[Football] Live streaming for upcoming season

[Beanstalk]

Two interesting posts. Thanks for providing them. Do you work in the industry, TV finance, finance more broadly, something related, or something else?

Publishing bizarrely, editorial to be exact. I have worked on a couple of football books about the evolution of the game (mostly tactical though). Honestly, I personally find the whole evolution of the game fascinating and that is intrinsically linked with finances (and how they’re managed). I think we are on the precipice of a rise in Premier League money like we couldn’t imagine and how that is handled will change the English game forever.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Amazon will have well known that their dabbling wouldn't likely make money in the short term. They will look at the data and decide in a calculated manner whether they can make money on top of Prime subscriptions, which is something they already do. They have a PPV system in place and could offer bunches of matches or season passes as well. If they think it is a go-er, then they will blow BT and Sky away.

There’ll do what they manage on tv series ...hook you in on series one and a couple on series two and then ask you to pay on top of your Prime sub for the rest...so first half free to prime members and if you want second half pay more

 

[Machiavelli]

Publishing bizarrely, editorial to be exact. I have worked on a couple of football books about the evolution of the game (mostly tactical though). Honestly, I personally find the whole evolution of the game fascinating and that is intrinsically linked with finances (and how they’re managed). I think we are on the precipice of a rise in Premier League money like we couldn’t imagine and how that is handled will change the English game forever.

Thanks. A question and a point:
What are those books? I follow Jonathan Wilson on tactics, and Inverting the Pyramid precisely charts its history. Are yours better, different, etc?
You're right about money, although I'm not sure how supportive of it I am.

 

[Beanstalk]

Thanks. A question and a point:
What are those books? I follow Jonathan Wilson on tactics, and Inverting the Pyramid precisely charts its history. Are yours better, different, etc?
You're right about money, although I'm not sure how supportive of it I am.

Different, definitely not better! The main book I worked on is called Total Football: A Graphic History of Soccer Tactics (needed to include soccer for an American market). It's less of a deep dive and more of an introduction to the game as an evolution. I did a huge amount of the research and editorial on this and whilst it isn't a bestseller, there are a healthy amount of copies in circulation.

Honestly, I don't think there is any book better than Inverting the Pyramid when it comes to intricate charting of tactical history. The only person who compares to Wilson is Michael Cox. Zonal Marking is a great book but it only looks at tactics from when football was actually conceived, 1992 (his argument is that the introduction of the back pass rule in 1992 changes the way the game is played fundamentally rather than it just being about Premier League money). I think Wilson and Cox are unbeatable when it comes to tactics though. Cox is now an Athletic man and has even done some great dissections of our football - this week he did a breakdown of how Lallana will play for us https://theathletic.com/2024299/2020/09/01/adam-lallana-brighton-graham-potter-position/?article_source=search&search_query=Cox%20Brighton.

 

[Wardy's twin]

Feeling from the league and broadcasters is that it weakens the subscription model. You'd lose A LOT of subscribers who are also season ticket holders at well supported clubs and only want to see their club. Currently, the financial model benefits the whole league because we have to pay for a subscription that covers every team. If they offered season ticket holders a club-exclusive pass there would be space for big clubs to ask for a better share of the income as the only games watched by neutrals are the big games. The collective broadcasting deal protects all 20 teams.

Added to this, there are around 540,000 season ticket holders in the Premier League. The majority will have a Sky Sports subscription, lets say for the sake of argument at least 50% of these would happily just watch their team only. That's a drop off of the entire average ratings a premier league game gets on Sky (between 200k-300k). Games like Brighton vs Burnley will have hardly anyone paying to watch (as you'd have at least 40,000 covered by a season-ticket holder pass) but the clubs would still expect the £8.2million income per match.

Interesting assumptions that a) majority of season ticket holders have a sky subscription b) 50% of the season ticket base do that just to watch their club . We should do a pole on here. My impression of those who have sky is that they either a) can't get to games b) love football so much that they watch any and everything football. But i have no real stats to back that up.

It will be interesting to see what the government do on this as they are making noises about getting number of games increased.

