No matter what Sky say I think it certain that they will go all out to keep the Sunday Afternoon and Monday night live premier league games. I can see them wanting to keep the current international games is well. They will definitely want to keep the golf they have although shared coverage with the BBC can't be ruled out I'm future same with some of the cricket when the rights come up.
Sky to be more selective with sports rights strategy
5 of 12
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“I wasn't trying to take your post out of context - I understand what you are saying.
Of course (as per your second sentence) - if BT won Sky's (primary) PL rights - then Sky would lose broadband subs as well as sports subscribers (and TV subscribers as a whole). That goes without saying - it's blindingly obvious.
My point - and I think it needed to be made - is that as far as Sky is concerned broadband is very much a secondary issue.”
“I wasn't trying to take your post out of context - I understand what you are saying.
Of course (as per your second sentence) - if BT won Sky's (primary) PL rights - then Sky would lose broadband subs as well as sports subscribers (and TV subscribers as a whole). That goes without saying - it's blindingly obvious.
My point - and I think it needed to be made - is that as far as Sky is concerned broadband is very much a secondary issue.”
Although we no longer get a deinitive breakdown of subscribers from SKY we can look back to their financial reports in 2013/14 where they laid out their strategy of introducing and selling more products and that they now had over 5 million broadband customers. I would say over 5 million broadband customers out of 11.5 million (2014) is very much a primary concern for SKY and far from being a secondary issue.
If the Premier League want to secure the same level of funding for the next round of TV rights, they're going to have to offer all 380 games live. Whether that's additional game packages, or an OTT service for the games that aren't covered in traditional TV packages, is up for debate.
Question though - the Saturday 3pm blackout, is that a handshake agreement, or actually contractually enforced? And does it only cover traditional methods of TV broadcast - or would an OTT service actually be outside of these restrictions?
Question though - the Saturday 3pm blackout, is that a handshake agreement, or actually contractually enforced? And does it only cover traditional methods of TV broadcast - or would an OTT service actually be outside of these restrictions?
Originally Posted by jrmich9:
“Question though - the Saturday 3pm blackout, is that a handshake agreement, or actually contractually enforced? And does it only cover traditional methods of TV broadcast - or would an OTT service actually be outside of these restrictions?”
“Question though - the Saturday 3pm blackout, is that a handshake agreement, or actually contractually enforced? And does it only cover traditional methods of TV broadcast - or would an OTT service actually be outside of these restrictions?”
It's enforced by UEFA.
No live football can be shown in a territory during that territory's protected hours. So in Scotland and England, no games from any country can be shown live from 2.45-5.15.
If a game is shown, the FA under whose jurisdiction the game is played is in trouble with UEFA.
Originally Posted by Mark.:
“It's enforced by UEFA.
No live football can be shown in a territory during that territory's protected hours. So in Scotland and England, no games from any country can be shown live from 2.45-5.15.
If a game is shown, the FA under whose jurisdiction the game is played is in trouble with UEFA.”
“It's enforced by UEFA.
No live football can be shown in a territory during that territory's protected hours. So in Scotland and England, no games from any country can be shown live from 2.45-5.15.
If a game is shown, the FA under whose jurisdiction the game is played is in trouble with UEFA.”
Worth adding that countries are not obliged to submit protected hours to Uefa.
Indeed, currently only England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Montenegro currently do so.
http://www.uefa.com/news/newsid=19817.html
I think the bubble has burst with Live football though the figures show that. Not every game will ever been shown live and I don't think sky or BT will want that either. What might happen in the future though is either every game can be shown as live later in the weekend or like the FA cup type thing where any goals or incidents can be shown a few seconds after its happened and available to all broadcast partners to show.
Originally Posted by Mr Newshound:
“Worth adding that countries are not obliged to submit protected hours to Uefa.
Indeed, currently only England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Montenegro currently do so.
http://www.uefa.com/news/newsid=19817.html”
“Worth adding that countries are not obliged to submit protected hours to Uefa.
Indeed, currently only England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Montenegro currently do so.
http://www.uefa.com/news/newsid=19817.html”
Very interesting. I'm guessing not having protected hours in countries like Spain, Germany, Italy etc hasn't actually impeded attendances to the extent they need to implement them.
Admittedly though, I'm unaware as to whether they'd potentially only be airing non-domestic live football in those time slots.
