Sky etc make their money from subscriptions, which in Sky's case are a shit ton a year - the business model being that people buy it for PL football and are thereby forced to take all the other stuff for a premium price. Same with BT sport, same even with Amazon Prime in a way.
Our market just isn't large enough to replicate how the Americans do things - you just wouldn't get the numbers. I suspect our consumers are tighter with money as well.
I feel like your logic doesn't make sense. If it's financially worthwhile for Sky to do it just to get extra people to sign up or add on sports, then it simply has to be worth it for the Premier League to do it when they would only be selling the football.
It wouldn't, because (as mentioned) they wouldn't be able to sell the subscriptions and wouldn't be able to absorb all the extra costs of producing the games.
It's one of these weird situations - what suits the armchair fan can and will never happen, UNLESS the value of TV rights plummets to about 25% of what it is now and you're left with a hardcore who are then willing to pay anyway.
It’s all going down the shitter the more and more people just watch clips on Twitter and not full matches.
Serie A rights in the domestic Italian market are worth about 20% of PL rights in the UK market. They could probably try it there, may already have done since DAZN have it, I'm not sure.
Even La Liga is barely over 50% the value of the PL deal. Bundesliga is worth about 60% but then Germany is a bigger market so still pisspoor. People here are pretty blind to how inflated the PL TV deal is.
Last edited by Jimmy Floyd; 04-01-2023 at 08:04 PM.
Sky would presumably have gone down the tubes years and years ago if none of this made sense.
Why can Sky sell enough extra subscriptions just by having the football to make it worth it but the League wouldn't be able to sell enough subscriptions to make just the football worth it? It doesn't make sense.Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
What would you pay monthly to watch live PL football?
It doesn't matter what I would pay. If Sky are selling enough extra subscriptions to make paying what they do for the football worth it, then logically it simply has to be possible to make enough just selling the football.
I don't know how to lay this out properly so it makes sense.
Google says sky sports is like £34 a month, so £408 a year.
If Sky are making enough money for it to be profitable selling it for that amount, why would it not be profitable for the Premier League to sell it for the same amount?
Sky is £57 a month minimum I think (special offers aside), as there's a base layer onto which you have to add sports.
And the answer to your question is that the two are not selling the same thing. Sky are selling a TV package that is also of value to people in the household who like sports other than football, or who don't like football at all, or who occasionally watch football but mainly watch other things. PL streaming would be selling exclusively live PL games - no CL, no Football League, no FA Cup, no internationals, no F1, no cricket, no rugby, no boxing, no Game of Thrones, no Sopranos, no whatever the hell else is on Sky TV.
HOWEVER, if you took PL football out of the above package then the business model would come crumbling down. That doesn't mean that the rest is worthless and isn't factored into consumer decisions to buy or not buy. It just means that without the live PL football, Sky wouldn't have the key offering that underpins this premium rounded product.
It also matters a lot how much you would pay for live PL football. If it's less than the £80 odd a month you'd have to pay to Sky, BT and Amazon to watch all of this season's football, then there's no point in the PL even entertaining the idea, because their money comes from there.
Last edited by Jimmy Floyd; 04-01-2023 at 08:44 PM.
But Sky also has to pay for that other content.
It has to pay hardly anything. Cricket and F1 are the next two biggest subscription drivers, the two combined cost only £400 million a year. PL football costs them £1 billion a year for just 128 games, AND they have to pay the massive amounts to actually do the broadcasts. The company's total revenue is £13 billion.
The PL would never recoup that money through a streaming service. In a market of 300 million you would, because economies of scale.
Last edited by Jimmy Floyd; 04-01-2023 at 09:05 PM.
I still don't think it makes sense but I lack the eloquence to express why so I am giving up.
How many people subscribe to sky sports?
Belter of a finish from Kane for his second. No idea why Spurs refuse to play until after half time in every game though.
Doesn't seem to be readily available information as far as I can see.
Bore off idiot we're talking about subscription economics here ffs.
