back to article Ofcom tackles complaint over Premier League footie TV rights

UK communications watchdog Ofcom has opened an investigation into Premier League football TV rights, following a complaint from Virgin Media. The telco's chief Tom Mockridge said his company welcomed the probe. "Fans in the UK pay the highest prices in Europe to watch the least amount of football on TV," he griped. "Now is …

  1. Dr. Mouse

    To be honest, this is something I find odd about sports broadcasting in the UK.

    The rights holders go on about competition. What they actually mean is that TV companies compete for the rights. However, the consumer has no option, if he wants to watch a particular tournament, than to subscribe to the one, exclusive channel.

    This is then compounded by the fact that several tournaments are spread over several TV channels. If you are a football fan (luckily I am not) then, to see all games, you need to subscribe to several channels to see all the games your club plays in.

    Real competition in this market will only come in if exclusive arrangements are dropped. Then the consumer would actually have a choice as to which channel(s) he subscribed to, rather than having to make a choice as to whether or not to see tournament X. You could make a choice based on price, quality of programming, or whatever you wanted.

    As things stand, you have 2 (legal) choices: Pay for the channel, or don't watch. That's certainly not competition.

    1. TheWeddingPhotographer

      Well said. The same applies to F1, which after a lifetime of watching religiously, I now no longer watch

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Other example.......

      Good points, well made. Another example of a similar situation : Trains. Privatised railways, to introduce 'competition'. From my local station, there's only one train company operating. So I have no choice. If I could wait 30 mins, and then catch a train from a different company that was cheaper / nicer inside etc, then the two companies would be competing for my trade. If you have no choice as a conusmer, there cannot be competition. In the same way I'd like to choose the better train, I'd like to choose to watch the match without the shrill, semi-retarded whining of Jamie Redknapp, who's point in life seems to be to sit with his legs open, displaying his crotch, while mumbling incoherently.

      1. Trigonoceps occipitalis

        Re: Other example.......

        The competition in the British railway system is train companies competing for Government payments.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I find this annoying too. But at least when the football is shown on Sky and now BT the overwhelming majority of the population who want to watch it can. If it were Virgin who had the exclusive rights the vast majority of the country outside of a major city wouldn't be able to watch it even if they wanted to!

    4. Bunbury

      No option?

      "To be honest, this is something I find odd about sports broadcasting in the UK.

      The rights holders go on about competition. What they actually mean is that TV companies compete for the rights. However, the consumer has no option, if he wants to watch a particular tournament, than to subscribe to the one, exclusive channel."

      The consumer has plenty of options if they want to watch football in general. For example, the World Cup and the Euro Championships are free to air (despite legal challenge from FIFA and EUFA, natch). The Scotland v England friendly is on ITV this evening.

      It's if you want to watch a specific match, particularly in the premier league that things become restricted. You can of course watch the highlights on the BBC. Or, here's an idea, you could physically go and watch the match.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: No option?

        "Or, here's an idea, you could physically go and watch the match."

        Spending two hours in the company of mindless idiots mouthing obscenities, in the cold and wet of a November evening: much better to be sat on your sofa in front of a large HD television with the beverage of your choice.

        1. Martin
          FAIL

          Re: No option?

          "Spending two hours in the company of mindless idiots mouthing obscenities, in the cold and wet of a November evening"

          Those mindless idiots are what makes a football match. If there were no fans physically at the game, there wouldn't be any atmosphere. It's like watching in a vacuum - utterly soulless.

          And speaking as one of those mindless idiots - we SHOUT obscenities, not just mouth them :)

          You go ahead and enjoy your game, with your beer, in front of your HD TV, pontificating about the finer points of the game. But if you've never actually been to a live match - you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

          1. cs94njw

            Re: No option?

            Some people want to be there and enjoy the atmosphere - and as a fan of no sports, it was actually quite good.

            Some people want to watch at home - perhaps they can't/won't afford the tickets, avoiding the cold, crap food, queuing, trying to park, etc.

            Both are very valid - and essential. You can't fit a million viewers into a stadium.

            I guess the clubs are worried that supporters won't buy tickets anymore.

      2. Dr. Mouse

        Re: No option?

        It's if you want to watch a specific match, particularly in the premier league that things become restricted.

        Just to clarify, I am not a football fan. The only sport I follow is F1, and even that has come close to being dropped. Luckily for us, we already had a basic Sky package, and could just pay a fiver a month extra for HD to get the channel. If it moves to the sports package, I'll be dropping it.

