For years some of us fans have berated the impact Sky has had on football, the creation of The Premier League, and the blatant favouritism shown to ?the Sky Four? before the gate-crashing of the newly-moneyed Man City to the party.
Having spent the last seven and a half years in Asia , I'm dependent on the TV deal of the Premier League to get my fix of Everton. For the last couple of seasons, where I live, every Premier League game is shown live. I've also worked with people in sports marketing, broadcasting, Football Associations, agents, event organisers etc. and have seen up close the scale of what goes on, so have been a little on the fence on how I view things.
For me the answer would be in the numbers, and with all of the recent controversies surrounding clubs going into administration, the ongoing parliamentary inquiry etc. it was only a matter of time before the TV revenue figures were out, and they make for interesting reading. Nice to see the Premier League being all transparent. The full detail is here: http://www.premierleague.com/staticFiles/fe/72/0,,12306~160510,00.pdf
It's important to note that this is not ?Sky money? - it's all TV money for domestic and overseas broadcast. The domestic broadcast is predominantly from Sky, with the balance being predominantly BBC, including radio. The new 3 year overseas TV deals kicked in this season, and is around 50% higher than the previous deal (which was 2 years), and is now more synchronised with the domestic TV deal which will assist clubs in forward planning. The overseas component now represents 38% of the overall TV revenue.
The PL claim that they are the most equitable of the major European leagues in TV revenue distribution, with 50% being split equally amongst clubs (including parachute payments to previously-relegated teams); 25% in merit payments based on final league placement; and 25% in ?facility? payments, based on the number of live broadcasts. Clubs are guaranteed a minimum payment of 10 live appearances, even if they don't appear live on 10 occasions. The difference between TV revenue of the top team (Man Utd) and the bottom (Blackpool) is a ratio of 1.54:1 (down from 1.66:1 in 2009/10). This is to be compared with other leagues cited by the PL in Spain (12.5:1), Italy (10:1), France (3.5:1) and Germany (2:1), although it should be noted that in Spain , for example, clubs negotiate their own broadcast rights.
I believe the payments are made thus (but would welcome any more up to date information):
If you look at the guaranteed payments (domestic equal share, minimum facility fee, the overseas component and the minimum merit payment for finishing last) all clubs are guaranteed £38,323,280.
The top earners, Man Utd, received a total of £60.43m, 63.4% of which equals the guarantee. At the bottom, Blackpool 's £39.08m accounted for the minimum payment (98.1%) plus the virtue of an extra merit payment for finishing 2 nd from bottom.
The table for live appearances, and final league position is:
Generally, it's hard to argue against the number of live appearances relative to final position and team appeal. We could argue that Everton should have had 1-2 more live appearances, and maybe Newcastle and West Ham were over-represented. (I don't have a breakdown of Monday night / Sunday games etc.) What this does reinforce is the perceived Sky bias. And the reason they talk more about those teams is they feature them more in live broadcasts.
In terms of revenue, if you remove the merit fees for final league placing and only look at the impact of TV appearances, it's worth £582k per game. I recall when this was first introduced (it was a lot less!), it was partly to compensate clubs for any negative impact on attendance (and ancillary revenue) as a result of being on Sky, accepting also that the club would incur costs for hosting the TV crew etc. The apparent bias for certain teams cannot be worth substantial amounts in direct revenue teams.
So, is the distribution of TV revenue equitable in the Premier League? Having looked through this, I'd say on balance it is. Certainly I don't think we would be better off if we followed the Spanish or Italian models of selling rights individually. I think the relative increase in value of the overseas TV rights has helped reduce the gap between the top and bottom in terms of income, and it would be interesting, maybe, to look at these figures across the board back to the inception of the Premier League and see if the gap has closed ? I believe it has.
However, the inception of the Premier League, and Sky's monopolisation of the domestic broadcast has had an impact of raising the overall ?value of the brand?. Whether they deserve plaudits or brickbats will depend on your point of view, but I believe that the Premier League ?revolution? has, directly or indirectly, led to many of the perceived problems with the state of the game today. TV revenue, although substantial, is no longer enough to sustain the huge investments required to compete. Depending on how you read the figures, whilst the difference between the top and bottom of the broadcast income league is ?equitable?, it is other income sources that now determine how a club can compete. A club with a higher media profile, real or perceived, will be able to better tap into other revenue streams. Others on this site have mentioned time and time again that we could do more to tap into the ?media value? of some of our overseas players ? Howard (especially post-Donovan), Cahill etc. Engage overseas agents if need be ? I've met enough out there who are touting around various sponsorship opportunities for Premier League clubs.
Finally, set against our overall income, broadcast revenue is huge. I've read consistently over the years on ToffeeWeb (and again more recently when asked if we'd rather have had a season like Birmingham ? a cup, and relegation) that some people believe relegation wouldn't be the end of the world for us. I'd disagree!
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
While we were building one of the busiest ports on the on the planet, introducing the UK to exotic delights from all four corners of the earth, Mancs were building dark satanic fucken mills.
When four of our lads shook the earth, they could only look on gormlessly ? it took them 20 years to come up with a cheap imitation. While scousers boast one of the world's most recognisable and iconic water fronts, Mancs pride themselves on the cheap tacky flats they've built overlooking the canal. While we we churn out top class footballers generation after generation, they would have to get Mike Summerbee out of retirement to make up a five-a-side team. When we came up with the greatest and most spectacular race course in the world, they countered it with Belle Vue dog track. While we we basking in our City of Culture status, they were thinking about sprucing up the Arndale Center. Manchester's answer to our stunningly beautiful buildings like the MDAHB and the Anglican Cathedral are concrete block monstrosities... What a pug ugly, deeply depressing city! The Manc footy teams may be enjoying the the most successful period in their history, but we are STILL they most successful city this country has known. And yes, admittedly, they do have the biggest stadium in the country, but they need that to house the 75,000 who want to come and worship a scouser. Let's face it, the guy who wrote the song "Manchester is full of shit" will not be getting any Grammy awards as a lyricist, but somebody should pin a fucken medal on him for his his ability to hit the nail on the head.
While we we churn out top class footballers generation after generation, they would have to get Mike Summerbee out of retirement to make up a five-a-side team.
When we came up with the greatest and most spectacular race course in the world, they countered it with Belle Vue dog track.
While we we basking in our City of Culture status, they were thinking about sprucing up the Arndale Center.
Manchester's answer to our stunningly beautiful buildings like the MDAHB and the Anglican Cathedral are concrete block monstrosities... What a pug ugly, deeply depressing city!
The Manc footy teams may be enjoying the the most successful period in their history, but we are STILL they most successful city this country has known.
And yes, admittedly, they do have the biggest stadium in the country, but they need that to house the 75,000 who want to come and worship a scouser.
Let's face it, the guy who wrote the song "Manchester is full of shit" will not be getting any Grammy awards as a lyricist, but somebody should pin a fucken medal on him for his his ability to hit the nail on the head.
In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
» Log in now
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.
About these ads
Get rid of these ads and support ToffeeWeb
Bet on Everton and get a deposit bonus with bet365 at TheFreeBetGuide.com
View full table
We use cookies to enhance your experience on ToffeeWeb and to enable certain features. By using the website you are consenting to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.