I'm not arguing black is white, OB. You are giving a selective interpretation of events to gloss over the fact that neither the EPL nor the Government give any credibility to a new entrant for (and thus an increase in the value of) the rights. Hence permitting them to bypass the usual competition law that would apply.
A quick note from the lawyers of any "deep pockets" streamer would - very quickly - have focussed the minds of the EPL who are legally bound to act in the interests of their member clubs.
The interests of the clubs were not served by going to the market. It's glaringly obvious why to everyone except you who seemingly wants to say "if only..." for the next three years.
Quote:
Perhaps, with your economist’s hat on you can tell me how Sky and BT can afford to buy rights to Premiership football (even before Comcast took over) but the big fella streamers cannot.
On the contrary to what you have said about entering the market, the best time to enter will be next time, when I believe there will be even less appetite by Sky and BT to fork out a small fortune for the rights. This will allow interested streamers to bid less with a good chance of success. Additionally, the broadband rollout will have advanced further by then, increasing the potential audience.
|
There will be
less appetite for Sky and BT to buy existing rights in the future at a real terms lower value than they do today?
That’s a mind blowing analysis to be honest OB.
I’ve explained to you a million times and I’m sure I’ll be here in three years time repeating the same. Sky and BT have business models for selling the rights. You, erroneously, assume rational capitalists (cash heavy as I’ve demonstrated above) will through some philanthropic endeavour run the rights as a loss leader. It’s not up to me to demonstrate they have a business model. Clearly neither they, nor the EPL themselves, believe such a model exists
or they would have matched Sky’s 2016 bid in 2019 and won rights then.