Read your other posts , and yes football is moving on not sure if that is always in a good direction . One other key factors is how fitness is also focused on and how to get that extra 1% not sure how George Best would have fitted in...

 

[Beanstalk]

Interesting assumptions that a) majority of season ticket holders have a sky subscription b) 50% of the season ticket base do that just to watch their club . We should do a pole on here. My impression of those who have sky is that they either a) can't get to games b) love football so much that they watch any and everything football. But i have no real stats to back that up.

It will be interesting to see what the government do on this as they are making noises about getting number of games increased.

Read your other posts , and yes football is moving on not sure if that is always in a good direction . One other key factors is how fitness is also focused on and how to get that extra 1% not sure how George Best would have fitted in...

My assumptions about season ticket holders are based more on how the game has changed in reference to ticket costs. Those who can afford a Premier League season-ticket can, in the eyes of the broadcasters at least, afford a monthly subscription package. Whilst this is obviously a broad sweeping statement and not true for everyone, Sky's aggressive sales strategy would probably feel that if a customer has enough expendable cash to afford £1,300 a season to watch Arsenal finish 8th, there's enough for £39 a month to watch Sky. Whilst personally you are right about many fans just loving the game, taking out (and continuing) a subscription is a different kettle of fish. BT Sport is the great example - 11.3 million watched their free to air Champions League final in the UK last year (Spuds vs L'pool) yet they only have 1.8 million paying subscribers. There is an audience there, but they aren't able to turn them into subscribers (in my opinion because there isn't a huge want in this country to watch football religiously without the tribal element). I have taken out a subscription so I can watch the Albion (I also have watched basically all the UCL games and through boredom a big chunk of the Ligue 1 fixtures last weekend), but the second that we can all go back to games, I'll be keeping my £25 a month in my pocket.

I think in reality the game is not in a terrible place. Crowds (pre-lockdown) in the top flight are at their highest average attendance since 1949, the standard on the pitch is sublime and big clubs (and players) are doing more to help their communities than ever previously imagined. The issue comes with the next step and English football deciding for itself what it wants to be. If it gets the huge increase in TV money that it expects, will it filter it down across the pyramid to improve the game as a whole or will it essentially create a closed-shop British Super League where a year in the PL will eclipse your entire history of earnings. I know what I'd prefer, but we'll just have to wait and see!

 

[zefarelly]

football will not progress until we can log in to our club via nominal membership, sign up for a game, pay our tenner or whatever it is, and watch in our home cinemas. with surround sound whingeing/racism.

I'm working on a smellovision system prototype, and also a throwing machine for pies/bottle tops etc

we won't be alowed to leave our homes without special official documentation soon anyway, so it's definitely coming.

 

[BHAFCLive]

hat's a drop off of the entire average ratings a premier league game gets on Sky (between 200k-300k).

All very interesting points you've made, but just to pick up on the ratings aspect: Sky Sports average viewing figures for any Premier League Live match are a lot higher than 200-300k. Those figures are more EFL based.

A minimum typical audience for a lower-ranking side's broadcast on Sky (note, including pre and post match coverage) was at least double that, higher still when purely viewing the 90 minutes. Games featuring a top six side would then add another couple of hundred thousand on, pushing towards the higher end of a million. BT's figures consistently lower than Sky, fewer subscribers etc. The slot impacts audience, with Sunday 4.30pm by far the best, Saturday early often the worst.

Looking at the 2016/17 season as a quick example as I have it to hand; https://1drv.ms/x/s!ApCONNJvyuswtM5yM_1TORe7WZD2bw?e=rCFre6

And some more recent Albion on Sky examples;
28/12/2019 Brighton v Bournemouth 531k average
16/12/2019 Palace v Brighton 977k average
8/12/2019 Brighton v Wolves 1.12million average
21/9/2019 Newcastle v Brighton 653k average

 

[zefarelly]

And some more recent Albion on Sky examples;
28/12/2019 Brighton v Bournemouth 531k average
16/12/2019 Palace v Brighton 977k average
8/12/2019 Brighton v Wolves 1.12million average
21/9/2019 Newcastle v Brighton 653k average

those figures kind of suggest sky viewers want to watch good football as much as their own clubs. I know thats the case for me, I'll tune in and keep an eye on a potentially entertaining fixture, but generally not if its NEwcastle, or BOurnemoputh . . . . unles BHA are playing. Obvs.

