New overseas TV deal

[aggi]

Looks like, contrary to some expectations, the new overseas EPL TV deal will be increasing in value again. The US deal is being forecast to increase by 50% (from $1bn to over $1.5bn) with a bit of a bidding war going on.

This is the kind of thing that ALK were probably hoping for with increased revenue bumping up the value of the club.

[ClaretTony]

Unfortunately the overseas deal is no longer shared equally so we won't get as much of it as we would have done a few years ago

[Newcastleclaret93]

Unfortunately the overseas deal is no longer shared equally so we won't get as much of it as we would have done a few years ago

Based on league finish isn’t it

[ClaretTony]

Based on league finish isn’t it

Part of it is still equally shared but any increases, including the last one, are based on league position.

[TheFamilyCat]

Americans buy Burnley. Price to buy American TV rights increases by 50%.

This is no coincidence, is it.

[aggi]

Part of it is still equally shared but any increases, including the last one, are based on league position.

Yes, Liverpool in particular were pushing for much more so there was some compromise deal. The increases are shared based on league position but there is a further cap that the top earner can't get more than 1.8 times more than the bottom earner.

[jtv]

The self styled top six should be penalised for attempting to break away into a super league. Should be shared equally

[Chester Perry]

Looks like, contrary to some expectations, the new overseas EPL TV deal will be increasing in value again. The US deal is being forecast to increase by 50% (from $1bn to over $1.5bn) with a bit of a bidding war going on.

This is the kind of thing that ALK were probably hoping for with increased revenue bumping up the value of the club.

If it is only 50% the they are going to be an awful lot of disappointed boardrooms in the Premier League (that would only put it about $50m a year above the recently agreed 8 year la Liga deal - ESPN) - which saw a more than three fold increase but attracts a fraction of the audience that the Premier League manages) they have long believed that this deal should at least match the deal NENT agreed for the four Nordic countries over six years - at least £2 billion has been the consistent phrasing used to describe it since it was agreed in Jan 2020. American Investors in the Premier League clubs have all said the same thing for years about the American broadcast rights - they are just way to cheap given the volume and demographic of the audience (mainly young and affluent) though they consistently ignore the US Hispanic audience because they are not as wealthy

When you have NBC/Peacock/Telemundo (Comcast)who have owned the rights for the last 4 cycles, ESPN (Disney) who have confirmed they have bid competitively following a recent growth of 2m subscribers on ESPN+, CBS (Viacom) who have moved into football with Champions League rights and a whole raft of rights in the women's game. Plus a number of others sniffing around it, most interestingly Amazon, though I do not expect that to come to fruition at the moment (not as a whole rights owner anyway)- there is also talk that the Premier League is now big enough in the US that it can split it's rights across a number of packages and broadcasters (this was part of the tender offering) I am less convinced that this is the cycle for that but it could happen.

As we know from the UK market, competition pushes prices up and all of these players have streaming platforms that they are eager to build subscribers for - though the Premier League should avoid the jump to streaming only as the linear TV market still generates a very large proportion of their eyeballs for game. What is almost certain is that to get the best price the US deal will be for at least 6 years possibly longer and will see annual increments as investment in the product grows audiences and traction - it is a well worn plan of action for the US broadcasters. Most telling the tender process for a second round of bids closed on Monday this week and we have yet had no announcement which suggests they may be another round of bidding following todays Premier League meeting where it will have been a key agenda item.

there is an interesting discussion on the subject here https://www.unofficialpartner.com/podca ... -bundle-14

though it must be remembered that even if it is a huge deal it is probable that the Premier League clubs won't see all of it - the fan led review is to report imminently (it was supposed to be October) and there has been growing pressure from EFL clubs and organisations like Fair game to see monies distributed differently.

While the Premier League is likely to see overseas earnings at least match domestic ones for the first time (it could surpass them bringing total earnings of over £10 billion over the 3 years there are also a number of regions where the rights values have dropped - most significantly in China (we still have not heard how the Premier League have managed that shortfall of over £300m throughout this cycle). the trend has been reflected across the Far East to a lesser extent and even in some European markets including France. on a brighter note Russia and India have provided real gains I understand

[Chester Perry]

from SportsBusiness.com

Second-round deadline set in Premier League’s US rights auction
Martin Ross
November 11, 2021

The outcome of the auction of US broadcast rights to the Premier League will not be known for at least another week after the tender process went to a second round.

