Disgrace of Scottish TV rights

[BACKOFTHENET]

Unfair TV rights for Scottish Football?

 

Is there a conspiracy by some British TV companies to not give the SPFL (Scottish League), the TV revenues they deserves? The real reason other Europem are richer than Scotland in finances, is because, Scotland does not get the TV revenues we should be given. Other leagues with lower viewing figures get far more money, even taking into account populations.

That is why Scottish clubs cannot compete with other leagues in finances. We get the highest attendances in the world per capita for our population. We love football in Scotland.

If Scottish football got the TV money it deserves it would make a small difference to Cetic and Rangers. But massive changes for the likes of Aberdeen, Hearts and Hibs, and astronomical differences for the likes of Ross County, Partick Thistle, Dundee and Motherwell. And for the clubs like Inverness CT, Morton FC and Falkirk when they get back into the premier, it would also be massive.

 

 

Evidence of TV rights for Scotland

In 2015 an article suggested that for the previous season 11.3 million people viewed Scottish football matches on TV. That was before Glasgow Rangers got back into the Premier division. So viewing figures will be higher now.

I am looking at British and Irish viewing figures only.

The March 2018 Old Firm derby got over half a million viewers. Although I have to admit viewing figures for Old Firm derbies have been down to a quarter of a million., and as high as 3 quarters of a million viewers in recent years.

I accept the figures do fluctuate.

A Heart of Midlothian - Hibernian derby this season  got 50,000 viewers, yet another Heart of Midlothian V Hibernian derby at Tynecastle this season also brought in 127,000 viewers.

Recentely a game betweeen Cetlic and Aberdeen got 127.000 viewers.

 

The ratings average for the two recent Aberdeen v Rangers games were 140,000 each.

It is safe to say that you can conclude that viewing figures for the Scottish Premier are over 100,000.

All in all, it is reasonable to say Scottish league matches get an average of over 100,000 per televised game.

A recent TV deal gave Scottish football a five year 80 million pound deal.

And the current deal is 18.5 million pounds a year.

 

Comparison against EPL

In October 2017, the English Premier was seeing Sky draw approximately 819,000 viewers per match. With 692,000 for BT sport. So not even 10 times the typical viewing audiences for typical Scottish televised matches.

Yet the EPL gets 1.71 billion a year. That is according to an article in the Daily Record last year. 

I  read SKY pays the English premier 10 million pounds per game, at a rate of 4.2 billion pounds for 126 games from 2016-17 to 2018-19. With BT paying around 900 million.

So lets think about this. English football which gets around 6 - 8 times the viewing figures of Scottish football gets, yet gets 91 times the TV deal in finances. How on earth does that make any sense?

Infact the EPL get more money for two games, than the entire Scottish Legue season gets in one year. How?

Lets just compare these numbers

1,700,000,000 pounds a year for viewing figures of between 600,000 and 900,000 for the English Premier. .

18,500,000 pounds for viewing figures at a conservative estimate of 100,000 per match for the Scottish league.

Even if you claimed that English matches get 900,000 viewers a game and Scottish football gets 100,000, then Scottish football should get one ninth of what English football gets. Even if you were to be even more charitable, to England, and say we should get a tenth, we would be making 170,000,000 a year. OK there is a problem because Scotland does not have as many games to show. But surely it is easy to see Scottish football getiing 130 million a year, with 10 million a year given up for parachute payments, with the rest of 120,000,000 to be shared equally among the 12 premier clubs, that is 10 million a year for each club.

 

 

Against other leagues

An article in the Scottish Daily Record, earlier this season, suggested other tv revenues fall in line with ;

46 million pounds a year for the Danish League;

35 million  pounds a year for Norway’s league;

110 million pounds a year for Portugal’s league;

60 million pounds a year for Belgium’s league;

and  a staggering 90 million a year for the Netherlands.

This proves that Scotland a far more football obbsessed country with markets open to England, Ireland and Wales is doing terrible at TV rights.

 

 

Against English Rugby Union

A similar sized market would be the English rugby union league. My research has found, the English rugby union league is getting around 38 million pounds a year until 2021, on BT sport.

Now wait for this killer fact. I read an article that said that a few years ago the combined season TV audience was 7.88 million watching Aviva Premiership Rugby on BT sport, that is more than 3 million less than the Scottish Premier got when Glasgow Rangers were not even in the Scottish Premier. The largest viewing figure for a rugby union game that season was 276,000 people tuning in to watch London Wasps (Now Coventry Wasps), against Leicester Tigers.

 

How the heck does it make sense for a league with 3 million less viewers to gets nearly double the TV rights that Scottish League gets, And that is not taking into account, Glasgow Rangers are back in the premier.

