EPL £6.7bn Domestic Rights Deal

[Bishop Hibee]

I’m really only interested in this to find out how much the BBC paid for rights to continue Match of the Day. Far too much no doubt.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67619756

[Tyler Durden]

I’m really only interested in this to find out how much the BBC paid for rights to continue Match of the Day. Far too much no doubt.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67619756

Is this another “BBC bad” whine?

Why would it be too much? What would be good value?

[Since90+2]

I quite like match of the day TBH. No adverts Nd I tend to watch it early when it's repeated on the Sunday morning.

They've probably paid a good whack for it, but I'd prefer that that the highlights package being stuck on something like Amazon Prime.

[Joe6-2]

Is this another “BBC bad” whine?

Why would it be too much? What would be good value?

Not the license going up another £15

[Tyler Durden]

Not the license going up another £15

I can’t agree with anyone who suggests the BBC isn’t worth £15 per month.

[Iain G]

Is this another “BBC bad” whine?

Why would it be too much? What would be good value?

Sounds like it! MOTD is a great football programme.

[worcesterhibby]

Sounds like it! MOTD is a great football programme.

Its a pity they dont produce their Scottish highlights programne to the same standard. I can fully understand why they spend far more on buying the rights to show EPL highlights tgank they do SPFL highlights, but i dont understand why they spend so much more on production quality. It should be the same for both top leagues.

[Tyler Durden]

Its a pity they dont produce their Scottish highlights programne to the same standard. I can fully understand why they spend far more on buying the rights to show EPL highlights tgank they do SPFL highlights, but i dont understand why they spend so much more on production quality. It should be the same for both top leagues.

Why should it be the same?

[worcesterhibby]

Why should it be the same?
Because Scottish people pay a licence fee too ?

[Lago]

Because Scottish people pay a licence fee too ?
I wonder what percentage of the Scottish population pay the BBC licence fee, not enough to fund a better program than we currently get.

[Tyler Durden]

Because Scottish people pay a licence fee too ?

Is that not a little simplistic?

Should River City have the same budget as Eastenders?

[monarch]

Got to laugh at some people who complain about the cost of BBC licence which works out at just over £13 a month but willingly pay over £100 per month for a combination of the various options under Sky.

Sky, TNT and Prime are bankrolled by advertising but still impose subscriptions on viewers. Sky also charge further premiums on their Box Office events. All contributing to the already swollen coffers of the Murdoch family.

BBC provides a variety of sport, drama, news and informative documentary. Not perfect (did somebody mention Sportscene and Sportsound !) but in my opinion still provides value for money. They also have to contend with our right wing government and media who do not like being held to account and who try to impose restrictions which result in the dilution of the quality of output.

[Since90+2]

Got to laugh at some people who complain about the cost of BBC licence which works out at just over £13 a month but willingly pay over £100 per month for a combination of the various options under Sky.

Sky, TNT and Prime are bankrolled by advertising but still impose subscriptions on viewers. Sky also charge further premiums on their Box Office events. All contributing to the already swollen coffers of the Murdoch family.

BBC provides a variety of sport, drama, news and informative documentary. Not perfect (did somebody mention Sportscene and Sportsound !) but in my opinion still provides value for money. They also have to contend with our right wing government and media who do not like being held to account and who try to impose restrictions which result in the dilution of the quality of output.

The difference is Sky, Virgin ect are completely optional, if anyone chooses not to have it they don't need to. With the lice fee anyone who has a device that can receive broadcasts is mandated to pay for the BBC, it's not optional.

If someone wants to pay £100 a month for Sky that's their choice. Not the same with BBC, regardless of it's value for money or not it's forced on them.

[Eyrie]

Planet Earth 3.

[wallpaperman]

Got to laugh at some people who complain about the cost of BBC licence which works out at just over £13 a month but willingly pay over £100 per month for a combination of the various options under Sky.

Sky, TNT and Prime are bankrolled by advertising but still impose subscriptions on viewers. Sky also charge further premiums on their Box Office events. All contributing to the already swollen coffers of the Murdoch family.

BBC provides a variety of sport, drama, news and informative documentary. Not perfect (did somebody mention Sportscene and Sportsound !) but in my opinion still provides value for money. They also have to contend with our right wing government and media who do not like being held to account and who try to impose restrictions which result in the dilution of the quality of output.

Sorry to disagree, however, I have the choice to subscribe to every other service provider you have mentioned. I don’t have any real option but to pay the BBC whether I watch them 10 hours a day or not at all.

From the BBC, Scottish football should have the same proportion of money pumped into it that English football does. If we make up 8% of the UK population, we should have that percentage paid into our coffers for tv rights.

