Pay Per View Premier League Games

Non solum non ambulabit

Father Hernandez wrote: »

https://twitter.com/PremierSportsTV/status/1316317288786731008

Great to see Premier sport showing the Sky Sports PPV games. The BT sport box office games remain on BT only. I suspect Sky Ireland did a deal with Premier sport to allow them to show them.

Covers the Man U and Liverpool games so far.

rob316

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I haven't seen a single plug for these extra games on Sky Sports. All their 'coming up this weekend' previews mention are the 'normal' games & the Glasgow Derby.
Looks to me they are pretty much abandoning the concept, which would tie in with the idea that it was EPL driven rather than something Sky/BT saw as a potential way to make money.

Sky make nothing off them so makes no sense to advertise them.

okidoki987

rob316 wrote: »

Sky make nothing off them so makes no sense to advertise them.

Especially as Sky have washed their hands of anything to do with them and the likes of Gary Neville have pushed the fact that it was the EPL who priced them and so nothing to do with SKY.

Unearthly

Wonder will any stats be revealed of the uptake. Would love it to bomb

Father Hernandez

https://twitter.com/JohnSinnott/status/1318124650157772803?s=20

We'll never know and viewing figures won't be available either.

Shanotheslayer

Absolutely gas if this was the first 0-0 of the season and it's PPV.

Unless I'm forgetting a 0-0?

Unearthly

Unearthly wrote: »

Wonder will any stats be revealed of the uptake. Would love it to bomb

Heard on a podcast today they sold 652 for the Leicester v’s Villa game.

Sounds ridiculously low but I’d love it to be true.

CSF

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Heard on a podcast today they sold 652 for the Leicester v’s Villa game.

Sounds ridiculously low but I’d love it to be true.

Jesus, that’s higher than I thought with the way people were going on.

Richard Hillman

I would say a lot of those 652 are from people who work in media, scouts, family members etc. People who have a professional/personal interest. Plus the odd superfan.

Local pubs might have to shell out more too for those that were still open

adaminho

https://twitter.com/lufctrust/status/1319744465318326273?s=19

Fr Tod Umptious

The fact that the pricing of this came from the EPL rather than the TV companies gives some indication of what pricing might be for some sort of on demand service run by the EPL themselves and not involving any TV companies.

Essential it ain't going to be cheap.
As long as the premier league is a high value product, the cost of watching it will be at a premium price rather than a bargain one.

CSF

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The fact that the pricing of this came from the EPL rather than the TV companies gives some indication of what pricing might be for some sort of on demand service run by the EPL themselves and not involving any TV companies.

Essential it ain't going to be cheap.
As long as the premier league is a high value product, the cost of watching it will be at a premium price rather than a bargain one.

You’re absolutely right, but hopefully the fact that nobody is buying them influences them to adopt a Netflix model of trying to have everybody pay for it, because it’s priced so reasonably that many of the people who otherwise look for illegal streams just decide that it’s worth paying for at the low price.

c.p.w.g.w

The main issue most people have with the PPV model...

If you live in Brazil, USA, Canada, Oz, Germany, France, Italy and many other countries...

These games are available to watch on your typical sports package(in many cases these packages are cheaper than they are in the UK & Ireland)

Liverpool game on Premier Sports 1 also

ERG89

Until this morning I had absolutely no idea Villa were playing Leeds last night. So the PPV model is effective.
Today's ppv game between Fulham vs Palace is on the same time as the Clasico on La Liga TV or you could watch Atalanta vs Sampdoria for free on LiveScore or Bayern vs Frankfurt on BT Sports 3. All 3 games sounds more appealing than paying for that PL game.

RasTa

Khabib fight today too. 7pm, most of the money will go there.

Oat23

RasTa wrote: »

Khabib fight today too. 7pm, most of the money will go there.

It's likely there's an Irish Liverpool fan who also watches UFC and WWE. Could be an expensive weekend if they want to watch all three on PPV through Sky. UFC and WWE are €30 each and Liverpool is €17. Madness.

citytillidie

Oat23 wrote: »

It's likely there's an Irish Liverpool fan who also watches UFC and WWE. Could be an expensive weekend if they want to watch all three on PPV through Sky. UFC and WWE are €30 each and Liverpool is €17. Madness.