 

[Beanstalk]

All very interesting points you've made, but just to pick up on the ratings aspect: Sky Sports average viewing figures for any Premier League Live match are a lot higher than 200-300k. Those figures are more EFL based.

A minimum typical audience for a lower-ranking side's broadcast on Sky (note, including pre and post match coverage) was at least double that, higher still when purely viewing the 90 minutes. Games featuring a top six side would then add another couple of hundred thousand on, pushing towards the higher end of a million. BT's figures consistently lower than Sky, fewer subscribers etc. The slot impacts audience, with Sunday 4.30pm by far the best, Saturday early often the worst.

Looking at the 2016/17 season as a quick example as I have it to hand; https://1drv.ms/x/s!ApCONNJvyuswtM5yM_1TORe7WZD2bw?e=rCFre6

And some more recent Albion on Sky examples;
28/12/2019 Brighton v Bournemouth 531k average
16/12/2019 Palace v Brighton 977k average
8/12/2019 Brighton v Wolves 1.12million average
21/9/2019 Newcastle v Brighton 653k average

That's interesting, I really struggled to find anything concrete and remembered from a podcast that BT were only getting around that figure for most UCL games when they first started.

Turns out it is a misreading from my side - the average audience for Manchester United vs Arsenal was 3.4 million a 94% increase meaning the average audience is actually, according to Sky, 1.75million. Apologies, I misread the article.

The Newcastle figures are really interesting because if you remove season-ticket holders from both clubs (30,000/23,000) that's an 8% drop off in audience numbers, which is sizeable. In fact, all of those are well below the average - I think the Sky execs would be quite happy to get rid of those games and only have the bigger numbers from the big clubs. There is a guaranteed audience of 2 million plus according to that wonderful spreadsheet you attached for pretty much every Liverpool and United game.

 

[Turkey]

Feeling from the league and broadcasters is that it weakens the subscription model. You'd lose A LOT of subscribers who are also season ticket holders at well supported clubs and only want to see their club. Currently, the financial model benefits the whole league because we have to pay for a subscription that covers every team. If they offered season ticket holders a club-exclusive pass there would be space for big clubs to ask for a better share of the income as the only games watched by neutrals are the big games. The collective broadcasting deal protects all 20 teams.

Added to this, there are around 540,000 season ticket holders in the Premier League. The majority will have a Sky Sports subscription, lets say for the sake of argument at least 50% of these would happily just watch their team only. That's a drop off of the entire average ratings a premier league game gets on Sky (between 200k-300k). Games like Brighton vs Burnley will have hardly anyone paying to watch (as you'd have at least 40,000 covered by a season-ticket holder pass) but the clubs would still expect the £8.2million income per match.

I'm probably talking nonsense here as haven't really thought it through, but could a "Box Office" type thing for the non-televised games work? So you pay an additional tenner, or go to the pub, to watch those games? So you still need your Sky/BT subscription etc for the games they pick, but any games they don't pick up, you could pay additional for? Appreciate a lot would resent that (I'd probably go to the pub) but could that protect the collective broadcasting deal and allow us to watch all of the games?

 

[BHAFCLive]

I'm probably talking nonsense here as haven't really thought it through, but could a "Box Office" type thing for the non-televised games work? So you pay an additional tenner, or go to the pub, to watch those games? So you still need your Sky/BT subscription etc for the games they pick, but any games they don't pick up, you could pay additional for? Appreciate a lot would resent that (I'd probably go to the pub) but could that protect the collective broadcasting deal and allow us to watch all of the games?

It's certainly an option, and is preferable in terms of quality and coverage to streaming.

The issue then becomes about where the money goes that we pay. If it goes straight to the broadcasters, then the Premier League will rightly demand they pay more as they're getting additional funds from us for additional content. That in turn will mean more shared revenue for the clubs.

