£340million broadcaster rebate

[Bojan11]

Why would the broadcasting companies want to bite the hand that feeds them? You have to think for for companies like sky sports, the PL is a large part of what they have to offer, and if the PL were to ever say “Feck it, we’ll broadcast our matches on our own”, then the existing broadcasting companies would be in a mess, no?

They need the infrastructure to do that. It’s not as simple as people make it out to be. Amazon can do it because they had experience with other sports and they own servers. But I wasn’t a big fan of streams being a minute or so behind.

Then you have problems with internet in this country. Not everyone has access to good reliable internet.

The easiest solution would have been premier league giving sky and BT more games for the next 3 years.

Also they’d want to bite the hands that feed them because Sky have been offering suspensions until live sports is back and BT have been giving credits.

 

[Sky1981]

Why would the broadcasting companies want to bite the hand that feeds them? You have to think for for companies like sky sports, the PL is a large part of what they have to offer, and if the PL were to ever say “Feck it, we’ll broadcast our matches on our own”, then the existing broadcasting companies would be in a mess, no?

It's not that easy and cost effective for FA to broadcast their own game

They have to have infrastructure for streaming, they have to employ hundreds and thousands of new TV guy covering games, they have to have a strong management for the new workforce, they have to have build a secure server for streaming, they have to have offices and law people all across the world selling their product, etc etc etc.

It's cost effective for Sky because they already have that as part of their business, not so for the FA.

 

[Cloud7]

It's not that easy and cost effective for FA to broadcast their own game

They have to have infrastructure for streaming, they have to employ hundreds and thousands of new TV guy covering games, they have to have a strong management for the new workforce, they have to have build a secure server for streaming, they have to have offices and law people all across the world selling their product, etc etc etc.

It's cost effective for Sky because they already have that as part of their business, not so for the FA.

In the short term, certainly it’s easier for Sky, but if the PL was truly determined to maximize their product, would it not be more beneficial in the long term for them to try to set up this infrastructure for themselves?

 

[Sky1981]

In the short term, certainly it’s easier for Sky, but if the PL was truly determined to maximize their product, would it not be more beneficial in the long term for them to try to set up this infrastructure for themselves?

Not really.

Football alone can't cover the cost of actual satellite, land line, maintenance etc. And let's say TV deal is 1bn, the FA probably gets 100m, the rest goes to clubs.

Good luck setting up shops across UK setting up your box set on millions of homes as a Football Association who doesn't know a thing about IT. Good luck setting international web of marketing and agents for broadcast right. Negotiating with thousands of international companies which wanted to buy your product.

So, no... you simply can't.

 

[The Boy]

Not really.

Football alone can't cover the cost of actual satellite, land line, maintenance etc. And let's say TV deal is 1bn, the FA probably gets 100m, the rest goes to clubs.

Good luck setting up shops across UK setting up your box set on millions of homes as a Football Association who doesn't know a thing about IT. Good luck setting international web of marketing and agents for broadcast right. Negotiating with thousands of international companies which wanted to buy your product.

So, no... you simply can't.

People are confusing the FA and the Premier League which are two separate entities. The Premier League could launch it's own streaming service, yes it would be a bit of a ball ache, but it would earn alot more money potentially. This has been posted before but it's a really good explainer on the pros and cons.

 

[Sky1981]

People are confusing the FA and the Premier League which are two separate entities. The Premier League could launch it's own streaming service, yes it would be a bit of a ball ache, but it would earn alot more money potentially. This has been posted before but it's a really good explainer on the pros and cons.

Streaming a football matches across the world is more than a few servers in china. You need actual people, actual infrastructure in place.

The youtube you posted are very simplistic in its explanation.

