Good news (Super League irony)

[Mr Dean]

Did it? Sky had it from day 1, with BBC getting the highlights package, and I don't recall Sky ever being free to air. Sky's money was the whole point of it, the clubs collectively went from receiving £11 million a year to over £60 million overnight.

Sorry, I meant to type Champions League which used to be on ITV (although not exclusively).

If it wasn't for UK law, the European Championships and the World Cup would be behind a paywall by now - FIFA and UEFA even tried lobbying the government to change the law so I don't think they can take the moral high ground on this super league nonsense.

 

[Trip]

Unless the world starts spinning the other way, there is no way a football Super League launches that is free to watch. Rusty has given plenty of reasons.

I think you're wrong about this for two reasons. Firstly, subscriber revenue is only a proportion of income. Nobody knows what proportion it is, but ad revenue is massive.

Secondly, they could easily launch it with free-to-view in order overcome fan reluctance and then change their minds and start charging for it once its up and running.

 

[Trip]

Soccer is also a harder sport than mostfor ad revenue due to the lack of time outs or other real breaks during game play. Ads between plays are much more attractive than pre-game or half time ads, and the in game ads over the game can’t be super effective (ergo not as lucrative). In the US years back it was common to either just take a commercial break with the game going on or have commercials that took up most of the screen with the game image without sound ongoing on a part of the screen. (I have wondered if we were going to see leagues mandate that a VAR review has to take 30 seconds so they can squeeze a TV commercial in …)

I get the issue with fewer breaks but "soccer" (ahem) has the overwhelming advantage of being the most watched sport in the world. American football, for example, has loads of ad breaks but you're only advertising to Americans. Nobody else gives a ****.

The PL earns almost half its TV money from foreign deals, and almost none of those companies charge a subscription so there is clearly plenty of ad revenue.

 

[RustyRef]

I think you're wrong about this for two reasons. Firstly, subscriber revenue is only a proportion of income. Nobody knows what proportion it is, but ad revenue is massive.

Secondly, they could easily launch it with free-to-view in order overcome fan reluctance and then change their minds and start charging for it once its up and running.

It is a huge percentage of revenue. In 2021/22 Man City got almost £150 million from TV revenue, even the lowest earning EPL club got just short of £100 million. Take that away and they can't pay their players, it really is that simple.

EPL TV money by club 2022 | Statista

In the 2021/22 season, Manchester City earned more money from televised matches than any other Premier League club, with a total broadcasting revenue of over 146 million British pounds.

www.statista.com

 

[Trip]

It is a huge percentage of revenue. In 2021/22 Man City got almost £150 million from TV revenue, even the lowest earning EPL club got just short of £100 million. Take that away and they can't pay their players, it really is that simple.

EPL TV money by club 2022 | Statista

In the 2021/22 season, Manchester City earned more money from televised matches than any other Premier League club, with a total broadcasting revenue of over 146 million British pounds.

www.statista.com

You've misunderstood Rusty.

I'm not talking about the proportion of Club's revenue that comes from TV. I'm talking about the proportion of TV companies' revenue that comes from subscribers (as opposed to advertising).

Since nearly half the PL's TV revenue comes from overseas TV deals who do not charge subscriber fee there must be plenty of advertising revenue. Providing the stream for free will only increase the viewing figures and therefore the ad revenue.

 

[JamesL]

It is a huge percentage of revenue. In 2021/22 Man City got almost £150 million from TV revenue, even the lowest earning EPL club got just short of £100 million. Take that away and they can't pay their players, it really is that simple.

EPL TV money by club 2022 | Statista

In the 2021/22 season, Manchester City earned more money from televised matches than any other Premier League club, with a total broadcasting revenue of over 146 million British pounds.

www.statista.com

How much of that was subscriber fees and how much was advertising? Which I think is what Trip is saying, and I agree. More of the revenue the TV companies provide comes from their advertising revenues as opposed to money collected through subscriptions.

Edit: posting at same time and was right about what Trip was suggesting.

 

[socal lurker]

I get the issue with fewer breaks but "soccer" (ahem) has the overwhelming advantage of being the most watched sport in the world. American football, for example, has loads of ad breaks but you're only advertising to Americans. Nobody else gives a ****.

The PL earns almost half its TV money from foreign deals, and almost none of those companies charge a subscription so there is clearly plenty of ad revenue.

I always wonder how many people who get pompous about the word soccer realize it is a British term created to differentiate rugby football from association football . . . Of course the soccer term gets used more frequently in the many English speaking countries where there are multiple types of football that are popula, especially where a different flavor of football is more popular among the masses. And by the way, the NFL actually does make mo ey on international broadcasts. Obviously not on the same scale that the PL (or other top soccer leagues) do, but it is not as limited as your proviincial view suggests. It’s simply easier for a stoppage based game like American football, baseball, or basketball to make money on a free broadcast, as the commercials are woven into the game. Advertisers will pay appreciably more for an ad during a game play break than in the pregame or half time. I believe for the upcoming Super Bowl, the in-game ads cost three times what a pregame ad costs.

 

[RustyRef]

How much of that was subscriber fees and how much was advertising? Which I think is what Trip is saying, and I agree. More of the revenue the TV companies provide comes from their advertising revenues as opposed to money collected through subscriptions.

Edit: posting at same time and was right about what Trip was suggesting.

The vast majority from subscribers. If you look at Sky's income, in 2022 it was nearly £9 billion from subscribers compared to £1.3 billion from advertisers. Obviously that is from all TV content as opposed to just football though.

