Does anyone know more about this article?
This Portsmouth landlady is taking her case to the European Court of Justice to allow her to show PL games from a Greek provider for £100 per month, instead of the £1000 many pubs are charged. If the case goes her way, it will mean access to PL games regardless of time of fixture for a fraction of costs dictated by the PL itself for any territory in Europe.
This opens up many questions and possibilities to football and clubs individually. Could be the bubble will burst sooner than we think, and football may possibly come back to the people as technology available to us all outgrows the restrictions of copyright law rendering said territories and the purpose of the laws redundant.
Also the BBC has this only in their business section (now mysteriously taken off their ?what people are reading now? section), and the story is conspicuous by its absence in the national (Murdoch) press.
Nick Entwistle, Posted 04/10/2010 at 23:12:31
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 05/10/2010 at 08:09:07
But and there is always a but money always talks and rule one will apply.
Remember the Golden Rule.
Them that has the gold make the rules.
2 Posted 05/10/2010 at 08:24:20
The only problem for me is that as we are not deemed a big club anymore, then it is often hard to find a pub with our game on. Sadly the RS seem to be on every other foreign channel for every match..
So I think Sky get by without these revenue streams as it is..
3 Posted 05/10/2010 at 09:01:02
4 Posted 05/10/2010 at 09:14:46
If I could pay the club £10 a game to watch it on the telly live I'd be happy!
5 Posted 05/10/2010 at 09:41:52
Remember - Competition is good for the consumer.
Basically the EPL and FIFA follow the same commercial model when selling international broadcast rights. In a lot of countries, you don't have competition in the media. So when they bid for the rights, they may only be bidding against alternative media (e.g. an Internet provider may bid against a TV company).
They use "short form contracts" which basically have a lot of standard T's and C's, but are not fixed in the value of the service.
So when the recent overseas TV deal was signed at an increase over the previous deal, all the different territories were negotiated individually by the EPL's commercial reps. The same model (and probably the same reps) applied to the WC just gone.
This leads to the perverse situation where in somewhere like China (population 1.3bn?) the value of the EPL contract is peanuts - people refuse to pay, and the state media (no competition company) sold on it's short form contract to an Internet Broadcaster, when the public refused to pay a small subscription. The Internet company puts it out free, paid for with ads (like some of the other channels people here use).
Then here in Singapore (population 5.5m-ish) you have 2 competing cable providers (1 mainly government owned), plus a government owned free-to-air channel. Because they compete for EPL rights as they sell advertising and sponsorship off the back of it, they pay a much higher price. By going to extremes to out-bid each other, the price is much higher, and has to be passed on to the consumer - individual or bar. As a result both companies paid through the nose for the WC, and did it as a premium add-on, which was a commercial disaster.
So, competition works...?
In this case, I think the claim by the landlady will fall foul of international agreements on broadcasting - namely that a countries satellite territory is clearly defined in the broadcasting license. Whilst it is possible to get overseas channels (here we can subscribe to Aussie, Chinese, Indonesian etc.), I would be amazed if the short-form contracts forbade broadcasting outside the assigned territory. Afterall, if you've paid through the nose for exclusive broadcasting in a territory, you would have a big beef with EPL (and FIFA) if this was to happen...
That's my layman understanding of it.
6 Posted 05/10/2010 at 10:09:35
On one hand it seems a very complicated issue, on the other, very simple and I liked her response to her potentially 'damaging the game'.
"I'm not damaging football. Football is damaging itself by dictating when matches are shown. Supporters don't want a match on a Tuesday night - which suits the broadcaster - they want a match on a Saturday afternoon. The whole thing has got way out of control. It's pure greed."
Hard to argue with, especially if you're not one of the big three (I've said a few times - I'd love to see it all - Sky/The PL etc - implode)
I hope she wins but expect her to lose, simply because of the money that certain organizations could lose.
It reminds me a little of the European 'law' on posting ciggies.
If I want my hypothetical uncle to send me 20 cartons of Bensons from Wolverhampton, no problem.
But Portugal, at £4 a pack less?
No fucking chance.
I can't remember how Europe stopped this but they did, even though we're supposed to be one market.
(I think this might be being fought too, but feel it will take more than 5 years).
Anyway, good luck to her.
7 Posted 05/10/2010 at 10:24:09
But when I mentioned technology making redundant the concept of territories and laws it goes back to the Tresspass Laws of the US which were changed in 1945. A land owner (stay with me here) had the right to his land to an indeterminate depth below and an indeterminate hight above, but the advent of planes made that impossible to continue.
In the same way the mass public now are being sold editing packages as standard on computers and access to footage via YouTube etc this has made copyright law uninforcable when dealing with the personal user. We now have the ability, like the landlady has, to grab a card from a Greek supplier, so even if she may not be able to show in public, it wont take a bright spark to set up a supply of perfectly legal Greek sattelite cards to the UK individual.
