FIFA Lose TV Bid

Lightbulb Sun

FIFA have lost in the European courts which is great news as they now cannot sell off the World Cup TV rights to Pay TV companies.

Rotten organisation. All the biggest companies advertise at the World cup and FIFA make an absolute mint from it. Can they not be happy with the 2bn dollars they made from the last World Cup? Seems not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23288211

joe316

Lightbulb Sun wrote: »

FIFA have lost in the European courts which is great news as they now cannot sell off the World Cup TV rights to Pay TV companies.

Rotten organisation. All the biggest companies advertise at the World cup and FIFA make an absolute mint from it. Can they not be happy with the 2bn dollars they made from the last World Cup? Seems not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23288211

+1

Wouldnt you love if you could boycott the organisation but we all love this sport too much to ignore it

Dempsey

They have a duty to get the best deals possible for their competitions but I welcome this decision

I am pie

FIFA are a joke at this stage, Bin Hamman was banned for life by their own ethics commission in 2011, ..he is reinstated and the next year Qatar win their world cup bid. No one could possibly take them seriously.

Hyzepher

I wonder how many people realise that FIFA is a registered charity

Dempsey

Hyzepher wrote: »

I wonder how many people realise that FIFA is a registered charity

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13616328

Fifa started out as a tiny voluntary organisation, and grew and grew into a global behemoth with more member nations than the UN. Here are six unusual facts about the secretive organisation that governs world football.

Highlights the evolution of how FIFA makes its money

Lightbulb Sun

Lightbulb Sun wrote: »

FIFA have lost in the European courts which is great news as they now cannot sell off the World Cup TV rights to Pay TV companies.

Rotten organisation. All the biggest companies advertise at the World cup and FIFA make an absolute mint from it. Can they not be happy with the 2bn dollars they made from the last World Cup? Seems not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23288211

Interesting to know though that if they had got their way, would there have been a decline in viewership and subsequently a fall in the advertising revenue they yield?

Daemos

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting to know though that if they had got their way, would there have been a decline in viewership and subsequently a fall in the advertising revenue they yield?

Probably not, as most would have those channels already, and frankly I can't see many people boycotting it if FIFA got their way

But it was a clear attempt to get maximum profit with zero consideration for the fans who don't have those channels. It's nice to see their greediness get called out for once

losthorizon

And when does europe rule the world?

Fair enough for the euros

Lightbulb Sun

Daemos wrote: »

Probably not, as most would have those channels already, and frankly I can't see many people boycotting it if FIFA got their way

But it was a clear attempt to get maximum profit with zero consideration for the fans who don't have those channels. It's nice to see their greediness get called out for once

That's a very EU-centric viewpoint. What about the people in Latin America or Africa who can't afford subscription channels?

I am pie

I am pie wrote: »

FIFA are a joke at this stage, Bin Hamman was banned for life by their own ethics commission in 2011, ..he is reinstated and the next year Qatar win their world cup bid. No one could possibly take them seriously.

Your sentiment is right but the World cup was awarded in 2010 to both Qatar (2024) and Russia (2018)
In 2011, Bin Hammam made a challenge on Blatters presidency but was exposed as being corrupt along with Blatters long time crony Jack Warner from Trinidad and Tobago.
It would seem though that Blatter is untouchable in spite of him being far far far from whiter than white and he is a buffoon to boot

Guy:Incognito

Im not in favour of any sport being forced to stay on free tv. The relevant body owns the sport they should be free to do as they please with it.

miralize

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Im not in favour of any sport being forced to stay on free tv. The relevant body owns the sport they should be free to do as they please with it.

Even it is to milk it so much, that the worlds mosts popular game & competition is hidden behind a paywall. Domestic leagues I get because it promotes fans going to stadium, but even Sky have gone beyond ethical about it. But for an international competition, it should be just that, accessible internationally.

My only problem with this decision is that its Europe only. If they start charging in developing countries, that would be extremely harsh and difficult to justify.