[monarch]

Sorry to disagree, however, I have the choice to subscribe to every other service provider you have mentioned. I don’t have any real option but to pay the BBC whether I watch them 10 hours a day or not at all.

From the BBC, Scottish football should have the same proportion of money pumped into it that English football does. If we make up 8% of the UK population, we should have that percentage paid into our coffers for tv rights.
I agree that we have the choice to subscribe to the other service providers as opposed to the imposition of the BBC fee. My main argument was that the Beeb provided better value pound for pound than Sky.

Re your comment that BBC should allocate 8% of their football budget to Scottish football. Valid argument but I doubt Sky allocates the proportion of subscription paid by Scottish viewers to their Scottish output. Not while we’re landed with Kris Boyd.

Apologies to the Murdoch family. I’m told by someone within my own walls that he no longer owns Sky Tv. I’m sure the current owners, Comcast, are just as benevolent.

[EastStandGates]

Firesticks can't be hurting them too much then... Or will there be price hikes for Sky and BT customers?

It seems a ridiculous amount of cash. That plus the knock on effect of the newest Football League deal will just see the gulf between England and Scotland get bigger.

One thing I don't get is how much money it is compared to other countries. Similar population to France and Italy, Germany has a far bigger population yet premier league TV deals always seem to dwarf the lot.

[Trinity Hibee]

The implosion of the English clubs will come at some point.

[EastStandGates]

The implosion of the English clubs will come at some point.

I hope so, but, had that not been said for about the last 4 TV deals!?

[Trinity Hibee]

I hope so, but, had that not been said for about the last 4 TV deals!?

Possibly but I do think the money will dry up in years to come and clubs will have spent beyond their means. It may take 10-20 years but it isn’t sustainable.

[Not In The Know]

There are very strong arguments to be made that the license fee generated in Scotland is not proportionally represented in the money put into creating Scottish content.

[Bishop Hibee]

There are very strong arguments to be made that the license fee generated in Scotland is not proportionally represented in the money put into creating Scottish content.

This is my point. Also, Sportscene should be on at the MotD slot and anybody in Scotland wanting to watch English football can use the iPlayer.

[matty_f]

Should also be noted that Scottish viewers benefit from the production values of Match of the Day as well, that's not restricted to Ann English audience.

I saw an online article earlier referencing Souness arguing with Simon Jordan (I think) about the disparity in payments that Sky make to Scottish clubs versus English, and Jordan ( probably fairly) pointed out that it was because nobody wants to watch Scottish football relative to the audience that English football gets.

He did miss the point that it was the natives injections of cash from Sky in the formation of the Premiership that created the monster, had Sky pushed similar funds into Scottish football there could have been a global audience for it as well.

If you look back to when Rangers had players like Laudrup and Gazza etc they were as good as the majority of English teams, and we were pulling in folk like Sauzee, Zittelli, and Latapy. Even Dundee pulled in Raveneli and Cannegia.

Scottish football ****ed up its TV deals and ultimately had to go cap in hand to Sky. There wasn't any way back from that point and we got left behind.

I still firmly believe that there's an opportunity to grow Scottish football massively, but it will take investment and a seismic shift away from the way the game is run now.

[1875Sean]

Should also be noted that Scottish viewers benefit from the production values of Match of the Day as well, that's not restricted to Ann English audience.

I saw an online article earlier referencing Souness arguing with Simon Jordan (I think) about the disparity in payments that Sky make to Scottish clubs versus English, and Jordan ( probably fairly) pointed out that it was because nobody wants to watch Scottish football relative to the audience that English football gets.

He did miss the point that it was the natives injections of cash from Sky in the formation of the Premiership that created the monster, had Sky pushed similar funds into Scottish football there could have been a global audience for it as well.

If you look back to when Rangers had players like Laudrup and Gazza etc they were as good as the majority of English teams, and we were pulling in folk like Sauzee, Zittelli, and Latapy. Even Dundee pulled in Raveneli and Cannegia.

Scottish football ****ed up its TV deals and ultimately had to go cap in hand to Sky. There wasn't any way back from that point and we got left behind.

I still firmly believe that there's an opportunity to grow Scottish football massively, but it will take investment and a seismic shift away from the way the game is run now.

Exactly, for me they need to look at the whole system and sell as many games as possible rather than limit to so many games per season, when you look at the other tv teams around Europe they get alot more but almost all are televised

[Iain G]

There are very strong arguments to be made that the license fee generated in Scotland is not proportionally represented in the money put into creating Scottish content.

Is there ever a breakdown published of how much the BBC budget is for Scotland?

[Yorkshire HFC]

There are very strong arguments to be made that the license fee generated in Scotland is not proportionally represented in the money put into creating Scottish content.