8 Posted 05/10/2010 at 10:42:41
9 Posted 05/10/2010 at 10:53:24
10 Posted 05/10/2010 at 10:58:31
Consumers will win in the end, especially with all this publicity. Just Google NOVA satellite card and visit http://www.digitalsales.co.uk/ to buy one for the house today and cancel your Sky Sports subscription. What the hell are they going to do about it on a mass scale?
Diluted PL revenues = much reduced players wages = cheaper to go to the match = more people will attend on a Saturday, you know the day we can actaully get off work! And I like the comment about "football is damaging itself" - absolute quality and absolutely correct.
Well done Karen.
11 Posted 05/10/2010 at 12:26:12
12 Posted 05/10/2010 at 12:37:12
13 Posted 05/10/2010 at 12:38:45
TV broadcasting is viewed as a special case because the value differs country to country... The Premier League is more 'valuable' in the UK than it is in Greece because we're the ones who support the teams and therefore we are the one's who really want to watch it. That is what the 'expert' lawyer on Radio 2 said about it, anyway.
14 Posted 05/10/2010 at 12:46:47
15 Posted 05/10/2010 at 12:55:04
16 Posted 05/10/2010 at 13:00:21
17 Posted 05/10/2010 at 13:04:02
18 Posted 05/10/2010 at 13:03:00
Research: The Bilderberg Group
19 Posted 05/10/2010 at 15:20:14
BBC lost its international rights when Hansen and co were overly critical and don't won't want to be saying anything... in fact, try and find the story on BBC without the link above, you wont.
Sky of course have a lot invested so no mention on their news site or in the Murdoch papers.
I'd imagine the BBC have the little they do have to be above suspicion, and does seem the radio seem to be doing more than other departments as its seperate.
20 Posted 05/10/2010 at 15:29:10
The clubs would have a beef also as their TV deal states that non-televised games on a Saturday at 3pm (remember them?) will not "compete" with live TV so as to undermine their gate revenue. Other countries implicitly don't have that problem.
Many people have predicted the downfall of football's finance "structure". The foundations of that are rooted in the EPL commercial deals with Sky (the major component) and rest of world.
21 Posted 05/10/2010 at 16:58:33
22 Posted 05/10/2010 at 18:01:08
23 Posted 05/10/2010 at 19:19:54
Even if this woman wins, there are so many complexities due to unions, government and institutions (such as the FA) and the like that the lawyers will very very quickly close that particular loophole.
Do admire her, though.
24 Posted 05/10/2010 at 21:55:20
25 Posted 05/10/2010 at 22:51:54
Here in the States we have the NFL Sunday Ticket - to which I subscribe. I can watch every single out of market game for around $150 a year. The NFL uses Directv for their distributor.
Why doesn't the EPL offer those in the UK a pay-for option to subscribe to a service which televises all EPL games? It works fantastically here in the States and has propelled the NFL to huge profits, nevermind the exposure. Pubs (Bars) subscribe at a much higher rate, but are more than happy to pay the fee as not one soul will be in their bar if they don't televise the games. Teams (Clubs in the UK model) have their gates protected by blackouts. If the local club does not sell out their game it not televised in their local market - incentive for the locals to still attend at the park / grounds.
The NFL makes millions with this arrangement and I've never frankly understood why the UK and particularly the EPL hasn't adopted this model.
I can view almost every single EPL game every week on my TV. If I lived in the UK it would just kill me to not be able to view the game if it wasn't one of the chosen ones on Sky. Hell, here the networks still compete viciously for the rights despite the Sunday ticket b/c it's their feed of the game in question popped out over the Sunday Ticket into out of market localities, hence their advertisers get the air time. I think CBS and FOX paid into the billions for the NFL broadcasting rights.
The UK model seems unbelievably archaic - no offense intended whatsoever. I would imagine SKY could offer a same pay-for style that Directv does - why do they not do it? This is above my head clearly, but we do it here...and everyone up and down the food chain benefits.
A guy in Florida can watch every Green Bay Packers game he wants. A guy in London can only see Everton if it's televised, the game of choice per se? I hurt for you people - it's gotta be agony - or do I have this all wrong?
26 Posted 05/10/2010 at 23:43:44
27 Posted 06/10/2010 at 00:01:44
28 Posted 06/10/2010 at 00:30:42
Like I said, it's an apple and a banana. And your point of geography is well taken. All too often us Yanks forget that entire countries can have 100 football clubs in them, and be the size of Vermont.
In case you haven't heard, we're a very self-absorbed bunch over here.
I still think there'd have to be a way to implement a similar system to the benefit of the economic system and the fans.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.