        Back to the point in question: Most football fans are fans of a particular club. They want to watch the games that club plays. They will watch other games, but it is their club that they want to see.

        I am no expert, not being a fan, but if they are a fan of a Premier league club, they will need Sky Sports at least. However, due to "competition", they will now need BT Sports to watch some. They will need BT Sports for some of the FA cup. This isn't competition, as if you want to watch the game, you have no choice but to pay for that one, specific channel.

        In order to have competition for the consumer (what most people view as competition), you need to have the game available on at least 2 channels. Then you can choose which channel to watch it on (and pay for).

        1. AndrueC Silver badge
          Thumb Up

          Re: No option?

          Luckily for us, we already had a basic Sky package, and could just pay a fiver a month extra for HD to get the channel. If it moves to the sports package, I'll be dropping it.

          It has actually moved into the sports package, that happened last year. It's just that Sky are continuing to honour the old HD package which includes F1 HD. I actually got caught out a couple of weeks ago with the Austin GP. I got careless and marked the Sky Sports F1 HD version for recording and didn't realise my mistake until about lap 16 when I decided to start watching.

          Eventually they will probably rationalise the packages but on the two or three occasions they've done that before I have always ended up with more channels for the same price so I'm fairly sure that if you currently have access to F1 on Sky you will continue to have it for the forseable future.

          As for who to blame for this (and quite probably other sports as well) I'd blame the greedy promoters and to a lesser extent the broadcasters for playing along. It'd be interesting to know what the promoters would do if the broadcasters got together and refused to pay. I can't see that happening but maybe a blind auction with an agreed cap. Whoever bids highest wins and if there's a tie the broadcasters split the coverage.

          Oink, oink, flap, flap.

        2. Psyx

          Re: No option?

          "Just to clarify, I am not a football fan. The only sport I follow is F1"

          Ditto. And there is no real customer 'choice' available: Either watch the BBC's excellent but 50%-of-races-as-highlight-shows-only OR pay for Sky channels that I wouldn't watch in order to then watch 6 hours of TV every three weeks.

          It's a gouge.

          Except it's worse than a simple gouge on sports fans, because it costs so much for the TV rights that *everyone* helps bear Sky's costs *even if you don't have the sports channels*.

          1. launcap Silver badge
            Boffin

            Re: No option?

            NFL coverage isn't *quite* as bad - you get the late Sunday game on C4 (with very few adverts and actual proper analysis from someone who knows what he is talking about) and the rebroadcast Sunday night game on British Eurosport (with US-quantity adverts sadly). Games at Wembley are also covered live on C4 with the Superbowl being carried on BBC as well.

            The majority of NFL games are on Sky Sports - so I subscribe for just the 4 months involved and drop it for the other 8 months (remembering to drop it a couple of weeks before the Superbowl as it takes 30 days from the change to come into effect).

            You can. of course, pay for NFL live and get access to every game for the regular season for a mere $199 - with clients for every major tablet O/S (iOS/Android) and a workable client for Windows and OS X. But then you miss the sparking Sky Sports chat..

          2. Vic

            Re: No option?

            the BBC's excellent but 50%-of-races-as-highlight-shows-only

            The BBC's coverage would be much better if it had less of the Eddie Jordan Self-Promotion Show in it.

            Although it is occasionally amusing watching David Coulthard desperately trying not to use the word "twat" on air...

            Vic.

          3. Dr. Mouse

            Re: No option?

            And there is no real customer 'choice' available: Either watch the BBC's excellent but 50%-of-races-as-highlight-shows-only OR pay for Sky channels that I wouldn't watch in order to then watch 6 hours of TV every three weeks.

            Actually, there is a much cheaper choice with Sky.

            You can watch the 9 BBC races live, then watch the others using Now TV. It's £10 for a day pass, so it would work out at £100/yr to watch all races live.

            I'm not sure whether qualifying & practice are shown on BBC, so if you want to watch them too you may be better off with a Sky subscription.

    5. alain williams Silver badge

      How to bring competition

      Is to ban exclusive deals, ie insist that every football match can be broadcast by at least 2 TV channels (or Internet stream). That gives the media the incentive to be cheaper than their rivals to get the eyeballs - thus introducing real competition. If the price paid to clubs drops, then so be it. There should be no minimum fee that has to be paid to a club; so if no (second) bidder bids more than your £100 to be there streaming from a web cam - then so be it.

      The fans will gain from this.

      The only losers will be the clubs & media.

      Expect collusion between the clubs and the media and a few people going to prison as a result.

