Can streaming replace a TV deal?

[Rev]

This subject was bought up by @Uptherams in the £200m EFL loss thread.

I thought it was an interesting idea, and a thread to kick around various ideas on how it would work and if the numbers make sense would be interesting.

Audience numbers and demand are very hard to work out with any certainty, but I'd suggest a decent benchmark to start from may be the average divisional attendance, in a normal none Covid season.

Certain clubs may be higher or lower obviously, but as a new offering I'd be surprised if twice as many people wanted to watch a match than could attend it physically.

I've taken the £15 per month subscription suggested, and applied it to the average attendance of each club in the division, over a 10 month period to reflect the actual season, and shared it out equally.

The Championship.

Average attendance across the division is 20,500. Each club would receive £3.075m from a pot of £73.8m.

Division One.

Average attendance across the division is 8,700. Each club would receive £1.35m from a pot of £31.32m.

Division Two.

Average attendance across the division is 4500. Each club would receive 675k from a pot of £16.2m.

The total amount payable over a season is £2m more than the current EFL/Sky deal, but with obvious added costs to be deducted.

I don't want to make this post too long and boring (too late), but as a starting point for debate what do people think?

Is such a package feasible, should all clubs in a division share revenue equally, is that price point correct, could the league sell secondary rights to a broadcaster, etc etc?

[Olton Ram]

Using your example I'd make £3 million the baseline for each Championship club (i.e. what every club gets), and then each club gets to keep the extra revenue they make above that from their subscribers. The smaller clubs like Rotherham or Luton still get more than the current deal, whilst ourselves, Sheff Wed, Forest etc. get to make more than the £3 million by having more subscribers. I'm sure the bigger clubs could get more than 20,500 subscribers, especially on a global scale.

 

 

 

 

[Rev]

The subscriber breakdown by division is 

Champ 492000

Lg 1      235000

LG 2.     108000

Total of 835000 subscribers.

[therealhantsram]

Audience figures are indeed tricky. And it's important to realise they are distinct from subscriber numbers. 

Manybof those season ticket holders for example will be in the same household as someone else. 

Cost conscious (and more sociable) 20 somethings may share a subscription and all gather around one person's house with their beer and takeout. 

On the other hand, Sky reports viewing figures of between 300,000 and 900,000 for Rams games. (again, important to realise this does not mean 900,000 subscribers.) 

But, That's an enormous range. 

Right now only the club will have any idea which end of the range viewing figures are at. 

[Rev]

15 minutes ago, Olton Ram said:

Using your example I'd make £3 million the baseline for each Championship club (i.e. what every club gets), and then each club gets to keep the extra revenue they make above that from their subscribers. The smaller clubs like Rotherham or Luton still get more than the current deal, whilst ourselves, Sheff Wed, Forest etc. get to make more than the £3 million by having more subscribers. I'm sure the bigger clubs could get more than 20,500 subscribers, especially on a global scale.

 

 

 

 

Fair point, but without an opponent our rights are worth nothing.

I believe one thing we've always got right in this country is the collective bargaining agreement, where rights are distributed evenly across the division, I'd like to think that would carry on with streaming.

Streaming wouldn't necessarily stop us selling rights to live games to a traditional broadcaster either, the streaming service would obviously have premacy, but there's no reason why Sky or a competitor couldn't continue to show games live or highlights packages.

Obviously this would be at a much reduced rate from the current deal, but maybe that money could reward sporting achievement such as league position etc.

 

[GenBr]

I don't really think you can equate attendance figures with potential subscribers. Viewing figures on tv are far, far higher for most of the championship teams than the number of people who can legally attend the game live. You also have nobody outside the UK included if you base it entirely on attendance.

 

[Olton Ram]

2 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

Fair point, but without an opponent our rights are worth nothing.

I believe one thing we've always got right in this country is the collective bargaining agreement, where rights are distributed evenly across the division, I'd like to think that would carry on with streaming.

Streaming wouldn't necessarily stop us selling rights to live games to a traditional broadcaster either, the streaming service would obviously have premacy, but there's no reason why Sky or a competitor couldn't continue to show games live or highlights packages.

Obviously this would be at a much reduced rate from the current deal, but maybe that money could reward sporting achievement such as league position etc.

 

I think having other broadcasters still showing live matches is key, not least because it will increase advertising revenue for both clubs and broadcasters. But hopefully exclusive deals are a thing of the past, as it gives the broadcaster involved far too much power. Much better to give a set number of live matches per season to two or three different broadcasters, e.g. Sky, Amazon Prime, a terrestrial channel 

[Rev]

6 minutes ago, GenBr said:

I don't really think you can equate attendance figures with potential subscribers. Viewing figures on tv are far, far higher for most of the championship teams than the number of people who can legally attend the game live. You also have nobody outside the UK included if you base it entirely on attendance.

 

I don't either mate. I used those figures as a starting point, a easily measured metric for comparison.

However I don't think you can use the viewing figures from Sky or BT as a benchmark either. 