CSF

I can't really understand why people think this should be free. Since the beginning of the Sky era hasn't football on TV been about bringing in the masses to create large wealth?

Lightbulb Sun

miralize wrote: »

Even it is to milk it so much, that the worlds mosts popular game & competition is hidden behind a paywall. Domestic leagues I get because it promotes fans going to stadium, but even Sky have gone beyond ethical about it. But for an international competition, it should be just that, accessible internationally.

My only problem with this decision is that its Europe only. If they start charging in developing countries, that would be extremely harsh and difficult to justify.

Must have forgotten that in my last post, apologies.

mike65

The day the WC goes pay tv is the day international football begins its slide into niche irrelevance.

CSF

mike65 wrote: »

The day the WC goes pay tv is the day international football begins its slide into niche irrelevance.

Well people would already have their Sky subscriptions from the Premiership so there wouldn't be any less people with access to view it than a a Man United v Liverpool game

CSF

CSF wrote: »

Well people would already have their Sky subscriptions from the Premiership so there wouldn't be any less people with access to view it than a a Man United v Liverpool game

There is plenty who dont bother with /cant afford the likes of Sky or any form of pay tv and i have no doubt they would lose a massive global audience.
Pay TV will hoover up so much that they'll consume themselves some day. May not be a bad thing.

CSF

Deleted User wrote: »

There is plenty who dont bother with /cant afford the likes of Sky or any form of pay tv and i have no doubt they would lose a massive global audience.
Pay TV will hoover up so much that they'll consume themselves some day. May not be a bad thing.

I wasn't disputing that the audience would drop. Just measuring its relevance against that of the Premiership. In the end, football on TV should cost as much as creates the biggest profit for those who are showing it, if that is giving it out for free and making big money from advertising from the much bigger audience, great. I love getting good things for cheap. If not, what real right do I have to complain?

Mr.Nice Guy

Pretty disgusting that they would make an attempt at this and I'm delighted they have been rebuffed. Greedy bastards.

Guy:Incognito wrote:

Im not in favour of any sport being forced to stay on free tv. The relevant body owns the sport they should be free to do as they please with it.

They 'own the sport'? What does that mean exactly? How do you own a sport?

They are tasked with administrating the game. And this attempt and other high profile controversies suggests they aren't doing a very good job of it, unless we measure their qualities based on their ability to fatten their already bloated pockets .

The World Cup is supposed to be a celebration of the most popular sport on the planet; a chance for all continents to savour the competitiveness on offer, a la the Olympic Games. We keep hearing how sport is supposed to be above politics, yet we have FIFA competing to screw citizens out of as much cash as they can. This court ruling is a victory for sport over greed imo.

CSF

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Pretty disgusting that they would make an attempt at this and I'm delighted they have been rebuffed. Greedy bastards.



They 'own the sport'? What does that mean exactly? How do you own a sport?

They are tasked with administrating the game. And this attempt and other high profile controversies suggests they aren't doing a very good job of it, unless we measure their qualities based on their ability to fatten their already bloated pockets .

The World Cup is supposed to be a celebration of the most popular sport on the planet; a chance for all continents to savour the competitiveness on offer, a la the Olympic Games. We keep hearing how sport is supposed to be above politics, yet we have FIFA competing to screw citizens out of as much cash as they can. This court ruling is a victory for sport over greed imo.

But why should this be free, as opposed to broadband, Premiership football, or even something miles off the spectrum like a burrito. It just seems arbitrary.

Dempsey

CSF wrote: »

But why should this be free, as opposed to broadband, Premiership football, or even something miles off the spectrum like a burrito. It just seems arbitrary.

The aggressive implementation of exclusive sponsorship contracts and tax exemption status FIFA gets for the WC should mean that it should sold to free to air channel as part of promoting the game.

Its not "free" in Ireland anyways

Kirby

CSF wrote: »

But why should this be free, as opposed to broadband, Premiership football, or even something miles off the spectrum like a burrito. It just seems arbitrary.

