Why would the gate receipts will suffer?They won’t, not in the UK anyway the clubs would be well against it as gate receipts would suffer.
If they were to show every game, they would. Plus what do the FA know about broad casting? They would have to create a brand, hire their own camera men, their own studio, staff then create a streaming platform to implement it. All costs money and requires expertise that the FA don’t have.Why would the gate receipts will suffer?
This will replace the current TV deals and they will get direct income from customers.
It would be interesting as it would pit the premiership against the EFL. It's the EFL that worry attendances would suffer if the 3pm blackout wasn't observed. They recently made SkyBet stop streaming Bundesliga and Serie A matches inbetween 3 and 5pm on a Saturday saying it was blatantly flouting the 3pm blackout rule.They won’t, not in the UK anyway the clubs would be well against it as gate receipts would suffer.
Not really the same is it? Cinema gets movies what 6 months before TV broadcasters and as far as I am aware Cinema goes numbers have fell over the last decade or so.Did Netflix stop people going to the cinema?
The big difference for the Premier League from this, is that they'd start to see revenue from the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who are watching their content illegally around the world each weekend.
It would also be infinitely better for the consumer.
That's the kind of investment they can easily make. I'm sure with it's stature, they can easily get a new capital from loans. Start slowly for the UK, then Singapore, USA, and so on.If they were to show every game, they would. Plus what do the FA know about broad casting? They would have to create a brand, hire their own camera men, their own studio, staff then create a streaming platform to implement it. All costs money and requires expertise that the FA don’t have.
There's a company doing it all right now that few people in Britain know, Premier League Productions films and distributes every EPL match around the world, the FA could hire them to do it in an instant.If they were to show every game, they would. Plus what do the FA know about broad casting? They would have to create a brand, hire their own camera men, their own studio, staff then create a streaming platform to implement it. All costs money and requires expertise that the FA don’t have.
It'd be a Premier League streaming service, it wouldn't be handled by the FA. And the Premier League already has a strong brand.If they were to show every game, they would. Plus what do the FA know about broad casting? They would have to create a brand, hire their own camera men, their own studio, staff then create a streaming platform to implement it. All costs money and requires expertise that the FA don’t have.
The real question is whether it'd be worth it for the clubs. Netflix's revenue is around 20 billion USD or 15 billion GBP. That's 'only' about four times as much as Sky pays for TV rights and as popular as the PL is, it cannot really expect Netflix-like viewer numbers, especially as there are two full months in any given year when there are no games at all.Imagine this, for 10 quid, you can have it all.
I would take it in a heartbeat.
No the idea is that the PL skip out the broadcasters and stream directly on their own platform world wide and make far more cash.Will PL get 3-4 billion from Sky if this is the case?
LaLiga presently do it and they remove the Saturday 3PM games due to some UEFA law. Similarly the NFL and NBA have done this too.They won’t, not in the UK anyway the clubs would be well against it as gate receipts would suffer.
£10 a month would require 11m subs to stay subbed all year to grt the same revenues they get right now with none of the hassle. Not nearly that many people would pay it.Imagine this, for 10 quid, you can have it all.
I would take it in a heartbeat.
Blame Burnley for the 3pm rule.Always seemed like a no brainer. It makes no sense that the only country (along with Ireland) you can't watch all PL games in is the country it's fecking based in.
£10 would be too low. Right now for Sky and BT combined it's something like €60 in Ireland. I'd happily pay €20 to watch all Utd games now. I already do through other.. "means".£10 a month would require 11m subs to stay subbed all year to grt the same revenues they get right now with none of the hassle. Not nearly that many people would pay it.
And the other means wouldn't stop. I can watch every game we play for £40 a year.£10 would be too low. Right now for Sky and BT combined it's something like €60 in Ireland. I'd happily pay €20 to watch all Utd games now. I already do through other.. "means".
No but I think a lot more people would sign up for a service where you're guaranteed to be able to watch all games at a really high streaming quality with no threat of shutdowns or streams going down. I certainly would. Also I'm pretty sure at its peak Sky used to have easily more than 11m subscribers, before they lost the CL and upped prices even more.And the other means wouldn't stop. I can watch every game we play for £40 a year.
I currently have sky sports and BT Sports subscriptions and still can't watch all the United games on tv, so for me its not about saving money its having reliable access to watching all United's games live. As you say though the big issue would be that the subs would fluctuate and even more so than netflix as most people would opt out for the summer.It certainly wouldn't save you much over what you currentlyhhave to pay for sky or bt, and they'd never allow you to only pay for United games for example.
Not for sports they didn't I don't think. Overall maybe. Recently sky announced something like 23 million subscribers (to all services) but only 11.7m are TV subs. All of them TV or not help pay for the PL. Every single one.No but I think a lot more people would sign up for a service where you're guaranteed to be able to watch all games at a really high streaming quality with no threat of shutdowns or streams going down. I certainly would. Also I'm pretty sure at its peak Sky used to have easily more than 11m subscribers, before they lost the CL and upped prices even more.
Yeah but will they make so much money to replace Sky package?No the idea is that the PL skip out the broadcasters and stream directly on their own platform world wide and make far more cash.
Not even just the summer. I imagine United subs would drop right now compared to 5 years ago and there aren't enough Leicester or Sheffield United fans to pick up the slack. The variability would be huge.I currently have sky sports and BT Sports subscriptions and still can't watch all the United games on tv, so for me its not about saving money its having reliable access to watching all United's games live. As you say though the big issue would be that the subs would fluctuate and even more so than netflix as most people would opt out for the summer.
Netflix or all streaming services certainly did put so much pressure on film industries.Did Netflix stop people going to the cinema?
The big difference for the Premier League from this, is that they'd start to see revenue from the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who are watching their content illegally around the world each weekend.
It would also be infinitely better for the consumer.
Well that’s exactly the same as £10 a month?£10 a month would require 11m subs to stay subbed all year to grt the same revenues they get right now with none of the hassle. Not nearly that many people would pay it.
That's just for the UK.
Streaming options already exist in other places. I think NZ has one that costs £100 a YEAR. that's how low the demand is.
On which fecking planet are you living mate?Well that’s exactly the same as £10 a month?
One with 10 months.On which fecking planet are you living mate?
Season is August through May, that’s 10 months of football. That’s 100 quid altogether. So this planet.On which fecking planet are you living mate?
According to the video at the top of this if they sold directly world wide they could theoretically make 24 billion quid a year compared to the 3 billion they make at the momentYeah but will they make so much money to replace Sky package?
And its NZ. There is little demand. That's why its that price. If the pl were to do this, they need to generate like 1.3bn a year in income from UK subs alone to match what they get from BT, sky and amazon St the moment. With nothing else to sell other than PL.Season is August through May, that’s 10 months of football. That’s 100 quid altogether. So this planet.
Wow, that insane money.According to the video at the top of this if they sold directly world wide they could theoretically make 24 billion quid a year compared to the 3 billion they make at the moment
This is the million dollar question, what happens if PL take all of the rights for themselves and PL can only be watched from their own OTT?My BeIN subscription is 15$ a month, and they show the Premier League, Serie A, La Liga, Ligue 1, Bundesliga, Champions League, Europa League,, FA and Carabao cups, all four grand slams, the NBA and like a million more things. I'd rather stick to that than a service showing only the prem.
They totally wouldn't, as it's armchair fans who would watch, not the people who go to games.They won’t, not in the UK anyway the clubs would be well against it as gate receipts would suffer.