X billion, no Sky = more money.
Brits pays 45 for sky, so 45 is what they'll pay for football?
Prem flix = 16.000 hours of EPL matches = people will pay
240m poeple paying 15-76 months in Asia? What a load of shite
200M signed up to 10 a deal, 24bn for premier league, each club got 1bn / season
Singtels EPL is a bundle, nobody would pay half the amount for the Premflix
I pay 1 pound for a month of stream beinsports (or it's equivalent, changes every season), why would I want to pay 10 for premflix?
When you stream your own, you also lost incomes from various TV shows, because why would they pay you if you're sabotaging their niche?
Singtel won't pay you 75m / season when you directly have premflix opent o Singaporeans.

sounds like fairy tale

 

[LochGormanAbú]

Were subscriptions paused? If you're the fan of a team with nothing to play for you might reason there's no point re-subscribing again until next season.

Yes, everyone on Sky had the option to pause their sports subscription, BT did something but just not as easy. This will all be covered in contracts. Bottom line is that football clubs did not have any insurance for a pandemic situation which 'force majuere' does not cover. Interestingly in the Tennis world, Wimbledon had insurance for exactly this. They started paying premiums after SARS and since 2003 have paid about £25m in premiums (£1.5m a year), small numbers really, they stand to receive a payout of about £115m . Every business needs to look after themselves now, the Premier League isn't a charity case, it as an organisation has been as greedy as any business and yet didn't have the foresight to cover for this type of scenario, rather relying on the presumed endless broadcaster money.

 

[flappyjay]

Streaming a football matches across the world is more than a few servers in china. You need actual people, actual infrastructure in place.

The youtube you posted are very simplistic in its explanation.

X billion, no Sky = more money.
Brits pays 45 for sky, so 45 is what they'll pay for football?
Prem flix = 16.000 hours of EPL matches = people will pay
240m poeple paying 15-76 months in Asia? What a load of shite
200M signed up to 10 a deal, 24bn for premier league, each club got 1bn / season
Singtels EPL is a bundle, nobody would pay half the amount for the Premflix
I pay 1 pound for a month of stream beinsports (or it's equivalent, changes every season), why would I want to pay 10 for premflix?
When you stream your own, you also lost incomes from various TV shows, because why would they pay you if you're sabotaging their niche?
Singtel won't pay you 75m / season when you directly have premflix opent o Singaporeans.

sounds like fairy tale

Are you asking if people would pay 10 bucks for premflix?

 

[Skills]

Are you asking if people would pay 10 bucks for premflix?

I'd pay 10 per month just for Manflix.

 

[Gee Male]

I don't get the broadcasters problem with the games being played in empty stadiums. They have been paying to broadcast City games for years!

 

[Skills]

I don't get the broadcasters problem with the games being played in empty stadiums. They have been paying to broadcast City games for years!

I think the only issue is prime time slots. There's only so many of them and a congested season means they're going to have to compromise on who to show in one of them.

Sunday 4pm or Saturday/Monday 5.30 are the times they want to be the big clubs.

 

[Nou_Camp99]

Why would the broadcasting companies want to bite the hand that feeds them? You have to think for for companies like sky sports, the PL is a large part of what they have to offer, and if the PL were to ever say “Feck it, we’ll broadcast our matches on our own”, then the existing broadcasting companies would be in a mess, no?

Sky would go out of business without the football.

 

[Sky1981]

Are you asking if people would pay 10 bucks for premflix?

I won't, the last time I paid 2pounds/month for bein sports Asia.

The Basic minimum basic income for Indonesian is only 100 pounds / month, good luck getting 10 pound / month from them.

We used to have EPL for free anyways from local TV who bought their rights from Sky and made their money back from advertisement.

Good luck going direct

 

[The Boy]

Streaming a football matches across the world is more than a few servers in china. You need actual people, actual infrastructure in place.

The youtube you posted are very simplistic in its explanation.

