How Much???

Generali

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I mean actually having gone to see a proper game in person, not on tv.

You should, it's great fun. If you go lower down the leagues or to a Northern Hell Hole it's pretty cheap.

purch

When you compare the UK (Sky) model with the US model they are completely different.

In the US they have kept as much sport as possible FTA, which gives them massive viewing numbers, and they generate the income through advertisements.

In the UK the Sky/BT model appears to be to have a s much sport as possible PPV, which means far lower viewing numbers, but with income generated mainly through subscriptions.

I realise that the US model is easier for them as their main sports have lots of natural breaks, but they also ensure that these breaks are not filled with talking heads, and are crammed full of adverts.

It is most obvious when you watch NFL on Sky. When the US broadcaster goes to an advert break to generate income, Sky usually go back to the studio so that an ex-basketball coach and a bloke who kicked extra points badly for a few seasons can talk drivel about the game.

The number of viewers that Sky/BT can guarantee do not warrant advertisers paying hugely for ad time.

The US model has worked for a long time, and even the NFL network which tried to show games to subscribers for a few years, has now sold it's rights to NBC in order to produce more income as their viewing figures for Thursday games could not generate enough advertising income.

Whether or not the UK model of subscribers producing the bulk of the income can last or is better in the long term is open to debate.

Generali

AIUI, the argument in the US is that if you put sport on PPV you lose the next generation of fans.

In the UK, soccer is so hugely dominant I doubt it's a problem. In the US, you have lots of sports in competition with each other so you need to consider that fans simply can turn to baseball or basketball if NFL goes on Fox.

the_flying_pig

US TV sport are very different.


Lots of domestic competition for eyeballs between the sports, esp. NFL, NBA, MLB.


No international competition for playing talent - chances of the very best football players defecting to Canada/basketball players to Spain/baseball players to Japan are zilch.


More breaks & ads.


Much more redistribution of income, including the draft system & so on.


More appetite amongst 'neutrals' for watching entire live games [as opposed to highlights] that don't involve 'their' team.


etc.

purch

There is very little overlap between the regular seasons of US sports, and only the NFL has it's entire regular season and play offs on network TV.

The MLB, NBA and NHL have most of their regular season on local stations.

ESPN shows baseball nationally 3 nights a week, and Fox is the only network to show it and only then on Saturdays. The NBA is shown nationally on TNT and ESPN with a few weekend games on ABC.

The NFL is really the only TV contract comparable with the Premier League, and the way the income is obtained is completely different.

Generali

purch wrote: »

There is very little overlap between the regular seasons of US sports, and only the NFL has it's entire regular season and play offs on network TV.

The MLB, NBA and NHL have most of their regular season on local stations.

ESPN shows baseball nationally 3 nights a week, and Fox is the only network to show it and only then on Saturdays. The NBA is shown nationally on TNT and ESPN with a few weekend games on ABC.

The NFL is really the only TV contract comparable with the Premier League, and the way the income is obtained is completely different.

Interesting. Are sports regional like in Aus or national?

Over here, AFL (Aussie Rules) is for Victorians, NRL (Rugby League) is for the New South Welsh and Qld a little bit. Qld plays a lot of basketball. God alone knows what goes on in Perth, Adelaide and Tassie. TBH I'd rather rather not think about it, especially Tasmania. Probably keys in a fruit bowl with the extended family. On TV.

IIRC, in NFL the only revenue that isn't shared is money paid on the gate to watch a match. TV rights and even merchandise is sold by the NFL itself and divvied up equally between the teams.

TBH I quite like that as a model. I hate FFP in soccer as it's solely designed to stop other people coming along and taking the revenue streams that 'belong' to Man Utd, Bayern, Real Madrid etc. It's what we economists call a right old stitch up. No chance that Man Utd shirts are going to be financing Crystal Palace or Wigan or whoever.

purch

For everything other than the NFL and FBS Football in the US they have local channels that will have the rights to show games. Some areas will have more than one channel that they sell rights to.

In Boston it is NESN (New England Sports Network) that will show all of the Red Sox, Bruins and Celtic home games and most of the road games. They will often also show the games even when they are part of the National TV contract.

In NYC there is YES network which is owned by the Yankees and show their games whereas da Mets are on SNY (Sportsnet NY).

The local channels will have deals to show football related content for their local NFL team, but no right to show anything live, even practices are off limits and game footage is also unlikely to be included.

The teams themselves will have their own announcers (commentators) who will call the game irrespective of which local channel is showing it, Vin Scully of the Dodgers ("forget it"), Bob Ueker of the various Milwaukee teams ("I knew when my career was over. In 1965 my baseball card came out with no picture") John Sterling of the Yankees, Jack Buck of the Cardinals, Harry Caray of the Cubs etc etc


Only the NFL has exclusive live TV rights sold in a package to the main networks (Fox, CBS, NBC and ESPN [and ESPN games are simulcast on ABC affiliates])

You are right in how the National Soviet Football League divi's up the revenue, and there are even further balancing payments from the rich teams like the Cowboys who sell out AT&T Stadium with 80,000 8 times a season, to their poorer cousins like the Jaguars who would struggle to sell out a phone booth.

Generali

purch wrote: »

Only the NFL has exclusive live TV rights sold in a package to the main networks (Fox, CBS, NBC and ESPN [and ESPN games are simulcast on ABC affiliates])

Ah yes, I forgot that Fox is a network in the USA rather than being a Sky/Foxtel.

the_flying_pig

Generali wrote: »

...I hate FFP in soccer as it's solely designed to stop other people coming along and taking the revenue streams that 'belong' to Man Utd, Bayern, Real Madrid etc. It's what we economists call a right old stitch up. No chance that Man Utd shirts are going to be financing Crystal Palace or Wigan or whoever.

yeah, dunno about FFP.


I sort of didn't mind the idea of a version of FFP that would prevent clubs 'doing a Leeds', i.e. racking up loads of private debt chasing the dream & going tits up. that rule would have been at least partly in supporters' interests.


as you say though the current version, which prevents rich owners from putting their own money in is in all regards a nonsense and serves only to ossify the status quo whereby Manyoo or Bayern's vast armies of lowlife armchair supporters [most of whom would be perfectly happy to switch clubs after a few years of bad results] protect them from competition. I don't particularly see that a new version of Abramovic or Mansour pouring loads of his own [ahem] hard-earned cash into a club is any less "fair" than the 'glory hunting' travesty.

stator

ruggedtoast wrote: »

At least he is not getting any of those pounds from me.

I guess you don't have TV Licence, Sky or BT account and haven't bought The Sun recently?