General : ESPN, BT, Euro, Premier and Sky Sports news

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

First off Im not getting into who'll win what , frankly I couldn't careless if I'm honest , if its BT I'll switch supplier that's the beauty of choice however have you actually read what you put ? BT sell games to other channels , so their going to pay billions for football and then sell it to other channels I'm afraid that's complete fantasyland

What I'm saying is that they can sell certain games to other channels. There are various options, including a reluctant Sky coming on board to share all the matches (thus halving the cost), which could pave the way for joint partnerships for the bidding process in the future, getting the rights for a lower price with this arrangement.

The whole idea of competition is that it drives prices down. Let's see how this works in the area of Sport TV. One thing is for sure, ever higher prices is going to get an ever lower share of the audience. Something's got to give.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Unless of course BT play a clever game should they win the Premier League rights outright.

For example, they could sell the rights to certain matches to other TV channels and drive costs down. By showing Sky that their dominance is over, they may force them for future bids into joining with BT by pooling resources at a price BT thinks is better for the punters.

Who knows what will happen, but with more players, subscriptions don't have to keep going up. We just have to see who blinks first.

No company can win the Premier League rights outright as the rights are not sold that way. BT's shareholders would also expect any investment in Premier League rights to be maximised; if BT did not its share price would suffer and the directors would be replaced and the company possibly taklen over.

[johnathome]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

What I'm saying is that they can sell certain games to other channels. There are various options, including a reluctant Sky coming on board to share all the matches (thus halving the cost), which could pave the way for joint partnerships for the bidding process in the future, getting the rights for a lower price with this arrangement.

The whole idea of competition is that it drives prices down. Let's see how this works in the area of Sport TV. One thing is for sure, ever higher prices is going to get an ever lower share of the audience. Something's got to give.

Two companies colluding on prices? I think the regulator would hand out big fines if that happened.

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

First off Im not getting into who'll win what , frankly I couldn't careless if I'm honest , if its BT I'll switch supplier that's the beauty of choice however have you actually read what you put ? BT sell games to other channels , so their going to pay billions for football and then sell it to other channels I'm afraid that's complete fantasyland , the only games you'll see free are the few champions league ones which were part of the deal with UEFA in my opinion.

I'm led to believe that once they realised that they had overpaid and been left with the scraps from this rights round bt did seriously consider reselling some of what they had, before they decided to use it to drive broadband subs, something that was never on the cards until that point.

I'm not really sure how clever our strategic bt are being, it just looks to me like they're chucking all their money in andthen playing the hand they get dealt.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The whole idea of competition is that it drives prices down.

The whole idea of holding auctions, which is what most sports rights sales are, is to drive up prices, not drive them down.

Market competition that drives prices down occurs when two products or services can easily be substituted for one another eg petrol from Esso or Shell. However, this is not the case in sports rights as they are sold on an exclusive basis so offerings from Sky, Eurosport and BT Sport are not easy to substitute for each other.

However, if BT acquires more Premiership rights in the next auction, then it may become more easy for more people to substitute BT Sport for Sky Sports and price competition may then occur.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The whole idea of holding auctions, which is what most sports rights sales are, is to drive up prices, not drive them down.

Market competition that drives prices down occurs when two products or services can easily be substituted for one another eg petrol from Esso or Shell. However, this is not the case in sports rights as they are sold on an exclusive basis so offerings from Sky, Eurosport and BT Sport are not easy to substitute for each other.

However, if BT acquires more Premiership rights in the next auction, then it may become more easy for more people to substitute BT Sport for Sky Sports and price competition may then occur.

Just like to say Andrew excellent post as usual , I'm interested to know do you think at some point in the future we could see streaming services bidding for key sporting rights ?

I'm thinking along the lines of Apple , Google etc bundling a free apple TV device with annual or monthly season tickets to help bring more people onboard to their own eco system and help with selling companion products such as iPad/iPhone etc.

