Collective TV Selling

[papereyes]

Pure capitalism doesn't work. It all falls down in the end.

It's admittedly a different beast but it works alright for Formula One.

And American sports. It'll keep going that way, no question.

American sports seem to have realised that the product was the competition, not the individual teams within it.

[Seal]

What I'm not sure of,but hopefully someone can shed some light on this, is if SKY do seperate deals for matches shown in foreign climes.IE Are different live games shown abroad to the ones shown here and how much do Sky gain for that? I can quite understand clubs being a bit peeved if Sky are not rewarding them for those matches in the same way as domestic ones.

Sky don't make any money for matches shown overseas. They have rights to 4/6 domestic TV packages. The Premier League sell overseas rights on a territory by territory basis to the highest bidder. The collective value of these rights is then distributed by the PL to the clubs, with as you referenced, those shown on TV more often receiving a greater slice of the pie.

[papereyes]

What I'm not sure of,but hopefully someone can shed some light on this, is if SKY do seperate deals for matches shown in foreign climes.IE Are different live games shown abroad to the ones shown here and how much do Sky gain for that? I can quite understand clubs being a bit peeved if Sky are not rewarding them for those matches in the same way as domestic ones.

Sky don't make any money for matches shown overseas. They have rights to 4/6 domestic TV packages. The Premier League sell overseas rights on a territory by territory basis to the highest bidder. The collective value of these rights is then distributed by the PL to the clubs, with as you referenced, those shown on TV more often receiving a greater slice of the pie.

I thought the point was that the overseas rights were distributed equally.

According to the Guardian (and also what I've read every autumn when they publish), there's four streams of income. An equal share from home TV income, a sum based on number of games on telly (with a minimum amount), a sum based on the final position and then a last equal share based on overseas TV deals. This last amount is threatening to become the largest and it is this sum that LIverpool want to adjust.

[Whore Jackie]

What I'm not sure of,but hopefully someone can shed some light on this, is if SKY do seperate deals for matches shown in foreign climes.IE Are different live games shown abroad to the ones shown here and how much do Sky gain for that? I can quite understand clubs being a bit peeved if Sky are not rewarding them for those matches in the same way as domestic ones.

Sky don't make any money for matches shown overseas. They have rights to 4/6 domestic TV packages. The Premier League sell overseas rights on a territory by territory basis to the highest bidder. The collective value of these rights is then distributed by the PL to the clubs, with as you referenced, those shown on TV more often receiving a greater slice of the pie.

I thought that was Liverpool's issue. Domestically the money's divided up depending on a team's position and number of times shown on TV. Whereas the overseas rights are divided evenly between the clubs, irrespective of TV appearances.

[Vision]

Thank you gents, thats actually made things clearer for me.

It's also demonstrated how utterly brainwashed I am that I can't distinguish between Sky and the Premier League

[Seal]

Sorry yes you are right I was over simplifying a bit.

The clubs get two equal share amounts:-

1) A proportion of the Domestic TV rights
2) All Overseas TV rights

Then they get a "facility fee", which is an extra payment from the remaining pot of domestic TV rights, for every time they are shown on TV.

So yes Liverpool's point is indeed that they have more fans in Thailand so they should get more money from the Thai TV deal. However it is an incredibly arrogant and misinformed view, as the strength of the PL as a "product" that can be sold overseas is based on the competitiveness and attractiveness of the league to watch via TV. Spanish football may be technically superior, but to the layman in the far east, the style of football in the PL is much more entertaining.

Therefore if Liverpool and the big clubs start taking more of the pot, the competitiveness and quality of the league decreases, fans overseas (who have no real loyalty beyond a fake club shirt) will start watching other leagues, the TV companies will pay less for the rights, Liverpool will receive less money...and still won't have won anything.

[papereyes]

There's also the rather hilarious aside that the big clubs haven't worked out a way to make that much money from their overseas fans. They watch the games, but are happy buying a fake shirt.

[Svlad Cjelli]

There's also the rather hilarious aside that the big clubs haven't worked out a way to make that much money from their overseas fans. They watch the games, but are happy buying a fake shirt.

And frequently don't even pay to watch the games - piracy of viewing cards and illegal hookups are a major problem for broadcasters in places like China. the majority of consumers want to watch the games, but not if it costs them.

[Svlad Cjelli]

To add to Seal's post, the actual figures are :

PLTVMoney.JPG (101.3 KiB) Viewed 2421 times

It's the distribution of the "overseas" money that's in question here - clubs see this getting bigger and the domestic rights getting smaller.

PS If a club is shown fewer than 10 times a season, they still get the minimum of 10 x facility fees, which is why so many clubs have facility fees of £5,820,898. That shows the ludicrous sums we're talking about here - £580k for each time they're shown on TV.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

So yes Liverpool's point is indeed that they have more fans in Thailand so they should get more money from the Thai TV deal. However it is an incredibly arrogant and misinformed view, as the strength of the PL as a "product" that can be sold overseas is based on the competitiveness and attractiveness of the league to watch via TV. Spanish football may be technically superior, but to the layman in the far east, the style of football in the PL is much more entertaining.

Therefore if Liverpool and the big clubs start taking more of the pot, the competitiveness and quality of the league decreases, fans overseas (who have no real loyalty beyond a fake club shirt) will start watching other leagues, the TV companies will pay less for the rights, Liverpool will receive less money...and still won't have won anything.

Overseas fans of Liverpool only want to see Liverpool winning. The league being less competitive, and Liverpool winning more often, will do nothing to diminish the interest of Liverpool fans in Thailand.

