Why does the NFL sell broadcast rights to Sky Sports?

Mr Pseudonym

Howdy, y'all! I'm not sure how active this forum is. But, I have a question: considering that the NFL is looking to expand abroad because of stagnation at home, and it seems that the UK is it's medium-term target with the possibility of a franchise, why were the rights to broadcast sold to Sky Sports with Channel 4 (only recently) being given a game a week?

Surely the League should allow all games free-to-air until a support-base is built (I am aware that a sizeable one exists)?

dobman88

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

Howdy, y'all! I'm not sure how active this forum is. But, I have a question: considering that the NFL is looking to expand abroad because of stagnation at home, and it seems that the UK is it's medium-term target with the possibility of a franchise, why were the rights to broadcast sold to Sky Sports with Channel 4 (only recently) being given a game a week?

Surely the League should allow all games free-to-air until a support-base is built (I am aware that a sizeable one exists)?

There is your answer, money talks!!

FWIW, eurosport is free and they show the Monday night game. I watch every Sunday and Monday night game. Don't have Sky Sports so I then watch/record all the highlight programmes s I can follow what happens each weekend. I don't support any team, I just love the sport.

helimachoptor

Sky pay more the rights than anyone else would and at the end of the day the nfl wants to make money if it didn't game pass would be free...

ABajaninCork

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

Howdy, y'all! I'm not sure how active this forum is. But, I have a question: considering that the NFL is looking to expand abroad because of stagnation at home, and it seems that the UK is it's medium-term target with the possibility of a franchise, why were the rights to broadcast sold to Sky Sports with Channel 4 (only recently) being given a game a week?

Surely the League should allow all games free-to-air until a support-base is built (I am aware that a sizeable one exists)?

Incorrect. Channel 4 have been broadcasting American Football since 1984 with a short break in the noughties where coverage was briefly taken over by Channel 5. It's been back with C4 for the past five years or so. C4 and C5 have been broadcasting the Sunday night game live for at least seven years if not longer.

Sky have held the NFL rights since about 1996. The fact they are a Pay TV company owned by News International (owners of Fox) probably has something to do with it too.

basillarkin

Eurosport show one live game per week also

theblaqueguy

Setanta also show a game once a week but its normally the same game that channel 4 show
The reason I think sky sports have the rights to show more games is cos they have the most money to pay for the rights to broadcast the games and no other channels have the money to compete with them for the broadcast rights

Mr Pseudonym

Thank you, guys. I was clearly wrong in what I said about limited non-sky coverage: Eurosport broadcasts the Monday night game, and Channel 4 shows one on Sunday. I am, of course, aware that Sky Sports will almost always offer the most financially lucrative offer. But thought that, as the League is actively seeking to expand abroad and will be looking to build a sustainable fan-base, it would be keen for the most high-profile coverage to be free-to-air.

ABajaninCork wrote: »

Incorrect. Channel 4 have been broadcasting American Football since 1984 with a short break in the noughties where coverage was briefly taken over by Channel 5. It's been back with C4 for the past five years or so. C4 and C5 have been broadcasting the Sunday night game live for at least seven years if not longer.

Channel 4 to screen Super Bowl, weekly NFL games and highlights after agreeing two-year deal|Daily Mail

"The sport returned to Channel 4 in 2010, with weekly live broadcast of the league’s Sunday Night Football match-up."

theoneeyedman

basillarkin wrote: »

Eurosport show one live game per week also

Is eurosport Free to air???

ABajaninCork

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

Channel 4 to screen Super Bowl, weekly NFL games and highlights after agreeing two-year deal|Daily Mail

"The sport returned to Channel 4 in 2010, with weekly live broadcast of the league’s Sunday Night Football match-up."

Lazy reporting by the Mail again. C4 AREN'T new!! They've been broadcasting since the 80's as stated before. C5 briefly took over the coverage in the noughties as I said.

Dozen Wicked Words

theoneeyedman wrote: »

Is eurosport Free to air???

No. Not on satellite with standard sky dish anyway.

SantryRed

Sure I'd doubt any free to air channel would want to put games on every Sunday from 6pm-midnight.

adrian522

ABajaninCork wrote: »

Lazy reporting by the Mail again. C4 AREN'T new!! They've been broadcasting since the 80's as stated before. C5 briefly took over the coverage in the noughties as I said.