I love rugby union. it is my second favourite sport. And I hope Glasgow and Edinburgh do well in the Pro14. Plus I totally respect English rugby union as a great system. But it does not deserve to be getting nearly double the tv rights for less viewers. What is going on?

 

Against English Rugby League

In 2014 the English Rugby League earned 182,000,000 for a five year deal for international and league games. The Super League clubs got 146,000,000 a year that is 29,2 million a year for the league.

According to one article I read super league viewing figures are under 70,000 per game. I like rugby league and Scotland, Ireland and Wales have all had good runs in the World Cup in recent years. It is a cool sport. But why the heck is rugby league getting more money than the Scottish premier league when it gets lower viewing figures? It makes no sense. The average Super league attendance in 2014 was around 8,000. Celtic and Rangers get crowds in the many tenss of thousands. Why are they getting more TV money?

 

What would more TV money do to Scottish Football?

If Scottish football got the TV rights they deserve it would transform Scottish football

The current domestic league TV money for Celtic and Rangers is a small fraction of their income. But a larger proportion of the incomes for clubs like Ross County, and St Johnstone. Celtic and Rangers are lucky to get 2 million pounds from the league, out of a turnover of each club, in the tens of millions. Even if Scottish football got the TV revenue it deserves shared equally among the premier clubs that would equal maybe at most a sixth of Cetlic’s turnover. But for clubs like Partick Thistle, and Ross County, an extra 10 million would transform them from a small professional club to a club that could purchase players for multi million deals. I am certian that with that sort of finances of shared equally among the premier, at 10 million pounds a year for each club, then the premier would become more competitive with more clubs challenging for the title.  An extra 10 or so million for Aberdeen or Hibernian would transform them to be able to buy players for multi million pound deals from the lower leagues of England or of foreign nations. This would enable them to compete for the title. and get further in Europe which would generate more finances.

 

Is the Scottish League Attractive?

Yes, Yes, Yes. You may look at the Scottish League and say well I don’t find it attractive for whatever reason. Maybe you think it is uncompetitive, foreign, boring, not skillful enough. Whatever! But that is immaterial. The fact is it gets perfectly good television viewing figures for it’s population. So there are people who want to watch it, whether you like it or not.

IT DOES NOT GET THE TV REVENUE PROPORTIONATE TO IT’S VIEWING FIGURES.

I don’t like soap operas, or those new reality TV shows. I am not very interested in the Dutch League or the Turkish league but that does not stop tens of millions of pounds being spent on them, by their national broadcasters. The fact is there is a market for those leagues and shows. Whether you like it or not, Scottsh football is attractive to viewing figures that are atleast 10% of what England’s top league gets. You can’t argue with that, no matter your opinion of the league.

And considering Scotland gets the highest attendances per capita of any league in the World, that prooves we are more passionate about football than anyone else, full stop. So how the heck are we getting such low TV rights? How? Tell me? I’m waiting for an answer.

I am certain some troll will give them pointless reponse and explain that Scottish football does not deserve more money becaise it is rubbish, or some comment. But that is not relevant. TV money should be given to leagues, out according to ratings, and the market. Not on the basis of your biased view of each league.

I could say the English Premier is rubbish and that therefore the English Premier should only get 2 pounds. That is not relevant.

 

The conspiracy theory

A commentator for one of the British TV companies has openly said that while he was working for a major broadcaster he was told that as punishment for Scottish football refusing a new TV deal with the said broadcaster, that he must ignore Scottish football on his shows as if it does not exist. To punish Scottish football for wanting a better deal.

That makes no commercial sense for that TV broadcaster to punish Scottish football. It was a purely punitive vindictive punishment against Scottish football, for reasons that no fair minded person could justify.

That makes me wonder if other broadcasters take the same attitude to Scottish football, of wanting to treat Scotland as an enemy foreign nation that should not be supported, in the same way English sports leagues are. Could that be the reason Scottish football does not get the TV rights it deserves? Is it anti Scottish nationalism deliberately trying to make Scottish football smaller. You get that attitude when everything that happens in English football is spun in a positive way, by the media. While everything that happens in Scottish football is spun in a negative way, by the British media.

For instance when Man City win the English league at a canter we are told what a marvelous honour it is to watch that great Man City team of 2018. Showing that Man City are the best team in the world, in the best league in the world. And that everyone should be proud to watch such genius.

Meanwhile when Glasgow Celtic go and win the Scottish league at a canter we are told that this is boring, tedious ,monotonous and shows Scottish football is rubbish and that Celtic would be better of joining the English league and playing in the conference. Even though they get crowds of 60,000, that is more than Man City. One reporter even suggested that even Celtic fans should not bother watching their club, because apparenlty winning a league, with attractive football, is really boring if you do it too much.

