Football 2011-2012

[kaosmark2]

I don't think that's beyond doubt.

[ralph250]

So Ellis Short has shoved Niall sideways and taken a more hands on approach. Not surprised given how much he spunked buying the shares, and how much more he's invested on the playing side.

Attendances are dropping even with offers of cheap tickets, and his investment has not even seen the return of a top 10 finish.

I wonder if his trigger finger is getting itchy...

[eFestivals]

well, that Sky well and truly fucked.

Lots of pubs have been using alternatives for a while, but now it's all widely public and the legal issues have been clearly ruled on, to Sky's detriment.

Of course, that also means that they'll be an impact back onto the Prem, because which ever way they try to address the issue, the Prem gets to lose shit loads of the money that it currently gets for TV rights.

The party is over, and the clubs holding huge debts are going to to tumble.

[Wooderson]

So the practise of enforcing exclusivity of provider on a national basis is unlawful?

[eFestivals]

hmmm .... perhaps not.

6music have just reported this, and suggested that in future the Prem will sell pan-european rights, and get a bigger amount of money for it.

I can't see that working tho. The average person in (say) Greece isn't going to be prepared to pay the same amount as someone on the UK, so if they go with the same price all across Europe I reckon they'll end up netting less overall. And if they operate different prices in different countries then over time more and more people in the UK will sack off Sky for a cheaper option from overseas.

[eFestivals]

So the practise of enforcing exclusivity of provider on a national basis is unlawful?

Yep - it was always 100% clear that that's how the ruling would go.

European laws have written into them a number of exemptions to allow a national basis for some things, but both satellite TV and football rights has always been something without any exemptions.

And I can't see it being added in - the trend has been away from such things rather than adding more in. Plus I reckon there's few counties that would support a change which would help cement the dominance of the Prem over other leagues.

[kaosmark2]

well, that Sky well and truly fucked.

Lots of pubs have been using alternatives for a while, but now it's all widely public and the legal issues have been clearly ruled on, to Sky's detriment.

Of course, that also means that they'll be an impact back onto the Prem, because which ever way they try to address the issue, the Prem gets to lose shit loads of the money that it currently gets for TV rights.

The party is over, and the clubs holding huge debts are going to to tumble.

[eFestivals]

Unfortunately, my suspicion is that Sky will expand across Europe and try and control it universally. Still, I expect they'll have to pay more, for less return, which will be fantastic.

And hopefully 3pm games will get shown in more pubs.

I'm lucky - my local hasn't been using Sky for at least 5 years, so I normally get a choice of at least three 3pm games.

I guess if they go the Europe-wide route then 3pm games will be outlawed across Europe at the Prem's insistence - which of course means less TV money.

But if they go the other way, then soon we'll see the empty stadiums of Italy and Spain, and of course the clubs get to get .... less money.

I just can't see how they can work a solution that doesn't mean less money.

[kaosmark2]

I'm lucky - my local hasn't been using Sky for at least 5 years, so I normally get a choice of at least three 3pm games.

I guess if they go the Europe-wide route then 3pm games will be outlawed across Europe at the Prem's insistence - which of course means less TV money.

But if they go the other way, then soon we'll see the empty stadiums of Italy and Spain, and of course the clubs get to get .... less money.

I just can't see how they can work a solution that doesn't mean less money.

[ralph250]

well, that Sky well and truly fucked.

Lots of pubs have been using alternatives for a while, but now it's all widely public and the legal issues have been clearly ruled on, to Sky's detriment.

Of course, that also means that they'll be an impact back onto the Prem, because which ever way they try to address the issue, the Prem gets to lose shit loads of the money that it currently gets for TV rights.

The party is over, and the clubs holding huge debts are going to to tumble.

Edited October 4, 2011 by ralph250

[ralph250]

I cannot be certain that Joe, Sean, Sarah, Shep and Alan all go to the Red, White & Blue to watch live Premier League matches, in Greek.

But I can be fairly certain that the world won’t end if the ruling goes in Karen Murphy’s favour; and that the Premier League won’t suffer a catastrophic loss of income; and rich footballers and their enormous pay packets aren’t about to become a thing of the past. And your TV subscription fee is not about to come tumbling down.

Depending on where you live, it might even go up within a few years.

And the Premier League might even end up making more money, not less, from changes that might be forced if the ECJ ruling goes with Murphy and against them.

With the caveat that the verdict will be multi-faceted, open to interpretation and appeal, and subject to all manner of possibilities to counteract its potential damage, here’s a basic Q&A guide to why the Sky isn’t about to fall in on the Premier League.

.

Q: Why would the Premier League worry if the ECJ verdict sides with Murphy?