Originally Posted by Col87:
“I think the bubble has burst with Live football though the figures show that. Not every game will ever been shown live and I don't think sky or BT will want that either. What might happen in the future though is either every game can be shown as live later in the weekend or like the FA cup type thing where any goals or incidents can be shown a few seconds after its happened and available to all broadcast partners to show.”
“I think the bubble has burst with Live football though the figures show that. Not every game will ever been shown live and I don't think sky or BT will want that either. What might happen in the future though is either every game can be shown as live later in the weekend or like the FA cup type thing where any goals or incidents can be shown a few seconds after its happened and available to all broadcast partners to show.”
I think the issue for many is they don't want to pay for, or watch games that don't involve the clubs they support. The current TV model means you may only see your Prem club play live on TV five times a season.
Notably, the Premier League recently committed to Ofcom "...to increase the number of matches made available for live broadcast to at least 190 per season from 2019-20 onwards" in response to their investigation into anti-competitive practices.
Originally Posted by jrmich9:
“If the Premier League want to secure the same level of funding for the next round of TV rights, they're going to have to offer all 380 games live. Whether that's additional game packages, or an OTT service for the games that aren't covered in traditional TV packages, is up for debate.
Question though - the Saturday 3pm blackout, is that a handshake agreement, or actually contractually enforced? And does it only cover traditional methods of TV broadcast - or would an OTT service actually be outside of these restrictions?”
“If the Premier League want to secure the same level of funding for the next round of TV rights, they're going to have to offer all 380 games live. Whether that's additional game packages, or an OTT service for the games that aren't covered in traditional TV packages, is up for debate.
Question though - the Saturday 3pm blackout, is that a handshake agreement, or actually contractually enforced? And does it only cover traditional methods of TV broadcast - or would an OTT service actually be outside of these restrictions?”
I think the only way the Premier League will secure the same level of funding for the next round will be from a foreign buyer. The biggest battle for BT and SKY is communications and entertainment especially entertainment for SKY where the UK has become as fragmented as the US cable system has over the last 2 years. Netflix has now over 6 million UK subscribers and there is the prospect that Disney may buy Netflix making it the biggest streaming service in the world by a long way. Amazon have announced plans to invest heavily in their Prime Video service too.
Broadband has become a huge battleground for BT and SKY and both have been dependent on sport to grow or even retain market share but broadband and phone is mirroring the mobile market with much better stand alone deals. BT since taking over EE have given their broadband customers better incentives with discounts on sims and mobile plans with greater coverage than ever before.
Originally Posted by ftv:
“I think Sky is fast approaching a point where people just won't pay any more for sports, the next football deal could be very interesting as I doubt subscribers will stand for yet another price rise.”
“I think Sky is fast approaching a point where people just won't pay any more for sports, the next football deal could be very interesting as I doubt subscribers will stand for yet another price rise.”
At the moment football is spread over two pay-TV channels. If, somehow, it all appeared on one, I suppose that company could increase the cost, but the fan benefits from being able to drop the other system.
Doesn't help football and non-football fans who like to watch other sports. Could we end up with the situation where Football/Cricket/Golf/Tennis/etc etc fans have to sign up to Sky, BT, Netflix, Eurosport, Amazon and gawd knows what else to get their fix?
Especially if you can get the lot via the pirates, Roku etc.
Originally Posted by Col87:
“No matter what Sky say I think it certain that they will go all out to keep the Sunday Afternoon and Monday night live premier league games.”
“No matter what Sky say I think it certain that they will go all out to keep the Sunday Afternoon and Monday night live premier league games.”
Monday night matches probably aren't the top priority - they didn't have them between 2007 and 2010, and they show a load of weak games in that slot (last night's being a good example) because you can very rarely show the big teams in them because they're in Europe or the Cups.
Sky will want the best games, whenever they're played. They want quality, not quantity. I don't understand the idea that having games played at 2pm on Sunday would be a "big build up" to the 4pm game. They're already showing live games at 1.30 most weeks.
Originally Posted by jrmich9:
“Very interesting. I'm guessing not having protected hours in countries like Spain, Germany, Italy etc hasn't actually impeded attendances to the extent they need to implement them.
Admittedly though, I'm unaware as to whether they'd potentially only be airing non-domestic live football in those time slots.”
“Very interesting. I'm guessing not having protected hours in countries like Spain, Germany, Italy etc hasn't actually impeded attendances to the extent they need to implement them.
Admittedly though, I'm unaware as to whether they'd potentially only be airing non-domestic live football in those time slots.”
