TV Agreement - Collective or Individual?

PHB

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/11/liverpool-breakaway-tv-deal

Liverpool MD saying a debate needs to happen.

Frankly, I hope all the smaller clubs put their foot down and tell the big clubs to f-off. Not only has the collective agreement been amazing for small clubs, it's been fantastic for big clubs. They've been in a league that pushes them on and drives up the quality of the PL over the past few years.

I don't want the Spanish league where it's top 2 year in year out, all determined by money. While it's not as fair as I'd like it, FFP is going to make big strides towards it and this is just going to mess it up. Indeed FFP is one of the reasons why the big teams will want this to happen.

The_Kew_Tour

I hope Man United win

tommyhaas

Individual

PHB wrote: »

Frankly, I hope all the smaller clubs put their foot down and tell the big clubs to f-off.

I've just been saying the exact same thing in the Liverpool thread. This would destroy the league as a competition, create a gap between the top EPL teams and the rest on a scale similar to that created by the inception of the Premier League and Sky. The rich clubs would get richer, while the majority get left behind, along with the notion of the Premier League being a credible competition

Bill Shankly once said; ''The socialism I believe in is everybody working for the same goal and everybody having a share in the rewards. That's how I see football, that's how I see life''. Liverpool, if they press ahead with this are essentially ****ting on the beliefs of the man who moulded the Club into what it is

dreamers75

Without little teams there are no big teams.

jesus_thats_gre

Individual

Has to be collective tbh. It is grand for the likes of Liverpool to come out with this as even if it leads to the demise of the domestic league, they know they just walk away and form a new European super league.

Edit: The argument is slightly different if the domestic rights are distributed evenly and the international money is individual.

davocesque

Individual

it would be terrible if this happened, but the fact is it wont.

Theres no way the 14 required, smaller clubs would agree and vote on this. So the only way the top 4 will end up in a position to negotiate their own deals will be if the 18 disbanded members of the G-14 agreed on break-a-way league with individual tv deals. but, the creation of the ECA has basically put an end to any possible break-a-way super league.

Serie A is a good example, they had the spanish model until this season (maybe last) and all clubs recognised the benefits of of applying the EPL model. Now of course we see Napoli in the champions league, obviously still too early to tell if it will be a long term success, but i think everyone recognises the benefits on the quality and standard of the league as a whole.

UnitedIrishman

Individual

Collective.

If it becomes individual, it'll help my team - MU - but it'll damage the league massively. Look at Spain and the debt problems their have at the minute. If the English game goes to doing its own individual TV deals then it's game over, might aswell not bother having a league because the cash-flow difference will be far too great for sides to even get close to competing.

That piece from David Ayres sounds so petty too. He might aswell have come out and said "We want money now. **** the rest of the league." I really hope United oppose this but knowing our moneygrabbing owners they'll probably back an individual deal.

If the Premier League really wants to get competitive, they should look at the likes of the NFL for a basis work from.

Mars Bar

Individual

This is going to be the most one sided poll result ever on boards!

Richard Hillman

Individual

Morally, the best clubs should get the money. Unfortunately to keep competitiveness the money should be divided. I hate socialism with every fiber of my body but it tends to work in sport. The NFL being a prime example. The competitiveness in the NFL is unreal. You have teams like Buffalo and Detroit who were terrible a few years ago and in Buffalo's case were awful just last year but are competing this year.

Preferably i would like to see a collective agreement in a European Super League. I hate seeing small clubs leeching off the best. A bit like socialism where societies lows leech off the hard workers.

davocesque

Individual

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Preferably i would like to see a collective agreement in a European Super League. I hate seeing small clubs leeching off the best. A bit like socialism where societies lows leech off the hard workers.

i would love to see a super league, but its never going to happen. however, i do think that if i did happen, it wouldnt be long before their became a big divide between clubs in the super league like there is in the EPL or spain. Clubs like Ajax and Lyon would be involved in the super league, but could never compete with Barca/Real/Man U/Liverpool.

Lukker-

Individual

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Morally, the best clubs should get the money. Unfortunately to keep competitiveness the money should be divided. I hate socialism with every fiber of my body but it tends to work in sport. The NFL being a prime example. The competitiveness in the NFL is unreal. You have teams like Buffalo and Detroit who were terrible a few years ago and in Buffalo's case were awful just last year but are competing this year.

Preferably i would like to see a collective agreement in a European Super League. I hate seeing small clubs leeching off the best. A bit like socialism where societies lows leech off the hard workers.

Never knew the commies ran the NFL. Does the president know?