X billion, no Sky = more money.
Brits pays 45 for sky, so 45 is what they'll pay for football?
Prem flix = 16.000 hours of EPL matches = people will pay
240m poeple paying 15-76 months in Asia? What a load of shite
200M signed up to 10 a deal, 24bn for premier league, each club got 1bn / season
Singtels EPL is a bundle, nobody would pay half the amount for the Premflix
I pay 1 pound for a month of stream beinsports (or it's equivalent, changes every season), why would I want to pay 10 for premflix?
When you stream your own, you also lost incomes from various TV shows, because why would they pay you if you're sabotaging their niche?
Singtel won't pay you 75m / season when you directly have premflix opent o Singaporeans.

sounds like fairy tale

Netflix seems to do pretty well and with a similar tariff scheme, "Premflix" probably would as well. Like I say it would take some setting up but the income would be much bigger than the current broadcasting deals even if it doesn't hit the levels mentioned in the video. I'm convinced it will happen at some point, but at the moment the current model works, but it has a limited shelf life.

 

[Gee Male]

I think the only issue is prime time slots. There's only so many of them and a congested season means they're going to have to compromise on who to show in one of them.

Sunday 4pm or Saturday/Monday 5.30 are the times they want to be the big clubs.

I think you need to reimagine what constitutes prime time during COVID - lots of people not working, a lot of those that are are working from home. Nobody wants to spend all week at home and then sit in for a 4pm game on a summer Sunday.

My main point was getting a dig at City though. Please don't make me speak serious like.

 

[limerickcitykid]

The Premier League doesn’t need to set up any infrastructure. They already have it all and supply the broadcasts to foreign channels. This has all been discussed on here before with one poster actually working for the Premier League’s broadcasting.

 

[11101]

The Premier League doesn’t need to set up any infrastructure. They already have it all and supply the broadcasts to foreign channels. This has all been discussed on here before with one poster actually working for the Premier League’s broadcasting.

They would need to scale up some infrastructure for distribution, but you are right most is already there. They even share the same building as Sky in West London. The video referees are in there too.


The logical first step would be for them to run their own service in some overseas markets before doing it in the UK but i don't think they have the foresight for that. The PL has no incentive to go it alone.

 

[Sky1981]

Netflix seems to do pretty well and with a similar tariff scheme, "Premflix" probably would as well. Like I say it would take some setting up but the income would be much bigger than the current broadcasting deals even if it doesn't hit the levels mentioned in the video. I'm convinced it will happen at some point, but at the moment the current model works, but it has a limited shelf life.

I can't say from any other country, but in my country with a 240m population, you'd better off using the economics of scale of the big giant private companies. They normally have a consortium where they bought the Package and redistribute themselves among participating local TV.

For example :
2-3 major TV bought the license, each share 1 match / week.
They rake in massive advertisement to recoup their initial investment from advertisement
What they're paying would individual subscriber

But the catch is they want exclusivity.

 

[retired_muppet]

Netflix seems to do pretty well and with a similar tariff scheme, "Premflix" probably would as well. Like I say it would take some setting up but the income would be much bigger than the current broadcasting deals even if it doesn't hit the levels mentioned in the video. I'm convinced it will happen at some point, but at the moment the current model works, but it has a limited shelf life.

I think it will happen sooner than later.
Amazon already broadcasted 10 matches this season in UK.
Facebook actually won the bid for vietnam and thailand broadcasting/streaming service although the deal actually collapsed due to PL and FB unable to resolve some details.
Here in Indonesia the premier league broadcast right are owned by a streaming service, mola.tv

Premier league already produce their own content. They don't need tv channel to produce the content.
Skysport or bein or other tv networks are simply their distribution channel.

PL could simply switch to other distribution channel like youtube or amazon prime or facebook if these alternative distribution channels can offer more money to PL.

Optionally, Premier League can stream their own broadcast via 3rd party streaming infrastructure.
Just like Netflix who stream their content using Amazon's aws streaming servers.

I think the choices for PL are do they want large amount of money paid upfront by tv networks like the current deals, or do they want massive amount of money that they need to collect themselves little by little each month.