Another example of media bias. A Scottish club loses in Europe, so that proves that Scottish football is rubbish and every Scottish club should leave the Scottish league and join the English non league system.

An English club loses in Europe, and the attitude of the media is don’t worry they’ll be back next year.

 

 

SCOTTISH FOOTBALL DESERVES, AND NEEDS A  BETTER TV DEAL.

Up with Scottish Soccer. -

[lewisnorthfield]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/exclusive-scottish-football-no-longer-10130604

Long story short. Sky are b*****ds

[BawWatchin]

Are we really surprised? We left donkey's to do the dealing and they came back without their hooves.

[lewisnorthfield]

The fact that according to the article £60 Million was not seen as enough by the SPL Board is awful especially considering the rate at which other similar size leagues are paid.

[cmontheloknow]

With any businesstransaction, the value of anything is what someone will pay for it. If the SPFL doubled what they're asking, the TV companies would shrug shoulders and walk away. With the English rights, there is competition which drives the price up in negotiations - if Sky won't pay, it BT will. Is it any more complicated than that?

[lewisnorthfield]

1 minute ago, cmontheloknow said:

With any business transaction, the value of anything is what someone will pay for it. If the SPFL doubled what they're asking, the TV companies would shrug shoulders and walk away. With the English rights, there is competition which drives the price up in negotiations - if Sky won't pay, it BT will. Is it any more complicated than that?

But there's also a degree of investment made in that transaction. Higher TV money = higher wage budget/transfer budget. This leads to a higher quality of football and establishes a competitive nature to the league. Why those at the top of the SPFL don't understand this concept is beyond me - but they should not be selling the SPFL at its current level, but as an investment opportunity

[welldaft]

One fact missing (as far as I can tell) from the OP is that overseas rights for the EPL are worth many many multiples of what the SPFL would be worth and must be taken into consideration when looking at overall value.

All that said we have known for many years that Scottish football is undervalued and that those in charge have imho opinion made a dogs dinner over negotiations. This cosying up to Sky and BT over an extension was unprofessional.  Yes we did get marginally more but make the buggers auction for it like happens with EPL rights and see where that takes us. 

I have said that were BT TV to win all rights to show Scottish football I would get rid of Sky in a heartbeat and same goes the other way around.  

Leaving aside viewing figures (which I accept are vitally important) but subscriber numbers are often ignored in this argument.  Assume there are 500,000 households with sky subscriptions in Scotland each paying an average of say £400 PA.  That is £200m PA.  On purely subscription basis our return per individual v football rights must dwarf the EPL in terms of profitability for the Cable companies. 

Yet for all that there has been little noise or movement and apart form this thread that will disappear no-one appears to be interested in pointing that we are being taken for a ride !!

[Richie]

6 minutes ago, cmontheloknow said:

With any businesstransaction, the value of anything is what someone will pay for it. If the SPFL doubled what they're asking, the TV companies would shrug shoulders and walk away.

This is true, but has alot to do with perceived value which isnt helped when people, particularly those charged with promoting it, actively talk down our game.

[the_paulo]

Cricket highlights are where it is at though.  Isn't it? Hmm. 

[kennysmassiveego]

IMO the problem Scottish football has is that it’s perceived as a 2 horse race for the league title , which it was for the last 30 years until rangers disappeared . In that time the EPL has had several different winners . Competition is important for domestic viewers and probably more so for international if you want to expand the franchise .  The USA NFL goes to great lengths to try and even out competition via its draft system 

It s telling that the only decent TV contract that the Scottish game got was from an Irish company who were perhaps relying on the Celtic factor to sell packages 

[Guts]

If I remember right we fucked ourselves when SETANTA came calling and offered a wee bit more than SKY. We took SETANTA's deal and they later went out of business. We then had to go cap in hand back to SKY, who took the piss out of us.

[Gaz FFC]

33 minutes ago, cmontheloknow said:

With any businesstransaction, the value of anything is what someone will pay for it. If the SPFL doubled what they're asking, the TV companies would shrug shoulders and walk away. With the English rights, there is competition which drives the price up in negotiations - if Sky won't pay, it BT will. Is it any more complicated than that?

Not really.

If we had the balls to name a price to Sky and Sky said thanks but no thanks leading to Scottish customers leaving Sky, then I don't think it would be too long before Sky wanted to negotiate.

Be good to know how many Sky sports Customers they  have in Scotland and how many of those would quit if no Scottish football was available.

[cmontheloknow]

3 minutes ago, Gaz FFC said:

Not really.