What's lazy about it. They said football returned to channel 4 in 2010, having been dropped in 1998. It's actually correct.

ABajaninCork

adrian522 wrote: »

What's lazy about it. They said football returned to channel 4 in 2010, having been dropped in 1998. It's actually correct.

Did you read the first para? Never mind. You don't read what I post anyway.

Chucky the tree

SantryRed wrote: »

Sure I'd doubt any free to air channel would want to put games on every Sunday from 6pm-midnight.

I think this is the biggest reason it goes to sky and not the money. I can't ever imagine BBC1/BBC2 or Channel 4 giving up 6 hours every sunday evening for american football.

Mr Pseudonym

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I think this is the biggest reason it goes to sky and not the money. I can't ever imagine BBC1/BBC2 or Channel 4 giving up 6 hours every sunday evening for american football.

I appreciate the point. But BBC 2 goes to sleep at 00:50, and Channel 4 starts its Sunday Night coverage at 00:45.

ABajaninCork

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I think this is the biggest reason it goes to sky and not the money. I can't ever imagine BBC1/BBC2 or Channel 4 giving up 6 hours every sunday evening for american football.

Very true. But Sky have enough money to blow everyone (with the possible exception of BT) out of the water. That is the reason why there's so much money sloshing around the EPL, and why the BBC lost the exclusive F1 coverage, amongst others.

It's just as well there's protected events like the FA Cup final, Wimbledon, and the Olympics in the UK, otherwise Sky would've downed hands on those too!

Chucky the tree

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I appreciate the point. But BBC 2 goes to sleep at 00:50, and Channel 4 starts its Sunday Night coverage at 00:45.

I'm not really understanding your point here?

Chucky the tree

ABajaninCork wrote: »

Very true. But Sky have enough money to blow everyone (with the possible exception of BT) out of the water. That is the reason why there's so much money sloshing around the EPL, and why the BBC lost the exclusive F1 coverage, amongst others.

It's just as well there's protected events like the FA Cup final, Wimbledon, and the Olympics in the UK, otherwise Sky would've downed hands on those too!

I do agree. If sky wanted to outbid everyone they easily could. I do think in this situation they don't have to outbid the main territorial channels because they'd never be interested in showing the 6-12pm games.

Mr Pseudonym

BBC 2 begins abridged repeats at 00:50. The late game begins at 1:30 GMT, so it could be shown then. The build-up to the earlier games could be shown on BBC 3, and then switched to iPlayer, as the majority of NFL fans are likely to be technologically able. My original contention was that, as a London franchise looks increasingly likely (my money's on the London Royals or London Bulldogs!), it would make sense for NFL to be broadcast to as wide an audience as possible so that, if it does arrive, there will be a sustainable fan-base. BBC would enable that. Your thoughts would be welcome.

ABajaninCork

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

BBC 2 begins abridged repeats at 00:50. The late game begins at 1:30 GMT, so it could be shown then. The build-up to the earlier games could be shown on BBC 3, and then switched to iPlayer, as the majority of NFL fans are likely to be technologically able. My original contention was that, as a London franchise looks increasingly likely (my money's on the London Royals or London Bulldogs!), it would make sense for NFL to be broadcast to as wide an audience as possible so that, if it does arrive, there will be a sustainable fan-base. BBC would enable that. Your thoughts would be welcome.

They had a stab at the Superbowl for a few years. I don't think they covered it this year though. Last year as a stopgap measure at the request of the NFL, they covered MNF via the red button and Ch 301 Freeview. Caused all sorts of problems for me and others here as we couldn't record the game and it wouldn't really be practical to stay up to watch! I don't know why they couldn't show the games on BBC3. It would've been pretty easy for them to do. I did write to the BBC asking why they couldn't do that, but never got a satisfactory answer.

As C4 is a terrestrial company, I think if any further coverage is needed, then it'll be covered off by them. Eurosport are covering the MNF at the moment, but I don't know how long this will be for.

It's not going to be completely down to the upfront cash, as they're trying to grow the fanbase. The thing is, who else could give as much coverage as Sky? Are Channel 4 or BBC going to leave a channel on a Sunday dedicated to American Football for 6/7 hours straight? Are they going to have special reports on the news channel? Can they show America's Game and Classic NFL and other documentaries on around-the-clock in the run-up to play-offs and the Superbowl?