I think the BBC is very good value - in all areas, not just sport. I've never paid for Sky or any of the other specialist sports services.

What additional Scottish football coverage do people want from the BBC? Highlights programmes are available shortly after the games finish and there seem to be endless radio shows and podcasts available.

[Winston Ingram]

I can’t agree with anyone who suggests the BBC isn’t worth £15 per month.

This

[Winston Ingram]

Its a pity they dont produce their Scottish highlights programne to the same standard. I can fully understand why they spend far more on buying the rights to show EPL highlights tgank they do SPFL highlights, but i dont understand why they spend so much more on production quality. It should be the same for both top leagues.

What’s different? They have presenters, commentators and pundits. So does Sportscence.

[Broxburn Greens]

I quite like match of the day TBH. No adverts Nd I tend to watch it early when it's repeated on the Sunday morning.

They've probably paid a good whack for it, but I'd prefer that that the highlights package being stuck on something like Amazon Prime.

Likewise, don’t watch much on BBC main channels but do enjoy MoD on a Sunday morning.

BBC iPlayer is good value tho.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Winston Ingram]

This is my point. Also, Sportscene should be on at the MotD slot and anybody in Scotland wanting to watch English football can use the iPlayer.

Why? Sportscene has better a better slot. It is on twice on a Saturday and Sunday. 7.15 and 11.30.

[JimBHibees]

I think the BBC is very good value - in all areas, not just sport. I've never paid for Sky or any of the other specialist sports services.

What additional Scottish football coverage do people want from the BBC? Highlights programmes are available shortly after the games finish and there seem to be endless radio shows and podcasts available.

Much better production much better analysis much better show. It is in the main pants with many of the key incidents missed out of the highlights because they are so short. When you look at the comparison with match of the day and probably the wsl also it is silly to suggest the Scottish leagues aren't short changed. We should be getting better.

[JimBHibees]

This is my point. Also, Sportscene should be on at the MotD slot and anybody in Scotland wanting to watch English football can use the iPlayer.

Agree sportscene should be on the prime slot and anyone wanting to watch a league from another country should be watching it later.

[Brightside]

This is my point. Also, Sportscene should be on at the MotD slot and anybody in Scotland wanting to watch English football can use the iPlayer.

No thanks. But you know you can watch all these programmes whenever you like now. You control when you watch telly.

[worcesterhibby]

What’s different? They have presenters, commentators and pundits. So does Sportscence.

About half as many cameras at games, fewer match highlights editors so our matches are rushed and many incidents missed, poorer standard of commentator, poorer standard of pundit.even the intro tune is crapper !

[Winston Ingram]

About half as many cameras at games, fewer match highlights editors so our matches are rushed and many incidents missed, poorer standard of commentator, poorer standard of pundit.even the intro tune is crapper !

Camera's in the PL are nothing to do with the BBC. They don't have any cameras there. They are provided footage by the PL, Sky and TNT.

There are fewer match editors here as there are fewer matches. How do you know the English games don't have missed incidents?

Where are they going to get a better standard of pundit? There's no point in getting Neville and Carragher in as they know heehaw about the SPFL? I actually don't mind the pundits they put up. All other channels are ex-OF players. They have a quite a range of players from various clubs. I think they realise that there is a dearth of talent in SPFL punditry poor and make efforts to find better which is why there is so many.


Sportscene to me is just a typical Scottish Sports Media production, driven by the majority of the demand in this country.

Everything is focused on the uglies. An hour and 15 mins Sportscene was on Sunday. The first 27 minutes were St Johnstone v Celtic.

The BBC could give them as much money as they want, it won't change. It'll still be uglies focused.

[EastStandGates]

Should also be noted that Scottish viewers benefit from the production values of Match of the Day as well, that's not restricted to Ann English audience.

I saw an online article earlier referencing Souness arguing with Simon Jordan (I think) about the disparity in payments that Sky make to Scottish clubs versus English, and Jordan ( probably fairly) pointed out that it was because nobody wants to watch Scottish football relative to the audience that English football gets.

He did miss the point that it was the natives injections of cash from Sky in the formation of the Premiership that created the monster, had Sky pushed similar funds into Scottish football there could have been a global audience for it as well.

If you look back to when Rangers had players like Laudrup and Gazza etc they were as good as the majority of English teams, and we were pulling in folk like Sauzee, Zittelli, and Latapy. Even Dundee pulled in Raveneli and Cannegia.

Scottish football ****ed up its TV deals and ultimately had to go cap in hand to Sky. There wasn't any way back from that point and we got left behind.

I still firmly believe that there's an opportunity to grow Scottish football massively, but it will take investment and a seismic shift away from the way the game is run now.