 

[Sky1981]

They would need to scale up some infrastructure for distribution, but you are right most is already there. They even share the same building as Sky in West London. The video referees are in there too.


The logical first step would be for them to run their own service in some overseas markets before doing it in the UK but i don't think they have the foresight for that. The PL has no incentive to go it alone.

This is the crux of the matter, for them to be able to fully functional and operational the cost would be tremendous for a start up.

Let's say I want for example one Premier League representatives offices in each country, that's manpower they don't have. They also have to have licenses from local government, legal issue, they need 3rd party marketing, they need actual boots on the ground for distributing flyers, holding event etc. Before you know it the whole operations can recruit up to 1000 new workers, and the fixed cost is exponential. They'll also need a different type of monster server to store 160.000 hours of old footage available on demand, and the IT infrastructure for it, the IT system (which can cost hundreds of millions), server maintenance, etc.

It's all good if you're in the business in the first place, but if you're not the cost is monumental to set them up from scratch. It's a very high barrier of entry.

For illustration : Netflix total employees in 2018 is 6,700 and all they do is broadcast movies they bought from somewhere. ( I know they do made their own movies but mostly it'll be project / commission based). They pay (estimates) around 20-40m for cloud services per month. Premflix would need probably a much better server since everyone will always certainly be watching at the same time (it's live football) so your bandwith capacity would need to be huge.

And many other small details that would make it cost inefficient if all you're selling is football.

 

[flappyjay]

I won't, the last time I paid 2pounds/month for bein sports Asia.

The Basic minimum basic income for Indonesian is only 100 pounds / month, good luck getting 10 pound / month from them.

We used to have EPL for free anyways from local TV who bought their rights from Sky and made their money back from advertisement.

Good luck going direct

Where are from in Botswana in order to watch all epl matches you have to cough up the equivalent of $65 a month(cable TV). When the pandemic started a lot of people didn't pay their subscriptions. If you could watch epl for 10 dollars or pounds a month there would be more people tuning in that's for sure.

I guess it also depends on the market. In most African countries the number 1 sport is football and we're are made to pay a lot more to watch it than in a market that wouldn't like it as much as us I suppose.

 

[ASHWIT]

For the good of the league. If we could do it we'd make 100 times some other clubs and the league would become ridiculously uncompetitive. It's never going to happen either so forget it.

It would make it a lot easier for clubs like City to funnel even more dodgy money into their club. All of a sudden a billion subscriptions to City games from Abu Dhabi would appear!

 

[Sky1981]

Where are from in Botswana in order to watch all epl matches you have to cough up the equivalent of $65 a month(cable TV). When the pandemic started a lot of people didn't pay their subscriptions. If you could watch epl for 10 dollars or pounds a month there would be more people tuning in that's for sure.

I guess it also depends on the market. In most African countries the number 1 sport is football and we're are made to pay a lot more to watch it than in a market that wouldn't like it as much as us I suppose.

For every Botswanan that are happy to for out 10 quid you'd have Indonesians, Indians, Cambodians, those who earns less.

And from the premier league POV they're losing money. Because Botswana TV companies used to pay more, now everyone there can enjoy the same thing paying 15% of the cost

Total population of Botswana ? From wiki it's 2.5m
Say 10% (which is a lot) subscribed to Premflix for 10 / month
That's like 2.5M / month, which is peanuts
How much your local Provider pays for the Premiership right?

For comparison :

out of 250m Indonesians, in 2019 there's only 482.000 netflix subscriber. That's 2%

 

[Adisa]

Hope the Premier League tells them to feck off.
Viewers in Aftica and Asia will know this, the Premier League's own broadcast coverage is way better that Sky and BT.
The shows are better. Commentary is better, the entire package is batter.

 

[11101]

This is the crux of the matter, for them to be able to fully functional and operational the cost would be tremendous for a start up.

