Premier League will launch a Netflix style streaming service.

[Footballwipe]

3 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

The video comes from the broadcasting/production companies related to Sky and BT. BBC have an agreement with Sky for Match of the Day. 

 

Premier League would need to work alongside these for a streaming service - which they would be reluctant to do and dent their profits. Amazon were reliant on BT on this regard in December. 

Only Sky and BT send production trucks to the games they cover. PL externally outsource for the rest of the games, they're all given proper game coverage with World Feed commentators. It's out of the box stuff like FIFA do with the Host Broadcasting Service for the World Cup. You get their graphics/commentators etc unless you want otherwise.

 

If the PL set up their own service, as the Tifo video states, they'd need a massive infrastructure input into mainly the running of the subscription side, maintenance of the site/apps on each device. The production of each game would probably be outsourced like it is now. Sunset + Vine produce for BT Sport, for example. Most commentators/pundits nowadays are freelance, hence why you see them all over the place, so 'talent' wouldn't be difficult to find (considering many work for the PL for the World Feed).

 

It'd need major investment but is not insurmountable. As mentioned PL already have plenty of magazine and talk shows it produces each week. It has a back catalogue of nearly 30 years of matches, programmes, highlights, compilations. If it nails a worldwide 

 

I can't see it until 2025 though, they'd need to start the groundwork on this now before 2022-25 rights.

 

Amazon absolutely was in HD, the quality on the live stream was fantastic. Anyone saying to the contrary has connection issues. It has the option of full game replays, 30 min highlights, 3 min highlights, timestamps for the goals, commentary or no commentary option. It was sensational and far exceeds the choice we get on the traditional methods.

 

The sooner we move to a subscription service run by the PL the better. Sky is being propped up by PL football, which in turn means it has to charge the world for it, and BT are following suit. Costs are spiralling and this shot in the arm is definitely required. I really hope they do.

 

A £10/12 per month service would be great, with maybe £20/25 per month if you wanted it through a Sky/BT box to account for carriage fees. I'm just finally glad the PL has realised that the broadcasters need the PL more than the PL needs the broadcasters.

[Dahnsouff]

13 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

...

 

The sooner we move to a subscription service run by the PL the better. Sky is being propped up by PL football, which in turn means it has to charge the world for it, and BT are following suit. Costs are spiralling and this shot in the arm is definitely required. I really hope they do.

 

...

Don`t you think that the traditional big clubs will have a tantrum and (rightly) demand more of the pot, as it is them that get the bulk of worldwide viewers/subscribers?

(Much as it pains me to admit it)

 

So in actuality, it is likely to reinstate, reinforce and render the gap between the has and the has-nots as back to being insurmountable

The Tifo article for example, states a 1bn per club per season in their fictional PremFlix deal, but there is no chance in hell every club would see anywhere near that, but the larger clubs would likely see that, perhaps even more.

 

It is a reductionist approach, not a bad one initially, but will ultimately drive towards per club rights which will create a local (unofficial or official) super league via the financial disparity it creates between clubs in the same league.

[Footballwipe]

8 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Don`t you think that the traditional big clubs will have a tantrum and (rightly) demand more of the pot, as it is them that get the bulk of worldwide viewers/subscribers?

(Much as it pains me to admit it)

 

So in actuality, it is likely to reinstate, reinforce and render the gap between the has and the has-nots as back to being insurmountable

The Tifo article for example, states a 1bn per club per season in their fictional PremFlix deal, but there is no chance in hell every club would see anywhere near that, but the larger clubs would likely see that, perhaps even more.

 

It is a reductionist approach, not a bad one initially, but will ultimately drive towards per club rights which will create a local (unofficial or official) super league via the financial disparity it creates between clubs in the same league.

Well first thing to say is that the figures given are really quite fluid. £1bn per club is fanciful considering that factors every penny of the monthly subscription. The PL will need significant amounts to pay for this (potentially) global operation and prices will differ from country to country. It's expensive work, this, if it were to happen. It also relies on people paying 12 months of the year. Let's imagine it's a no contract scenario, you're going to have significant numbers dumping off in June and July before resubscribing in August.

 

The pot will be higher (it has to be to justify the work they'd do, else you may as well stick with BT/Sky) but I can't see it being that astronomical (not in the short/medium term, anyway.)

 

Also you'd need 2/3 of PL clubs to vote any changes for TV redistribution through. I know we seem to have gone elite and joined these clubs in voting their way now, but it'd take one herculean effort to force anything radical through. You'd hope that they would consider the potential long-term damage to their product by changing redistribution to further widen the gap.