So did England? Didn't the the Football League go with ITV Digital? Hasn't stopped them getting record breaking TV deals ever since.

The Scottish one is tricky and I think sharing the same country and platform as the Premier League is the biggest issue. EPL seems to be marketed as a British product, everyone up here laps it up rightly or wrongly (I rarely watch it so no idea), then what comes with that is the absolutely ridiculous comparisons between Scottish and English football.

The standard of Scottish football for run of the mill games isn't that bad compared to other nations our size and their TV deals will be worth far more than ours. So I think there is a bit of Sky taking the piss with that aswell.

In saying that, there are certain stadiums were televised matches are pretty much unwatchable like Ross County and St Mirren due to the low camera angles.

I know the Gordon's and the American's at Aberdeen were keen to get rid of the 3pm blackout and broadcast every match to maximise revenue. It seems to have zero affect on ticket sales elsewhere (pretty much the whole of Europe!). Although i've no idea how much value of being able to watch St Johnstone v Motherwell at 3pm on a Saturday will add to any TV deals, but I do agree with it. For season ticket holders who can't make it, it is absurd they can't legally access a stream of the match via the club/league, but can via a 30 second google.

[matty_f]

So did England? Didn't the the Football League go with ITV Digital? Hasn't stopped them getting record breaking TV deals ever since.

The Scottish one is tricky and I think sharing the same country and platform as the Premier League is the biggest issue. EPL seems to be marketed as a British product, everyone up here laps it up rightly or wrongly (I rarely watch it so no idea), then what comes with that is the absolutely ridiculous comparisons between Scottish and English football.

The standard of Scottish football for run of the mill games isn't that bad compared to other nations our size and their TV deals will be worth far more than ours. So I think there is a bit of Sky taking the piss with that aswell.

In saying that, there are certain stadiums were televised matches are pretty much unwatchable like Ross County and St Mirren due to the low camera angles.

I know the Gordon's and the American's at Aberdeen were keen to get rid of the 3pm blackout and broadcast every match to maximise revenue. It seems to have zero affect on ticket sales elsewhere (pretty much the whole of Europe!). Although i've no idea how much value of being able to watch St Johnstone v Motherwell at 3pm on a Saturday will add to any TV deals, but I do agree with it. For season ticket holders who can't make it, it is absurd they can't legally access a stream of the match via the club/league, but can via a 30 second google.
The English TV deal that went bottom up want their top flight and wasn't their main source of income, the situations aren't comparable.

[worcesterhibby]

Camera's in the PL are nothing to do with the BBC. They don't have any cameras there. They are provided footage by the PL, Sky and TNT.

There are fewer match editors here as there are fewer matches. How do you know the English games don't have missed incidents?

Where are they going to get a better standard of pundit? There's no point in getting Neville and Carragher in as they know heehaw about the SPFL? I actually don't mind the pundits they put up. All other channels are ex-OF players. They have a quite a range of players from various clubs. I think they realise that there is a dearth of talent in SPFL punditry poor and make efforts to find better which is why there is so many.


Sportscene to me is just a typical Scottish Sports Media production, driven by the majority of the demand in this country.

Everything is focused on the uglies. An hour and 15 mins Sportscene was on Sunday. The first 27 minutes were St Johnstone v Celtic.

The BBC could give them as much money as they want, it won't change. It'll still be uglies focused.

I don't care who supplies the cameras for the EPL - the BBC product at the end of it is inferior because we don't have the same number..they should match the quality. MOTD has one highlights editor per match - sportscene has one for each old firm game and one more for all the rest (I know someone who worked there). Unacceptable and lower quality than for the English game.

[Tyler Durden]

There are very strong arguments to be made that the license fee generated in Scotland is not proportionally represented in the money put into creating Scottish content.

What are those strong arguments?

[Tyler Durden]

Should also be noted that Scottish viewers benefit from the production values of Match of the Day as well, that's not restricted to Ann English audience.

I saw an online article earlier referencing Souness arguing with Simon Jordan (I think) about the disparity in payments that Sky make to Scottish clubs versus English, and Jordan ( probably fairly) pointed out that it was because nobody wants to watch Scottish football relative to the audience that English football gets.

He did miss the point that it was the natives injections of cash from Sky in the formation of the Premiership that created the monster, had Sky pushed similar funds into Scottish football there could have been a global audience for it as well.

If you look back to when Rangers had players like Laudrup and Gazza etc they were as good as the majority of English teams, and we were pulling in folk like Sauzee, Zittelli, and Latapy. Even Dundee pulled in Raveneli and Cannegia.