Irish fan most likely has premier sports so Liverpool game is in that. May have the WWE network and PPV is on that so it would only be the UFC to pay for this weekend

Oat23

citytillidie wrote: »

Irish fan most likely has premier sports so Liverpool game is in that. May have the WWE network and PPV is on that so it would only be the UFC to pay for this weekend

That's why I said 'through Sky'.


I know one WWE fan myself who doesn't have the internet speed to watch on WWE Network so he still has to pay the ridiculous PPV prices with BT.

Nunu

Oat23 wrote: »

That's why I said 'through Sky'.


I know one WWE fan myself who doesn't have the internet speed to watch on WWE Network so he still has to pay the ridiculous PPV prices with BT.

Works for me no bother on a Three dongle. What’s he using dial up?!

Oat23

Nunu wrote: »

Works for me no bother on a Three dongle. What’s he using dial up?!

He lives in a blackspot outside Sligo town where 3G/4G isn't an option. He's stuck with Eir and gets around 0.5MB, and even that isn't stable. It drops out from time to time.

Nunu

Ah fair enough. I’m in my Dublin bubble.

Fr Tod Umptious

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

The main issue most people have with the PPV model...

If you live in Brazil, USA, Canada, Oz, Germany, France, Italy and many other countries...

These games are available to watch on your typical sports package(in many cases these packages are cheaper than they are in the UK & Ireland)

Well it's not difficult to figure out why EPL games are cheaper in those markets than in the UK and Ireland.

The EPL is less valuable there.
Take Aus and the US
Games are on the very irregular hours.
So it's not exactly something that you are going to try and flog at a high price.
Take a look at mlb.tv over here, a full season costs around €100.
You get access to 2,400+ games for that €100.
That's great value, but it's great value because feck all people in this part of the world are interested in MLB and the games are on at very unsociable hours.

As for in Europe and South America for the EPL they have their own leagues that would command a bigger market share than the EPL.

Access to view the EPL will always be cheaper in places where it's not that popular than in the place where it's the most popular league around.

Richard Hillman

It's a bit wierd when you look at the prices to watch American sport and the likes of the PL.

As said above, a TV season ticket to watch every MLB or Nfl game is about €100-140 (there are local restrictions though). All sports are on free to air TV too. This is despite the players being on massive contracts, well above footballers.

For a massive PL game if the game was on free to air TV they may pull in about 10-15m viewers, whilst the Superbowl pulls in 100m. However when you take into account world viewing figures, a massive PL game may pull in close to Superbowl figures.

The only difference I can see is transfer fees. Clubs are playing 100+m on transfer fees every year. Whilst the American sports just spend their money on wages.

So when you compare sports, income is probably in the same ball park, they get probably similar viewing figures, sponsorships are in the same region when you average it out, yet one set of sports fans have to shell out close to 1k to watch a full season and others only need turn on free to air TV or just over €100 online for it all.

The only difference I can see is transfer fees. So we're basically just handing money over to fund transfer fees.

Fr Tod Umptious

Richard Hillman wrote: »

It's a bit wierd when you look at the prices to watch American sport and the likes of the PL.

As said above, a TV season ticket to watch every MLB or Nfl game is about €100-140 (there are local restrictions though). All sports are on free to air TV too. This is despite the players being on massive contracts, well above footballers.

For a massive PL game if the game was on free to air TV they may pull in about 10-15m viewers, whilst the Superbowl pulls in 100m. However when you take into account world viewing figures, a massive PL game may pull in close to Superbowl figures.

The only difference I can see is transfer fees. Clubs are playing 100+m on transfer fees every year. Whilst the American sports just spend their money on wages.

So when you compare sports, income is probably in the same ball park, they get probably similar viewing figures, sponsorships are in the same region when you average it out, yet one set of sports fans have to shell out close to 1k to watch a full season and others only need turn on free to air TV or just over €100 online for it all.

