[Archived] Will Sky lose its monopoly on Football rights in the UK?

[Biddy]

Today marks a very important day for Sky and the Premier League as their grip on selling television rights across Europe is being threatened in the European courts.

A pub land lady from Portsmouth has already won a review from the European advocate general that sided with her rights to be able to buy any product from across Europe. In this case a fully paid up subscription to Satellite service "Nova" from Greece. This service cost her business just £800 per year for all Televised games INCLUDING 2 or 3 Saturday 3pm games. This is in stark contrast to the hand full of games Sky/ESPN show for her "pub rate" of £7000 per year.

Precedent shows that almost two thirds of EU court rulings follow the advocate advise therefore it is fairly likely that she will win her case.

So what will this mean? Well, it would mean that all pubs would now legally be able to show football broadcast on satellite from any of the EU countries with a valid subscription. It could also mean that the likes of Nova could legally start selling their cards themselves in the UK for the domestic market.

There are however good and bad sides to this and Sky / The Premier League could react in a number of ways.

Firstly, if Sky feel their investment has been devalued (ie pubs no longer paying extortionate prices) then the next round of Television deals could see a vast amount of money wiped out of football.

Secondly, they could put up the wholesale price of Premier League rights to the foreign markets. This however could well force those countries to simply drop the Premier League games as the price would outweigh revenue. This in turn would reduce the amount of money coming back into the Premier League.

Thirdly, they could have 1 pan-european agreement whereby every country get the same games at the same price. This however seems a bit monopolistic and what would that price be?

So, do you think it will be a good day if the pub land lady wins this court battle? Personally, I'd love to see her win as I hate the fact that other countries get to see more of OUR game at a cheaper price than we do.

[Biddy]

Looks like she has already won in Europe this morning. This now goes back to the High Court for final verdict. BBC News

[BRFC95]

I see the landlady won her case. Bad news for sky.

It could also be very bad news for the premier league clubs on a very tight budget.

[LeChuck]

There was a good blog posted on the BBC site yesterday: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/2011/10/pubs_v_premier_league.html

The upshot is that the Premier League already have plans to keep the business model in place:

"In the event of a ruling which backs Mrs Murphy's appeal, the League is likely to create one Europe-wide live TV rights package which Sky or another pan-European broadcaster could buy for the same sort of money Sky currently pay, if not more. They could then either show it on the continent themselves or sub licence to foreign TV companies."

[Biddy]

"In the event of a ruling which backs Mrs Murphy's appeal, the League is likely to create one Europe-wide live TV rights package which Sky or another pan-European broadcaster could buy for the same sort of money Sky currently pay, if not more. They could then either show it on the continent themselves or sub licence to foreign TV companies."

This would still be a good thing as its not only the cost implications here but the 3pm kick offs. If the Premier League are happy to sell to Europe at the same price then EU countries can still buy the 3pm rights. This means that we as individuals or pubs if they see fit can choose to pay an EU broadcaster rather than Sky for their services to get to watch those games.

Or will this see the stupid Premier League rule of "no 3pm kick off's" abolished. This would please Sky no end as think of the subscription increases if they could offer everything the continent already does.

[Hughesy]

Na they will simply change the terms of the agreement....Sky will still pay top dollar and the premier league will simply tighten the terms of the deal.

[LeChuck]

Apparently the European market 'only' contributes £130 million out of the £1.4 billion Sky gets for selling TV rights abroad.

With a relatively meagre sum I think the Premier League will make Sky a priority in the new 'European package'. I would guess that they'd rather exclude Europe from showing 3pm kick-offs than have them shown over here.

Sky pay £1.8 billion already. If the package from 2013 onwards is £1.94 billion for European wide rights then PL aren't out of pocket. I don't think it will affect anything really.

[joey_big_nose]

Apparently the European market 'only' contributes £130 million out of the £1.4 billion Sky gets for selling TV rights abroad.

With a relatively meagre sum I think the Premier League will make Sky a priority in the new 'European package'. I would guess that they'd rather exclude Europe from showing 3pm kick-offs than have them shown over here.

Sky pay £1.8 billion already. If the package from 2013 onwards is £1.94 billion for European wide rights then PL aren't out of pocket. I don't think it will affect anything really.

The 3pm kickoff ban is enforced by government legislation I think - in order to protect attendances - not by broadcaster terms. So Sky could sell one super european package, but they would have to block the 3pm games anyway in the UK. They could still have two distinct packages. If the EU had a problem with that they would remonstaate with the UK government, not Sky.

In terms of how it is going to affect consumers presumably quite a lot? Legitimises pubs showing many games. Sky will have to rewrite their rules for the next deal. Probably the amount of matches everywhere is going to go through the roof. This will reshape the whole way they renegotiate rights. And the grey market of TV over IP etc will still be occuring. Major major challenges for sky. And for Rovers who will find there are perhaps double the amount of games on TV and how are they going to fill the ground?

[Steve Moss]

. . .

Firstly, if Sky feel their investment has been devalued (ie pubs no longer paying extortionate prices) then the next round of Television deals could see a vast amount of money wiped out of football . . ..

I think this is a good thing, at least for your national team. In my non-expert opinion, too many high price foreign players are stifling the development of your youngsters.

[OhmiBRFC]

Nothing wrong with the 3pm rule. That's the time football should be played. And no other.

[LeChuck]

Nothing wrong with the 3pm rule. That's the time football should be played. And no other.

Definitely.

Sky won't bother upsetting the apple cart for the sake of a market worth £140 million. They'll just create a Europe wide deal and bump up the price by 10% or so.

It won't affect clubs at all, but Sky might lose out on viewing figures from now until 2013 as pubs are seemingly free to subscribe to cheaper European packages.