Scottish football ****ed up its TV deals and ultimately had to go cap in hand to Sky. There wasn't any way back from that point and we got left behind.

I still firmly believe that there's an opportunity to grow Scottish football massively, but it will take investment and a seismic shift away from the way the game is run now.

This feels a bit back to front for me. The TV deal we had at that time was over inflated and unsustainable. The players you mention there were all bought on the basis of revenue that was pie in the sky...... Hibs were £17m in debt, Hearts were worse off, we know what happened to Dundee and Rangers. The market corrected itself in time.

I do agree though that there are opportunities to grow the game. But it did surprise me when the likes of Ron Gordon and Cormack instructed Deloitte no less, to look into that and they concluded that the current model is as good as it gets. Or perhaps that the move to a different streaming type model is just too big a gamble?

[Iain G]

I don't care who supplies the cameras for the EPL - the BBC product at the end of it is inferior because we don't have the same number..they should match the quality. MOTD has one highlights editor per match - sportscene has one for each old firm game and one more for all the rest (I know someone who worked there). Unacceptable and lower quality than for the English game.

But is that directly related to how the licence fee is spread, or by decisions made by BBC Weegie on what they want sportscene to be? It's old firm and favourites and then the rest of us, and an old retirement home for their chums. I doubt more moment would change the focus or improve the quality of pundits.

[worcesterhibby]

This feels a bit back to front for me. The TV deal we had at that time was over inflated and unsustainable. The players you mention there were all bought on the basis of revenue that was pie in the sky...... Hibs were £17m in debt, Hearts were worse off, we know what happened to Dundee and Rangers. The market corrected itself in time.

I do agree though that there are opportunities to grow the game. But it did surprise me when the likes of Ron Gordon and Cormack instructed Deloitte no less, to look into that and they concluded that the current model is as good as it gets. Or perhaps that the move to a different streaming type model is just too big a gamble?

We have this conversation on here every few months. Most of the countries who have populations similar to our own have a similar TV deal to us if you look at it on a "price per live game basis"..Some deals look better becuase of the headline figure because they show more live matches than us (particularly scandanavian leagues) which means they have low income from crowds, but show almost all matches live on TV. We could argue the toss about whether that's a good idea or not..but it is certainly a risk. Scotland has some of the highest average gates per head of population in Europe. If we were to allow all matches to be shown live on TV that is at risk of being undermined and each clubs overall income might be the same or worse..but with much smaller average gates and no atmosphere.

If you look at what we get paid "per live game shown" we have a deal that looks pretty decent compared with other countries of a similar size population.

[Victor]

Does anyone know how much is paid for the rights to screen the Woman’s EPL matches? And is it more or less than Sky pay for men’s Scottish Premier League matches? Just wondering, as I see that on the Sky Sports Scores app the Woman’s Super League results are above the Scottish Premiership results. It was bad enough our results being listed below the “Man In A Van’ (or whatever) League results, but this maybe shows how little broadcasters rate Scottish Football.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Winston Ingram]

So did England? Didn't the the Football League go with ITV Digital? Hasn't stopped them getting record breaking TV deals ever since.

The Scottish one is tricky and I think sharing the same country and platform as the Premier League is the biggest issue. EPL seems to be marketed as a British product, everyone up here laps it up rightly or wrongly (I rarely watch it so no idea), then what comes with that is the absolutely ridiculous comparisons between Scottish and English football.

The standard of Scottish football for run of the mill games isn't that bad compared to other nations our size and their TV deals will be worth far more than ours. So I think there is a bit of Sky taking the piss with that aswell.

In saying that, there are certain stadiums were televised matches are pretty much unwatchable like Ross County and St Mirren due to the low camera angles.

I know the Gordon's and the American's at Aberdeen were keen to get rid of the 3pm blackout and broadcast every match to maximise revenue. It seems to have zero affect on ticket sales elsewhere (pretty much the whole of Europe!). Although i've no idea how much value of being able to watch St Johnstone v Motherwell at 3pm on a Saturday will add to any TV deals, but I do agree with it. For season ticket holders who can't make it, it is absurd they can't legally access a stream of the match via the club/league, but can via a 30 second google.

Their deals are better than ours because the Uglies have SPFL by the balls. They refuse to allow their home games to be shown unless it's OF games or the bottom 6. Can you imagine how much the PL deal would be worth if you couldn't show games at Anfield, Spurs, Emirates, Old Trafford etc?

I think our deal is £38m a year, which is great in comparison to other nations of our size. No idea why Norway gets so much.