The only difference I can see is transfer fees. So we're basically just handing money over to fund transfer fees.

US sports broadcasting is not as straight forward as you make it look.
Everything is not free to air or $100 to see everything.

Pre COVID actually but here is kind of how it breaks down.
NFL
Fox, CBS, and NBC show free to air games.
CBS and Fox at 1pm and 4pm Eastern Time on Sunday, NBC at 8pm Eastern Time on Sunday.
But the games at 1pm and 4pm are regional, so not everyone gets to see the same game, nor can they chose what game to see.
If you live in a region and the team from that region has not sold out a home game 72 hours before kick off then that game is not on TV in that area.
In places like New England that's fine because the Patriots have sold out every game for almost 30 years so the games are always on local free TV.
But in places like Jacksonville where they don't sell out the games are not on free tv.

ESPN, which is a subscription service, has the rights to Monday Night Football but if it's a sell out then it's on local free TV in the home teams region, I think it's on free in the away teams region too.
Thursday night football is covered by NFL Network, another subscription service, but some games are on one of the free to air networks also.
There are things like Direct TV which is a satellite service which will allow you to watch any of the free to air games regardless of what region you are in.

MLB
MLB is very different as every team has its own TV contract.
Some of these contracts are exclusively subscription based, some are exclusively free to air and some are a mix.
ESPN have rights to certain games on certain days of the week and there is a game or two on free network television also.
You can subscribe to the streaming service mlb.tv in the US but it is location based.
So if you are trying to watch your local team that already have a TV contract you will not be able to.

So even though US audiences have more access to free to air games, especially NFL games, than UK soccer fans have access to EPL games it's not totally free or totally cheap.

okidoki987

Charging £15 UK and €16 Ireland for one match is bonkers stuff.
It's way too dear and will send people to the services that the English FA is trying to ban.
The people who thought up the prices mustn't know a chunk of UK is on
lockdown with loads of people out of work, claiming government assistance.
They couldn't care less about us in Ireland as population is too small.
If it was "normal" times, there might be some who would go over to friends houses and club together to pay for it (like boxing or MMA) but if only 1 or 2 people in same household paying, it's too dear.

Went onto Vodafone Chat to see if they would do a deal for the Arsenal match tonight only to be told they don't have Sky Box Office on their TV stations .
So even if I wanted to pay for it (€5 but not €16!), I couldn't watch it anyway.
Would love to see how many people are currently paying to watch these matches.
If they brought it down to £5/€5 they might get some decent numbers but until then, there's no chance.

c.p.w.g.w

Imagine the game was on FTA station with adverts...I'd imagine they viewing figures could be big and those advertising slots could become very lucrative...

Aston Villa & Leeds are two big clubs...I only know one person who pays for sky sports... everyone else I know has IPTV or a foreign sub, sure I know a lad who sells IPTV set up and his brother is a member of AGS...

Illegal TV set ups are only getting more popular and easier to set up

Shanotheslayer

Not sure if this was posted elsewhere, I couldn't find the good thread of football.

https://twitter.com/FootyAccums/status/1320370759328550913

thelad95

The Premier League is still stuck in an outdated mindset from the late 90s to early 00s when they essentially gave Sky a monopoly and Sky could in turn gouge customers for whatever they want.

£15 in a time when over 1 million people in the UK are out of work through no fault of their own is an absolute disgrace. Completely and utterly petulant greed.

The worst thing is that they knew the economics of it and it unfortunately seems lost on some people. Cameras are already at the ground as all games in the premier League are broadcast. Even if only 500 people buy the game, that's 7 grand they wouldn't have had if they had given the game to the BBC for free or allowed Sky or BT to broadcast it. The burden for lost ticket revenue shouldn't be placed on fans, it's a horrible snakey move.

Reading online, it sounds like the production was completely scaled down by BT and Sky as they're making nothing off selling these games. Although they are both price gouging rip off merchants in their own right, they've been put in an awkward position with this too and have both spoken out against it.