Let's say I want for example one Premier League representatives offices in each country, that's manpower they don't have. They also have to have licenses from local government, legal issue, they need 3rd party marketing, they need actual boots on the ground for distributing flyers, holding event etc. Before you know it the whole operations can recruit up to 1000 new workers, and the fixed cost is exponential. They'll also need a different type of monster server to store 160.000 hours of old footage available on demand, and the IT infrastructure for it, the IT system (which can cost hundreds of millions), server maintenance, etc.

It's all good if you're in the business in the first place, but if you're not the cost is monumental to set them up from scratch. It's a very high barrier of entry.

For illustration : Netflix total employees in 2018 is 6,700 and all they do is broadcast movies they bought from somewhere. ( I know they do made their own movies but mostly it'll be project / commission based). They pay (estimates) around 20-40m for cloud services per month. Premflix would need probably a much better server since everyone will always certainly be watching at the same time (it's live football) so your bandwith capacity would need to be huge.

And many other small details that would make it cost inefficient if all you're selling is football.

They have the means to broadcast it already, it's the means to distribute they lack. If they ever did do it, they would probably come to some deal to take over some of the existing staff in a country. Netflix has thousands of employees but a very small number are overseas and a lot of those are related to content acquisition i.e would not be relevant to the PL.

You are from Indonesia right? It's very unlikely they would use such a fragmented market to test it out. They would go for a smaller area where there is a reliable legal infrastructure and an audience that's easily reachable and with a consistent level of access of sport media. Indonesia would be further down the line and I know first hand the Ralph Lauren thing scared a lot of international business away.

 

[arnie_ni]

Why would the broadcasting companies want to bite the hand that feeds them? You have to think for for companies like sky sports, the PL is a large part of what they have to offer, and if the PL were to ever say “Feck it, we’ll broadcast our matches on our own”, then the existing broadcasting companies would be in a mess, no?

I wouldnt be surpised when this deal ends if they remember this and go down the line of Netflix/amazon etc if they make a comparable offer

 

[Ish]

This is exactly why voiding the league in its entirety was never an option. If this is the rebate they're looking for because games behind closed doors devalue the product they paid for then imagine the rebate they would would have been looking for if the games that have already been played were also "devalued" by being declared null.

I can't see that being an issue at all. Pro rata/accrual basis of accounting and all.

Not sure if the analogy is the similar, but if you had a rental lease for a year and paid for 6 months as you've occupied the premises - if the lessor is unable to provide the premises for the remaining 6 months due to something like COVID - the tenant cannot ask for the previous 6 months of rental back as they've received & consumed the benefits of occupation (or in our case, advertising/viewership/subscriptions).

 

[Sky1981]

They have the means to broadcast it already, it's the means to distribute they lack. If they ever did do it, they would probably come to some deal to take over some of the existing staff in a country. Netflix has thousands of employees but a very small number are overseas and a lot of those are related to content acquisition i.e would not be relevant to the PL.

You are from Indonesia right? It's very unlikely they would use such a fragmented market to test it out. They would go for a smaller area where there is a reliable legal infrastructure and an audience that's easily reachable and with a consistent level of access of sport media. Indonesia would be further down the line and I know first hand the Ralph Lauren thing scared a lot of international business away.

We are paying good money though. If you dont take us someone will

The world has 7bn people. Say 1 percent subscribed to premflix. That's only 700m.

Sky pays the premier league 1.3bn for nothing.

Bottom line is everyone in football earns more from selling high priced goods to tv stations more than going direct.

 

[Sky1981]

I can't see that being an issue at all. Pro rata/accrual basis of accounting and all.

Not sure if the analogy is the similar, but if you had a rental lease for a year and paid for 6 months as you've occupied the premises - if the lessor is unable to provide the premises for the remaining 6 months due to something like COVID - the tenant cannot ask for the previous 6 months of rental back as they've received & consumed the benefits of occupation (or in our case, advertising/viewership/subscriptions).