The numbers speak for themselves though. Premier League clubs average £335 million income just from the UK TV rights, losing that kind of income would be similar to what happened to the EFL when ITV Digital went under, clubs would become insolvent overnight.

Let's not also forget that prior to the Premier League, where the few games shown were on terrestrial TV, top level players were earning on average less than £80,000 per year. A large percentage are now earning that per week, where do people think the money came from to pay for this if it wasn't Sky and TV rights?

 

[JamesL]

The vast majority from subscribers. If you look at Sky's income, in 2022 it was nearly £9 billion from subscribers compared to £1.3 billion from advertisers. Obviously that is from all TV content as opposed to just football though.

The numbers speak for themselves though. Premier League clubs average £335 million income just from the UK TV rights, losing that kind of income would be similar to what happened to the EFL when ITV Digital went under, clubs would become insolvent overnight.

Let's not also forget that prior to the Premier League, where the few games shown were on terrestrial TV, top level players were earning on average less than £80,000 per year. A large percentage are now earning that per week, where do people think the money came from to pay for this if it wasn't Sky and TV rights?

I would be surprised if Sky Sports Subs made up more than 20% of the overall subscription income. Probably much less. Be interested as well to see what was classed as income too as some of that might even be 3rd party collection (with commission obviously) for netflix and the like.

 

[santa sangria]

You've misunderstood Rusty.

I'm not talking about the proportion of Club's revenue that comes from TV. I'm talking about the proportion of TV companies' revenue that comes from subscribers (as opposed to advertising).

Since nearly half the PL's TV revenue comes from overseas TV deals who do not charge subscriber fee there must be plenty of advertising revenue. Providing the stream for free will only increase the viewing figures and therefore the ad revenue.

Which are these countries that do free to air EPL?

Middle east and africa.

I think you should cite some numbers. The rest of the world, including all the biggest ad markets, pay to watch the EPL.

Where have you found that half the EPL rev comes from overseas and connected that with free to air? I think it’s half from overseas but 80% or something of that is subscriptions…

 

[RustyRef]

Which are these countries that do free to air EPL?

Middle east and africa.

I think you should cite some numbers. The rest of the world, including all the biggest ad markets, pay to watch the EPL.

Where have you found that half the EPL rev comes from overseas and connected that with free to air? I think it’s half from overseas but 80% or something of that is subscriptions…

Look at the channels that show EPL games across the world, they are almost all subscription based.

beIN, Optus, Setanta, Now, Premier Sports, Astro, Supersport, Peacock, etc, they are all pay to view channels.

 

[RustyRef]

I would be surprised if Sky Sports Subs made up more than 20% of the overall subscription income. Probably much less. Be interested as well to see what was classed as income too as some of that might even be 3rd party collection (with commission obviously) for netflix and the like.

Impossible to say I suspect as they bundle sports as part of packages. Definitely remember reading an interview from a senior exec though saying they wouldn't survive without football subscriptions. I certainly wouldn't subscribe to Sky if it wasn't for football, and I can't think of any of my friends that would.

 

[santa sangria]

Look at the channels that show EPL games across the world, they are almost all subscription based.

beIN, Optus, Setanta, Now, Premier Sports, Astro, Supersport, Peacock, etc, they are all pay to view channels.

That’s what I’m saying. All the major markets are subscriptions.

What @Trip said doesn’t make sense:

“Since nearly half the PL's TV revenue comes from overseas TV deals who do not charge subscriber fee there must be plenty of advertising revenue. Providing the stream for free will only increase the viewing figures and therefore the ad revenue.”


The overseas income is now bigger than the domestic. But that 5+ billion of overseas revenue is mostly subscriptions.

 

[Trip]

The overseas income is now bigger than the domestic. But that 5+ billion of overseas revenue is mostly subscriptions.

How do you know?

 

[RustyRef]

Because if you look at who has overseas rights they are subscription based. For example, this is the Liverpool vs Newcastle game later, don't recognise all of the channels but the ones I do (Astro, beIN, DAZN, Optus, SuperSport, USA Network, etc) are all subscription based.

 

[Trip]

You can determine that some of them charge a subscription but there is no way to tell how much of the marginal revenue they gain from having PL games is down increases in subscription revenue vs increases in advertising revenue.

The point is this: subscription-free does not mean revenue-free.

 

[santa sangria]

You can determine that some of them charge a subscription but there is no way to tell how much of the marginal revenue they gain from having PL games is down increases in subscription revenue vs increases in advertising revenue.

The point is this: subscription-free does not mean revenue-free.

What are you on about?

Optus, Bein, Peacock, Viaplay, Sky etc etc all the major TV markets have broadcasters that have paid big bucks to the EPL and they sell subscriptions to consumers specifically to watch EPL matches. There might be some bundles here and there but the EPL is the big draw and the reason millions of punters across the Americas, Europe and Asia buy subscriptions that offer EPL matches.

 

[socal lurker]

You can determine that some of them charge a subscription but there is no way to tell how much of the marginal revenue they gain from having PL games is down increases in subscription revenue vs increases in advertising revenue.

The point is this: subscription-free does not mean revenue-free.

Well, of course the subscriptio services also make revenue from ads. But that is totally different from saying subscription free is going to work. The whole reason that so much is behind paywalls is that the double revenue stream allows them to offer more for the broadcast rights. If a league wants to insist on free broadcast in its contract, it’s simply going to get paid less for those rights (both because there are fewer bidders and because the bidders can earn less from the tights).. This really isn’t complex.