But do the broadcasters want to pay more to have these games? I'd suggest probably not. Their preferred 5 games each week are already being televised. The remaining 5 games not televised are, by that definition, of less interest to the wider public. The majority of those purchasing would be fans of the clubs involved - which is fine for teams with a big fanbase at the top of the table, but less appealing when you have an example of our match away at Newcastle on 19th Sept.

So does the cost for broadcasters to acquire the rights to these extra games outweigh the demand for viewers to buy them? Probably.

It's a really tricky situation and nothing is going to please everybody. What we had at the end of last season was great, with everything televised, but it's not really sustainable across entire seasons unless more money is paid.

My view is that all PL games should be televised for the month of September whilst grounds are empty by the current rights holders proportionally. Anything beyond that can be considered on a monthly basis until A) fans can start to return and B) the % of capacity is at a certain point (say 50% full). Otherwise, all that's going to happen is more people will see how easy it is to get a dodgy stream and just watch that for all games, ditching Sky & BT in the process.

 

[Beanstalk]

It's certainly an option, and is preferable in terms of quality and coverage to streaming.

The issue then becomes about where the money goes that we pay. If it goes straight to the broadcasters, then the Premier League will rightly demand they pay more as they're getting additional funds from us for additional content. That in turn will mean more shared revenue for the clubs.

But do the broadcasters want to pay more to have these games? I'd suggest probably not. Their preferred 5 games each week are already being televised. The remaining 5 games not televised are, by that definition, of less interest to the wider public. The majority of those purchasing would be fans of the clubs involved - which is fine for teams with a big fanbase at the top of the table, but less appealing when you have an example of our match away at Newcastle on 19th Sept.

So does the cost for broadcasters to acquire the rights to these extra games outweigh the demand for viewers to buy them? Probably.

It's a really tricky situation and nothing is going to please everybody. What we had at the end of last season was great, with everything televised, but it's not really sustainable across entire seasons unless more money is paid.

My view is that all PL games should be televised for the month of September whilst grounds are empty by the current rights holders proportionally. Anything beyond that can be considered on a monthly basis until A) fans can start to return and B) the % of capacity is at a certain point (say 50% full). Otherwise, all that's going to happen is more people will see how easy it is to get a dodgy stream and just watch that for all games, ditching Sky & BT in the process.

Agree with absolutely everything here. I would add though that it is becoming increasingly easy (over the last two years) to get a not dodgy stream providing you have a good internet connection and a solid adblocker. I've paid for every package that covers the Premier League in this country yet I cannot watch us away at Newcastle this month. Think a lot of not-tech savvy fans will have their eyes opened by how easy it is to watch every Albion game on tele.

It sounds like fans will return on October 3rd (Announced by Arsenal) in some capacity and any discussion about broadcasting all fixtures will disappear on the idea that you can attend the games in person. Personally, I think the English game needs to get in line with what's available to a domestic audience and, club income aside, I would welcome an OTT platform or something similar to NBC's coverage.

 

[Mr Putdown]

I was in Christchurch last weekend btw. Stayed in a Premiere Inn - the pub adjoined to it shut at NINE, ffs.

Lol, you should have stayed in town, plenty of pubs to choose from that are open until 11 or beyond.

If I’d had known you were down I’d have happily met you for a beer.

 

[Easy 10]

Lol, you should have stayed in town, plenty of pubs to choose from that are open until 11 or beyond.

If I’d had known you were down I’d have happily met you for a beer.

We were over for a couple of nights, first one at friends for a BBQ and then one in the muff, so picked a generic "inbetween" hotel on some roundabout in Christchurch, being as we'd hardly spend any time there anyway. The doris started feeling a bit queezy in town though (I blame the OLIVES), so we left early-ish and taxi'd back, with my plan of watching the 2nd half of the CL final on my phone in said adjoining pub while she went back up to the room. Plan foiled though with "last orders mate" at 9pm. On a SUNDAY.

Ah well. Maybe I'll Tapatalk you up next time. I quite like that boozer in the HIgh St...the Ship ?

 

[Dick Swiveller]

Just had a look at the Orient site to see if you could watch the EFL Trophy game on Tuesday. They are in the EFL cup today at Forest Green and you have to buy a match pass for £10 in order to watch it. Sounds very steep at that level.