Amid competition between incumbent NBC Sports, ESPN and CBS Sports, the Premier League has issued a second-round bid deadline of November 18, SportBusiness understands. The first-round deadline passed on Monday.

Rights are on offer for six seasons, from 2022-23 to 2027-28. It is also thought that broadcasters have been able to bid for nine seasons.

Executives from both ESPN and NBC have this week publicly confirmed they have bid.

NBC Sports currently holds Premier League rights in a $1bn (€872m), six-year deal that expires at the end of this season. It has paid an average of $200m per season for the rights between 2019-20 and 2021-22. NBC first landed the rights from 2013-14 to 2015-16 in a deal worth about $83m per season, triple the rights fee paid by previous rights-holder Fox.

It is reported that the Premier League initially split the US rights from 2022-23 onwards into four packages, increasingly the likelihood that the rights could be split between broadcasters.

However, SportBusiness understands that only the first package (Package A) is available to bid for in the second round.

This first package contains rights to all 380 matches per season, meaning that the Premier League is now inviting solo bids on an exclusive basis (or potentially as a consortium). This would appear to now rule out the possibility of tranches of matches being split up between different networks through the sale of different packages.

The league will be expect to comfortably eclipse the per-season value of LaLiga and ESPN’s recent $1.4bn, eight-year US rights agreement. The Disney-owned broadcaster also tied down rights to the Bundesliga in a six-year contract announced just over two years ago.

The English top flight’s rights auction comes in the midst of Major League Soccer’s domestic rights tender. It also comes after the CAA Eleven agency and Uefa agreed a six-year national teams rights deal with Fox Sports, including rights to the 2024 and 2028 European Championships.

NBC Sports is shifting a significant amount of premium sports content, including the Premier League, to cable channel USA Network from the start of 2022 amid the imminent shutdown of NBC Sports Network.

[CaptainKirk]

Did you just type all that??!!
The first one , of course.

[RVclaret]

I read it’s worth an extra £9m per year for each club? Times article last week.

[Chester Perry]

Did you just type all that??!!
The first one , of course.

yes, why?

[DCWat]

yes, why?

It was a rather odd question.

[CharlieinNewMexico]

yes, why?

Speech to text headset Chester. It’ll change your life!

[summitclaret]

I read it’s worth an extra £9m per year for each club? Times article last week.

If true that's the current loan interest sorted.

[RVclaret]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football ... l-25384879

Would link the times article but it’s behind a paywall, though it seems this one is the same info.

[superdimitri]

I'm really hoping NBC don't win the rights but feel like they're the most likely candidate. Owned by Comcast who in turn own Sky in the UK it just doesn't make any sense for them to lose the contract.

In the US currently NBC make fans pay for an entire cable package, together with a separate subscription to Peacock. They've only just started showing games in 4k and it's only ever the 'big' fixtures once a month or so.

ESPN (Disney) would probably take my preference as I think they're most likely to push 4k. CBS I'm not sure about, but one paid package would be so much nicer than two.

If they want to win an audience in the USA broadcasting games in UHD and HDR would go a long way.

[RVclaret]

Being reported that NBC are retaining the rights and have agreed a new 6 year deal worth 2.5x the current one. Believed to be $2.6bn (£2bn).

[Father Jack]

So that’s the MSD yearly interest payment covered then..?
Just the small matter of staying in the league now each season we have slow start.
And if we weren’t indebted it could all go on squad or stadium. sigh

[frankinwales]

Nice to have you back Chester.. I've missed your contributions.

Up the Clarets.

[Bosscat]

Speech to text headset Chester. It’ll change your life!

Got one of those ... have to edit out all the swearing and ummms and ahhhs ... went back to typing its easier

[RalphCoatesComb]

Unfortunately the overseas deal is no longer shared equally so we won't get as much of it as we would have done a few years ago

I blame Boris... Only joking

[KateR]

we have comcast and ESPN+, I don't like the shift of many games from TV to streaming but we still get all the games practically, which is good so I'm really hoping that comcast win out, I watch the internationals on ESPN+, I tend not to watch any of the European games but did watch the Chelsea Vs Man City game.