Country - League - Value - TV Company - Population
Austria Bundesliga €48 million per year Sky Sport Austria 9m
Denmark Superligaen €30 million per year Discovery Networks 6m
Norway Eliteserien €120 million per year Norsk Toppfotball 5.5m
Finland Veikkausliiga €2 million per year MTV3 5.5m
Ireland Premier Division €3 million per year RTÉ Sport 5m
Slovakia Fortuna Liga €7.5 million per year Sport1 5.5m
Sweden Allsvenskan €30 million per year Discovery Networks 10.5m
Hungary NB I €12 million per year Sport 10m

[Winston Ingram]

Does anyone know how much is paid for the rights to screen the Woman’s EPL matches? And is it more or less than Sky pay for men’s Scottish Premier League matches? Just wondering, as I see that on the Sky Sports Scores app the Woman’s Super League results are above the Scottish Premiership results. It was bad enough our results being listed below the “Man In A Van’ (or whatever) League results, but this maybe shows how little broadcasters rate Scottish Football.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

They pay £8m a year i think

[worcesterhibby]

No idea why Norway gets so much.



I think every single game in their league is televised Live


Edit - Yes they are - wiki has a very helpful page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domestic_football_league_broadcast_deals_b y_country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domestic_football_league_broadcast_deals_b y_country)

[worcesterhibby]

They pay £8m a year i think

spot on less than 1/3 of SPFL. And ours goes up next season from £25mill to £30mill

Womans super league brings in about the same as the Tanzanian league.

[matty_f]

This feels a bit back to front for me. The TV deal we had at that time was over inflated and unsustainable. The players you mention there were all bought on the basis of revenue that was pie in the sky...... Hibs were £17m in debt, Hearts were worse off, we know what happened to Dundee and Rangers. The market corrected itself in time.

I do agree though that there are opportunities to grow the game. But it did surprise me when the likes of Ron Gordon and Cormack instructed Deloitte no less, to look into that and they concluded that the current model is as good as it gets. Or perhaps that the move to a different streaming type model is just too big a gamble?

The Sky deal was realistic and sustainable (as Sky could pay it) and the debt was manageable because of the TV income, if it's used to fund a good product (as is the case in England) then it generates the revenue and everyone's happy. Debt itself isn't a bad thing for a business/football club so long as it's manageable.

The problem was we ditched Sky and went with a company that couldn't sustain it, IIRC.

[Renfrew_Hibby]

They pay £8m a year i think

I'm sure any new TV deals due for the WSL will see a substantial rise on the current £8M

[overdrive]

Got to laugh at some people who complain about the cost of BBC licence which works out at just over £13 a month but willingly pay over £100 per month for a combination of the various options under Sky.

Sky, TNT and Prime are bankrolled by advertising but still impose subscriptions on viewers. Sky also charge further premiums on their Box Office events. All contributing to the already swollen coffers of the Murdoch family.

BBC provides a variety of sport, drama, news and informative documentary. Not perfect (did somebody mention Sportscene and Sportsound !) but in my opinion still provides value for money. They also have to contend with our right wing government and media who do not like being held to account and who try to impose restrictions which result in the dilution of the quality of output.

The Murdochs don't have anything to do with Sky and haven't for years. Comcast own Sky now.

[Victor]

They pay £8m a year i think

Thanks. Still £8m too much! (duck) [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lancs Harp]

I think the BBC is very good value - in all areas, not just sport. I've never paid for Sky or any of the other specialist sports services.

What additional Scottish football coverage do people want from the BBC? Highlights programmes are available shortly after the games finish and there seem to be endless radio shows and podcasts available.

On the flip side it represents really poor value to me as im compelled to pay the license fee but watch virtually nothing on BBC (or ITV for that matter) terrestial TV is pretty poor IMO in regards of variety and choice. Being apparently a higher standard of production means little to me if Im not interested in its content.

[where'stheslope]

We should be adopting the "Barnett formula", to get SKY paying the correct amount to us.
Given the same amount of money, how good could our premiership be???

[WhileTheChief..]

I doubt we'll ever see a mega-bucks TV deal in Scotland.

For any TV company to be paying big money, they need to know they'll recoup that money, and then make a profit on top. That means selling huge amounts of advertising, not subscriptions.

The companies selling ad space know exactly what they can make for every second of screen-time. Neither they, not the companies they work for, are going to pay over the odds.

If the league up here was appealing to huge numbers elsewhere, we'd have providers fighting over the TV rights. As it is, we're going cap-in-hand to Sky begging for more.

That's not the fault of our league or Sky or anyone. It's simply a lack of interest in the Scottish game outside of Scotland. It's hardly surprising, why should folk in other countries care about our league?

I'd suggest none of us follow the Polish or Swedish leagues too carefully, and certainly wouldn't pay a monthly fee to watch their games!

[EastStandGates]

I doubt we'll ever see a mega-bucks TV deal in Scotland.