Depends on alot of things.

A full paid yearly rent would probably different than compared to on going monthly agreement.

The premier league fails to provide what they're being paid to, even if that's not their fault. It's only reasonable they refund some. Off course the part where they deliver is their rights. But again it'll depend on the contract they signed

We bought season tickets and we also got refunded didnt we?

 

[Pink Moon]

Why would the broadcasting companies want to bite the hand that feeds them? You have to think for for companies like sky sports, the PL is a large part of what they have to offer, and if the PL were to ever say “Feck it, we’ll broadcast our matches on our own”, then the existing broadcasting companies would be in a mess, no?

The PL clubs would be in a mess too. Sky are in large part responsible for the PL boom in recent times with the money they've paid for the rights. Why else do you think absolutely tiny, nothing clubs like Bournemouth can go out and spend 20 million without batting an eye?

I highly doubt the PL breaking way (it never would, Sky money is far too lucrative) and doing an NBA league pass type system would be beneficial for the clubs in comparison. Then you'd have the issue that certain clubs like Man Utd and Liverpool would be responsible for far more subscribers than Bournemouth or Burnley would be yet they'd presumably be expected to all receive an even share of the income? No way certain clubs would agree to that.

 

[Ish]

Depends on alot of things.

A full paid yearly rent would probably different than compared to on going monthly agreement.

The premier league fails to provide what they're being paid to, even if that's not their fault. It's only reasonable they refund some. Off course the part where they deliver is their rights. But again it'll depend on the contract they signed

We bought season tickets and we also got refunded didnt we?

Yeah it absolutely depends on the contract but as far as the “general rule” goes - it’s very difficult under any circumstances to claim money back for a product you’ve consumed without any infringement. It’s very obviously that the games that hasn’t happened/are yet to happen have been impacted (will they actually happen and even if they do, the quality isn’t what you signed up for). But the games which have already happened - voiding the league now doesn’t simply mean those games haven’t happened. It’d be a very timid legal argument imo. But like you said, there could be special conditions/clauses in the contract. Just none that I’ve ever really come across in my limited time.

 

[11101]

We are paying good money though. If you dont take us someone will

The world has 7bn people. Say 1 percent subscribed to premflix. That's only 700m.

Sky pays the premier league 1.3bn for nothing.

Bottom line is everyone in football earns more from selling high priced goods to tv stations more than going direct.

Not saying Indonesia aren't paying good money, just that if the PL wanted to setup its own streaming service it would get it established elsewhere first. Better to just sell the rights to established local companies in riskier markets and let them deal with everything.


If it were really true that it wasn't profitable to go direct all the big American sports wouldn't be doing it. Football doesn't do it because the leadership is famously corrupt and afraid of upsetting the status quo.

 

[Sky1981]

Not saying Indonesia aren't paying good money, just that if the PL wanted to setup its own streaming service it would get it established elsewhere first. Better to just sell the rights to established local companies in riskier markets and let them deal with everything.


If it were really true that it wasn't profitable to go direct all the big American sports wouldn't be doing it. Football doesn't do it because the leadership is famously corrupt and afraid of upsetting the status quo.

Forget legalities, let's say it's done tomorrow.

500.000 Indonesian on Premflix is still less money than TV deals. So at the end of the day anything other than selling the full package to Indonesian TV is a money loss for EPL.

That's why they never get this streamflix going, because why do so and kill the golden goose?

 

[11101]

Forget legalities, let's say it's done tomorrow.

500.000 Indonesian on Premflix is still less money than TV deals. So at the end of the day anything other than selling the full package to Indonesian TV is a money loss for EPL.

That's why they never get this streamflix going, because why do so and kill the golden goose?

The deal for Indonesia is worth $3 million per season. That's nothing. Even at $1 per month the PL would double their money if 500k people signed up.