Father Hernandez

thelad95 wrote: »

The Premier League is still stuck in an outdated mindset from the late 90s to early 00s when they essentially gave Sky a monopoly and Sky could in turn gouge customers for whatever they want.

£15 in a time when over 1 million people in the UK are out of work through no fault of their own is an absolute disgrace. Completely and utterly petulant greed.

The worst thing is that they knew the economics of it and it unfortunately seems lost on some people. Cameras are already at the ground as all games in the premier League are broadcast. Even if only 500 people buy the game, that's 7 grand they wouldn't have had if they had given the game to the BBC for free or allowed Sky or BT to broadcast it. The burden for lost ticket revenue shouldn't be placed on fans, it's a horrible snakey move.

Reading online, it sounds like the production was completely scaled down by BT and Sky as they're making nothing off selling these games. Although they are both price gouging rip off merchants in their own right, they've been put in an awkward position with this too and have both spoken out against it.

I think the reality is that the decision is been made by people who don't live in the real world and checking their bank balance coming to the end of the week/month is foreign to them.

Club owners/decision makers will have seen this originally as being a positive allowing fans to watch the game for the mere price of £15, "sure they would pay £40 to attend the game anyway?"

Sky/BT prob thought similar as doing a good deed but it's been a PR disaster for them. They have stated they make nothing but this wasn't overly clear in the press release and they have ultimately come off worse IMO.

As you say the games are already all available to watch due to other markets having the rights. The fall out from this I reckon will be the increase of illegal streaming and IPTV services. Fans will have seen how easy it is to do this, not mind the couple seconds lag and actively seek out a 'reliable' or at least recommended IPTV provider.

Mushy

Article in the Mirror (I know, I know) with "sources" in sky saying theyd love not to have games on PPV as its damaging their image/reputation

Degag

The line that Sky/BT "are making nothing out of this" sounds pretty incredulous to me. I really find it hard to believe they aren't getting a considerable share out of this latest gouging.

Oat23

Degag wrote: »

The line that Sky/BT "are making nothing out of this" sounds pretty incredulous to me. I really find it hard to believe they aren't getting a considerable share out of this latest gouging.

Haven't seen any PPV feeds so I'm not sure if they just use the world feed already produced for every EPL game or if BT and Sky do their own production with their own cameras and presenters? There's absolutely no reason for them not to use the world feed, so if Sky & BT are doing their own production that is a red flag.

If they do their own production then they are likely making money through that but it's classed as "production costs". They would be charging the league for use of their cameras and other equipment.

thelad95

Degag wrote: »

The line that Sky/BT "are making nothing out of this" sounds pretty incredulous to me. I really find it hard to believe they aren't getting a considerable share out of this latest gouging.

I haven't paid for any of the games but judging by what's been said online about the quality of the production of the broadcast, I suspect they're simply using the worldfeed. They say they're not making money and frankly they have no reason to lie to the public, what would be the benefit?

I can still see this decision being reversed soon, it was a disgusting move to put on people who are already cash strapped due to a once in a century global emergency.

Shows how fickle the premier League bubble really is if they have to resort to gouging money from the bottom of the chain to compensate for lost ticket revenue.

garrettod

It's long past time the PL clubs stopped paying rediculous transfer fees and weekly wages, for premadonas...

I really hope that loads of people haven't just refused to pay for PPV games, but have actually cancelled their TV subscriptions.

There's only one way that this attitude of ripping of the little guy will ever be stopped - so vote with your feet, boys and girls, and never look back !

ArmaniJeanss

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/clubs-to-discuss-dropping-cost-of-pay-per-view-matches-56ghptkwq

Premier League clubs will tomorrow consider cutting the cost of controversial pay-per-view matches to less than £10 for games after the international break following a wave of opposition from fan groups.

The top-flight clubs have been surprised and concerned by the level of outrage that the decision to introduce £14.95 pay-per-view (PPV) matches has aroused, with supporter groups from many leading clubs organising a boycott of the games with the money instead going to food banks.