Because they make an absolute fortune already on advertising and sponsorship because the whole world is watching. I'll give you an example. You might pay 100 quid to go see a band play live in a stadium. The limit is about 80,000 customers. If that same band knew that a few billion people would definitely be watching him, do you think he would charge them any money? Would he heck. It would be free because of the exposure of his brand and his music.....the same way sponsors paying hundreds of millions to FIFA to have their brand name during the buildup, matches and analysis.....seen by billions of people.

To be frank, they already make an absolute killing. This is just greed. And not the good capitalist kind of greed.....the evil dictator muahaha kind.

CSF

Kirby wrote: »

Because they make an absolute fortune already on advertising and sponsorship because the whole world is watching. I'll give you an example. You might pay 100 quid to go see a band play live in a stadium. The limit is about 80,000 customers. If that same band knew that a few billion people would definitely be watching him, do you think he would charge them any money? Would he heck. It would be free because of the exposure of his brand and his music.....the same way sponsors paying hundreds of millions to FIFA to have their brand name during the buildup, matches and analysis.....seen by billions of people.

To be frank, they already make an absolute killing. This is just greed. And not the good capitalist kind of greed.....the evil dictator muahaha kind.

I said this a while back in the thread, if FIFA thought it would be more profitable to have it free, this wouldn't be in court, would it?

Dempsey

CSF wrote: »

I said this a while back in the thread, if FIFA thought it would be more profitable to have it free, this wouldn't be in court, would it?

You do realise that free to air channels buy rights to the WC? Most broadcasters that buy up the rights are in receipt of taxpayers money, so its not free as you are suggesting. Broadcasting rights gets FIFA $1bn+

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

CSF wrote: »

I wasn't disputing that the audience would drop. Just measuring its relevance against that of the Premiership. In the end, football on TV should cost as much as creates the biggest profit for those who are showing it, if that is giving it out for free and making big money from advertising from the much bigger audience, great. I love getting good things for cheap. If not, what real right do I have to complain?

So you're arguing that, since the Sky era began, football has essentially become a business, and should be of benefit to those who can generate the most profit from it, i.e. the footballing governing boards?

CSF

THFC wrote: »

So you're arguing that, since the Sky era began, football has essentially become a business, and should be of benefit to those who can generate the most profit from it, i.e. the footballing governing boards?

No not exactly, I'm very much against modern football. I just don't fully get why this is different from Sky charging loads for Premiership rights or what have you. Dempsey made a point about tax relief above, which is valid, but probably not enough to justify the outrage in my opinion

CSF

Dempsey wrote: »

You do realise that free to air channels buy rights to the WC? Most broadcasters that buy up the rights are in receipt of taxpayers money, so its not free as you are suggesting. Broadcasting rights gets FIFA $1bn+

Yes I know that free to air channels have to pay for the rights obviously, but FIFA obviously know which ones are free to air and which ones aren't before they sell the rights so if they were determined to have the World Cup broadcast free they could ensure it no problem.

Dempsey

CSF wrote: »

Yes I know that free to air channels have to pay for the rights obviously, but FIFA obviously know which ones are free to air and which ones aren't before they sell the rights so if they were determined to have the World Cup broadcast free they could ensure it no problem.

They are not determined but they should be as main objective is to admin & promote the game, attempts to sell to subscription TV flies in the face of their main objective. Given the current levels of corruption within the organization, you cant say that they have the best interests of the game in mind.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

CSF wrote: »

No not exactly, I'm very much against modern football. I just don't fully get why this is different from Sky charging loads for Premiership rights or what have you. Dempsey made a point about tax relief above, which is valid, but probably not enough to justify the outrage in my opinion

So it's not a business? And it's definitely not a charitable organisation, or a non-profit organisation, so it's what exactly?

I have argued before in a different thread that modern day football is a business, run, for the most part, for profit. You categorically disagreed then, and that wasn't so long ago. Now, however, you're taking a different approach. Your stance on FIFA losing this case has indicated that you consider FIFA, the international governing body of association football, in its own words, a business.