 

[Sky1981]

The deal for Indonesia is worth $3 million per season. That's nothing. Even at $1 per month the PL would double their money if 500k people signed up.

where do you get the 3m per season from?

https://www.goal.com/id/berita/meni...a-indonesia-dengan/1gh3z35o7n226117hl7bifp8gf

Says here it's 40M for 380 games
World cup rights is at 80M

 

[11101]

where do you get the 3m per season from?

https://www.goal.com/id/berita/meni...a-indonesia-dengan/1gh3z35o7n226117hl7bifp8gf

Says here it's 40M for 380 games
World cup rights is at 80M

The former head of the state TV broadcaster has talked about the cost after he was sacked for buying them:

https://en.tempo.co/read/1300813/helmy-yahya-spills-reason-behind-tvri-purchase-of-epl-program

Obviously you know the country better than I do, but if it is $40m, it's still not much. Assuming 500k people watch it, that's $6.6 per person per month. Hardly a crazy figure against an average wage of roughly $300/month.

 

[Sky1981]

The former head of the state TV broadcaster has talked about the cost after he was sacked for buying them:

https://en.tempo.co/read/1300813/helmy-yahya-spills-reason-behind-tvri-purchase-of-epl-program

Obviously you know the country better than I do, but if it is $40m, it's still not much. Assuming 500k people watch it, that's $6.6 per person per month. Hardly a crazy figure against an average wage of roughly $300/month.

That's not the indonesian deal. 3M is the price where TVRI bought from the original owner of Indonesian broadcast channel holder MOLA TV.

Kinda like saying BBC bought 10 games a season from Sky.

Mola is a pay TV, TVRI is like your bbc it's free to air. My guess is that MOLA decided to sub some smaller match to help with the whole package

EDIT: You don't know indonesian, people could change their phone number on weekly basis depending on which company offers the deal of the week. You won't get 12 months full, they'll sub for 8 months at most. We're prudent with our money and rightly so considering 90% of us are still living on less than 100 pounds /month. Even for me 10 pounds/month is not a great deal since I only watch United, probably 2-3 times a month and there's always free streams. 10 pounds might not be much for you, but between netflix, spotify, isp etc it really adds up

 

[Greck]

Could the rebates be because of the games that will be made free? There must honestly be a key detail we're missing beyond the TV companies just trying to bend the clubs over and the clubs being willing to take it

edit: Also the lost advertising revenue because of the compressed schedule

 

[Fox_Chrys]

People never seem to get this, and I don't understand why.

It's clearly so much more competitive than it was. Between 1992 and 2011, the same 3 teams won 18 titles (plus Blackburn's in 94-95, of course). Between 2012 and 2020, taking Liverpool's win as a given, 5 teams have won 9 titles.

It has increased competitiveness.

If the TV money did not exist, then Manchester City, Chelsea, and ourselves would have no title, quite possibly Blackburn also. Instead it would be rotated between Manchester United, Arsenal, and maybe Liverpool.

The last few seasons have seen crazy points totals, I think that's down to the top tier managers at Liverpool and Manchester City, when those manager's are gone the average title winning points total will drop again.

 

[arnie_ni]

The PL clubs would be in a mess too. Sky are in large part responsible for the PL boom in recent times with the money they've paid for the rights. Why else do you think absolutely tiny, nothing clubs like Bournemouth can go out and spend 20 million without batting an eye?

I highly doubt the PL breaking way (it never would, Sky money is far too lucrative) and doing an NBA league pass type system would be beneficial for the clubs in comparison. Then you'd have the issue that certain clubs like Man Utd and Liverpool would be responsible for far more subscribers than Bournemouth or Burnley would be yet they'd presumably be expected to all receive an even share of the income? No way certain clubs would agree to that.

Sure that paragraph is what is already happening?

Utd and liverpool, to a lesser extent city are on sky the most, watched the most and share their income. Thats no different to now.