A: First of all, it’s likely the verdict will go in Murphy’s favour, because 80 per cent of provisional recommendations are adopted. The Premier League’s concern is the hypothetical possibility that consumers will dump expensive Sky and get cheaper decoders from nations like Greece. While this is unlikely to happen in the real world, because most British consumers want commentary in a language they can understand, it raises the prospect of Sky being legally undercut by foreign providers, hence Sky (and rivals) might bid less money for UK rights next time around, because they’re potentially facing competition from cheaper imported decoders.

.

Q: How much do Sky currently pay for their UK rights? And how much do they make from selling them?

A: Sky and ESPN between them paid £1.782bn over three years, or £594m per year, for the live Premier League rights in Britain alone from 2010-13 inclusive.

Sky and ESPN then sell their TV products directly to consumers, and also recoup a big chunk of the rights fees from pubs, clubs, hotels and others who screen to the public. The precise details are closely guarded commercial secrets. But a spokeswoman for the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers tells me there are 55,000 pubs and clubs in the UK, and that around 20,000 of them subscribe to Sky.

There are, apparently, 26 different pricing bands, but the ALMR says the average pub subscription cost is £15,000 per year, and on that basis Sky makes around £300m a year from the pub/club trade alone. This will be bigger when hotels and gyms and other public screeners are added. And if the pub-club-hotel-gym trade doesn’t cover all the cost of the rights, then it covers a huge chunk.

And then on top of that, customers subscribe to the sports channels. According to Sky’s own website, they had 10,187,000 TV subscribers in the UK in June 2011. And it is believed in the region of seven million subscribe to the channels carrying Premier League football. It is impossible to know how many of these customers buy mainly for the football, but if we try to get a ballpark value of ‘football customer worth’, we might multiply 7m customers X £25 a month (for the part of the subscription related to sport) X 12 months = £2.1bn.

In short, having the UK rights is a decent potential earner for a broadcaster. They virtually pay for themselves and then earn you billions in subscriptions, albeit billions you then spend on other content, providing the service, etc.

.

Q: How much of this pub and private business might Sky / ESPN lose in future if foreign decoders are freely allowed?

A: Impossible to know. For a start, it might transpire that Murphy wins domestic users the right to use foreign decoders but that commercial operators like herself are still forbidden under UK business laws from using foreign decoders. For further reading on this possibility, look at legal advice linked here provided by the ALMR to members earlier this year (PDF link).

But let’s suppose the ruling allowed everyone to use any EU decoder in any other EU nation, including at home or in pubs. If consumers didn’t mind watching in Greek (for example), then potentially there is an issue for the Premier League, because potentially the value of the domestic rights do fall.

.

Q: So how does the Premier League protect the rights value in the UK, and why is that important?

A: Firstly, it’s important because the UK is the key market within Europe. In fact around 80 per cent of all the Premier League’s live TV money from the whole of Europe’s 50+ nations comes from the UK alone. Or to be more specific, £594m per year as detailed above comes from Sky/ESPN combined, and around £125m per year comes from the rest of Europe combined.

In these articles here and here last year, we explained how the foreign TV rights for the whole world outside Britain earn the Premier League £1.437bn for the current 2010-13 deals (or £479m per year). But only around £125m per year, or c.£375m of the £1.437bn over three years, comes from Europe.

Scandinavia is the biggest single earner (£111m over three years), followed by France and Poland combined (£60m deal with Canal+ for three years), followed by deals worth in the low tens of millions over three years with Sky for Mitel-Europe and separately for Italy, and a £28m three-year deal for the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia combined. Smaller or poorer nations like Greece pay smaller sums, and hence can charge consumers less.

The upshot: the UK is very important and the rest of Europe less so.

The best way to protect the UK market would be to stop selling anywhere else in Europe. That 100 per cent protects the UK market from Euro rivals – and loses the Premier League £125m a year or thereabouts, so won’t happen.

Another option would be declining to sell in any European market from which cheap decoders are likely to emerge, such as Greece. This means Greeks won’t get live PL football in Greek but the PL won’t get undermined by Greek decoders.

Another alternative being suggested as the most likely outcome of a ‘bad’ decision for the League is selling its rights on a pan-European basis.

.

Q: How would a pan-European model look?

A: The Premier League would sell to a pan-European broadcaster or more than one. By definition only a few true media giants could bid: Sky, or the Disney-owned ESPN, or Mediaset, or Canal+. And the winning giant(s), after a bidding war, would own the rights to all of Europe, including the key, most lucrative home market of the UK.

