadcasters traditionally produce their own coverage and don't access the 'off-the-shelf' product provided by PLP. Netflix would have to launch a linear-based, platform-neutal, service to be in with a chance of getting a bid accepted... and that's not their business model.

I guess Sky will be relieved for Brexit because the Digital Marketplace Directive would have been a pain if the likes of DAZN could start offering UK subscribers EPL for just €9,99 a month

http://www.fussballgucken.info/sender/dazn

Just throw this one in;
Now apps on TV's and fairly decent broadband speeds are now normal + satellite TV, how much thought has the Premier League given to going completely their own way with football, and producing and showing their own games on their own satellite pay-channel and TV apps, casting tablets etc?? Even a subscription youtube channel, maybe even 4k?? Leaving BT and Sky completely out of it, save for the PL pay-channel being available on Sky, Now, BT, Virgin boxes etc??

If that could happen and did, what could BT and Sky then charge for their sports channels??

It is always considered but in practice how likely is it that they make £5.136bn in a three year period. It relies on a lot of subscribers paying a lot. Will they? From day 1?

It introduces risk, and the longer it takes to hit critical mass the further they are from the status quo. Zero risk there.

You also have to factor in subscription management costs not forgetting the cost of providing coverage with all the technical and and front of camera such as presenters, pundits, studios, etc, etc. Possible but highly improbable.

Will the PL ever get anywhere near that figure again? (Hope not!!). But you could add that the PL would alone have more say in when the games are played and they could add a season-ticket for fans to watch their own club's away games, or something along those lines.

Anyhow, if the PL couldn't guarantee the same income over 3 years doing it their way, one wonders why Sky felt they could offer it.

Suppose it is an option for the PL if the TV companies bid nowhere near that amount in future.

It doesn't make any more sense for the PL to sell it's own subscriptions than it does for Netflix/Amazon/YouTube. Sky bid so much because it's worried that it's entire business model is built on retaining premium sport - it's like Sainsburys being worried that if they can't sell milk that no one will come to the store anymore.

Because the costs aren't just covered by people who subscribe to Sky for football, or even just by Sky Sports subscribers, but by all Sky subscribers, a much bigger audience.

I don't think that's quite true. You're probably right that Sky Sports subscriptions struggle to cover the total cost of sports rights and broadcasting costs, however the additional money that those subscribes pay for the rest of their Sky services will more than cover it. If Sky thought for one second that it wasn't the case then they would just abandon PL rights - it wouldn't make any sense to do otherwise.

As stated by others, Sky's whole present business model depends on the FAPL. There's no scope to charge significant amounts for pay-tv outwith premium sports. ARPU would probably drop to a level below that of Virgin Media.

The result is Sky overpay and we foot the bill.

The FAPL product (or a rival with Amazon etc.) is only viable if they commit to it in the longer term. It would be lossmaking (against £5.136bn) on day one until it hit over 6m subscribers paying £20 a month.

Year 1 would have a lot of "that'll never last" resistance. Year 2/3 who knows, but it would never turn a profit against a bit from Sky/BT over a three year period. Both overpaying to maintain their share (and significant market power) in in the triple/quad play markets.

I think the only thing that is remotely likely is that the PL will bring in streaming PPV for the games that the TV companies don't pick each week (i.e. the Saturday 3pm games). And that it won't be available for public broadcast (pubs etc). Even that is a big stretch though as it will still upset the broadcasters and I can't see the PL doing anything that puts the cash cow at risk.

That's not quite the case though.

Sky know their current business model and the significant returns it gives. Without the FAPL they'd have to tear it up and effectively start again. So it isn't a zero sum game.

I agree it's the only possibility and agree it's remote. The FAPL are acting as a rational cartel does by restricting supply. They want people through the gates and people pay through the nose because it's the only way to see your team every week.

PPV pricing would be high - £15 a game possibly to reduce its attractiveness as an alternative. To keep Sky/BT happy I'd imagine it restricted to their customers so requiring a minimum pay tv subscription.

I suppose it depends on how you look at it - I agree that Sky's model is based on being the 'obvious' place to go if you want pay tv and that PL football is a huge motivator for many people. However the price it charges overall isn't dependent on those rights. At least half of all Sky customers don't have Sky Sports, so presumably they are happy to pay the levels they do without it.

Or they can't afford Sport as well... or they don't realise how much of their subscription is covering the costs incurred through football rights... or it's the only way for them to get [xxxx insert favourite programme of choice]... or any other number of reasons.