Top 6 clubs close to claiming majority of tv rights

The rest of the clubs tried to stiff us on Premier League FFP so I'd like to say stuff 'em. (at the time only Villa, Fulham & Southampton were against Premier League FFP). But two wrongs don't make a right so no - I'm against it. Indeed i think earnings should go DOWN the higher up the Premier Leaguec teams finish.
(Note: Premier League FFP is different than UEFA FFP.)
Think there is a bit of me that thinks they reap what they sow but I too am not 100% comfy with this.
 
http://www.espn.co.uk/football/engl...6-want-bigger-cut-of-annual-tv-rights-revenue

quite informative. about 10 clubs in favour, 14 needed.

overseas contracts only. Looks like Scudamore wants to bring overseas tv money into line with the domestic tv money: 1/3 merit, 1/3 equal, 1/3 'facility' (televised match).

currently overseas is only equitably split, 20 ways, but is much smaller than domestic deals. however with values of overseas contracts soaring, Scudamore is keen to have parity across all tv money (parity of structure i think), and yes will benefit us for good or bad. current tv money ratio is about 1.5:1 (best:worst), and this deal is looking to obtain a 2:1 ratio.
 
It doesn’t sit well with me either but I’ve just read up on this. This is about the overseas TV rights only - which I’m guessing everyone was aware of - but the money from those rights is currently distributed in a different way to the domestic rights. The Big Six are arguing that money from merit payments linked to overseas TV rights should be distributed in the same way as the cash from domestic rights, ie: the higher the finishing position, the greater the prize money. Currently, merit payments from overseas TV rights are distributed totally evenly amongst the 20 clubs regardless of finishing position, so in that sense what the Big Six are campaigning for doesn’t look as bad as I first thought.

It’s also worth pointing out that the Big Six won’t always be the main beneficiaries either - if one or more of the 6 has a poor season and another club finishes above them then they’ll earn a greater amount by virtue of their higher finishing position.

Edit: Shemnel’s post above explains it better than me
 
Last edited:
I have league parity and football development concerns about these efforts, likely the same as others...

But this is really just a manifestation of the forces of economics at work, which makes it very difficult to stop. Ultimately, the argument is that the Top Six is deserving of a larger piece of the TV broadcast revenue pie as they—on the whole—generate the majority of it. While most of us blues, coming from where we have in the football supporters world, would prefer there to be an equal distribution of the spoils in this context (even perhaps a contra-position distribution), we would likely never advocate for such a system to be applied to our own lives (at least not in its purest, most comprehensive form, anyway—I think a fair few of us do support social wealth redistribution within a reasonable framework). And that’s the simplist explanation for why this is occurring and will likely come to fruition.

I cannot find any indication that there will not be systems in place to support (financially or otherwise) the club’s out of the Top Six, though, as it is still in the league’s collective interest to ensure a certain standard of competitiveness, even if it is not quite to the level we would like. Probably more important to the league is to maintain the financial viability of all member clubs. And, as others have noted, the Top Six can change, leading to the benefits being given to other clubs.

It is not ideal but fighting these basic economic forces is like trying to stop coastal erosion: you may be able to do it for a time, with limited success, but eventually Mother Nature wins out.

Note: for the fellow pedantic posters among us, I am not implying that economic forces are natural laws, only offering an analogy for their strength of influence in this context.
 
Last edited:
I'm all for it,the prem gets money from abroad for the games , do people think people all over the world will rush home to watch Swansea v stoke, wba v burnley ,the answer is no ,they want to see the best clubs the top 6/8 clubs bring in the money and as people have alluded to the other teams didn't think twice about ffp,so fuck em all.look after no1.
 
But every Premier league game is available to watch outside of the UK

but i guess their arguement is that foreign tv deals, perhaps even more so than domestic, are keen on providing the coverage of the top teams (but the TV deal gets coverage of all).

on one hand foreign tv deals pay for every game so equal split seems logical but the arguement on the other is that they probably only want the games of the big teams as they draw a huge majority of subscribers/viewers

Perhaps one day the Prem will introduce individual bargaining for overseas deals, but Scudamore has a bit of form for trying to keep competition levels up, which individual bargaining would fly against
 
but i guess their arguement is that foreign tv deals, perhaps even more so than domestic, are keen on providing the coverage of the top teams (but the TV deal gets coverage of all).

on one hand foreign tv deals pay for every game so equal split seems logical but the arguement on the other is that they probably only want the games of the big teams as they draw a huge majority of subscribers/viewers

Perhaps one day the Prem will introduce individual bargaining for overseas deals, but Scudamore has a bit of form for trying to keep competition levels up, which individual bargaining would fly against

We shouldn't be pushing for individual bargaining rights for at least ten years, because that's how far behind the old Sky four we are
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.