Super League TV Coverage

[TiffToff88]

I know Sky have already come out and announced their objections to the Super League, but if the league does actually go ahead, and either BT or Sky got the broadcast rights, would you cancel your subscription in protest?

 

I'd imagine the cost of obtaining the rights would probably have to be offset by an increase in monthly subscription costs, and if that was the case, i would definitely not be renewing my Sky Sports subscription.

[Finnegan]

Someone on here made the point Amazon would be a prime candidate for this. I can definitely see that, it smacks of Bezos. 

 

With that in mind, I wouldn't cancel Prime but I wouldn't buy the inevitable bolt on for it either. 

[Webbo]

It's quite possible that each of these teams would own their own rights and show the games on their own platforms. That's what they wanted in their big plan a few months ago. 

[SecretPro]

I would instantly hate any pundit that covered the games

[Bert]

Probably not - just wouldn’t watch any of the games. 

[wardyfox86]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's quite possible that each of these teams would own their own rights and show the games on their own platforms. That's what they wanted in their big plan a few months ago. 

Which should be the way forward for football anyway. I don't even care about Man Utd vs Man City, so why should I have to pay a monthly cost for that alongside the televised Leicester game?

[Webbo]

Just now, wardyfox86 said:

Which should be the way forward for football anyway. I don't even care about Man Utd vs Man City, so why should I have to pay a monthly cost for that alongside the televised Leicester game?

If that was the case there wouldn't be any breakaway league as Man U and Liverpool would already earn 10 times more than the rest of us and have the league sewn up by October. 

[StanSP]

Probably not. Just wouldn't watch the super league games. But they may have Leicester games on along with other leagues I'm interested in... 

[urban.spaceman]

To be honest, I have a longstanding moral objection anyway to having to pay 3 different broadcasters for the right to watch barely half the games played in the Premier League.

 

You can literally get a better deal in Botswana.

 

So I will continue finding streams every week until consumers are treated fairly.

[Guest bss9401]

Broadcasters will only object for as long as it takes for bidding to start for rights to the Super League. 

Even then they will try to create a positive spin on their intrinsic worth to the game and the armchair supporter.

 

[Jimbo]

I wouldn't cancel any subscription unless there was a price hike. 

 

Not because I object to the tv coverage as such, but because it's already mega expensive.

 

I have a feeling the the ESL will be in charge of it's own TV coverage anyway, keep it all in house meaning more money for them and less for everybody else. They'll be run by an American company, probably on a monthly subscription service akin to Netflix and prime

 

I very rarely watch a game ghat doesn't involve us in anyway. And if I watch 2 other teams playing it'll be because the outcome affects us in some way

Edited 20 April 2021 by Jimbo

[TiffToff88]

1 minute ago, urban.spaceman said:

To be honest, I have a longstanding moral objection anyway to having to pay 3 different broadcasters for the right to watch barely half the games played in the Premier League.

 

You can literally get a better deal in Botswana.

 

So I will continue finding streams every week until consumers are treated fairly.

That's always frustrated me. You can go to pretty much any country in the world and watch every single premier league game. The only place you can't do that is the country the league is actually played in (And probably North Korea)

[fazzyfox]

Remember when the results of the world cup allocations came out, Russia and Qatar, how it stank the place out. Then come the time the journalists and broadcasters still attend (when it's been proved possible to cover from home), still lap up the atmosphere, we still buy the merchandise and watch the games. Yes this is different but come the time, how many will not be able to resist the temptation of a subscription?

[TiffToff88]

5 minutes ago, fazzyfox said:

Remember when the results of the world cup allocations came out, Russia and Qatar, how it stank the place out. Then come the time the journalists and broadcasters still attend (when it's been proved possible to cover from home), still lap up the atmosphere, we still buy the merchandise and watch the games. Yes this is different but come the time, how many will not be able to resist the temptation of a subscription?

You're absolutely right.

 

And i know there might come a time when i could be tempted. Its a wednesday evening, theres nothing on the TV but then i remember that Barcelona are playing Juventus in the European Super League. If there was absolutely nothing else on i know id probably be drawn to it.