For any TV company to be paying big money, they need to know they'll recoup that money, and then make a profit on top. That means selling huge amounts of advertising, not subscriptions.

The companies selling ad space know exactly what they can make for every second of screen-time. Neither they, not the companies they work for, are going to pay over the odds.

If the league up here was appealing to huge numbers elsewhere, we'd have providers fighting over the TV rights. As it is, we're going cap-in-hand to Sky begging for more.

That's not the fault of our league or Sky or anyone. It's simply a lack of interest in the Scottish game outside of Scotland. It's hardly surprising, why should folk in other countries care about our league?

I'd suggest none of us follow the Polish or Swedish leagues too carefully, and certainly wouldn't pay a monthly fee to watch their games!

Poles or Swedes aren't paying anything towards the £6.7b either...

That's the domestic rights. i.e for those those in the UK and Ireland.

It doesn't include international broadcasting which for Europe, is much much less. America pays quite a bit for rights granted. I'd be surprised if German or Italian TV companies are paying that much more for the premier league, than what Sky and TNT pay for those leagues to be broadcast here. (Incidentally, something relatable to Scottish coverage, Sky Sports coverage of the Bundesliga is absolutely woeful compared to BT's when they had it)

[Winston Ingram]

Poles or Swedes aren't paying anything towards the £6.7b either...

That's the domestic rights. i.e for those those in the UK and Ireland.

It doesn't include international broadcasting which for Europe, is much much less. America pays quite a bit for rights granted. I'd be surprised if German or Italian TV companies are paying that much more for the premier league, than what Sky and TNT pay for those leagues to be broadcast here. (Incidentally, something relatable to Scottish coverage, Sky Sports coverage of the Bundesliga is absolutely woeful compared to BT's when they had it)

Yep. The last deal was the 1st time the domestic deal was eclipsed by overseas rights. It’ll be the same again.

[McD]

I doubt we'll ever see a mega-bucks TV deal in Scotland.

For any TV company to be paying big money, they need to know they'll recoup that money, and then make a profit on top. That means selling huge amounts of advertising, not subscriptions.

The companies selling ad space know exactly what they can make for every second of screen-time. Neither they, not the companies they work for, are going to pay over the odds.

If the league up here was appealing to huge numbers elsewhere, we'd have providers fighting over the TV rights. As it is, we're going cap-in-hand to Sky begging for more.

That's not the fault of our league or Sky or anyone. It's simply a lack of interest in the Scottish game outside of Scotland. It's hardly surprising, why should folk in other countries care about our league?

I'd suggest none of us follow the Polish or Swedish leagues too carefully, and certainly wouldn't pay a monthly fee to watch their games!


This is a sensible post.

People go about making comments like ‘sky are trying to keep our league down’ - if they were, they wouldn’t bother paying us anything and wouldn’t cover us at all.

It’s the financial logistics of Scottish football. A company will only put in what they think they can recoup and make a profit on.

The way to generate more money (within this model) is to make more games available to broadcast, and to encourage/force rangers and Celtic to have more home matches broadcast. And even that probably won’t drive the money up much further.

Even if we went down a route of being able to subscribe to every one of one club’s matches, would Hibs make more money than they do just now, between tv income and advertising? I don’t know

[Keith_M]

Is that not a little simplistic?

Should River City have the same budget as Eastenders?


Aye.

[Torto7]

This is the usual depressing read about tv rights with someone claiming Simon Jordon had a point on Scottish football viewing figures.:faf:

I can't be arsed going into it again but the SPL rates very well look at the BARB figures.

The support for the BBC also gives me the boak. It wasn't so long ago Alan Hanson's appearance fee on MOTD was higher than it cost to make 3 months of Sportscene programs confirmed by Robert Scoular(former head of BBC sport in Scotland) during a talk on the future of BBC Scotland at the Edinburgh Tv Festival.

Too wee too crap. ZZZZ

[ScottB]

Ultimately, nobody is going to give us more money than they have to, simple market forces. Similarly, Sky haven’t been giving the English game money for the sake of it.

The BBC will bid the minimum it thinks it can for Sportscene. Does anybody else even challenge them for it? Does STV even make a competing bid? I’d guess ITV or C4 might well be a threat for MoTD, but even then, they’ll be trying to get away with the lowest bid they can.

It’s the same with the live rights, Sky have to fight it out with TNT, Amazon and others, and given that losing these rights could be considered an existential threat to their business, Sky will deploy its resources to prevent that. For the Scottish live rights, who is interested? Did anybody even challenge Sky for the rights? Does Sky care if it doesn’t keep them?