[1andrew1]

Hi Muppetman, thanks for the compliment

I don't pretend to be an expert in this field and each sport is different. In terms of something like the Premier League, I can't see the League wanting to be tied to one hardware or software manufacturer for the majority of its matches. That is one factor which has helped ensure BT Sport is on Virgin; the League wanted it to be on as many platforms as possible. And if you just ended up with two rights owners for lots of territories then it's quite risky for the sports rights owners.

I could see companies like Apple and Google interested in lesser rights, eg goal clips, highlights etc but at the moment they're quite US-focussed; Apple TV doesn't even have the UK catch-up services. And even then you get into the debate about who owns the customer relationship - the device manufacturer or the mobile network!

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by johnathome

Two companies colluding on prices? I think the regulator would hand out big fines if that happened.

It wouldn't be 'collusion', it would be a joint bid.

---------- Post added at 12:54 ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The whole idea of holding auctions, which is what most sports rights sales are, is to drive up prices, not drive them down.

Market competition that drives prices down occurs when two products or services can easily be substituted for one another eg petrol from Esso or Shell. However, this is not the case in sports rights as they are sold on an exclusive basis so offerings from Sky, Eurosport and BT Sport are not easy to substitute for each other.

However, if BT acquires more Premiership rights in the next auction, then it may become more easy for more people to substitute BT Sport for Sky Sports and price competition may then occur.

Yes, Andrew, you are right. However, prices cannot go much higher owing to customer resistance, and an auction can only produce bids that people are prepared to make. In the end, if Sky and BT get together and make a bid at a lower level, this will be good for everyone.

[Chad]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It wouldn't be 'collusion', it would be a joint bid.

---------- Post added at 12:54 ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 ----------

Yes, Andrew, you are right. However, prices cannot go much higher owing to customer resistance, and an auction can only produce bids that people are prepared to make. In the end, if Sky and BT get together and make a bid at a lower level, this will be good for everyone.

It's an interesting prospect, similar to the joint bid by Channel 5 and ESPN for the Europa League rights a few years back:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/sep/01/uefa-europa-league-espn

Is there a minimum bid requirement for the Premiership rights? If no other broadcaster showed interest, and SKY and BT did make a joint bid, what would stop them from making a silly offer i.e. half of what they currently pay for the rights? That might force the Premer League to launch their own football channel, which would be available on all TV platforms. A standardised subscription fee accross the board regarless of who your TV provider is. All fixtures shown on just 1 channel, if that would be allowed. No need to subscribe to both SKY and BT to catch all the action.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It wouldn't be 'collusion', it would be a joint bid.

---------- Post added at 12:54 ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 ----------

Yes, Andrew, you are right. However, prices cannot go much higher owing to customer resistance, and an auction can only produce bids that people are prepared to make. In the end, if Sky and BT get together and make a bid at a lower level, this will be good for everyone.

The rights are sold on an exclusive basis and all the rights are never sold to one broadcaster. So even if BT Sport-Sky Sports combined, another competing broadcaster like BeIN Sport would be around to bid up the rights and acquire at least one package.
What you are probably seeking is a non-exclusive rights sale so that more than one broadcaster can show the same matches. That does not raise the same level of income for the sports rights owners so would have to be legislated for by Government.

[Anypermitedroute]

at one point BBC had 10 championship games as season, does anyone know if that was a one off or a special that season that they had to show 10 of free to air ,

and to "appease" the wider audience would the premier league consider anything like that?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chad

It's an interesting prospect, similar to the joint bid by Channel 5 and ESPN for the Europa League rights a few years back:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/200...pa-league-espn

Is there a minimum bid requirement for the Premiership rights? If no other broadcaster showed interest, and SKY and BT did make a joint bid, what would stop them from making a silly offer i.e. half of what they currently pay for the rights? That might force the Premer League to launch their own football channel, which would be available on all TV platforms. A standardised subscription fee accross the board regarless of who your TV provider is. All fixtures shown on just 1 channel, if that would be allowed. No need to subscribe to both SKY and BT to catch all the action.

Exactly right. A minimum bid requirement set too high would not be much cop if it didn't produce the bids.