Of course one big failing is the idea that Liverpool etc are show "more often" than the other premier league clubs in Thailand. They show pretty much every single premier league match live as the 3pm rule doesn't apply to them. Go to a big sports bar at 10pm on a Saturday night and if they have enough TVs (as in televisions) in there you can watch any game you please.

[Svlad Cjelli]

....
Of course one big failing is the idea that Liverpool etc are show "more often" than the other premier league clubs in Thailand. They show pretty much every single premier league match live as the 3pm rule doesn't apply to them. Go to a big sports bar at 10pm on a Saturday night and if they have enough TVs (as in televisions) in there you can watch any game you please.

Indeed - and across the rest of the world including Europe. This whole issue is inter-related to the Karen Murphy victory over Sky last week, and the whole growth of internet broadcasting.

[Royal Rother]

[John Madejski's Wallet]

To add to Seal's post, the actual figures are :

PLTVMoney.JPG

It's the distribution of the "overseas" money that's in question here - clubs see this getting bigger and the domestic rights getting smaller.

PS If a club is shown fewer than 10 times a season, they still get the minimum of 10 x facility fees, which is why so many clubs have facility fees of £5,820,898. That shows the ludicrous sums we're talking about here - £580k for each time they're shown on TV.

So Liverpool are bitching that in a season where they finished 5th, the got £5M less than the league winners?

[Vision]

To add to Seal's post, the actual figures are :

PLTVMoney.JPG

It's the distribution of the "overseas" money that's in question here - clubs see this getting bigger and the domestic rights getting smaller.

PS If a club is shown fewer than 10 times a season, they still get the minimum of 10 x facility fees, which is why so many clubs have facility fees of £5,820,898. That shows the ludicrous sums we're talking about here - £580k for each time they're shown on TV.

So Liverpool are bitching that in a season where they finished 5th, the got £5M less than the league winners?

No I think Liverpool's bone of contention is with the 17.9m overseas payment which everyone in the Premier League gets. Liverpool's claim is that they are more popular in certain foreign territories and that they believe they should have a better share. They're comparing what they receive from overseas TV revenue in relation to other European competitors such as Real Madrid and Barcelona who are free to negotiate their own deals.

Incidently Champions League Revenue (which of course Liverpool have failed to even qualify in the last 2 seasons) is distributed thus...

Each of the 32 clubs involved in the group stage will receive a participation bonus of €3.9m. In addition, they will be entitled to a match bonus of €550,000 per match played in the group stage. Performance bonuses will also see €800,000 paid for every win and €400,000 for every draw in the group stage.

The sides competing in the round of 16 can also expect to pick up €3m each, the quarter-finalists €3.3m and the semi-finalists €4.2m. The UEFA Champions League winners will receive €9m

[floyd__streete]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15286887.stm

Well said Dave Whelan, always quite like the cut of this guy's jib.

But Manchester City, Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea are all understood to be against it.

Yeah, and I am Pope Gregory IX.

[Vision]

LOL @ killing the heart and soul of the Premier League.

Ok playing Devil's Advocate a bit and stir up a bit of discussion maybe..

I get what Whelan is saying and agree with the sentiment but he lists Wigan, Bolton, Blackburn, Wolves, Sunderland and Newcastle and says they wouldn't be able to compete. Compete in what way? Other than survival (or who can run up the biggest operating loss every season) how are these clubs competing?

The Premier League has been won by 2 clubs for the last 5/6 seasons anyway. For arguments sake if the likes of Arsenal and Liverpool could negotiate deals which saw them gain ground financially on Chelsea and Man Utd then wouldn't that make it more competitive at the top. As things stand the only way anyone is getting near to those two is the Man City way. Is that any more healthy?

[Ian Royal]

LOL @ killing the heart and soul of the Premier League.

Ok playing Devil's Advocate a bit and stir up a bit of discussion maybe..

I get what Whelan is saying and agree with the sentiment but he lists Wigan, Bolton, Blackburn, Wolves, Sunderland and Newcastle and says they wouldn't be able to compete. Compete in what way? Other than survival (or who can run up the biggest operating loss every season) how are these clubs competing?

The Premier League has been won by 2 clubs for the last 5/6 seasons anyway. For arguments sake if the likes of Arsenal and Liverpool could negotiate deals which saw them gain ground financially on Chelsea and Man Utd then wouldn't that make it more competitive at the top. As things stand the only way anyone is getting near to those two is the Man City way. Is that any more healthy?

Take away a big slice of the smaller clubs' money and on current expenditure they'd go bust. If they manage to survive by slashing their wage bill. They then have absolutely no chance of competing, not only with the top 5, but with the likes of the consistent upper mid-table teams like Spurs, Villa etc.

That means the chances of getting a Wigan, Ipswich, Reading etc competing in the top 10 becomes even rarer.

[Seal]

Liverpool should also remember fans in the far east are pretty fickle...

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

No I think Liverpool's bone of contention is with the 17.9m overseas payment which everyone in the Premier League gets. Liverpool's claim is that they are more popular in certain foreign territories and that they believe they should have a better share. They're comparing what they receive from overseas TV revenue in relation to other European competitors such as Real Madrid and Barcelona who are free to negotiate their own deals.

More importantly, I believe they can negotiate their own domestic deals too, which it what drives the extra income.

In the last two years the 2nd place club in La Liga has finished 21 and 25 points ahead of 3rd.


What's galling is the belief that the other clubs should be willing to give up income so Liverpool can make more money and have a better team.