I've got both, and Amazon prime too, and if a game takes my fancy I'll watch it, seeing as I'm paying for a subscription, but if I had to pay extra for it I wouldn't bother.

My missus however will watch any match of football they show, even the League 1/2 crap they occasionally put on in international breaks, but she also wouldn't watch it if wasn't already included. 

Take Derby Vs Forest for example. It might get 750k viewers on Sky, but I doubt that each team has a latent 375k fans that would be willing to pay just to watch that game.

 

[Rev]

14 minutes ago, Olton Ram said:

I think having other broadcasters still showing live matches is key, not least because it will increase advertising revenue for both clubs and broadcasters. But hopefully exclusive deals are a thing of the past, as it gives the broadcaster involved far too much power. Much better to give a set number of live matches per season to two or three different broadcasters, e.g. Sky, Amazon Prime, a terrestrial channel 

I agree, whatever comes next should put fans first.

If people sign up for a package, whether here or abroad, they should get every single game they've paid for.

[Uptherams]

There are many fans who live in the UK who can't attend matches because of the travel. I have a group of friends who are Derby fans, but only go to a couple of matches a season, who would absolutely sign up to something like this. 

Then there are all of the fans that are overseas in the rest of the world. 

You also don't have to be a fan of a club to want to watch a game either. Many football fans would sign up in general in the UK and overseas. 

Then we have to factor in increased accessibility attracting people who are so so about Derby and football. Long term you'd create a swell of young fans. 

I genuinely believe something like this could have 5 million subscribers in the 5-10 year timeframe and could get 1 million within the first year of streaming. 

Of course there are costs involved. However there are other commercial revenue streams through sponsorships and advertising and partnerships just like all streaming services have. Buy this and get this streaming service free for a year, etc. 

And yes, huge value in the data. 

If 5 million subs long term, then that creates the opportunity for clubs to lower their prices for season tickets and matchday tickets. Helping to fill the stadiums and in turn leaving fans with more disposable income to subscribe. 

[Uptherams]

10 hours ago, reverendo de duivel said:

Fair point, but without an opponent our rights are worth nothing.

I believe one thing we've always got right in this country is the collective bargaining agreement, where rights are distributed evenly across the division, I'd like to think that would carry on with streaming.

Streaming wouldn't necessarily stop us selling rights to live games to a traditional broadcaster either, the streaming service would obviously have premacy, but there's no reason why Sky or a competitor couldn't continue to show games live or highlights packages.

Obviously this would be at a much reduced rate from the current deal, but maybe that money could reward sporting achievement such as league position etc.

 

I agree. The likes of Sky would be invited to make offers for individual matches. Of course they'd be of lower value, but Sky Sports already underpay when we compare viewing figures with the Premier League. You take their ability to set the terms away. 

Obviously bars and pubs have to pay a higher fee to show sports. This is another revenue stream beyond the at home fan streaming. 

About 10 years ago I was talking with a manager at a busy pub in Nottingham, who told me they'd have to pay £50,000 a year to show live football. There is huge scope for this inside the UK and the rest of the world. 

[Uptherams]

10 hours ago, reverendo de duivel said:

I don't either mate. I used those figures as a starting point, a easily measured metric for comparison.

However I don't think you can use the viewing figures from Sky or BT as a benchmark either. 

I've got both, and Amazon prime too, and if a game takes my fancy I'll watch it, seeing as I'm paying for a subscription, but if I had to pay extra for it I wouldn't bother.

My missus however will watch any match of football they show, even the League 1/2 crap they occasionally put on in international breaks, but she also wouldn't watch it if wasn't already included. 

Take Derby Vs Forest for example. It might get 750k viewers on Sky, but I doubt that each team has a latent 375k fans that would be willing to pay just to watch that game.

 

It currently costs £1000 to have the ability to watch every game of football broadcast in the UK ?

[Olton Ram]

27 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

There are many fans who live in the UK who can't attend matches because of the travel. I have a group of friends who are Derby fans, but only go to a couple of matches a season, who would absolutely sign up to something like this. 

Then there are all of the fans that are overseas in the rest of the world. 

You also don't have to be a fan of a club to want to watch a game either. Many football fans would sign up in general in the UK and overseas. 

Then we have to factor in increased accessibility attracting people who are so so about Derby and football. Long term you'd create a swell of young fans. 

I genuinely believe something like this could have 5 million subscribers in the 5-10 year timeframe and could get 1 million within the first year of streaming. 

Of course there are costs involved. However there are other commercial revenue streams through sponsorships and advertising and partnerships just like all streaming services have. Buy this and get this streaming service free for a year, etc. 

And yes, huge value in the data. 

If 5 million subs long term, then that creates the opportunity for clubs to lower their prices for season tickets and matchday tickets. Helping to fill the stadiums and in turn leaving fans with more disposable income to subscribe. 

This applies to me. I was born and bred in Derby (family still live in Spondon), but I moved away from the area many years ago. I'm still a Derby fan though, and I would love to be able to see all the matches for a monthly fee, which would bring me closer to the club and allow me to give it some financial support (as opposed to lining Sky's pockets)

?