Richard Hillman

Individual

davocesque wrote: »

i would love to see a super league, but its never going to happen. however, i do think that if i did happen, it wouldnt be long before their became a big divide between clubs in the super league like there is in the EPL or spain. Clubs like Ajax and Lyon would be involved in the super league, but could never compete with Barca/Real/Man U/Liverpool.

The EPL, La Liga teams will have nothing to bargain with whilst in a Super League bar going on strike which wont achieve anything. Currently they can threaten their leagues that they can break away so they get superior deals and TV time. With a Super League they cant really threaten to break away into a 5-6 team league. If the Dallas Cowboys, Washington Redskins and the Patriots threatened to breakaway from the NFL they would be laughed at. Football needs a set up where the clubs need the league as much as the league needs them.

The money that would be involved for clubs in a Super League would make the current EPL collective deal look puny. The Super League would be the biggest and only show in town.

Mr.Nice Guy

Individual

"What is absolutely certain is that, with the greatest of respect to our colleagues in the Premier League, but if you're a Bolton fan in Bolton, then you subscribe to Sky because you want to watch Bolton. Everyone gets that. Likewise, if you're a Liverpool fan from Liverpool, you subscribe. But if you're in Kuala Lumpur there isn't anyone subscribing to Astro, or ESPN to watch Bolton, or if they are it's a very small number. Whereas the large majority are subscribing because they want to watch Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea or Arsenal.

"So is it right that the international rights are shared equally between all the clubs? Some people will say: 'Well you've got to all be in it to make it happen.' But isn't it really about where the revenue is coming from, which is the broadcaster, and isn't it really about who people want to watch on that channel? We know it is us. And others. At some point we definitely feel there has to be some rebalance on that, because what we are actually doing is disadvantaging ourselves against other big European clubs."

One day when there's a European Super League this guy is going to be upset when United, Barca and Real advance this kind of argument to get a bigger share for themselves.

This proposal is pure greed, which is why no one should be surprised if it actually happens.

Liam O

Collective domestically, individual foreign, everybody's happy.

Giggsy11

Individual

Collective. I dont see any problem with this model. League will be weaker with Individual rights and as much as bigger teams, smaller teams are integral part of league and should be treated fairly.

jaykay74

Not a fan of the idea of individual bargaining internationally for selfish reasons. Here in Sweden on the basic sports package you get roughly 7 out of 10 prem games live every week. If you are a fan of the 10 or so biggest teams you can see all 38 games live. The change would mean buying a Utd package, buying a Liverpool package etc. I can see the price staying roughly the same and only getting 1 game a week.

Would be good for the clubs obv and I can see how the argument can be made. Don't see why the smaller clubs would agree to it though and I thought it needs the support of at least some of them.

_blank_

Football is a business.

If you are good at business, you earn more money.

I don't like any left-wing, socialist, damn-nearly communist ideas about collective bargaining.

Why, exactly, should the most attractive teams share their rewards with the cloggers and hoofers?

apoch632

I don't like any left-wing, socialist, damn-nearly communist ideas about collective bargaining.

Because it tends to work in sport

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Revenue.html

Any football league in the world would kill for that

Crazy Horse 6

Individual

As a Liverpool fan i don't want to see this individual agreement at all. The big clubs have way to much power and this would be the final nail in the coffin for football. Tbh i don't have as much interest as i once did with the game anyway since the advent of sky tv and all the crap that comes with it.

Mr Alan

Individual

I think the domestic TV right's must remain collective however I'd be interested to see what the international TV rights are worth to the PL under the existing agreement.

I do find it funny people scoffing at the idea of ending up as uncompetitive as Spain or Italy. Italy is far more competitive & there's no difference between England & Spain (the amount of winners & variety of CL entrants backs this up).

International rights should be individual imo.

To keep things fair in the PL, maybe collective is best.


Poll needs a third option.

_blank_

rarnes1 wrote: »

To keep things fair in the PL, maybe collective is best.

Keep things fair?

What's fair about it at the moment?

Des

Des wrote: »

Keep things fair?

What's fair about it at the moment?

Every team gets the same tv money more or less don't they?

If Utd and Liverpool for example start to get bigger and bigger shares of the pie it could affect the league negitively in years to come.

greendom

Individual

I think it should go back to how it used to be and the tv money supports all 92 clubs. I know this won't happen, but ideally it should.

Seaneh

Collective is what's best for the league, if it's individual you just end up with a farce of a league like Spain or Scotland where the top two take the vast majority of the money while the lower clubs can never challenge and struggle to even get out sponsorship, as has been the case for at least one spanish club this season!