[Dahnsouff]

5 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

Well first thing to say is that the figures given are really quite fluid. £1bn per club is fanciful considering that factors every penny of the monthly subscription. The PL will need significant amounts to pay for this (potentially) global operation and prices will differ from country to country. It's expensive work, this, if it were to happen. It also relies on people paying 12 months of the year. Let's imagine it's a no contract scenario, you're going to have significant numbers dumping off in June and July before resubscribing in August.

 

The pot will be higher (it has to be to justify the work they'd do, else you may as well stick with BT/Sky) but I can't see it being that astronomical (not in the short/medium term, anyway.)

 

Also you'd need 2/3 of PL clubs to vote any changes for TV redistribution through. I know we seem to have gone elite and joined these clubs in voting their way now, but it'd take one herculean effort to force anything radical through. You'd hope that they would consider the potential long-term damage to their product by changing redistribution to further widen the gap.

I do realize the numbers in the podcast were fanciful at best, indicative nonetheless, but I like your positive outlook and also the potential for the end customer (fan) in the short to mid term, so will just see what happens. 

Thought Amazon's coverage was superb (networking issues aside), so bring it (streaming)  on.

 

 

[davieG]

I reckon any charges would match what people currently pay for SKy/BT/Amazon as it has been shown it is the standard that people are prepared to pay to watch less than a streaming service will offer.

[Jonezy]

I want this yesterday!

[LinekersLugs]

They need fans less and less now 

 

not sure it’s the same sport I used to love 

[josh_baskin]

Good in-depth article here

 

[Dahnsouff]

20 minutes ago, LinekersLugs said:

They need fans less and less now 

 

not sure it’s the same sport I used to love 

They need fans who spend time at grounds, thats for sure.

These folks will do with piped in shouting.

 

 

[Swiss_tony]

3 hours ago, Footballwipe said:

Well first thing to say is that the figures given are really quite fluid. £1bn per club is fanciful considering that factors every penny of the monthly subscription. The PL will need significant amounts to pay for this (potentially) global operation and prices will differ from country to country. It's expensive work, this, if it were to happen. It also relies on people paying 12 months of the year. Let's imagine it's a no contract scenario, you're going to have significant numbers dumping off in June and July before resubscribing in August.

 

The pot will be higher (it has to be to justify the work they'd do, else you may as well stick with BT/Sky) but I can't see it being that astronomical (not in the short/medium term, anyway.)

 

Also you'd need 2/3 of PL clubs to vote any changes for TV redistribution through. I know we seem to have gone elite and joined these clubs in voting their way now, but it'd take one herculean effort to force anything radical through. You'd hope that they would consider the potential long-term damage to their product by changing redistribution to further widen the gap.

Over here in the US, you have to buy a season pass for almost all  sports the PL is no  exception, and you pay up front, then  they don't care if or when you cancel..

[vanity]

On 09/02/2020 at 03:26, Master Fox said:

They livestream every single Prem game in the US. Standard NBC sports channel shows the Sky covered games without the Sky presenters, then you pay $70 extra one time flat fee for the season for NBC Sports gold which shows all the games. No lagging, perfect quality, no studio pundits for non main games. Works perfectly on phones, tablets, TV’s, browsers. Needs to happen in the UK. 

*unless the game is being shown on cable in your area. Which may sound pedantic, but it bugs the @_!_@(@€×'.#& outta me, I pay for the season, but occasionally Leicester happens to be the early game, or the late Sunday game, and therefore it is on cable, which is often way laggier than NBC Sportsgold. So I wind up hopping on a streaming site to watch even though the game is on a channel that is part of my cable package. Wish I could watch NBC SG even if it is being shown in my local market, it would make the service much better. </rant>

[davieG]

PremFlix: Is a Premier League streaming service actually a good idea?
Premier League
A Netflix-style Premier League streaming service is mooted, with supporters relishing the prospect of watching their favourite teams on demand. But in an increasingly tribal fan environment, is Premflix a good idea after all?

Seb Stafford-Bloor's picture
bySeb Stafford-Bloor

Published3 hours ago
?
PremFlix is on the horizon. We don’t yet know what form it will take, how much it will cost or even what it will actually be called, but some form of direct-to-consumer broadcasting model is now inevitable.