A Premier League shareholders meeting will take place via video conference and the PPV controversy is top of the agenda. One match is believed to have attracted considerably fewer than 1,000 paying subscribers.

It is expected that the £14.95 arrangement via Sky and BT Sport’s Box Office channels will remain in place for all PPV matches until the November international break, including the weekend of November 6-8, but that clubs will then consider reducing the price to £9.95 to fall in line with the charge levied to watch EFL clubs’ matches via the iFollow service.

*******************
Mike Ashley
I am calling on the Premier League to immediately act and review its current pay-per-view arrangements for live matches in the UK.
"Charging £14.95 for single televised matches in the current climate it is not acceptable to any football fan.
"Supporters have overwhelmingly rejected this offer and the Premier League must now act.
"Why not make it much more accessible at £4.95 per match until Christmas?

CSF

I think they will have to go cheaper than a tenner to turn it around after how much they annoyed people.

Might have been different if they’d started at a tenner but maybe not given people had grown used to getting all the games during lockdown.

gimli2112

I used to love boxing remember watching the tragic but unbelieveable Benn v McClennan fight on UTV for free. Then Sky happened, then PPV. I think the last pro boxing bout I watched live was Douglas v Tyson.
Cancelled Sky Sports several years ago.
I'd still probably buy the odd game if I didn't have to subscribe.

Unearthly

CSF wrote: »

I think they will have to go cheaper than a tenner to turn it around after how much they annoyed people.

Might have been different if they’d started at a tenner but maybe not given people had grown used to getting all the games during lockdown.

100%

10 pound would annoy everyone again

Kimbot

I read online over the weekend that alot of liverpool fans decided to donate to local food banks instead of pay the PPV fee and something like 113K was raised in 24hours.

Agent Coulson

Not just Liverpool fans Newcastle fans did as well.

Mushy

Leeds fans raised like 50k, then players put in 25k and club matched that too so huge amounts being raised by clubs everywhere

Mitch Connor

All this money being raised for a good cause - and all because of the PL. Well done Woodward et al.

rob316

Just stream it in 4k and charge £5 a game, you will have plenty paying that. I have IPTV and I would happily pay that.
£10 while better is still too much.

Guy:Incognito

Mitch Connor wrote: »

All this money being raised for a good cause - and all because of the PL. .

Actually, it's all because of government policies that the food banks are needed in the first place . So I suppose the "credit" goes to them................

okidoki987

I'd say they would get well over 3 times the number of people that are paying €14.95 a match if they changed it to €5.
As said before, something should be done about transfer fees and the wages some players are getting, both of which are way too high.
People are losing their jobs, household income is down but near enough nothing has changed with regards to players salaries and the fees involved in football.

CSF

okidoki987 wrote: »

I'd say they would get well over 3 times the number of people that are paying €14.95 a match if they changed it to €5.
As said before, something should be done about transfer fees and the wages some players are getting, both of which are way too high.
People are losing their jobs, household income is down but near enough nothing has changed with regards to players salaries and the fees involved in football.

If I’m looking at limiting the amount people earn, footballers aren’t the first people I go to in the sports industry, never mind society at large.

Mitch Connor

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Actually, it's all because of government policies that the food banks are needed in the first place . So I suppose the "credit" goes to them................

True, good man Boris!

rob316

CSF wrote: »

If I’m looking at limiting the amount people earn, footballers aren’t the first people I go to in the sports industry, never mind society at large.

Ya first I'm thinking is agents fees should be capped, they are outrageous. €10m United had to pay to sign Cavani on a free transfer. I don't really mind too much the money the players earn, they have a talent and should be paid accordingly. Agents are just hanger on's getting mega money for picking up a phone for their client.

okidoki987

CSF wrote: »

If I’m looking at limiting the amount people earn, footballers aren’t the first people I go to in the sports industry, never mind society at large.

Fair enough but the Premier League are the ones charging fans €14.95 a match.
The money they collect from these matches would help pay the footballers and their agents salaries which are some of the highest in the world.
If they didn't have such big bills to pay, they wouldn't need to try and charge
fans so much.