I'm struggling to understand your logic CSF.

CSF

THFC wrote: »

So it's not a business? And it's definitely not a charitable organisation, or a non-profit organisation, so it's what exactly?

I have argued before in a different thread that modern day football is a business, run, for the most part, for profit. You categorically disagreed then, and that wasn't so long ago. Now, however, you're taking a different approach. Your stance on FIFA losing this case has indicated that you consider FIFA, the international governing body of association football, in its own words, a business.

I'm struggling to understand your logic CSF.

I don't get what is confusing. I don't consider football to be a business, I consider it a sport and I illustrated in a previous thread the reasons. I do however find it odd that certain football tournaments are considered fair game for pay per view, and others provoke outrage. Can you please understand what is confusing about this logic?

Fr Tod Umptious

Dempsey wrote: »

They are not determined but they should be as main objective is to admin & promote the game, attempts to sell to subscription TV flies in the face of their main objective. Given the current levels of corruption within the organization, you cant say that they have the best interests of the game in mind.

But the game is already sold in Europe, it's already the biggest soccer market in the world, what else is there to promote in Europe.

I find it interesting that they lost this.
The idea that a jurisdiction can legislate so that games between nations (teams) not under that jurisdiction are free to air in the jurisdiction is one that I am surprised was held up.

Dempsey

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But the game is already sold in Europe, it's already the biggest soccer market in the world, what else is there to promote in Europe.

I find it interesting that they lost this.
The idea that a jurisdiction can legislate so that games between nations (teams) not under that jurisdiction are free to air in the jurisdiction is one that I am surprised was held up.

Selling to subscription channels doesnt promote the game in the same way selling to free to air channels does.

CSF

Dempsey wrote: »

Selling to subscription channels doesnt promote the game in the same way selling to free to air channels does.

Don't think that is the point he was making to be fair.

listermint

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Im not in favour of any sport being forced to stay on free tv. The relevant body owns the sport they should be free to do as they please with it.

CSF wrote: »

I can't really understand why people think this should be free. Since the beginning of the Sky era hasn't football on TV been about bringing in the masses to create large wealth?

International football is seen as the peoples sport, So I whole heartedly disagree on both points. There is enough money being made out of it as it is.

This constant clamour for greed and revenue cant envelop everything. And why people are in favour of continued monetization especially in the football forum is beyond me.

listermint

CSF wrote: »

No not exactly, I'm very much against modern football. I just don't fully get why this is different from Sky charging loads for Premiership rights or what have you. Dempsey made a point about tax relief above, which is valid, but probably not enough to justify the outrage in my opinion

Theses are national squads, not private clubs.


Im actually very surprised at everything you are saying frankly.

Fr Tod Umptious

Dempsey wrote: »

Selling to subscription channels doesnt promote the game in the same way selling to free to air channels does.

But what more promotion of the game is required in Europe ?
Why does Nigeria v Saudi Arabia need to be available to every man and dog in the land who owns a TV set ?

And why in Ireland should a game like Nigeria v Saudi Arabia, being played in Russia or Qatar be deemed as 'in the national interest' by legislation ?

Richard Hillman

listermint wrote: »

Theses are national squads, not private clubs.


Im actually very surprised at everything you are saying frankly.

They are not really national squads in the essence that you are describing them as. For example the FAI select XI isnt necessarily the Irish national team. The FAI are a private non profit organisation, they don't answer to the people or the state. The team that they field are just promoted as a national team to get punters in.

A true national team is one funded by the state and the people. The manager and assistants would have to be paid by the state.

The current Association and national team differs not much to a club. It just has different rules in regards to who plays for them.

Guy:Incognito

Double post. My bad.

Guy:Incognito

listermint wrote: »

Theses are national squads, not private clubs.


Im actually very surprised at everything you are saying frankly.