For now, it has only the faintest outline, meaning there’s little sense in predicting its delivery or dynamic. One conclusion it probably is safe to draw, however, is that it will give supporters more chance to retreat into their own, exclusive groups. With any direct-to-consumer model comes the opportunity for digital season tickets and, with that, the chance to tailor match-watching experiences to particular fanbases.

The reality may not be quite so ultra-localised or so literal. It needn’t mean appropriate regional accents for particular commentaries, or hopelessly biased post-game analysis, but it implies a move in that general direction. For all intents and purposes, PremFlix might have the unintended consequence of creating 20 individual club television channels and, on the basis of football’s general health, that wouldn’t be a welcome move. 

Obviously not, because the game is already sick. With each month, its standard of conversation deteriorates further. In 2020, football is dominated by all sorts of serious issues – sports washing, human rights abuses, money laundering, doping – and the graver those situations become, the more febrile the standard of debate around them somehow tends to be. The conclusion is that tribalism has conditioned a lot of supporters to reject constructive dialogue and, unfortunately, that's happened during an era in which the greater good has never needed more attention.

Football has big, frighteningly macro ambitions for itself. It's become a megalomaniac's paradise and yet, still, we're all too worried about Combined XIs and one-upmanship to notice or care - and it's difficult to see this pattern of change correcting that problem.

One of the inadvertent benefits of the current broadcasting model in England, is that it encourages degrees of tolerance and civility. It’s not particularly effective – clearly – but gathering behind television screens, together, is protection against the kind of partisanship which is on the rise. It’s a forced co-existence, essentially, in which fans are compelled to see a world beyond just their own and look at football as a whole.

They have to watch other clubs playing and, whether they like it or not, consider the issues of the day from different perspectives. Whether that’s a truly effective balm is a different issue, but it has some kind of virtue, at least in principle.

Consider the proposed change, though, and imagine its impact at the furthest point of its evolution.

Fans would – theoretically – be able to pass through entire seasons while engaging solely with their own clubs. It’s several degrees removed from what’s being proposed, admittedly, but in time they could be funnelled through the kind of content which routinely packs the schedules of Liverpool, Manchester United, or Chelsea TV now. Highlights of games which are never lost, panel shows in which the club is always the hero, and post-game analysis which feeds the conspiracy beast.

Those are relatively benign entities for now, but endow them with live match rights and their threat would be very different. Instead of flophouses for the bored, they’d be legitimised into hot-housed chapels, rich in the noxious fumes which turn fanbases into cults.

That’s paranoia, most likely. PremFlix remains an idea rather than an active initiative and this kind of club specialisation would be a decade away at least, if it’s even realistic at all. But it’s a frightening scenario and one to be wary of.

It's not particularly difficult to imagine, either, given the unthinking ferocity of fan-on-fan abuse and the attacks suffered by any journalist who dares dissent. That's not a problem with football specifically, but the sport's landscape is now definitely patrolled by twitching, neurotic armies, ready to attack at a moment’s notice. In that climate, introducing a futher, secular element hardly seems wise.

For all the obvious reasons, of course, but a few others as well. Consider the value of those echo chambers to clubs, for instance, and how they might be controlled, monetised and manipulated. In those kind of environments – built on the premise of footballing isolationism – that kind of unthinking loyalty is less a quirk of the sport and more the making of a doomsday scenario.

Eat this approved doughnut. Bet with this official bookmaker. Apply for this high-interest mortgage. At the moment those are just suggestions. In time, though, who knows?

Perhaps that's a step too far down the rabbit hole, a bit too much like an episode of Black Mirror to be taken seriously, but football needs to be careful in how it encourages some of these loyalties.

While you’re here, why not take advantage of our brilliant subscribers’ offer? Get the game’s greatest stories and best journalism direct to your door for only £12.25 every three months – less than £3.80 per issue! Save money with a Direct Debit today

 

https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/premflix-premier-league-streaming-on-demand-live-tv-service-online-proposal

[norwichfox]

On 09/02/2020 at 12:11, Trav Le Bleu said:

Don't be daft. We all know that this...

 

 

Is the future of football.

Not sure why but it put me in mind of Shinji

[Christoph]

Is this for the UK or for other countries though? Will 3pm games be streamed? Surely it wont be for the UK because of the crazy money spent by BT and Sky? If those games get taken away from them surely they'd be in the shitter? 80% of people who get BT or Sky are usually getting it for football (and ufc for BT hehe). 

[filbertway]

Would work well abroad, will never work in the UK though as you can't and should never be able to broadcast Saturday 3pms in the UK.