It isn't really worthwhile comparing what happens here to the rest of Europe because the rest of Europe doesn't have a football pyramid like we do with so many teams involved, which is why we have the blackout. In most European countries lower league football is a total irrelevance.
I don't see Sky or BT or any broadcaster rushing to remove it. The number of people not subscribing to Sky because they're not showing every game is minute.
The Monday slot might be weak but two things to consider. It's the same package as the Friday night games and do they really want to lose it to BT who might get the midweek games. I can see Sky wanting to keep it for them reasons especially if BT keep the UEFA contract BT would look better with football across the week.
It could just be a warning from Sky that they've hit their peak expenditure and during the next round there won't be another mahoosive increase in the value of the rights.
Originally Posted by David_Flett1:
“Although we no longer get a deinitive breakdown of subscribers from SKY we can look back to their financial reports in 2013/14 where they laid out their strategy of introducing and selling more products and that they now had over 5 million broadband customers. I would say over 5 million broadband customers out of 11.5 million (2014) is very much a primary concern for SKY and far from being a secondary issue.”
“Although we no longer get a deinitive breakdown of subscribers from SKY we can look back to their financial reports in 2013/14 where they laid out their strategy of introducing and selling more products and that they now had over 5 million broadband customers. I would say over 5 million broadband customers out of 11.5 million (2014) is very much a primary concern for SKY and far from being a secondary issue.”
I'm well aware of that - thanks.
The point I was attempting to make appears to have been completely lost - never mind - doesn't matter.
Originally Posted by Col87:
“I think the bubble has burst with Live football though the figures show that. Not every game will ever been shown live and I don't think sky or BT will want that either. What might happen in the future though is either every game can be shown as live later in the weekend or like the FA cup type thing where any goals or incidents can be shown a few seconds after its happened and available to all broadcast partners to show.”
“I think the bubble has burst with Live football though the figures show that. Not every game will ever been shown live and I don't think sky or BT will want that either. What might happen in the future though is either every game can be shown as live later in the weekend or like the FA cup type thing where any goals or incidents can be shown a few seconds after its happened and available to all broadcast partners to show.”
Supporters will ALWAYS watch their team live, so it is not that the bubble has burst with live football on TV, it's that people are getting annoyed at paying fortunes and only - in a best case scenario - seeing 21 of their team's 38 games per season with a single subscription.
That's a best case scenario! Of course, supporters of many teams get nowhere near that.
Originally Posted by Wokka Wokka:
“Good to see Sky remembering it's a British audience! Late on Sunday morning during the DP World Tour Championship golf (won by an Englishman) they were still billing Sunday evening on Sky Sports 4 as being live coverage of the men's PGA Tour event from Georgia with no British interest and ladies LPGA Tour Championship highlights from Florida later. Then they switched it at some point during the afternoon to be live LPGA Tour coverage because English player Charley Hull was leading after the third day and went onto win. Good on you Sky!”
“Good to see Sky remembering it's a British audience! Late on Sunday morning during the DP World Tour Championship golf (won by an Englishman) they were still billing Sunday evening on Sky Sports 4 as being live coverage of the men's PGA Tour event from Georgia with no British interest and ladies LPGA Tour Championship highlights from Florida later. Then they switched it at some point during the afternoon to be live LPGA Tour coverage because English player Charley Hull was leading after the third day and went onto win. Good on you Sky!”
While I agree with the switch to put the LPGA channel it was scandalous not to put the PGA on the red button or an overspill channel like they do normally. Then even worse they couldn't put a small slot in SS4 schedule to show the last hole of the playoff on Monday lunchtime. They promised it would be live on SSN, but they only gave the result and showed the putt about half an hour later.
Originally Posted by jrmich9:
“I think the issue for many is they don't want to pay for, or watch games that don't involve the clubs they support. The current TV model means you may only see your Prem club play live on TV five times a season.
Notably, the Premier League recently committed to Ofcom "...to increase the number of matches made available for live broadcast to at least 190 per season from 2019-20 onwards" in response to their investigation into anti-competitive practices.”
“I think the issue for many is they don't want to pay for, or watch games that don't involve the clubs they support. The current TV model means you may only see your Prem club play live on TV five times a season.
Notably, the Premier League recently committed to Ofcom "...to increase the number of matches made available for live broadcast to at least 190 per season from 2019-20 onwards" in response to their investigation into anti-competitive practices.”
It'll be interesting to see how much the maximum quotas rise.