It is possible that in a bidding war for the pan-European rights, the total income per year would rise above the £594m currently paid for UK rights + £125m in rest of Europe. Why? Because Premier League football is such a desirable asset, having a major grasp on it could cement or gain any giant’s position within the market.

.

Q: But isn’t a single giant operator anti-competitive and against EU law?

A: Errm, yes. But the pan-European sale of rights would be constructed in a way that would mean more than one operator gets games. For example there may be eight packages of games, with 20 games in each package, and no one broadcaster is allowed all eight. But the likeliest outcome would still be that one of those operators would get a big chunk and a second operator would get a small chunk. And if there was fierce competition for any chunk, so much better for the Premier League.

.

Q: The pan-European model would mean that UK viewers could get them same choice of games as overseas viewers do now then? That in future UK viewers could have access to all 380 PL games per season live, instead of 138 as now?

A: That won’t happen. Not now at least, although it remains a potential earner for the future and contrary to belief by some, there’s nothing to prevent the League doing it. But the Premier League insists privately it supports the 3pm Saturday ‘blackout’ currently in place in the UK, whereby no live British football is screened at 3pm on Saturdays. In sticking to this ideal, it won’t market any pan-European package of games that contains 3pm kick-offs.

As a result, consumers in Europe will actually get fewer games in the future (while the rest of the world is unaffected by this case).

But UK consumers are likely to get more. Why? Because the Premier League will need to find a balance between keeping as many of its European viewers as possible, and getting UK bidders to pay more because they’ll be getting more games.

It’s a personal view that a future pan-Euro model might include something like 160 games per season on offer in eight packages of 20, none of them at 3pm on Saturdays.

.

Q: Can’t the Premier League just start its own TV channel and sell direct to consumers and make a load more profit at the same time?

A: It could, but frankly it’s a lot of hassle and the League would rather leave broadcasting to broadcasters and bank the cheques without having to establish a customer relationship with every fan from scratch. It’s an option with a lot of upside, but risky. It’s possible the League would dip its toe in the water at some point by selling, for example, seven packages to pan-Euro broadcasters, and selling one direct, to see how easy it is.

.

Q: Is this case only of relevance to the Premier League?

A: Absolutely not! It is of massive relevance to any organisation that sells services or rights (including sport, film, music) on a territorial basis within the European market. Arguably most if not all other sports governing bodies could be hit as hard if not harder by a ‘pro-Murphy’ ruling.

Uefa could endure nightmares as they try to argue how it’s compatible for Fan X in country Z to get Champions League coverage for nothing while Fan B in country T has to pay through the nose. How is that compatible with fair access to the same goods across the common market?

The same question applies to the ‘crown jewels’ of sports in different countries. If they’re free in one place, how can a consumer be stopped from buying the equipment necessary to access them free from another market within Europe?

The subject is a legal minefield.

And no doubt one to be discussed in the coming days in a pub in Southsea, which is where we came in ….

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2011/10/03/murphys-law-why-the-sky-isnt-about-to-fall-in-on-the-premier-league-031004/

[eFestivals]

I had that at my local for just over 2 years, but just moved to Bristol, need to find a new local footy pub.

so where are you in Brizzle? We might find ourselves in the same pub.

(feel free to PM if you don't want to post details).

[ralph250]

Judgment if anyone interested (35 pages)

http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=rechercher&numaff=C-403/08

[eFestivals]

80% of the European Market is from UK. They'll look at other ways (pan-europe etc), but talk of clubs tumbling probably unlikely. From the £479m per year from foreign tv rights, only £125m is from Europe, so they could just choose to not sell to them, to protect the UK market.

Still get the rest of the foreign rights (£354m per year) plus the UK (£594m per year).

Hit of £6.25m per club all things equal.

that's more than plenty of clubs can afford to lose.

As I've said, I can't see how the current tv income levels can be sustained in light of this ruling.

And of course there's lots of financial damage to be done to someone until such time as the current deals expire.

From a chat with my local's landlord, I know he's directly saving around £1k a month by swerving Sky - plus he makes extra income by having games on that aren't on in other pubs. If he's ultimately forced back to Sky or nothing, my guess is that he'll go for nothing, because the amount he'd pay out probably wouldn't be covered by the extra beer he'd sell by having it (particularly when the beer sales would be lower anyway without the 3pm games he currently shows). It might well kill-off the viability of his pub altogether .

So even with a new rights licence that enforces Sky on everyone that wants it, the likelihood is that the Prem's tv revenues will tumble.

[ralph250]

that's more than plenty of clubs can afford to lose.

As I've said, I can't see how the current tv income levels can be sustained in light of this ruling.

And of course there's lots of financial damage to be done to someone until such time as the current deals expire.