 

I suppose the solution would be

Friday 20:00
Saturday 12:30 
Saturday 17:30 

Saturday 19:45
Sunday 11:00
Sunday 13:15
Sunday 15:30

Sunday 17:45

Sunday 20:00

Monday 20:00

[Sol thewall Bamba]

If it reduces the disruption to kick off times then happy days but somehow I don't think it will. 

[Chrysalis]

On 09/02/2020 at 09:31, CUJimmy said:

It was fine on a tablet but grainy on a normal 42” TV.  Not a problem when it is free but if I am going to be asked to pay for it then it needs to be the same picture quality as Sky or BT.  We use Amazon Prime for other things and the picture is perfect so our connection is not the issue.

 

Checking reviews on the internet it seems that plenty of people had the same experience but it was better when they were only streaming one match so hopefully it is a capacity issue at their end.

Would you rather have satellite fed liverpool/man utd every week maybe lcfc once a month.

or

Pick of whatever game you want for every single kickoff including every single LCFC game, plus access to all VODs.

 

Its a no brainer really, and I cannot see the retail cost been anywhere near the cost of having sky+bt.

 

Any streaming issues will get worked around quite quickly.

[Chrysalis]

On 09/02/2020 at 09:52, foxpleasure said:

The Amazon games I watched were definitely HD via an Amazon app on my 55inch smart tv.

The first game I watched was in amazon SD, because I had to watch in vivaldi which doesnt isnt on amazon's whitelist.  But even that so called SD stream was easily good enough to watch a football match, I honestly do not see the issue, the fact many people are happy with quality of illegal streams says it all really, and to point out as well that the SD amazon stream was easily better quality than NowTV, never mind when I watched the 2nd game in HD.

[Chrysalis]

On 09/02/2020 at 10:23, SouthStandUpperTier said:

The only way I can see it being allowed is if there are no Premier League Saturday 3pm kickoffs, so it doesn't clash with lower league games.

Or something like this.

 

"Hello FA, we are going to stream all games from now on, just to let you know if you try to be awkrawd we will all pull all of our clubs out of the FA cup"

 

It would be approved faster than I can sneeze.

[Chrysalis]

On 09/02/2020 at 19:08, Cardiff_Fox said:

And who provides those pictures ?!? 

Even when we were in league one there was a camera filming every single game in its entirety, highlights were put from it on LCFC website.

 

Also BT showed how quick a tv crew can be assembled when they joined the industry.

[Dahnsouff]

Not sure about the "it would damage attendances" argument.

Back in the day this would have been true, but part of going to the match is the tribal, camaraderie, inclusive element, something not available from TV viewing with contrived circumstance (Lads round for a glass of Chateau de Pape and some vol au vonts).

Even if true, and it does effect attendances, especially those of the lower leagues (Which could fold if true), big business give the square root of c*ck all interest.

It will happen in some guise, money wins out I would imagine.

[Chrysalis]

I dont know a single person who has decided to not go to a game because TV is an option, the popularity is from people who for whatever reason cannot go to games, so wouldnt be at games anyway, plus there is a site showing historical attendances and that shows sky tv has had no negative impact.

[CosbehFox]

2 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

Even when we were in league one there was a camera filming every single game in its entirety, highlights were put from it on LCFC website.

 

Also BT showed how quick a tv crew can be assembled when they joined the industry.

To the standard of Sky et al? One of the common complaint about the Football League's iFollow subscription service and Sky's extension of midweek evening coverage of every Championship game has been the camera angles (or lack of) 

 

BT took the staff from ESPN and Setanta. 

 

Footballwipe explains it better than me. 

 

Personally I think it's bullshit and will see a less democratic split of the UK TV money - the big six will be looking for financial splits dependent on viewing figures etc. Appears great in principle yeah every Leicester game on TV but the reality is it would be another financial support to the big boys. 

[CosbehFox]

2 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

I dont know a single person who has decided to not go to a game because TV is an option, the popularity is from people who for whatever reason cannot go to games, so wouldnt be at games anyway, plus there is a site showing historical attendances and that shows sky tv has had no negative impact.

The nearest comparison we have to any similar model is Sky's midweek coverage of the Championship....attendances are lower for these games compared to midweek games of old. 

[CosbehFox]

2 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

Would you rather have satellite fed liverpool/man utd every week maybe lcfc once a month.

or

Pick of whatever game you want for every single kickoff including every single LCFC game, plus access to all VODs.

We are currently in the midst of a long run of televised games for Leicester City.......