Scotlands games to be broadcast on Nordic streaming platform.

[Skyline Drifter]

Just now, 2426255 said:

a TV License is disposable income and you need that to watch Scotland games live even with FTA at about £13/month. Viaplay is (an additional) £5/month? I don't see a strong argument for making it free to air and it's understandable that it isn't. I don't think people want to see that, but that's fine.

Those of 75 of over potentially get that free.

[welshbairn]

Viaplay's normal price is £14.99 a month, the £59 a year deal was only rushed out when they thought they were going down the pan.

[Skyline Drifter]

10 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Viaplay's normal price is £14.99 a month, the £59 a year deal was only rushed out when they thought they were going down the pan.

That's if you want to buy a month at a time. Effectively a PPV price for watching the international breaks if that's all you want it for. It's £9.99 per month on a 12 month contract. And I got an annual sub renewal for something like £70 up front last year (it wasn't £59 which was only for new customers).

EDIT - Actually my annual sub may have been £99. And appears to only be available if you already have Sky.

Edited November 30, 2023 by Skyline Drifter

[2426255]

44 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Viaplay's normal price is £14.99 a month, the £59 a year deal was only rushed out when they thought they were going down the pan.

The core justification for SFA making the choice of not going down the FTA route still remains regardless of the price to the public. They need money to grow the game more than they need the additional exposure from FTA broadcasts. It's as simple as that. 

The public don't like additional costs - we know that, but there is obviously a strong reason for going against the public desire. If the Scottish game were thriving to the same level as the English game I think the argument around FTA would be more relevant. It's not though, so there you go.

Edit: Actually looking at the Republic of Ireland they seem to use Viaplay and RTE. Perhaps the SFA could look to do a similar deal, but maybe it's just always going to be about balancing priorities. You have to give the benefit of the doubt in my view and assume they have looked at the whole picture.

Edited November 30, 2023 by 2426255

[The Master]

2 hours ago, VictorOnopko said:

I'm not sure where clout comes into it -surely the SFA could also have come to the FTA arrangement with UEFA, and fairly easily, as our rights are worth a lot less?  I get that the SFA doesn't want to lose money, but the EFA have demonstrated that the SFA could have looked for a side agreement and pursued FAT broadcasts of the Scotland national team's games, in the public interest.

You need to remember that it's not just our rights. Effectively the two packages are "England" and "everything else".

Without the Scotland rights (and, to a lesser extent, the Wales and NI rights), the "everything else" becomes less attractive. UEFA don't want to be in a position where the only games shown in the UK are the home nations (+ROI, probably).  So they'd be looking for a fairly substantial rebate from the SFA to offset the loss of value to the overall package.

You say public interest, but at what point does that overrule financial considerations? When UEFA first centralised the rights in 2014, the SFA received £50m over 4 years from the pot. For context, the previous rights deal with Sky and the BBC was worth £60m over 4 years. While this did also include the Scottish Cup, that's worth relative peanuts (£20m over 6 years in 2018, with more games included). So in effect, the SFA are already getting a worse deal from UEFA than we did directly with Sky. You're now wanting that to reduce even more.

I'm not saying Scotland internationals shouldn't be FTA. It's something I've argued for in the past. But the current mechanisms for doing that simply wouldn't work. 

Edited November 30, 2023 by The Master

[2426255]

The SFA are obviously making a financial decision and under current circumstances probably the right (or at least understandable) decision, maybe the only decision that can be realistically made. The lack of finances in our game is a thing unfortunately and that will be the main driver for TV deals until such time as finances aren't a consideration. I don't see the controversy around this. 

Quote

We are pleased that Viaplay recognise the value of the Scotland men's national team and look forward to them broadcasting what will hopefully be yet more successful qualification campaigns. The guaranteed income that we receive through Uefa's centralised media rights sales allows us to continue to grow the national game.

The finances help us to invest in a multitude of areas, including the grassroots game, girls' and women's football, coach education and para-football.

Ian Maxwell, Apr-2022

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61241263

Edited November 30, 2023 by 2426255

[Pocketman]

^^^ "Tory boy" back to Gilmour-like trolling . 

When the next set of international games come round, will be back to projecting self as a seasoned well balanced analyst. 

[2426255]

 A response from Ian Maxwell dated the 11-Sep-23 outlining the reasons around no FTA agreement (guaranteed income). I assume this was posted previously, but just as a reminder.

It's a financial decision, providing financial stability and made to benefit the Scottish game as a whole - I'm assuming Scotland are able to withdraw from the agreement with UEFA centralizing the rights before 2028 and fly solo which they might not be or it might be punitive financially. 