      1. Psyx

        Re: How to bring competition

        "Expect collusion between the clubs and the media and a few people skating off any jail time or penalties because they can afford expensive lawyers as a result."

        Fixed for you!

      2. Bunbury

        Re: How to bring competition

        "ban exclusive deals, ie insist that every football match can be broadcast by at least 2 TV channels (or Internet stream)."

        "The only losers will be the clubs & media."

        To be honest I think the clubs and the media are mostly just links in the chain:

        consumers pay for content to media

        Media take their cut pay eye watering sums to football leagues

        Leagues take their cut pass to clubs

        Clubs add in gate receipts, take their cut

        Clubs pay players (wages+transfer fees)

        Players pay agents, spend vast sums on cars, houses, etc.

        So, if you cut out the links (that all take a cut, they are businesses after all), the footy industry is a mechanism to take money from people who earn £10k a year and give it all to young men who earn 30 times that a week.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "The Premier League currently sells its audio-visual rights in a way that is compatible with UK and EU competition law and will continue to do so."

    That means, of course, bleeding every penny they can out of the TV companies and fans. Then, more people will knock off their content, in ever more effective and imaginitive ways. Then, we'll witness them squealing about 'theft'. Greed, pure and simple. I'm finding I get more left wing as I get older.

  3. TeeCee Gold badge
    Facepalm

    Really?

    You mean that people in the UK are more interested in UK football then those in other countries and are thus prepared to pay more for it and that this, in turn, leads to domestic broadcasters being prepared to bid higher for the rights than their continental counterparts?

    Who could possibly have seen that coming?

    Presumably the next revelation will be that the rights to Serie A sell for more in Italy than they do here.

    1. TheWeddingPhotographer

      Re: Really?

      next we will be talking about immigrants in football taking all the jobs of the locals!

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Really?

      "Presumably the next revelation will be that the rights to Serie A sell for more in Italy than they do here."

      RTFM!

      That's the point. Serie A in Italy is cheaper than Premier is in the UK. The comparison is what domestic consumers pay for their domestic footy.

    3. Psyx

      Re: Really?

      "Really?"

      Yes: Apparently, if you have a monopoly, you can gouge the crap outta punters!

      "Who could possibly have seen that coming?"

      It's not really competitive capitalism if it's a monopoly though, is it?

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    What pisses me off about all this...

    is that while England footy matches can be shown on terrestrial telly (BBC, for example) live, the RFU have sold off the rights to live internationals of England games to Murdoch. FOUL, I SAY :-(

    1. Mattjimf

      Re: What pisses me off about all this...

      Meanwhile in Scotland, the Rugby fans get to watch all the Internationals on BBC, but the football fans have to pay Sky for the privilege.

  5. graeme leggett Silver badge

    correction time?

    "Virgin Media argued that viewersVirgin Media were getting a raw deal in Blighty"

    Companies may argue that consumers (usually not their customers) are being ill done by. But they aren't doing it for the benefit of the consumers.

    1. Elmer Phud

      Re: correction time?

      Train

      Gravy

  6. A Non e-mouse Silver badge
    Flame

    It always amazes me that people pay so much money to see a bunch of over-paid prima donnas running around a field chasing a ball for 90 minutes.

    But then I remember: Football is not about sport, it's about entertainment. The kind of entertainment that is perpetuated by programs like X-Factor.

    1. Martin
      Happy

      That's not quite fair

      Top class professional football is to sport as a top class orchestra, opera company or rock band is to music. It's got top quality performances, thrills, disappointments, overpaid prima donnas - the lot.

      WWE is to sport as X-Factor is to music.

    2. Psyx
      Pint

      " Football is not about sport, it's about entertainment. "

      I think the club owners and players would be appalled and utterly in disagreement.

      It's all about the Benjamins!

  7. Jason 24

    Stadiums

    I can understand only wanting to sell 41% of games, if every game was televised there would be less incentive to go to the ground to watch. If anyone watched the recent Man City game in Russia where the supporters were banned from the stadium you'll know that the atmosphere is a huge part of any game.

    I am noticing a round and round pattern forming with BT, Sky and Virgin, all whinging to Ofcom cos "it's not fair that they can rip consumers off but I can't".

    1. Bunbury

      Re: Stadiums

      On the other hand, if all games were showed when they were played perhaps the price of going to football matches in the UK would need to drop to be competitive. Unfortunately, what used to be a sport watched in person by people on modest pay is now so expensive that many cannot afford to go.

    2. Elmer Phud

      Re: Stadiums

      BT gives me MotoGP -- I'm happy.

      I refuse to pay for the stuff I used to enjoy on telly.