The most competitive sports league in the world is the NFL, they are also the most profitable, besides their franchise system, everything should be based on their model.

_blank_

Seaneh wrote: »

Collective is what's best for the league, if it's individual you just end up with a farce of a league like Spain or Scotland where the top two take the vast majority of the money while the lower clubs can never challenge and struggle to even get out sponsorship, as has been the case for at least one spanish club this season!

The most competitive sports league in the world is the NFL, they are also the most profitable, besides their franchise system, everything should be based on their model.

You want franchise football, with no promotion or relegation?

Liam O

Seaneh wrote: »

Collective is what's best for the league, if it's individual you just end up with a farce of a league like Spain or Scotland where the top two take the vast majority of the money while the lower clubs can never challenge and struggle to even get out sponsorship, as has been the case for at least one spanish club this season!

The most competitive sports league in the world is the NFL, they are also the most profitable, besides their franchise system, everything should be based on their model.

and yet they nearly didn't have a season this year because player power got out of hand, and the NBA are currently late starting the season with not much forward movement in collective bargaining talks. This is a league where the lowest paid players get over $300k a year.

VW 1

Liam O wrote: »

and yet they nearly didn't have a season this year because player power got out of hand, and the NBA are currently late starting the season with not much forward movement in collective bargaining talks. This is a league where the lowest paid players get over $300k a year.

Thats £150k sterling. I cant imagine there being many PL footballers on less than £3k a week.

apoch632

Des wrote: »

You want franchise football, with no promotion or relegation?

American Football is kind of skewed by College Football existing and being arguably more popular. Look at the attendance's teams like the University of Michigan get

Iang87

Individual

jesus collective everytime. Look at the damage individual done to la liga.Looks fine now but in january the table will probably read:

Barca - 45
Madrid - 44
Others - 32

Thats not a league its a big cup competition.

noodler

Individual

Delighted this thread and poll has gone the way it has.

Came in here expecting to be on the losing side of a battle for the smaller clubs.

PHB

Individual

Des wrote: »

Football is a business.

If you are good at business, you earn more money.

I don't like any left-wing, socialist, damn-nearly communist ideas about collective bargaining.

Why, exactly, should the most attractive teams share their rewards with the cloggers and hoofers?

Because the top teams don't play on their own, they play other teams. For the top teams to even exist, they need the others to play them.

MUSEIST

Individual

Des wrote: »

Football is a business.

If you are good at business, you earn more money.

I don't like any left-wing, socialist, damn-nearly communist ideas about collective bargaining.

Why, exactly, should the most attractive teams share their rewards with the cloggers and hoofers?

Because smaller teams make the league the product is is. They are an integral part of the product and deserve a fair cut IMO.

Des wrote: »

Keep things fair?

What's fair about it at the moment?

Its not fair at the moment but making it even more unfair and financially polarised would be madness and destroy the league. No justification for it apart from simple "greed".

Mitch Connor

Individual

Mr Alan wrote: »

I think the domestic TV right's must remain collective however I'd be interested to see what the international TV rights are worth to the PL under the existing agreement.

I do find it funny people scoffing at the idea of ending up as uncompetitive as Spain or Italy. Italy is far more competitive & there's no difference between England & Spain (the amount of winners & variety of CL entrants backs this up).

it is the International rights that are becoming the big money maker now, so that is why Liverpool (and I am sure others) want a bigger slice of that pie.

Swiss Ramble:

Overseas TV rights growing fastest & shared equally: 2001-04 - domestic £1.4b, overseas £0.2b; 2010-13 - domestic £2.0b, overseas £1.4b.
_____________________

So, in 10 years the domestic pot has grown by .6billion (42%increase) while the International package has grown by 1000%! Also, the recent court ruling could see the value of the domestic rights lower while the value of the international package rise.

_blank_

PHB wrote: »

Because the top teams don't play on their own, they play other teams. For the top teams to even exist, they need the others to play them.

MUSEIST wrote: »

Because smaller teams make the league the product is is. They are an integral part of the product and deserve a fair cut IMO.



Its not fair at the moment but making it even more unfair and financially polarised would be madness and destroy the league. No justification for it apart from simple "greed".

People only pay a subscription in the first place to watch the big teams anyway, they are the draw for the TV companies.

How many of the "smaller" teams sell out their stadiums, week-in, week-out? They don't have the fan base to warrant a (more) equal share of the profits.

almost all of the people have sky, have it to to watch Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and now City. How many times do you hear people moaning when the week day match is Stoke -v- Norwich? I'd love to see the viewing figures for that match, compared to Man Utd -v- Stoke, or Man Utd -v- Arsenal.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

Delighted this thread and poll has gone the way it has.