Essentially we’ve no leverage, our current broadcast partners have few, if any, rivals for the rights and they probably wouldn’t care too much if they missed out. Given the new English deals I wouldn’t be shocked if Sky don’t even bid next time.

When you consider that, in per game terms, the new English deal is a decrease, we could well expect that the next Scottish deal will be for even less than this one, not more.

[Hibby Bairn]

Imagine if a national broadcaster existed with a database of circa 20-30m customers. And they set up a brand called BBC Sport and put it on cable/satellite/streaming/Freeview and charged a basic breakeven type monthly fee (so non-profit) and started to properly bid for rights and therefore reinvested back into UK Sport whilst also giving it massive exposure.

And if it wasn't allowed to by its historical constitution then change it.

[Bishop Hibee]

No thanks. But you know you can watch all these programmes whenever you like now. You control when you watch telly.

It’s the flagship football time on the main BBC channel and has been since I was a bairn. MOTD was on after Sportscene back in the day. Patronising to believe Scottish football fans prefer the greed is good league to the domestic game.

[Iain G]

It’s the flagship football time on the main BBC channel and has been since I was a bairn. MOTD was on after Sportscene back in the day. Patronising to believe Scottish football fans prefer the greed is good league to the domestic game.

Who is being patronising?

[Winston Ingram]

This is a sensible post.

People go about making comments like ‘sky are trying to keep our league down’ - if they were, they wouldn’t bother paying us anything and wouldn’t cover us at all.

It’s the financial logistics of Scottish football. A company will only put in what they think they can recoup and make a profit on.

The way to generate more money (within this model) is to make more games available to broadcast, and to encourage/force rangers and Celtic to have more home matches broadcast. And even that probably won’t drive the money up much further.

Even if we went down a route of being able to subscribe to every one of one club’s matches, would Hibs make more money than they do just now, between tv income and advertising? I don’t know

As I posted earlier in the thread, our deal is pretty good in comparison to other countries of our size.

TV companies are businesses and their sole aim is to make a profit.

[Just Alf]

As I posted earlier in the thread, our deal is pretty good in comparison to other countries of our size.

TV companies are businesses and their sole aim is to make a profit.This makes sense... what skews the argument a bit when it's our national broadcaster involved that the other home nations pay towards but arguably seemingly don't get the same bang for their buck.

[ScottB]

This makes sense... what skews the argument a bit when it's our national broadcaster involved that the other home nations pay towards but arguably seemingly don't get the same bang for their buck.

Because it’s not a charity or branch of government duty bound to spend proportionally throughout the UK?

I bet Eastenders budget dwarves River City… ultimately the BBC has a requirement to produce regional content throughout the UK, which it does, that may or may not include coverage of Scottish football, depending on commercial realities, but as we saw in the past, they lost it to STV for awhile, who apparently didn’t fancy continuing. If nobody else bids, they only need to offer enough that the league wouldn’t rather turn them down and just chuck it on YouTube or something, presumably not a very high financial bar! As opposed to MoTD, which presumably ITV or Channel 4 would love to have off them etc.

[Winston Ingram]

This makes sense... what skews the argument a bit when it's our national broadcaster involved that the other home nations pay towards but arguably seemingly don't get the same bang for their buck.

We don’t know what they paid Tbf and we also know that one of the packages sold by the PL is a highlights programme from a free to air broadcaster.

They’ll have paid a tiny proportion of why Sky and TNT paid.

[Hibernian Verse]

MOTD could integrate the 6 Scottish Premiership games and dot them in between the EPL matches.

[WhileTheChief..]

People in the rest of the UK don't get to see Sportscene unless they go online.

I wonder if anyone in Wales is companioning about paying the license fee for something they don't get to watch?

[McD]

People in the rest of the UK don't get to see Sportscene unless they go online.

I wonder if anyone in Wales is companioning about paying the license fee for something they don't get to watch?



Anyone who has Sky can access BBC1 Scotland through their channel guide

[worcesterhibby]

Anyone who has Sky can access BBC1 Scotland through their channel guide

Or Iplayer on their Smart TV

[Gloucester Hibs]

Sure the price per game is less than previous years, so it's the broadcasters who've scored out of this and looks like the EPL has finally reached it's ceiling on what it can achieve domestically from TV deals.

[worcesterhibby]

Sure the price per game is less than previous years, so it's the broadcasters who've scored out of this and looks like the EPL has finally reached it's ceiling on what it can achieve domestically from TV deals.

To be fair that's a bit like looking at a guy who is married to Rosamund Pike, is having an affair with Emily Blunt and regularly nips off for a weekend away with Kate Winslet and saying he's peaked !

Meanwhile our league is sitting in McDonalds on a night out with Susan Boyle !!