Unfortunately, I can't see Sky and BT making a silly offer because this would put them in peril of another company coming in to snap up the rights. But certainly, I would have thought there was room to reduce the price paid to more acceptable and sustainable levels.

How this is managed in practice is another matter. The two companies could decide between them to show all the matches, or they could divide the spoils between them. They could even decide to sell some of the matches to other TV channels if the Premiership rules allowed it.

One way or the other, something has to give, because prices cannot simply keep spiralling in an upward direction. Customers simply won't pay the exorbitant prices at which the subscriptions would have to be fixed in order to pay for itself.

I know some of you don't see it, but you must agree that there is a price beyond which people won't pay, so a solution will have to be found.

---------- Post added at 13:21 ---------- Previous post was at 13:17 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The rights are sold on an exclusive basis and all the rights are never sold to one broadcaster. So even if BT Sport-Sky Sports combined, another competing broadcaster like BeIN Sport would be around to bid up the rights and acquire at least one package.
What you are probably seeking is a non-exclusive rights sale so that more than one broadcaster can show the same matches. That does not raise the same level of income for the sports rights owners so would have to be legislated for by Government.

I know there are some matches that would be picked up by a different broadcaster in line with the rules. I was really thinking about the main package.

In respect of that main package, BT and Sky Sports could submit a joint bid. That is what I meant.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I know there are some matches that would be picked up by a different broadcaster in line with the rules. I was really thinking about the main package.

In respect of that main package, BT and Sky Sports could submit a joint bid. That is what I meant.

There are lots of packages and if BT Sport-Sky merged/jointly bid (even if the League let them which I doubt) another company would step into their shoes so nothing much would change.

At the moment there's not a public backlash against prices for pay-TV sports and sales are healthy. This may change in the future but rights have risen despite the recession and there's currently no pressure on the Premier League to alter the way they sell their rights.

---------- Post added at 13:42 ---------- Previous post was at 13:40 ----------

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute

at one point BBC had 10 championship games as season, does anyone know if that was a one off or a special that season that they had to show 10 of free to air ,

and to "appease" the wider audience would the premier league consider anything like that?

At the moment there's no pressure on the Premier League to do so. Unless this changes, it will just carry on with its current arrangements as they maximise revenue and that's what its management are paid to do.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

There are lots of packages and if BT Sport-Sky merged/jointly bid (even if the League let them which I doubt) another company would step into their shoes so nothing much would change.

At the moment there's not a public backlash against prices for pay-TV sports and sales are healthy. This may change in the future but rights have risen despite the recession and there's currently no pressure on the Premier League to alter the way they sell their rights.

If you read previous posts on here, a backlash is certainly what is stirring. There is not much more room to increase prices.

As for another company stepping in, they are not going to step in if they have to pay an astronomical price because they won't get their money back. It's up to the bidders to judge the position and to bid accordingly. I am only trying to point out that the only way is not necessarily up.

I don't need to remind anyone here that BT have got more money than Sky. In the end, we are in their hands IMO.

I don't think there are any rules that say a joint bid cannot be made, are there? Consortium bids aren't disallowed in other areas of the commercial world. Was this your assumption, Andrew, or do you know this for a fact?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If you read previous posts on here, a backlash is certainly what is stirring. There is not much more room to increase prices.

As for another company stepping in, they are not going to step in if they have to pay an astronomical price because they won't get their money back. It's up to the bidders to judge the position and to bid accordingly. I am only trying to point out that the only way is not necessarily up.

I don't need to remind anyone here that BT have got more money than Sky. In the end, we are in their hands IMO.

I don't think there are any rules that say a joint bid cannot be made, are there? Consortium bids aren't disallowed in other areas of the commercial world. Was this your assumption, Andrew, or do you know this for a fact?

Hi Old Boy. I think when Sky Sports revenues decline then the tipping point will have been reached. Forum postings can sometimes be a future indicator and other times not. Time will tell but Deloitte's recent report only points to higher and higher rights costs.
The Premier League rights are exclusive; a joint bid by definition would not be as I understand it.