PokeHerKing

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

BBC 2 begins abridged repeats at 00:50. The late game begins at 1:30 GMT, so it could be shown then. The build-up to the earlier games could be shown on BBC 3, and then switched to iPlayer, as the majority of NFL fans are likely to be technologically able. My original contention was that, as a London franchise looks increasingly likely (my money's on the London Royals or London Bulldogs!), it would make sense for NFL to be broadcast to as wide an audience as possible so that, if it does arrive, there will be a sustainable fan-base. BBC would enable that. Your thoughts would be welcome.

Do people really believe a European franchise will ever exist? It's pure crap in my opinion. Complete marketing posturing.

ABajaninCork

I don't believe a European franchise will be in the offing either. It's hard enough trying to persuade the existing ones to come over! Not to mention time differences with the TV and advertising. I think they'll just continue with the International Series as is.

I wonder if they'll ever put on a game in Germany in the future. Big fan base, and the US Forces still have bases over there. The German teams always did very well in terms of the gate for the NFL Europe games.

Mr Pseudonym

ABajaninCork wrote: »

I don't believe a European franchise will be in the offing either. It's hard enough trying to persuade the existing ones to come over! Not to mention time differences with the TV and advertising. I think they'll just continue with the International Series as is.

I wonder if they'll ever put on a game in Germany in the future. Big fan base, and the US Forces still have bases over there. The German teams always did very well in terms of the gate for the NFL Europe games.

Though I am somewhat knowledgeable about NFL, I'm more than willing to bow down to superior analysis. However, Jacksonville's commitment to four games would seem to contradict what you said about a reluctance to come over. Quoting from this article: "Goodell said demand from NFL teams to play in London was more than it could handle, and that a game could be held in Sunday prime-time hours next year." Another quote in that article implies that Goodell is as eager for a London franchise as an LA one.

adrian522

ABajaninCork wrote: »

Did you read the first para? Never mind. You don't read what I post anyway.

Yes I did, everything seems pretty much correct in the article, they were announcing Channel 4 as there new terrestrial TV partner which included highlights show etc, they never said football had never been C4.

Nothing lazy about other than possibly re-printing an NFL press release.

ABajaninCork

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

Though I am somewhat knowledgeable about NFL, I'm more than willing to bow down to superior analysis. However, Jacksonville's commitment to four games would seem to contradict what you said about a reluctance to come over. Quoting from this article: "Goodell said demand from NFL teams to play in London was more than it could handle, and that a game could be held in Sunday prime-time hours next year." Another quote in that article implies that Goodell is as eager for a London franchise as an LA one.

Yes, I read that. I still think the NFL will continue with the London games for now though. Goodell wants another franchise, no doubt. LA is the likely destination for that one though. That notion will garner more support from the owners than a London one will. It'll be far easier for personnel to set up in LA than it will in London. I'm thinking about the 'intangibles' like:

• How easy will the players and their families find it settling in London? Would they settle? Remember - only 3 out of 10 Americans possess a passport! That should tell you something...
• Following on from that. How about schooling for the children?
• Home comforts - American foods and all that. Never to be under-estimated.
• Living arrangements.
• Travel arrangements to get to and from the US. That in itself is a logistical nightmare. And the 'home' team would have to do that every two weeks.
• The effects of that travel. Again - not to be under-estimated.

That's all I can think of for now.

ABajaninCork

ABajaninCork wrote: »

Yes, I read that. I still think the NFL will continue with the London games for now though. Goodell wants another franchise, no doubt. LA is the likely destination for that one though. That notion will garner more support from the owners than a London one will. It'll be far easier for personnel to set up in LA than it will in London. I'm thinking about the 'intangibles' like:

• How easy will the players and their families find it settling in London? Would they settle? Remember - only 3 out of 10 Americans possess a passport! That should tell you something...
• Following on from that. How about schooling for the children?
• Home comforts - American foods and all that. Never to be under-estimated.
• Living arrangements.
• Travel arrangements to get to and from the US. That in itself is a logistical nightmare. And the 'home' team would have to do that every two weeks.
• The effects of that travel. Again - not to be under-estimated.