[Biddy]

but that's one of the problems. A LOT of sky's UK income comes from selling to pubs and clubs at ridiculous prices. If that market evaporates then that will be a concern for them.

However, I notice that the EU ruling says that the Premier League does have copyright over replays, graphics and the "theme" which pubs would have to get permission to show. I guess that just means every braodcat will have a Premier League badge on screen which means they can still prosecute.

but we'll see.

[Speedie Dived]

This has the potential to shake the game up for the better. Many won't agree, but this could ultimately lead to clubs cutting their cloths accordingly and giving English players a chance.

[Biddy]

Nothing wrong with the 3pm rule. That's the time football should be played. And no other.

Indeed, nothing wrong with the 3pm kick offs. That's when most games should be played. The problem is that the rest of the world are allowed to watch them at a far cheaper price than sky charges for a few games.

[Stuart]

A bit leftfield but I wonder if this might prove the catalyst for a new Pan-European League that has often been talked about? After all, if European-wide TV rights are up for grabs maybe the top European teams will all want a bigger slice.

Just a thought.

[LeChuck]

but that's one of the problems. A LOT of sky's UK income comes from selling to pubs and clubs at ridiculous prices. If that market evaporates then that will be a concern for them.

Oh I know they make shed loads from pubs. But Sky have already signed a deal until 2013, and when that comes to renewal the PL will rewrite the deal to make it an EU package, protecting Sky from what's happened.

I'm not sure what Sky can do about the loss of revenue they'll experience until 2013, I suspect their lawyers will be going over the fine print of the contract.

[joey_big_nose]

A bit leftfield but I wonder if this might prove the catalyst for a new Pan-European League that has often been talked about? After all, if European-wide TV rights are up for grabs maybe the top European teams will all want a bigger slice.

Just a thought.

It is a bit of a worry - but then the Prem is so fantastically successful that Man Utd etc. would have to be nuts to risk it and join a euro league. I can only really see it happening if the Premiership starts to lose viewers/income that sort of thing.

Probably the first step will be the big Scottish/Portuguese/Scandinavian/Belgian/Netherlands teams breaking away into an international competition. Much much more incentive for them to do so than the 'big five' countries (England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain). If that really took off - I mean started eclipsing La Liga, Premiership etc - then maybe it would pave the way for the big league teams to get interested.

[BangkokRover]

Might be a good idea to mention this still has to go to the High Court in the UK before any law can change.

Who would be surprised if actually nothing changed but the next deal for the EPL football was sold different?

Certainly I am sure every one is all for a fairer deal for the pubs and clubs but I am sure they would also like their team to receive the same amount of money. Could also be the end of English commentary in non English countries.

[ABBEY]

Does this mean we can now post streaming links ?

[Biddy]

Does this mean we can now post streaming links ?

No. Why would it?

They are still illegal as you have not paid for the right to view. This thread is about legally being allowed to pay for a subscription service from another EU country.

[ABBEY]

Oh well

[chaddyrovers]

Oh well

There is very long way to go yet. The pub land lady might have won the case but they are still Major problems because of the Premier League logo, theme tune and etc.

Here is this part of an article in the Guardian

" But the ruling was not entirely one-sided. Even if individuals would be allowed to import broadcasts for personal use, the complex 49-page judgment appeared to include clauses that protect the EPL's right to stop pubs using overseas coverage.

It said the transmission of certain "protected works", including the title sequence, the EPL anthem and various graphics could only be broadcast in a pub with the permission of the rights holder.

Much will depend on how the EPL's right to defend its copyright is interpreted when the judgment is returned to the British high court for a final ruling in coming months.

"We are pleased that the judgment makes it clear that the screening in a pub of football-match broadcasts containing protected works requires the Premier League's authorisation – currently only Sky and ESPN are authorised by the Premier League to make such broadcasts," said a spokesman for the EPL, which has had a team of lawyers and advisers working on the case.

Ultimately, it may decide to sell its next set of rights deals on a pan-European basis to ensure that no overseas broadcasters can undercut its domestic deal.

Lawyers said there would be a big knock-on effect for other rights holders and potentially for other creative industries.

"The decision is likely to have a potentially bigger impact on other football broadcasters, other sports and across other media such as films and TV programmes currently distributed in the EU exclusively on a territory-by-territory basis," said Lewis Cohen, a partner at law firm Mishcon de Reya.

"For example, Uefa may have to rethink how it sells Champions League broadcast rights as there are quite big price variances depending on the territory."

Broadcasting revenues have underpinned the huge growth in EPL revenues over the past 20 years, with much of the money flowing to players and agents.

The current deal is worth £3.5bn over three years, with £2.1bn from domestic broadcasters and £1.4bn from overseas. It is believed that only £350m of that £1.4bn comes from mainland Europe.

The EPL is set to launch a fresh clampdown on pubs using overseas broadcasters, once the ECJ ruling has been ratified by the high court.

Pubs have continually complained that they are overcharged for Sky subscriptions, which is why Murphy originally sought an alternative."

[AndyB]

I see the new MD of LFC thinks they should get a larger share of the overseas TV money.

Liverpool get greedy

[Kamy100]

I see the new MD of LFC thinks they should get a larger share of the overseas TV money.

Liverpool get greedy

If this happens then the ramifications for smaller Premier League clubs is huge, we will start on the road to becoming like La Liga where individual clubs negotiate their own deals and the smaller clubs get a pittance.

[Hughesy]

If they want to sell their own rights and get greedy then let them go and play somewhere else.

How can it be called a competition if the so called top 5 or 6 clubs get all the money to themselves!

I hate Liverpool, I always have and now their MD is saying stuff like this just makes me hate them more!