How Much???

Generali

http://www.espnfc.com/barclays-premier-league/story/2291898/premier-league-reveals-5-billion-british-tv-rights-deal-with-sky-and-bt

The Premier League has announced a 70 percent increase in the value of its British television rights for the 2016-19 seasons with Sky and BT paying a combined 5.136 billion pounds ($7.8 billion) to show games.

£99,000,000 for coming last in 2016 plus 'TV access rights'.

purch

I will not even try to understand the commercial logic behind paying 70% more.

Of course it won';t be SKY & BY paying for this, it will be the subscribers.

vivatifosi

purch wrote: »

I will not even try to understand the commercial logic behind paying 70% more.

Of course it won';t be SKY & BY paying for this, it will be the subscribers.

I will admit to having Sky and this worries me. I am not interested in football. We do however watch F1 (Sky), NFL (Sky) and MotoGP (BT Sports). I don't want to subsidise football by paying through the nose for other sports. Sky used to allow you to subscribe to individual sports channels but now they force you to pay for the bundle.

On Sky News last night they had some figures.. can't remember what they were exactly, but it was something like 27% of their total budget being spent on 1% of their audience, as so many people have the basic package. Madness.

purch

It's BT that is the most bizarre.

They still give BT Sport free with all it's Broadband packages, some for less than fiver a month for the first few months.

And they spend nearly a yard for premier league rights to 42 games a season, that's not much more than one a week :eek:

purch

...............forgot about the Sainsbury's Gift Card they also give away when you sign up.

TheBlueHorse

seems a lot to pay when 99% of people can get any football game they like online for free.

ruggedtoast

I was listening to an interview on the radio with some manager or agent or other who is about to transfer one of his players for the most amount ever from one team of men who kick a ball around to another team of men who kick a ball around (sorry that is the closest I can get to who it was, don't give a monkeys about football).

They asked him if we were even approaching the limits of what the world would pay for to access rights to the Premiership. This set off a long reply from him about how football is the most important sport involving teams of men kicking balls around a field in the world and there should rightfully be no limited to its megastars pay days.

Presumably at some point people will get sick of paying through the nose on subs and merchandise so that a sparsely educated man can be paid £80 million a year to run up and down a field kicking a round sphere. At least he is not getting any of those pounds from me.

N1AK

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Presumably at some point people will get sick of paying through the nose on subs and merchandise so that a sparsely educated man can be paid £80 million a year to run up and down a field kicking a round sphere. At least he is not getting any of those pounds from me.

There was a woman on the radio this morning saying that the fact fans were so incredibly loyal to a team shouldn't mean that the teams take advantage of them. If you're blindly loyal to an organisation that is blatantly bleeding you dry then you've got no sympathy from me.

I don't care how much footballers are paid etc. If I am willing to pay the price I will pay the price and have no right to complain; if I am not, then I won't and have nothing to complain about :beer:

Loughton_Monkey

People with brains (i.e. Rugby Union Supporters) will deplore the stupid inflated amounts of money pouring into this dull game - mainly played by overpaid prima donna irresponsible idiots - but will support, unreservedly, the right to commercialise the game. It is market forces.

All we care about is that the players, clubs, and other hangers on pay their taxes. I don't care if Tottenham so-called Hotspurs want to charge me £50 or £5000 to watch a game with Accrington so-called Stanley it matters not because I won't pay a penny.

As for television, I have no choice but to stay with Virgin and enjoy 100 mb Internet. BT are so archaic that the best they can offer around here is 38 mb. Sky claim 76 mb but the catch is they don't put TV down the cable. You have to have a dish. Since I don't live on a council estate, people round here will not lower themselves to erect unsightly dishes on their 7-figure value homes.

Feel free, therefore, to sit behind your front window under your unsightly grey dish gulping brown ale on a Saturday afternoon. Some of us will be sipping our very large gin & tonics watching a rather more civilised 6-nations rugby match.

the_flying_pig

it's a fairly astonishing increase.


interesting that auction proceeds seem to be totally immune to changes in technology [whereby, with a little effort, any Sky game can be watched online for nowt] & in results [the armchair fans' favorites, Manchester United, have been by their standards very mediocre for the last couple of years].


the size of the increase [say setting aside a quarter of the increase, call it half a billion quid] is easily enough money to make a real, real difference to coaching kids, to go a long way towards putting England on a par with Spain or Germany, but it obviously won't happen.


the first thing it'll do is make EPL clubs more attractive to big time [e.g. Glazer family] & small time [e.g. Oyston family] looking to get a slice of the pie. the rest will 'trickle down' into the pockets of the players and their agents.

purch

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

People with brains (i.e. Rugby Union Supporters) will deplore the stupid inflated amounts of money pouring into this dull game - mainly played by overpaid prima donna irresponsible idiots - but will support, unreservedly, the right to commercialise the game. It is market forces.

I guess they were perfectly happy when BT Sport outbid SKY by 50% for the Guinness Premiership rights