That's all I can think of for now.

While it would be a lot of work there are ways around some of those issues. One thing I was thinking would be an exemption allowing a European franchise to sell their rights exclusively outside of North America so they can cover the extra costs they would incur.
The travel issue could be a big one and again an exception would have to be made. With the current type scheduling they could have maybe 4 games at home, 4 on the East Coast, bye week, 4 at home, 4 out west.
You're not wrong about the players and families but there should a large enough pool of young men without familial commitments who could be selected from.

ABajaninCork

Deleted User wrote: »

While it would be a lot of work there are ways around some of those issues. One thing I was thinking would be an exemption allowing a European franchise to sell their rights exclusively outside of North America so they can cover the extra costs they would incur.

Nice idea, but it won't fly. It's not even a starter for 10, as all TV royalties are shared equally among the 32 teams

Deleted User wrote: »

The travel issue could be a big one and again an exception would have to be made. With the current type scheduling they could have maybe 4 games at home, 4 on the East Coast, bye week, 4 at home, 4 out west.

Interesting. But again it'd cause scheduling havoc...

Deleted User wrote: »

You're not wrong about the players and families but there should a large enough pool of young men without familial commitments who could be selected from.

You'd be surprised at how many players are fresh out of college and already have at least one child.

ABajaninCork

ABajaninCork wrote: »

Nice idea, but it won't fly. It's not even a starter for 10, as all TV royalties are shared equally among the 32 teams

Right now they are. Wouldn't take much for the exemption though, make it just the London team's rights for the UK. It wouldn't be a massive amount of money and would cover the need for an extra base.

Interesting. But again it'd cause scheduling havoc...

There'd be at least 2 years to iron out the details before a fixture list would have to be set in stone. The way the fixtures are figured out now is complex and takes so much else into account, I can't see it being an issue.

You'd be surprised at how many players are fresh out of college and already have at least one child.

I wouldn't! :P

Mr Pseudonym

The distance from NY to LA is about 2/3 the distance from NY to London, and spans four time zones; I know that that is the farthest one of the NY teams would have to travel and the nearest the London team would, but it illustrates that teams have to travel great distances already. Once they've gone through the inconvenience of of the logistics of travel, is a few more hours that significant? I imagine the London Bulldogs/London Royals or whatever would have a training base on the East Coast. As you said, schedulers will likely be kind, at least at the beginning.

Remember that the season is likely only going to be four months long for most of the first decade. As well as spending half that time "on the road", players could spend the offseason back in the States. Attracting players, especially free agents, is going to be tricky. But, atm, young players have little Dchoice in where they sign, because of the draft. It would be fascinating if it happened, and the best football (assoc.) teams in Europe will take notice, what with a pan-Europe league being touted every now and then.

Modifications have already been made for travel purposes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_regular_season#.22West_Coast.22_modification

ABajaninCork

Deleted User wrote: »

Right now they are. Wouldn't take much for the exemption though, make it just the London team's rights for the UK. It wouldn't be a massive amount of money and would cover the need for an extra base.

Let me put it another way. Can you see Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder or Robert Kraft agreeing to give up that chunk of change??

It ain't gonna happen!

Mr Pseudonym

ABajaninCork wrote: »

Let me put it another way. Can you see Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder or Robert Kraft agreeing to give up that chunk of change??

It ain't gonna happen!

If the whole League profits because of the exposure, then, they would.

ABajaninCork

ABajaninCork wrote: »

Let me put it another way. Can you see Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder or Robert Kraft agreeing to give up that chunk of change??

It ain't gonna happen!

It would be a new chunk of change though, one that they won't get their hands on either way. It's pretty much a zero-loss for them.

This is just me spitballing, I don't see a European franchise in the medium term because expansion (of interest) in Europe with the Wembley games and general attention is working within their current aims. The other issue would be balancing divisions and conferences when any expansion does occur. Adding 1 team makes it awkward with 33 teams, add 2 teams and you have 2 conferences of 17, a prime number, 35 and it's again odd and the only factors are 5 and 7, so there'd be headaches for anything less than 4 new franchises. Relocation is obviously possible but aren't all the teams profitable as it is? Can't see the owners allowing another owner to move for more profit when they're doing fine as it is.