So all of this is just another added incentive for finishing further up the league and investing in ensuring that happens, no brainer, right???

[Chester Perry]

There are some suggestions that Warner/Fox bid higher than NBC/Comcast - they do not have the Football experience of Comcast (owners of Sky) however and perhaps more significantly Comcast are the biggest broadcast partner that the Premier League has globally - I have previously noted that the Premier League is fond of building lasting relationships with it's broadcast partners and it has benefitted from them you see it with Nent and BeINSport too. This is an area that all the other big European Leagues have been poor at chasing money rather than relationships - we saw through lockdown and in the deals that have been made since that such short termism hit them hard

I wouldn't get too giddy about the money - even before this announcement the EFL had written to Tracy Crouch to offer it's backing to the idea of a Football regulator and again press it's case for a 75% - 25% split in all PL/EFL Broadcast revenues and the abolition of Parachute payments. Our club is likely to see a huge increase in financial risk in it's operational model if that comes to fruition. this is before you consider the effects that the spending of the deep pocketed owners of our fellow Premier League clubs pushing up the earning expectations of players - as it is there are only a small number of clubs that are not able/willing to offer their star assets earnings of £100k per week (ourselves, Norwich, Brentford and possibly Wolves) at least one of the likely promotion candidates this season is also willing and able to spend at that level.

A greater revenue distribution to the EFL is also likely to make our opportunities for recruiting from the Championship even more difficult as many of the bigger clubs are likely to be much closer to us in terms of revenues

[CharlieinNewMexico]

Got one of those ... have to edit out all the swearing and ummms and ahhhs ... went back to typing its easier

You should hear the swearing between me and Alexa when she can’t work my accent out!

[CharlieinNewMexico]

I think NBC do a decent job on the whole, but they make really basic errors like putting the wrong game on the wrong stream or running updates that don’t work with your smart tv. I think they are dissolving NBC Sports on Jan 1 and ramming it all onto Peacock for the extra subscriptions.

Fox Soccer who had it before that seems suuuuch a long time ago.

[superdimitri]

I think NBC do a decent job on the whole, but they make really basic errors like putting the wrong game on the wrong stream or running updates that don’t work with your smart tv. I think they are dissolving NBC Sports on Jan 1 and ramming it all onto Peacock for the extra subscriptions.

Fox Soccer who had it before that seems suuuuch a long time ago.

Sadly not, my friend. They will be moving the big games to other network channels like the USA channel meaning we still need both a regular cable (or cord cutting cable) sub and Peacock.

Just after the season they started to show certain games on NBCSN 4k channel too.

Can't believe how behind the broadcast industry is compared to streaming services.

[CharlieinNewMexico]

Sadly not, my friend. They will be moving the big games to other network channels like the USA channel meaning we still need both a regular cable (or cord cutting cable) sub and Peacock.

Just after the season they started to show certain games on NBCSN 4k channel too.

Can't believe how behind the broadcast industry is compared to streaming services.

Yeah but you pay your regular cable bill anyway. You can’t hold that against NBC. It’s just a small fraction of the channels you get.

[superdimitri]

Yeah but you pay your regular cable bill anyway. You can’t hold that against NBC. It’s just a small fraction of the channels you get.

I think you have every reason to hold it against NBC. They choose not to show the games broadcast on their TV channels on Peacock. I know it's a choice because sometimes they have 'promo' games they show on both
It's a choice they make that means you have to subscribe to cable aswell.

And cable isn't cheap either, you're looking at $35 pm for using sling tv at the cheapest. Better cord cutting services are around $65 a month. Regular cable can be even more.

Not everyone has cable, I have no need for a sub outside of watching games so for me it's more or less $425+ a year down the drain which would be just $50 if they showed all games on Peacock.

Imo they need to put all games on Peacock and charge more money for that to stop ripping people off. If they want to charge top dollar they also need to have better quality streams. We live in an era of 4k and HDR and these games are still being shown here in the same quality HD that was being used 20 years ago.