From a chat with my local's landlord, I know he's directly saving around £1k a month by swerving Sky - plus he makes extra income by having games on that aren't on in other pubs. If he's ultimately forced back to Sky or nothing, my guess is that he'll go for nothing, because the amount he'd pay out probably wouldn't be covered by the extra beer he'd sell by having it (particularly when the beer sales would be lower anyway without the 3pm games he currently shows). It might well kill-off the viability of his pub altogether .

So even with a new rights licence that enforces Sky on everyone that wants it, the likelihood is that the Prem's tv revenues will tumble.

[eFestivals]

you'd hope that clubs hadn't been too profligate considering would know this judgment was pending.

PMSL - c'mon, you and I know that's fantasy land for most clubs. They hock themselves up to the hilt, in the hope that a better tomorrow will enable them to service the debts they've taken on.

It reminds me of Whyte's takeover of Rangers, all done on the presumption that the tax case will go in their favour, which is not going to happen (there's already been precedents set for the same tax abuse) - and his 'plan' for the ruling going against Rangers is administration.

It won't be any different for some Prem clubs. The only thing to be decided is how many.

[TheGayTent]

I hope football implodes in on itself, we get back to hardly any matches live on the box - the Cup Final of course, and a few selected others, live with a highlights programme on a Saturday night and return to all games being played on a Saturday at three o'clock and occasional Tuesday evening.

Fuck Monday night, Friday night, Sunday morning, Sunday evening, etc etc. Power to the football goer and fuck off the armchair supporter

Will that last sentence reel him in...?!

[eFestivals]

I hope football implodes in on itself, we get back to hardly any matches live on the box - the Cup Final of course, and a few selected others, live with a highlights programme on a Saturday night and return to all games being played on a Saturday at three o'clock and occasional Tuesday evening.

Fuck Monday night, Friday night, Sunday morning, Sunday evening, etc etc. Power to the football goer and fuck off the armchair supporter

ill that last sentence reel him in...?!

despite getting the majority of my football from an armchair, I agree completely.

But it would never happen - if such a thing got close the clubs would be bailed out no different to the banks. It's not sense that drives decisions like these, but the power that people with money can exercise.

[The Nal]

I hope football implodes in on itself, we get back to hardly any matches live on the box - the Cup Final of course, and a few selected others, live with a highlights programme on a Saturday night and return to all games being played on a Saturday at three o'clock and occasional Tuesday evening.

Fuck Monday night, Friday night, Sunday morning, Sunday evening, etc etc. Power to the football goer and fuck off the armchair supporter

Will that last sentence reel him in...?!

Edited October 4, 2011 by The Nal

[ralph250]

You might need to find a new pub to watch your footy Neil.

Finally, as regards the questions asked concerning the interpretation of the Copyright Directive, the Court notes first of all that only the opening video sequence, the Premier League anthem, pre-recoded films showing highlights of recent Premier League matches and various graphics can be regards as "works" and are therefore protected by copyright. By contract, the matches themselves are not works enjoying such protection.

That being so, the Court decides that trasmission in a pub of the broadcasts containing those protected works, such as the opening video sequence or the Premier League anthem, constitutes a "communication to the public" within the meaning of the copyright directive, for which the authorisation of the author of the works is necessary, because when a pub transmits those works to the customers present on the premises the works are transmitted to an additional public which was not considered by the authors when they authorised the broadcasting of the works.

Edited October 4, 2011 by ralph250

[The Nal]

Jack Rodwell's red card against Liverpool has been rescinded.

Good.

Edited October 4, 2011 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

You might need to find a new pub to watch your footy Neil.

as far as I've noticed, those things aren't within the broadcasts I've been watching. The broadcasts start (by the provider, not by the pub) only a minute or two before kick-off.

(last season the pub used mostly Nova & the Italian version of Sky, this year it's mostly using a Latvian or Lithuanian channel. I'm not sure of the details, but he gets access to them all via a single provider with a single payment - so I'm guessing that there's already an established business selling non-Sky access into pubs).

[eFestivals]

what about the millions in Asia who want to watch a Premier League game? Fuck them?

Here's an idea: they could watch their own clubs.

Radical I know, particularly for someone living in Ireland.

[eFestivals]

They'll just stick a logo on the broadcast at all times.

as sticker on every TV to cover the logo?

That sounds ridiculous I know, but I reckon it's a viable workaround in a legal sense.

[eFestivals]

Jack Rodwell's red card against Liverpool has been rescinded.

Good.

Yep, definitely good.

But I've got to say that I'm surprised that it has. My thoughts on how they work the rules for these sorts of things had me thinking that the ref had seen the incident so there was no chance of it being overturned.