There are lots of people representing their countries in various sports all the time. I dont see why football should be protected (or rugby etc) , just because more people like it. Im sure there are people as into squash as others are football, but we dont care about them because its only squash.

Its a sport, nobody "needs" to be able to watch it and certainly not to be free by legislation.

The fa, fai etc should be free to sell any games under its control to whoever they see fit.

Dempsey

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But what more promotion of the game is required in Europe ?
Why does Nigeria v Saudi Arabia need to be available to every man and dog in the land who owns a TV set ?

And why in Ireland should a game like Nigeria v Saudi Arabia, being played in Russia or Qatar be deemed as 'in the national interest' by legislation ?

The continued promotion of the game is required because alot of people are beginning to see it as a business and rules created to protect the status quo. Thats just club football, the preception of international football is changing aswell. The attitude and preception towards the game at the highest level is changing and asking people to fork out to watch games when they have been getting them from free to air channel for as long as they remember will have a significant negative impact.

Its not the "Nigeria v Saudi Arabia" game that is in the national interest, its the competition as Soccer is one of the most played sports in this country and when Ireland play the result and match analysis on splatter on every back page and website of every newspaper not because they have nothing else to write about, its what the people want to read and talk about.

Beefy78

I think people might be more sympathetic if they actually knew/understood/saw what FIFA do. What do they do? As said, they started as a small charitable non-profit organisation trying to promote the game. But today they don't do anything to promote football at grass-roots level - which is the role of national and region FAs. They don't have any direct involvement in the running of 99% of tournaments in the World. At least UEFA have some hands-on involvement in football and I'm sure the other continental associations do as well.

All FIFA appear to be is a bunch of very wealthy old men looking to become more wealthy.

Someone asked earlier why should the World Cup remain free-to-air. Maybe that's a fair point but to flip it for a moment why should it serve purely as a tool to make these people a shed-load of money when they don't appear to do anything to justify that cash? In the club vs country debate I'll always come down on the side of countries but the fact is that the players who perform at World Cups are usually paid very large sums of money by their clubs for their talent. I fail to see why FIFA should profit from their abilities at all.

International football and the World Cup especially is the most important driver of new support into the game that it has. Nothing brings people together like it. My parents, for example, hate football but every two years they're glued to the TV watching England scrape through to another penalty shoot-out defeat (no wonder they hate football...). My first memory of football was the 86 World Cup and it was the 1990 World Cup which saw me fall in love with the game. From an English perspective Euro 96 was, IMO, the thing that turned football in England around even more so than the Sky TV Millions did.

Taking these tournaments away from free-to-air television is an extremely short-sighted idea and one which it's sadly no surprise that FIFA wanted to explore.

Dempsey

FIFA gives money to FA's on top of what they can generate themselves.

Fr Tod Umptious

Dempsey wrote: »

The continued promotion of the game is required because alot of people are beginning to see it as a business and rules created to protect the status quo. Thats just club football, the preception of international football is changing aswell. The attitude and preception towards the game at the highest level is changing and asking people to fork out to watch games when they have been getting them from free to air channel for as long as they remember will have a significant negative impact.

The prices Sky and BT have just paid for rights would imply otherwise

Dempsey wrote: »

Its not the "Nigeria v Saudi Arabia" game that is in the national interest, its the competition as Soccer is one of the most played sports in this country and when Ireland play the result and match analysis on splatter on every back page and website of every newspaper not because they have nothing else to write about, its what the people want to read and talk about.

Did you read the piece the OP referenced, if you did then you would see that your point re Ireland is moot.

It said, and this is obviously in relation to the UK,

BBC wrote:

Even if Fifa had won its case, World Cup finals games featuring England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would have remained free to watch in the UK, as would the opening games, semi-finals and the final.

But it was the other dozens of games featuring non-UK teams that Fifa was disputing - and had argued that matches such as these should not be shown for free in the UK.

Dempsey

selling broadcasting rights for the epl isnt the same as broadcasting rights for the wc or ec