Quote

Dear Mr Wishart,

Thank you for your letter of 11th September. In response to your question on the potential impact of Men’s A matches moving to free to air, the answer is very simple, however it is important to first outline the facts of the broadcast rights process.

For many years, UEFA have centralised the rights across all 55 members: with the governing body providing a minimum guarantee to the association, in the current cycle until 2028, in exchange for selling the rights during an open bidding process. The national association uses commercial revenue, of which television rights makes up a significant portion, to develop football at all levels across the country: from grassroots programmes, coach education and equality and diversity initiatives, to investing in elite performance programmes and national team matches. Any reduction in TV revenue would have a significant detrimental impact on all levels of our national sport, including recreational participation. Whilst the Scottish FA is in favour of making national team matches available to as wide an audience and demographic as possible, ultimately in this regard we do not own the rights or indeed have any control over what FTA broadcasters can pay. On the Viaplay announcement, from our discussions with UEFA, we understand that whilst Viaplay are reviewing their business operations, there is no intention to withdraw from any current contractual obligations.

I note the recent announcement that the rights to England men’s national team matches have been purchased by ITV. I am sure you and other interested politicians will do your utmost to ensure that for any future rights, public and FTA broadcasters in Scotland are encouraged to make a suitably attractive bid for the right to broadcast our showpiece matches. In the meantime, it would be for those broadcasters to negotiate a suitable deal with Viaplay/UEFA with regard to any matches being shown FTA within the current contracted period until 2028. I trust this helps your understanding of the situation and welcome any further discussion on the above.

Yours sincerely

Ian Maxwell, Chief Executive

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/41699/documents/206544/default/

It's in the hope that this post silences this debate (which I think it will) until 2028 before anyone else returns with idealistic stuff about pensioners and unemployed having the right or the injustice of the English & Welsh getting their games FTA.  @Caledonian1

I'm sure the Ryan Gauld thread is due soon... @ArabFC

[DiegoDiego]

If only there were thousands of places scattered across the country roughly in line with population distribution where folk could go and watch sport on TV. They might even enjoy a good atmosphere and meet like-minded others whilst there. You could call them public houses.

[Brother Blades]

45 minutes ago, DiegoDiego said:

If only there were thousands of places scattered across the country roughly in line with population distribution where folk could go and watch sport on TV. They might even enjoy a good atmosphere and meet like-minded others whilst there. You could call them public houses.

This. I’ve never had Viaplay & won’t be getting any other paid service, I enjoy going to the pub to watch matches and from my experience the pubs seem to do a decent bit of business probably due to our relative success recently. 

[craigkillie]

A lot of nations in Europe have legal requirements for their national team matches to be shown FTA, I think it should be strongly considered here.

[VictorOnopko]

6 hours ago, craigkillie said:

A lot of nations in Europe have legal requirements for their national team matches to be shown FTA, I think it should be strongly considered here.

But according to the numbers guy above, he doesn't care, so everything is fine; affordability is not an issue worth considering; and Ian Maxwell of the SFA has made several tedious statements on the matter, so subject is now closed.

[2426255]

1 hour ago, VictorOnopko said:

But according to the numbers guy above, he doesn't care, so everything is fine; affordability is not an issue worth considering; and Ian Maxwell of the SFA has made several tedious statements on the matter, so subject is now closed.

It's not up to Ian Maxwell or the SFA, they are in a contract until 2028 with UEFA. They've said (in those tedious statements) that they need the money guaranteed by UEFA. Unless an FTA broadcaster stumps up the money required or a politician wants to change the law to tilt the scales in favour of FTA then you aren't going to see FTA. I don't understand what you want the SFA to do exactly or what do you want to discuss apart from it not suiting you. 

Affordability is one thing, Viaplay was affordable - you want it for free. It's my opinion that the majority, certainly on P&B just don't want to pay for another subscription (self interest) and the altruistic stuff about for the good of society is a secondary reason - something pushed forward to strengthen the case. 

It's obvious why we don't have an FTA broadcaster, it's logical and understandable. The question was asked by the SFSA and answered by the SFA.

Edited December 1, 2023 by 2426255

[No_Problemo]

42 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

It's not up to Ian Maxwell or the SFA, they are in a contract until 2028 with UEFA. They have said in those tedious statements that they need the money guaranteed by UEFA. Unless an FTA broadcaster wants to stump up the money required to broadcast or a politician wants to change the law to tilt the scales in favour of FTA then you aren't going to see FTA. I don't understand what you want the SFA to do exactly? or what do you want to discuss apart from it not suiting you 

Affordability is one thing, Viaplay was affordable - you want it for free. It's my opinion that most people, certainly on P&B just don't want to pay for another subscription (self interest) and all the altruistic stuff about for the good of society isn't the primary reason, but something pushed forward to strengthen the case. 