  8. Chika

    Asparagus

    It's something I've been considering for years. It's a setup that nearly killed more than one channel while draconian blanket agreements ensure that some teams and some matches never get aired which means that a selected few will always get the lion's share of the pot.

    By allowing the teams to negotiate rather than just the Premier League or the FA, it can mean that more channels can take advantage of live football, bringing more matches to the public and more revenue to the teams themselves. There are down sides to doing it this way but it stops the middle men getting in the way and stops larger companies like Sky or BT effectively exercising a monopoly position which benefits only them.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Asparagus

      If you allow teams to negotiate individually, it would mean the big teams would get much more money and the smaller teams much less. It happens in Europe, and it's why in Spain there are two massive teams and everyone else is an also-ran ( excluding one-offs like Athletico over the last couple of years ). I think it happens in Germany too, with Bayern Munich making so much money they win the league every year.

      It could work if the teams had to put, say, half of their money onto a general pot, which is shared around. I'd love nothing more than to be able to watch my team on TV every single week, but it would probably kill the league.

      Who cares about watching Valencia vs Grenada? It's practically pub-league football in comparison to the EPL equivalent, which would be something like Arsenal vs Swansea.

    2. Bunbury

      Re: Asparagus

      I strongly suspect the teams in the prenmiership don't want to negotiate individually. They know the current arrangement allows a bidding war that brings in huge revenues. It would be nice though to see more games from lower leagues on free to air channels.

      1. Chika

        Re: Asparagus

        I strongly suspect the teams in the prenmiership don't want to negotiate individually. They know the current arrangement allows a bidding war that brings in huge revenues.

        I suspect that this is the crux of the matter. What you have here is, in effect, a cartel. OK, getting each team to negotiate separately or, at the very least, getting the league to negotiate games rather than seasons may be more bureaucratic and there may be losers in the short term but anything that opens up the games, especially the sort of games that would get less coverage under the current scheme, is likely to be good for everyone in the long term.

  9. NimrodPing

    Compare our televised football, of OUR league, with NBC in the US who show every game. Every game. All 360 of them.

  10. WonkoTheSane
    Trollface

    Dear Ofcom,

    Please force the FA to start their own subscription funded TV channel, so that I DON'T have to pay for sport I WILL NEVER WATCH!

  11. Test Man

    I think what everyone who commented on "competition" should realise that the Premier League actually was perfectly fine with one broadcaster (i.e. Sky) buying up ALL the rights - it was the EU who specifically mandated that this wasn't in the best interests of "competition" and therefore forced (and further forced) the Premier League to restrict the act of one broadcaster in one country buying up of all football broadcasting rights packages.

    In short, it's the EU to blame for needing to subscribe to multiple broadcasters to watch all available (or specific) games.

    I can see why they did it, because letting Sky buy all the packages up meant that they could potentially charge what it likes, with there being no competition. However, in real terms spreading the broadcasting rights out means the consumer has to pay more in total to watch it all, when previously they only needed to make one purchase.

    1. Dr. Mouse

      "Competition" does not help the consumer in this case. It hinders them.

      Real competition would be to force the Premiership to sell all the rights to at least 2 broadcasters, then let consumers decide which to watch it on. Exclusive deals mean that broadcaster has a monopoly on that game.

      This is where it has gone wrong. Europe has tried to help, but actually made things worse. If both Sky and BT (for example) had the rights to all games, we could choose between the two based on our preferences. THAT would be competition, and it's the only real solution.

    2. BlokeOnMotorway

      'tis true. If memory serves, the EU decision, due to the timing of the existing contracts, first impacted Serie A, where each team was expected to sell rights for their home games. Result was that only AC Milan and I think Juventus, managed to do so. The start of the season was delayed by 4 to 6 weeks.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Can we have something other than football?

    I'd be quite happy to see other sports broadcast.

  13. Franco

    What really annoys my is the binary nature of the packages, it's all or nothing which is why I'm no longer a Sky customer.

    I switched my broadband to BT as I like MotoGP and wanted fibre anyway, so I get BT Sport for free. Were I paying for it, I would be paying for Premiership and European Rugby, NFL, Baseball, etc whilst only watching MotoGP and some of the Football. I pay the extra to BT for Eurosport so I can watch British and World Superbikes and other events like the Le Mans 24 Hours, Macau Grand Prix etc.

    If Sky let me only watch Rugby League and Football I'd be quite happy, but I have to pay the full whack for F1, Cricket, Golf, Tennis and a host of other sports I don't want to see.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like