Came in here expecting to be on the losing side of a battle for the smaller clubs.

It's a poll fail in fairness.

The Liverpool MD was mostly talking about international rights.

GavRedKing

Individual

Has to be a collective deal, it levels the playing field some what and makes it fairer for all teams, cant see anything wrong with that.

Liam O

VW 1 wrote: »

Thats £150k sterling. I cant imagine there being many PL footballers on less than £3k a week.

In their first year in the league? Only rookies get that much in the NBA, and the lowest drafted ones. Also saying 'that's only £150k isn't much of an argument as the cost of living difference is huge. $300k is enough for anyone anywhere in the world to live comfortably, but I suppose this is a bit OT...

Des

Des wrote: »

How many times do you hear people moaning when the week day match is Stoke -v- Norwich? I'd love to see the viewing figures for that match, compared to Man Utd -v- Stoke, or Man Utd -v- Arsenal.

Stoke v Norwich - 1.16 million

Utd v Arsenal - 2.15 million

Viewing figures can be found here http://www.barb.co.uk/report/weekly-top-programmes-overview?

noodler

Individual

rarnes1 wrote: »

It's a poll fail in fairness.

The Liverpool MD was mostly talking about international rights.

I really think we have to be against anything which further polarises the finances at he bottom and top of the league.

_blank_

Thanks rarnes1, I can't view that in work.

But the figures you provided prove my point adequetly.

1 million people more watched the big teams playing than the "small" teams.

MUSEIST

Individual

Des wrote: »

Thanks rarnes1, I can't view that in work.

But the figures you provided prove my point adequetly.

1 million people more watched the big teams playing than the "small" teams.

I'm not sure what your point is, of course the top teams will have more interest, obviously. But without the smaller teams you have no premier league and you have no product. They are an integral part of it. If people only want to see utd, liverpool ...etc then they may aswell just pay to watch training sessions of them. Most people want to see the competition and ups and downs of the premier league and the so called smaller teams play their part in that. The smaller teams make the league the product it is, without them you have no product.

_blank_

MUSEIST wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is, of course the top teams will have more interest, obviously. But without the smaller teams you have no premier league and you have no product. They are an integral part of it. If people only want to see utd, liverpool ...etc then they may aswell just pay to watch training sessions of them. Most people want to see the competition and ups and downs of the premier league and the so called smaller teams play their part in that. The smaller teams make the league the product it is, without them you have no product.

Who said anything about getting rid of smaller teams?

Not me, not once.

I'm not saying give them NO money, what the hell would that achieve?

I'm saying that the bigger attractions should get paid more than the smaller attractions.

It makes perfect business sense.

The TV company can say to the advertisers 1 MILLION (in the UK, god knows what it is in the likes of Korea, China etc) more people are going to watch this match between Man Utd and Arsenal than this match between Stoke and Norwich, so you have pay us more for the ad slots for that match.

These teams create more revenue for the TV Companies, the Premier League itself and they certainly deserve a proportional slice of the pie.

Des

Des wrote: »

Who said anything about getting rid of smaller teams?

Not me, not once.

I'm not saying give them NO money, what the hell would that achieve?

I'm saying that the bigger attractions should get paid more than the smaller attractions.

It makes perfect business sense.

The TV company can say to the advertisers 1 MILLION (in the UK, god knows what it is in the likes of Korea, China etc) more people are going to watch this match between Man Utd and Arsenal than this match between Stoke and Norwich, so you have pay us more for the ad slots for that match.

These teams create more revenue for the TV Companies, the Premier League itself and they certainly deserve a proportional slice of the pie.

What you're saying makes business sense indeed.

The bigger gulf it will create is the problem.

VW 1

rarnes1 wrote: »

What you're saying makes business sense indeed.

The bigger gulf it will create is the problem.

The counter to this argument is that modern day football has become a business unfortunately.

I am very much on your side though and would prefer to see competitiveness in the league rather than a 'its best business' solution.

_blank_

VW 1 wrote: »

The counter to this argument is that modern day football has become a business unfortunately.

I am very much on your side though and would prefer to see competitiveness in the league rather than a 'its best business' solution.

Would you rather United won the league every year, or it was shared between United, Arsenal, City, chelsea, Liverpool, Norwich, Stoke, Newcastle, etc etc?

I cannot believe any fan of any team would say the latter.