It's obvious why we don't have FTA, it's logical and understandable. The question was asked by the SFSA and answered by the SFA - what is there left to talk about?

It’s good to know you have a deep insight into people’s true feelings on the matter. 

I have a subscription to watch the games and still think it should be accessible for all so f**k knows what camp that puts me in!

 

[2426255]

7 minutes ago, No_Problemo said:

It’s good to know you have a deep insight into people’s true feelings on the matter. 

I have a subscription to watch the games and still think it should be accessible for all so f**k knows what camp that puts me in!

 

The minority. It's my opinion mate, that's all. I'll chalk you up as one against.

Edited December 1, 2023 by 2426255

[2426255]

9 hours ago, craigkillie said:

A lot of nations in Europe have legal requirements for their national team matches to be shown FTA, I think it should be strongly considered here.

If the law was successfully changed to require FTA broadcasting of SNT games, would that necessitate a reduction to the money coming into the SFA? as you can't force BBC Scotland or Channel4 to pay more money. if so, would it become a question around the exposure to a wider audience versus less funding for the SFA to make improvements to current facilities and what's more important? maybe that's an oversimplification.

Edited December 1, 2023 by 2426255

[craigkillie]

3 hours ago, 2426255 said:

If the law was successfully changed to require FTA broadcasting of SNT games, would that necessitate a reduction to the money coming into the SFA? as you can't force BBC Scotland or Channel4 to pay more money. if so, would it become a question around the exposure to a wider audience versus less funding for the SFA to make improvements to current facilities and what's more important? maybe that's an oversimplification.

As far as I'm aware, the money from all of the deals are pooled and redistributed with a revenue sharing model - there is a formula which means that those who put in more do get a bit more back out. Therefore any drop in the amount spent on the rights would probably lead to a small decrease in how much the SFA took in, but I don't think a £5m per year drop in rights income would lead to them getting £5m per year less (or anything like it).

[Guest]

On 29/11/2023 at 19:56, 2426255 said:

That's commendable, well done you.

Am I bothered about if everyone can watch the Scotland games? not really, no - it's entertainment at the end of the day. If it was a black and white choice between the two and it was up to me I would choose the solution that benefits the most, so in that case: terrestrial tv. The solution chosen for us all suits me and I'm not sufficiently motivated to kick up a stink about it personally and quite happy with it.

That isn't intended to sound cold, maybe it does - but that's how I honestly feel about it otherwise I would get off my arse and do something about it. 

I have something for you https://www.conservatives.com/join

[2426255]

3 hours ago, craigkillie said:

As far as I'm aware, the money from all of the deals are pooled and redistributed with a revenue sharing model - there is a formula which means that those who put in more do get a bit more back out. Therefore any drop in the amount spent on the rights would probably lead to a small decrease in how much the SFA took in, but I don't think a £5m per year drop in rights income would lead to them getting £5m per year less (or anything like it).

If there isnt a financial disincentive why do you think there hasn't been a change to give FTA broadcasters the right to cover Scotland games? Is it in the pipeline maybe? 

[microdave]

On 30/11/2023 at 09:22, Skyline Drifter said:

And one of the sacrifices of lacking disposable income is the loss of 'luxuries'. The right to watch Scotland play live isn't a basic human right. Hell if you're more than 25 years old you should be able to remember when NO Scotland games were live at all unless we made the World Cup Finals or Euros.

Pretty much every major sporting right has been sold to subscription broadcasters now. Outwith the Government's "protected event" list there can't be much of any importance that's still on terrestrial tv. I don't really get the indignation about our games being on Viaplay. Particularly as I don't really recall the same indignation when they were all on Sky, which is FAR more expensive to have. Maybe I just missed it but I think that has much to do with Sky being largely seen as a "normal" expense these days and Viaplay is a frustrating annual charge on top. It's ultimately not that expensive though. I took it out because of the Scotland games and would cancel it if Scotland's games move away from it but for £70 per year or whatever it is I get all Scotland's away games (home ones are irrelevant as I'm at the game), and as a bonus get other nations qualifiers and some Viaplay Cup ties that at least interest me. It's probably working out at a fiver a game.

The voices of dissent here are largely because England and Wales games ARE available free, not because ours aren't, and there are niche legislative reasons why Welsh games are. If about 25% of us want to start speaking Gaelic regularly maybe we'd get the same.

I'm 48 and I can remember the 1986 wc qualifiers against Spain, Iceland and Wales being shown live along with both legs of the Australia play off matches. You'd need to be well over 25 to remember no qualifiers being shown live.