There have been numerous comments about the quality of many Sky picks - this season they have 10 extra games but no rise in maximum quota which has inevitably meant that the additional games are low key.
In total, the number of live games went from 154 to 168 with maximum quota rising from 28 to 29 (BT getting the extra one).
So what will happen next time? With the number of live games going from 168 to 190 I would imagine it's most likely the maximum quota will go to 31. But, given the ratings patterns we are seeing, there may well be pressure from broadcasters for it to go even higher.
The minimum quotas obviously won't be cut - but they aren't really a constraint.
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“The minimum quotas obviously won't be cut - but they aren't really a constraint.”
“The minimum quotas obviously won't be cut - but they aren't really a constraint.”
Except that having a minimum quota affects the quality of games shown.
If you don't have to show (say) Watford, you probably don't show Watford v Stoke, but maybe Liverpool v Sunderland, for example.
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“I'm well aware of that - thanks.
The point I was attempting to make appears to have been completely lost - never mind - doesn't matter.”
“I'm well aware of that - thanks.
The point I was attempting to make appears to have been completely lost - never mind - doesn't matter.”
I directly answered your quote below which contradicts your view.
Quote:
“My point - and I think it needed to be made - is that as far as Sky is concerned broadband is very much a secondary issue.”
“My point - and I think it needed to be made - is that as far as Sky is concerned broadband is very much a secondary issue.”
Your point actually contradicts the position SKY has taken where in each of their financial reviews they state the importance of Sky increasing telephony services and subscribers taking broadband and phone with TV. In 2011 27% took all three, 2012 - 31%, 2013 - 35% - 2014 - 37% No breakdown was given in 2015 but then SKY recently have been quite shy in breaking down subscrber numbers. It isn't just the headline figure of over 5 million taking broadband but 4 1/2 million taking all three. Therefore I disagree with your point that broadband is a secondary issue.
Originally Posted by brundlebud:
“Except that having a minimum quota affects the quality of games shown.
If you don't have to show (say) Watford, you probably don't show Watford v Stoke, but maybe Liverpool v Sunderland, for example.”
“Except that having a minimum quota affects the quality of games shown.
If you don't have to show (say) Watford, you probably don't show Watford v Stoke, but maybe Liverpool v Sunderland, for example.”
Not if you are up against Liverpool's maximum quota. You might well show Everton v Stoke instead which is a bit stronger but it doesn't really make much difference.
The thing is that Sky almost always exceed minimum quotas for everyone anyway - they choose to do that for commercial reasons - because they want to maximise subs.
And going from 168 to 190, if the minimum quotas are held constant they become even easier to fulfil anyway.
Whereas Sky and BT are generally right up against maximum quotas - certainly for Man Utd and Liverpool, and at least close to them for the rest of the big 6 (all of course subject to "holdback wastage" at the end of the season).
Originally Posted by David_Flett1:
“Your point actually contradicts the position SKY has taken where in each of their financial reviews they state the importance of Sky increasing telephony services and subscribers taking broadband and phone with TV. In 2011 27% took all three, 2012 - 31%, 2013 - 35% - 2014 - 37% No breakdown was given in 2015 but then SKY recently have been quite shy in breaking down subscrber numbers. It isn't just the headline figure of over 5 million taking broadband but 4 1/2 million taking all three. Therefore I disagree with your point that broadband is a secondary issue.”
“Your point actually contradicts the position SKY has taken where in each of their financial reviews they state the importance of Sky increasing telephony services and subscribers taking broadband and phone with TV. In 2011 27% took all three, 2012 - 31%, 2013 - 35% - 2014 - 37% No breakdown was given in 2015 but then SKY recently have been quite shy in breaking down subscrber numbers. It isn't just the headline figure of over 5 million taking broadband but 4 1/2 million taking all three. Therefore I disagree with your point that broadband is a secondary issue.”
My point was that it is a secondary issue relative to TV.
As I explained, at length, in post 76 (with the context set out in the 2nd paragraph).
I also then said in post 76:
"That's not to say that broadband / phone isn't important"
ie I agree with you - it is important.
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Not if you are up against Liverpool's maximum quota. You might well show Everton v Stoke instead which is a bit stronger but it doesn't really make much difference.
The thing is that Sky almost always exceed minimum quotas for everyone anyway - they choose to do that for commercial reasons - because they want to maximise subs.
And going from 168 to 190, if the minimum quotas are held constant they become even easier to fulfil anyway.