Dempsey

Individual

Even with the collective bargaining, the key differentials are the finishing place and how many live matches you are shown in. The big/successful clubs do get a bigger slice of the pie each season. There is performance conditions in the current collective agreement and they should stick to the current model if they want proper competitiveness within the league.

In the case of overseas tv money, its a case of Liverpool wanting to negotiate their own deal to a product that they aren't wholly producing or have control of. Individual TV deals would end the Premier League as a sport and the birth of it as sports entertainment a la WWE

VW 1

Des wrote: »

Would you rather United won the league every year, or it was shared between United, Arsenal, City, chelsea, Liverpool, Norwich, Stoke, Newcastle, etc etc?

I cannot believe any fan of any team would say the latter.

I would obviously want to see United win the league but I would not like to see it become a two or three horse race, similar to what it is in La Liga. Although there have been a very small number of winners in the last 15-20 years, the league is becoming more competitive imo.

PHB

Individual

Des wrote: »

People only pay a subscription in the first place to watch the big teams anyway, they are the draw for the TV companies.

How many of the "smaller" teams sell out their stadiums, week-in, week-out? They don't have the fan base to warrant a (more) equal share of the profits.

almost all of the people have sky, have it to to watch Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and now City. How many times do you hear people moaning when the week day match is Stoke -v- Norwich? I'd love to see the viewing figures for that match, compared to Man Utd -v- Stoke, or Man Utd -v- Arsenal.

You're missing the point I'm making Des. United can't play Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Man City and Spurs week in week out. Viewing figures would drop massively.

Using the United vs. Arsenal match as a viewing figure example ignores the fact that if they played each other 4 times a year, that number would be substantially lower.

United, and by in large they favour the collective rights agreement, gain from having a strong other 14 in the league. They gain from the increased competition throughout the year. They gain from the increased revenue that a highly competitive league brings in.

Norwich vs. Stoke gets shown much much much less than United vs. anyone, and United get a higher fee. There is already a distinction between what United get vs. Stoke, they get significantly more. Beyond that, they also get a strong reward in prize money, which is also part funded by a sponsorship model that brings the game to millions more people.

IMO, there are two models of football that I think are working well for leagues at the moment, the Premiership and the Bundesliga. I would prefer the latters model, but you can't deny that frankly, the PL is an incredible product, and it's largely to do with the fact that right now there are three teams fighting for the title, three teams that are fighting strongly for 4th place, two of whom could be fighting for the title next year, and a bunch of other teams who are there or thereabouts.

You ask what as a United fan I want to see. I want United to win the league, but I want them to do it by getting 75-80 points, not 90-100 points. And frankly, I think competitive leagues lead to European success for English teams anyway. United's last two European successes came in very tight league seasons.

Unearthly

VW 1 wrote: »

I would obviously want to see United win the league but I would not like to see it become a two or three horse race, similar to what it is in La Liga.

This is exactly what the Premier League has been like.

A quick run down of last few seasons

10/11 - Man Utd more or less had it in the bag last few games
09/10 - Chelsea always had a grip on the league with a small challenge from Man Utd
08/09 - Man Utd always had the league in the bag except for a bit of a comeback from Liverpool
07/08 - Arsenal collapsed in February, and Chelsea challenged Man Utd
06/07 - Again a 2 horse race with Man Utd Chelsea
05/06 - Chelsea had it won in October
04/05 - Chelsea had it won in January
03/04 - Arsenal had it won around March

Not one of those seasons had a 3 horse race, and only quite a few one horse races there to.

VW 1

Unearthly wrote: »

This is exactly what the Premier League has been like.

A quick run down of last few seasons

10/11 - Man Utd more or less had it in the bag last few games the home result against chelsea was a pivotal point in the season after their early collapse and our subsequent run of not losing matches
09/10 - Chelsea always had a grip on the league with a small challenge from Man Utd 1 point in it in the end, hardly a small challenge
08/09 - Man Utd always had the league in the bag except for a bit of a comeback from Liverpool there was a challenge there
07/08 - Arsenal collapsed in February, and Chelsea challenged Man Utd
06/07 - Again a 2 horse race with Man Utd Chelsea
05/06 - Chelsea had it won in October
04/05 - Chelsea had it won in January
03/04 - Arsenal had it won around March

Not one of those seasons had a 3 horse race, and only quite a few one horse races there to.

But the thing is in any one season one of United Chelsea or Arsenal could win. Throw City into the mix and it becomes one of 4. In the next 2-3 seasons Liverpool will be knocking on the door. That makes it 4 teams (Arsenal's current problems aside, they will come good again) that can currently challenge for the league and Liverpool will be rejoining those soon.