[aggi]

I see the deal has been signed at $2.7bn (~ £2bn), a hefty increase as Chester suggested.
https://www.inquirer.com/soccer/nbc-pre ... 11118.html

[aggi]

Also, a bit more on what Chester was talking about with EFL/EPL revenue split and the letter to Tracey Crouch

[CharlieinNewMexico]

I think you have every reason to hold it against NBC. They choose not to show the games broadcast on their TV channels on Peacock. I know it's a choice because sometimes they have 'promo' games they show on both
It's a choice they make that means you have to subscribe to cable aswell.

And cable isn't cheap either, you're looking at $35 pm for using sling tv at the cheapest. Better cord cutting services are around $65 a month. Regular cable can be even more.

Not everyone has cable, I have no need for a sub outside of watching games so for me it's more or less $425+ a year down the drain which would be just $50 if they showed all games on Peacock.

Imo they need to put all games on Peacock and charge more money for that to stop ripping people off. If they want to charge top dollar they also need to have better quality streams. We live in an era of 4k and HDR and these games are still being shown here in the same quality HD that was being used 20 years ago.

Yeah I don’t pay the cable here that’s down to Miss “I have to have 200 reality shows and every channel they are on”

I just use my Firestick in my den to watch. Obvs I have the cable password. I’ve never had an issue with that apart from when they update the app. In 2019, some of us that had paid $89 for the package, couldn’t get on because their sudden upgrade meant you needed minimum broadband. Never got a refund.

But I also understand they need to make money? Yes, it should be easier these days to cut the cord etc etc but why would they make that easy? It’s their bottom line. Earlier, you expressed amazement that broadcasting technology is not keeping up with streaming. I put it to you that they are ahead? Every time we (the consumer) thinks in the modern age we can stream for free or use VPNs or whatever, some how these companies move and find ways to motivate partners to stop that happening. They’re ahead of us, not behind.

And I get it. Why would they let us have stuff for less?

[RVclaret]

Prem have announced £100m is going to the EFL and National Leagues over the next 4 years (excluding Championship clubs). So not quite as dramatic as others above were suggesting, both with the finances and Champ clubs (our shopping window) supposedly getting richer.

[aggi]

Prem have announced £100m is going to the EFL and National Leagues over the next 4 years (excluding Championship clubs). So not quite as dramatic as others above were suggesting, both with the finances and Champ clubs (our shopping window) supposedly getting richer.

The issue here is whether they end up being forced to give more. The EPL are trying to walk a tightrope between giving enough that it looks like they are doing something but not so much that it really impacts on them.

[claretonthecoast1882]

I take it Rick Parry has a long history of making similar comments when chief exec at Liverpool or at the Prem league itself ?

[Chester Perry]

Prem have announced £100m is going to the EFL and National Leagues over the next 4 years (excluding Championship clubs). So not quite as dramatic as others above were suggesting, both with the finances and Champ clubs (our shopping window) supposedly getting richer.

No the Premier League have announced their first paid instalment on the extra £100m they committed to the EFL and National League etc over four years as a trade off with the government for circumventing competition rules (not putting them out to tender) when rolling over the domestic broadcast deals into the new cycle which was a rare benefit to the leagues and clubs arising from Brexit and no longer having competition rules shaped and managed by the EU - this is old commitments being re told by some (not the Premier League) to counter the tone of pressure groups wanting more equal distribution across the game ahead of the release of the report from fan led review of the game next week.

[Chester Perry]

I take it Rick Parry has a long history of making similar comments when chief exec at Liverpool or at the Prem league itself ?

When Rick was Chief Exec at the Premier League he offered a to pool revenues with the then Football League (now EFL) and split it 80/20 which would see them currently have over 3 times what they get now - of course the EFL turned it down and believed they could do better for themselves - The Premier League as a whole was getting less than £100m a season at the time- ceteris paribus next season the lowest earning Premier League club will earn almost equal to the whole EFL from broadcast revenues each year

[GodIsADeeJay81]

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 3wBzA&s=19

Breakdown of what each position in the PL will receive from the new deal.