NOWTV subs will get bundled in with the pile as well.
I thought Brian Hill was history. He's looked alright here.
According to Jim's figures earlier 12 million people paying £12 a month covers it. The main problem is as said it doesnt cover all the football like yank sports where it's all one organisation.
There’s a reason why they don’t release the numbers is because they’re really fucking bad.
Don't pubs have to pay way more to be able to show Sky as well? Presumably the premier league could also charge more for that.
Plus there is zero chance of getting 12 million subs. Most PL games aren't even watched by 1 million people.
I know this is old, but someone has just linked this on a thread about Umtiti being racially abused by Lazio fans and I'd never seen it before.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50814275
I'm sorry, WOT
I think I might've themed a monthly football thread around that for want of anything else going on when it happened but yeah, mental.
Sterling going off is a blessing in disguise. Of course he brings on Aubameyang though. Potter doesn’t help himself.
He might as well have just stuck with ten as bring pierrick on.
Might see a fair bit of Chukuwemeka or Omari Hutchinson if we lose a few goals and it isn't tight.
Chelsea looking far better than I had them down for, having not watched them for a long time. Once they get rid of all that Havertz-Auba-Puli-Ziyech shite and bring in Chucky-Omari-Casadei they'll be elite.
Christ, you're lucky you haven't watched them for a long time. I do rate Potter as a coach though, even if his interviews are naff as fuck.
Paul Tierney's got no hair on his head, but absolutely loads of hair on his arms. Very offputting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/africa/64154037
Cameroon's Under-17s face a race against time to field a team for regional African Cup of Nations qualifiers after more players failed age tests ordered by Samuel Eto'o, president of the country's governing body, Fecafoot.
The former Barcelona and Inter Milan striker's insistence on using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) screening saw the squad ravaged at their training camp in Mbankomo, on the outskirt of Yaounde.
Of the initial 30-member group, 21 failed the tests.
But BBC Sport Africa now understands Cameroon have suffered a fresh setback as 11 new players also failed tests on Tuesday, with coach Jean Pierre Fiala struggling to find replacements.
He needs to start just blooding them in. Season is basically a write off already at this point. At least he brought Chukuwemeka on instead of Gallagher.
I see Haaland is balding
He really can't afford to the ugly bastard.
God we need Chilwell back. Cucurella is absolute garbage.
Grealish has been phenomenal lately.
‘Pep’ has schooled Potter in the 2nd half. Absolutely wide open down the wings and Potter hasn’t changed or reacted to it at all. That goal was always coming down either side
You can blame Kepa for that, but Mendy would just have pushed it straight into the middle of the six yard box for the alien to tap in.
Beautiful subs by Potter. How can you expect me to work under these conditions??!!??!
Did Aubameyang go off or has he just gone for a pint?
Proper mugs game picking managers up from well-managed smaller teams. Chris Hughton looked like a good manager at Brighton; 'Nuno' at Wolves; Brendan Rodgers at half his teams for a particular period of time; everyone who Southampton have employed in recent memory. You would have better odds getting Sam Allardyce in than hiring whoever finishes ninth with Moneyball FC.
That replay there shows how close it was to him. He genuinely thinks it’s going for a goal kick and leaves it
Chelsea have had everyone else by now.
Mourinho must be due a third crack under these American retards.
Very frustrating game to watch, with Mount we'd have at least drawn it. About 10 wasters among those who have played, including Kovacic who is dire.
Steve Clarke can just grimace them into a unit.
Boomer
Potter doubters are idiots.
Chukwuemeka needs a lot more game time based on that performance.
I think he would have been starting before now as he started to get decent minutes off the bench before the World Cup. Then Chelsea decided to inject him with whatever they do to all their good players and he was injured for a month or so.
Nkunku getting injured just before the World Cup after it’s confirmed he’s joining in the summer confirms this. Enzo Fernandez will probably be thankful his move looks to have collapsed.
Mourinho is definitely coming back at some point. Just need to wait for the stars to align.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote