General : ESPN, BT, Euro, Premier and Sky Sports news

[TimeLord2018]

Originally Posted by jfman

Oh dear this was deep pockets DAZN's next target after La Liga UK rights looked to go elsewhere.

BT are set to pay almost double according to this
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.co...2022/04/26/UFC

[jfman]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I see the FT is reporting that Access Industries is likely to inject another £140m into loss-making DAZN just a few months after the streamer's last bailout.

I'm struggling to see who's winning in this brave new world apart from the sports bodies perhaps.

That’ll buy you about 15 of Sky’s Premiership games in one season. Or all of Amazon’s for three.

[jfman]

Outside the UK the app broadcasting the ladies dust up this evening quick to throw in the betting odds (plus sponsor) during the first round.

Another sign of the rather unpleasant future of revenue generation for failed pay-tv providers.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

All of the content previously on incumbent providers that is now on a streaming/minority interest services.

You do indeed "only pay for the content you watch" however with the lost economies of scale that incumbent providers had costs rise for the end users. Or they have sub-optimal experiences like you suggest above with less choice on a given day. Instead having to meticulously plan which streaming services to have on a given month being the narrow set of circumstances where costs are actually saves.



And I'll be no better off.

They could just as easily have gone to other TV channels. The more TV channels and streaming services there are, the more the content gets spread around.

You can be better off with the streamers, but obviously not if you want to view them all at the same time.

[vincerooney]

What’s the situation with premier sports and la liga? Can’t find any links online?

[TimeLord2018]

Behind a pay wall

Streaming platform Fite surprise frontrunner for LaLiga rights in UK

SportBusiness understands Fite is currently in exclusive negotiations with LaLiga over a proposed three-season deal from 2022-23 to 2024-25

[https://www.sportbusiness.com/news/e...-rights-in-uk/

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

They could just as easily have gone to other TV channels. The more TV channels and streaming services there are, the more the content gets spread around.

You can be better off with the streamers, but obviously not if you want to view them all at the same time.

The thing is when Sky or VM negotiate for TV channels to come onto their platforms, they have strong purchasing power and so can get a better deal than you or me on our own.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The thing is when Sky or VM negotiate for TV channels to come onto their platforms, they have strong purchasing power and so can get a better deal than you or me on our own.

I agree, but the end result is that we end up paying for loads of channels we don’t watch - a common complaint on this forum and elsewhere.

In my experience, the streamers offer much more worthwhile content for much less money than the pay TV channels cost. If it’s documentaries you like, Discovery+ has quite a range. If you want reality shows, go to Hayu, and so on.

Sport is a different kettle of fish, and the fragmented nature of sports coverage is what is making it so expensive. However, it has to be said that fragmentation is also an issue for the conventional TV channels. Boxing tends to be pay-per-view, horse racing is separated out into its own channel, motor racing is also separated out (although Sky holds the rights to that), and so on. The streamers are not solely to blame for hiving off sports in this way. We have been advancing in that direction for a while.

In time, I would imagine we will have just two or three streamers covering the major sports, and by that time, it will be cheaper for everyone.

[telegramsam]

Just throwing my two penny worth in,I'd like to see just one company showing football and not bothered if it was Sky,BT,Amazon or the Mickey Mouse channel so long as I only have to subscribe to the one!

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I agree, but the end result is that we end up paying for loads of channels we don’t watch - a common complaint on this forum and elsewhere.

In my experience, the streamers offer much more worthwhile content for much less money than the pay TV channels cost. If it’s documentaries you like, Discovery+ has quite a range. If you want reality shows, go to Hayu, and so on.

Sport is a different kettle of fish, and the fragmented nature of sports coverage is what is making it so expensive. However, it has to be said that fragmentation is also an issue for the conventional TV channels. Boxing tends to be pay-per-view, horse racing is separated out into its own channel, motor racing is also separated out (although Sky holds the rights to that), and so on. The streamers are not solely to blame for hiving off sports in this way. We have been advancing in that direction for a while.

In time, I would imagine we will have just two or three streamers covering the major sports, and by that time, it will be cheaper for everyone.

You only have to look at Netflix of late , the quality has deteriorated as they seem to be going for quantity over quality in fact their original films on the whole are atrocious.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I agree, but the end result is that we end up paying for loads of channels we don’t watch - a common complaint on this forum and elsewhere.

Yet with the lost economies of scale we now pay more to get less on multiple streaming services.

The fact many hold a simplistic view and don’t understand how markets work is irrelevant.

[OLD BOY]

Surely, you get economies of scale in terms of the amount of content on the streamers. Look at the huge amount of programming on Netflix alone, and compared to Sky’s entertainment channels, it’s as cheap as chips.

I am not persuaded by the number of channels you get for your buck - many channels are full of rubbish on the whole. I look for value by considering the amount and quality of content.

---------- Post added at 19:12 ---------- Previous post was at 19:01 ----------

Originally Posted by muppetman11

You only have to look at Netflix of late , the quality has deteriorated as they seem to be going for quantity over quality in fact their original films on the whole are atrocious.

I don’t know what it is you are looking at to come to that conclusion. In recent weeks, we’ve seen a further series of Ozark, Bridgerton, Top Boy, The Last Kingdom and Better Call Saul. Completely new stuff includes Anatomy of a Scandal, Rescued By Ruby, Windfall, Against The Ice and Pieces of Her.

Can you point to anything like that amount of new stuff on Sky over just a few weeks?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Surely, you get economies of scale in terms of the amount of content on the streamers. Look at the huge amount of programming on Netflix alone, and compared to Sky’s entertainment channels, it’s as cheap as chips.

Not if you look at their levels of debt.

I am not persuaded by the number of channels you get for your buck - many channels are full of rubbish on the whole. I look for value by considering the amount and quality of content.

---------- Post added at 19:12 ---------- Previous post was at 19:01 ----------



I don’t know what it is you are looking at to come to that conclusion. In recent weeks, we’ve seen a further series of Ozark, Bridgerton, Top Boy, The Last Kingdom and Better Call Saul. Completely new stuff includes Anatomy of a Scandal, Rescued By Ruby, Windfall, Against The Ice and Pieces of Her.

Can you point to anything like that amount of new stuff on Sky over just a few weeks?

Whether you are persuaded or otherwise is irrelevant. The low cost streaming future has been shown up as a sham.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

You only have to look at Netflix of late , the quality has deteriorated as they seem to be going for quantity over quality in fact their original films on the whole are atrocious.

Agreed.

Apparently one issue that happens in the industry is the writers, producers of popular TV series ask for more money as the series continues. Netflix refuses to follow this approach so is ending up not renewing series as a result.

---------- Post added at 20:20 ---------- Previous post was at 20:13 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I agree, but the end result is that we end up paying for loads of channels we don’t watch - a common complaint on this forum and elsewhere.

It traditionally was a common complaint for pay TV but that was because people misunderstood how the negotiations between the platforms and the channels worked. VM purchased the channels on the basis that people couldn't watch every channel and so paid very little for them.

[Media Boy UK]

Watch out on May 12th.

We may get a update on a BT Sports / Discovery merger on that dete as BT PLC reveal results on that date.

Warner Bros. Discovery did not give a update when posting it results on April 26th.