If we had the balls to name a price to Sky and Sky said thanks but no thanks leading to Scottish customers leaving Sky, then I don't think it would be too long before Sky wanted to negotiate.

Be good to know how many Sky sports Customers they  have in Scotland and how many of those would quit if no Scottish football was available.

There's limit as to how high they'll go as it's surely based on increased subscribers - not sure there's too many new people out ther 'umming' and 'aahing' about Pay TV and Sky - more likely the opposite with people leaving. Obviously newcomers do arrive as young adults become independent but people also check out at the other end.

Sky's churn rate wouldn't be massively affected IMO - too many people addicted to their EPL and Spanish stuff to just walk away - they also have all the competitive Scotland internationals too. I have opted in and out of Sky Sports for years and it's the internationals that tend to get me back.

[Lebowski]

With any businesstransaction, the value of anything is what someone will pay for it. If the SPFL doubled what they're asking, the TV companies would shrug shoulders and walk away. With the English rights, there is competition which drives the price up in negotiations - if Sky won't pay, it BT will. Is it any more complicated than that?

Would they? I can't remember where I read it but UK Sky Sports subscriptions are disproportionately Scottish. Bit under 9% of the UK population, but around 15% of total subscriptions iirc.

They wouldn't lose them all by ditching Scottish football, but 15% of revenue is a pretty significant gamble.

[cmontheloknow]

Just now, Lebowski said:

Would they? I can't remember where I read it but UK Sky Sports subscriptions are disproportionately Scottish. Bit under 9% of the UK population, but around 15% of total subscriptions iirc.

They wouldn't lose them all by ditching Scottish football, but 15% of revenue is a pretty significant gamble.

Again, that assumes all Scottish subscribers do so for the SPFL coverage. Plenty are more interested in English stuff. The OF unfortunately is where Sky see value - their coverage heavily focussing on either, their rights to all 4 league games etc... I'd guess the value they put on rights is linked to how valuable the OF is to them.

[VictorOnopko]

Scottish football and its media rights are like living in a quirky, slightly ramshackle cottage with a garden. It would be fine in isolation and would have some interest and value; unfortunately, developers have built a huge shiny tower block next door full of noisy neighbours which blocks out all the light so that nothing grows, and no one wants to rent it.

I'm sure I have read elsewhere that places like Denmark and Belgium get far better domestic TV deals in terms of money per game - and part of the reason for that is probably that they are at a greater distance from the Best League in the World (TM) in England, as that league is just another "foreign" one to them, whereas lots of folk here freely admit they'd rather watch the EPL.  These other countries also don't employ Neil Doncaster, which gives them a head start over us.

[Lebowski]

Again, that assumes all Scottish subscribers do so for the SPFL coverage. Plenty are more interested in English stuff. The OF unfortunately is where Sky see value - their coverage heavily focussing on either, their rights to all 4 league games etc... I'd guess the value they put on rights is linked to how valuable the OF is to them.

It doesn't assume that at all, that's why I said they wouldn't lose all of their Scottish subscribers. But you've no idea how many are watching what either. There's probably a subset just watching golf...

As a business decision, I strongly suspect BT will try to become the exclusive Scottish TV platform. That's where they'll be able to siphon off sky's subscriptions for relatively little investment.

[cmontheloknow]

1 minute ago, Lebowski said:

It doesn't assume that at all, that's why I said they wouldn't lose all of their Scottish subscribers. But you've no idea how many are watching what either. There's probably a subset just watching golf...

As a business decision, I strongly suspect BT will try to become the exclusive Scottish TV platform. That's where they'll be able to siphon off sky's subscriptions for relatively little investment.

The point I was trying to make (and stand by) is that I dont think they would lose many subscribers if Sky lost the SPFL. They offer too much to the average sports fan.

[Ranaldo Bairn]

28 minutes ago, Guts said:

If I remember right we fucked ourselves when SETANTA came calling and offered a wee bit more than SKY. We took SETANTA's deal and they later went out of business. We then had to go cap in hand back to SKY, who took the piss out of us.

I think the Setanta deal was trundling along quite nicely. They got overambitious though, spent too much on English fitba and went under, leaving us stuffed while England barely noticed.

[Guts]

1 minute ago, Ranaldo Bairn said:

I think the Setanta deal was trundling along quite nicely. They got overambitious though, spent too much on English fitba and went under, leaving us stuffed while England barely noticed.

Yes it was and then at the end of one of the terms SKY came in and bid a wee bit less than SETANTA. Aberdeen, Celtic and Rangers all pushed for the SKY deal as they were a much safer option but the SETANTA deal was chosen and we have been in a worse position because of it.