[Guest Danny Clender]

 

That's the only statement I've seen by Skysports, I'm unsure if Sky Broadcasting have said any different, but there's certainly no condemnation against the ESL in that statement.

 

If the new league is targeting 16 - 25 ages, then I'd imagine traditional broadcasting will be behind Amazon, Alibaba, Facebook, Instagram Google, YouTube, Sony Playstation and any other brand new platform targeted at digital viewing habits. I can't see they're going to set up the ESL and then target the traditional 'telly' market. 

[wardyfox86]

10 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If that was the case there wouldn't be any breakaway league as Man U and Liverpool would already earn 10 times more than the rest of us and have the league sewn up by October. 

Depends on the delivery of it. I understand it'd be somewhat unavoidable with that model. But a 50/30/20 split of virtual ticket income between the home team, away team, and broadcaster could be quite lucrative for all. It'd never be agreed to in that format obviously, as it'd be seen as the top teams handing unlimited gate receipt money to the 'lesser clubs' which is their issue in the first place.

[Suzie the Fox]

If it was Amazon then no as i subscribe to prime for free deliverys, the football is just a bonus. Regarding BT and Sky, i have not subscribed to them for years, prices are too high to not be able to guarantee the games i want to watch and what with the availability of decent streams i dont see the point. 

[AKCJ]

It won't be on BT or Sky.

 

It'll have it's own streaming service where ad revenue is streamed back into the 12 founding clubs and nobody else.

 

I subscribe to BT and Sky because I enjoy watching Premier League football. I didn't pay extra when they went to Pay Per View for a month or so but I enjoy the Premier League as a means of entertainment.

 

I wouldn't rush out to buy a subscription to the Netflix-like service that the Super League will inevitably offer.

[davieG]

34 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

I have a longstanding moral objection anyway to having to pay 3 different broadcasters

You can blame the EU for that as they're ones that decided on our behalf that Sky having a monopoly was bad for us and other Broadcasters should be allowed to show games to create competition and choice. Well they got their competition in the initial bidding for games but there's no choice at all for customers who as you say now have to pay for 3 broadcasters on the off-chance they might show one or more of our games.

[filbertway]

43 minutes ago, TiffToff88 said:

That's always frustrated me. You can go to pretty much any country in the world and watch every single premier league game. The only place you can't do that is the country the league is actually played in (And probably North Korea)

It's nothing to do with TV companies though, it's to protect the football pyramid, which apparently everyone in this thread cares about

 

Although...edited to say, I suppose the league could do away with all 3pm kick offs, which would allow them all to be broadcast.

Edited 20 April 2021 by filbertway

[urban.spaceman]

16 minutes ago, davieG said:

You can blame the EU for that as they're ones that decided on our behalf that Sky having a monopoly was bad for us and other Broadcasters should be allowed to show games to create competition and choice. Well they got their competition in the initial bidding for games but there's no choice at all for customers who as you say now have to pay for 3 broadcasters on the off-chance they might show one or more of our games.

That's not even my main gripe Davie, it's the fact that you have to pay broadcasters for barely half the games played. This just ended up being a loophole for bigger clubs to earn more money. 

[davieG]

4 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

That's not even my main gripe Davie, it's the fact that you have to pay broadcasters for barely half the games played. This just ended up being a loophole for bigger clubs to earn more money. 

For sure that's why I put  - now have to pay for 3 broadcasters on the off-chance they might show one or more of our games.

 

 

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

For sure that's why I put  - now have to pay for 3 broadcasters on the off-chance they might show one or more of our games.

 

 

I didn’t read that far I was too high on the drama. 

[HighPeakFox]

I'm going to play the smug high and mighty **** card here and tell you I don't subscribe anyway. Sky et al, as has been rightly pointed out, are very much part of the problem. You only have to look at the demands made of travelling fans sometimes to realise where their priorities lie. 

[lcfc278]

I've noticed the Sky and Amazon statements now, it's a nice gesture in principle and both mention that they haven't been in discussions with the Super League.

 

Nowhere though, in either of their statements, does it say they would refuse to broadcast the games if the league is to go ahead.

 

Therefore these statements are nothing but the companies trying to look like they're the 'good guys' meaning the statements are about as valuable as the paper they're written on.