Whereas Sky and BT are generally right up against maximum quotas - certainly for Man Utd and Liverpool, and at least close to them for the rest of the big 6 (all of course subject to "holdback wastage" at the end of the season).”
“Not if you are up against Liverpool's maximum quota. You might well show Everton v Stoke instead which is a bit stronger but it doesn't really make much difference.
The thing is that Sky almost always exceed minimum quotas for everyone anyway - they choose to do that for commercial reasons - because they want to maximise subs.
And going from 168 to 190, if the minimum quotas are held constant they become even easier to fulfil anyway.
Whereas Sky and BT are generally right up against maximum quotas - certainly for Man Utd and Liverpool, and at least close to them for the rest of the big 6 (all of course subject to "holdback wastage" at the end of the season).”
Saturation can also count against people watching. Too many games, too many days is overkill and figures in thee US seem to be proving a survey carried out that too much and too little time spent watching seems to proving the point with not only the Premier League down 17% but the NFL down also. Both have extended the number of games shown and also extended the number of highlights shows.
I prefer the NBC model where you have a choice of games to watch and a delayed highlights package online. There is no doubt that the number of people watching games through streaming is growing and not always because they want to watch more games but actually watch their own team. It hasn't been tested how much revenue would be lost to the football or non league games if games were shown at 2pm-3pm or even 4pm on Saturday's? The parachute system is equally unfair where a relegated club from the Premier League will receive £65 million over 4 years whereas Championship clubs only receive £3 million in TV revenue. Perhaps if this was restructured then this could make up some of the shortfall. You could also start Football and non League games at 2pm and Premier games at 4:15 which actually would suit the US and foreign markets.
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“My point was that it is a secondary issue relative to TV.
As I explained, at length, in post 76 (with the context set out in the 2nd paragraph).
I also then said in post 76:
"That's not to say that broadband / phone isn't important"
ie I agree with you - it is important.”
“My point was that it is a secondary issue relative to TV.
As I explained, at length, in post 76 (with the context set out in the 2nd paragraph).
I also then said in post 76:
"That's not to say that broadband / phone isn't important"
ie I agree with you - it is important.”
Although you have explained at length what you believe is disclosed by SKY, you haven't shown these details nor has SKY.
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Not if you are up against Liverpool's maximum quota. You might well show Everton v Stoke instead which is a bit stronger but it doesn't really make much difference.
The thing is that Sky almost always exceed minimum quotas for everyone anyway - they choose to do that for commercial reasons - because they want to maximise subs.
And going from 168 to 190, if the minimum quotas are held constant they become even easier to fulfil anyway.
Whereas Sky and BT are generally right up against maximum quotas - certainly for Man Utd and Liverpool, and at least close to them for the rest of the big 6 (all of course subject to "holdback wastage" at the end of the season).”
“Not if you are up against Liverpool's maximum quota. You might well show Everton v Stoke instead which is a bit stronger but it doesn't really make much difference.
The thing is that Sky almost always exceed minimum quotas for everyone anyway - they choose to do that for commercial reasons - because they want to maximise subs.
And going from 168 to 190, if the minimum quotas are held constant they become even easier to fulfil anyway.
Whereas Sky and BT are generally right up against maximum quotas - certainly for Man Utd and Liverpool, and at least close to them for the rest of the big 6 (all of course subject to "holdback wastage" at the end of the season).”
The bit in bold is also key here, though. If the point about maximising subs by _generally_ exceeding the quotas is true, what happens if they increase the minimum quotas on all the packages?
Originally Posted by David_Flett1:
“Although you have explained at length what you believe is disclosed by SKY, you haven't shown these details nor has SKY.”
“Although you have explained at length what you believe is disclosed by SKY, you haven't shown these details nor has SKY.”
Sorry - nothing is being achieved by this exchange - it's pointless continuing.
Originally Posted by brundlebud:
“The bit in bold is also key here, though. If the point about maximising subs by _generally_ exceeding the quotas is true, what happens if they increase the minimum quotas on all the packages?”
“The bit in bold is also key here, though. If the point about maximising subs by _generally_ exceeding the quotas is true, what happens if they increase the minimum quotas on all the packages?”
They won't do that.
All large packages currently have a minimum quota of one. They'll never increase that to two as it would be far too restricting - it would be a colossal change to the profile of TV games - with massively more low profile games.
The only thing that could happen is they create an 8th package and take the total minimum quota up to 6 (from 5) - but that wouldn't be a significant change.
(Assuming they keep two small packages with zero minimum quota).
5 of 12
