Pay per View

Log in to stop seeing adverts

Skitzo

Well-Known Member

Leicester City's pay-per-view matches were watched by a considerably smaller audience than usual, according to new figures.

City's last two Premier League fixtures, the 1-0 loss to Aston Villa and 1-0 win at Arsenal, have both been broadcast on Sky Box Office, with fans paying £14.95 on top of their subscriptions to view the games.


Because of the price, there have been boycotts up and down the country, with City fans joining in, instead donating £14.95 to charity.

The British Audience Research Board (BARB) has released its latest estimates on TV audience figures, including Sky Box Office, with TV executive Joel Minsky sharing the numbers. They make for interesting reading.

On the first weekend of pay-per-view games, an estimated 20,000 people tuned in to watch City loss to Midlands rivals Villa at the King Power Stadium.

Another of the matches broadcast on Sky Box Office that weekend was Newcastle United against Manchester United, which attracted double the viewers at 40,000.

There was a big leap in viewers for Sunday's clash at the Emirates Stadium with 140,000 watching as City secured their first away win over the Gunners in 47 years.

Around 110,000 people watched Liverpool against Sheffield United on Sunday.

However, these figures pale in comparison to the viewership on Sky Sports' subscriber channels. On Saturday, Man United's game against Chelsea averaged an audience of 1.7m people, more than 10 times the number that watched City at Arsenal the following day.

These figures come from BARB viewing estimates, with 5,300 households sampled and the figures extrapolated for the population.

Minsky points out that “sampling is very statistically sound and is considered a gold standard in the UK as well as globally for TV measurement.”

Both Sky and BT Sport have declined to share viewing data themselves, and the Mirror are reporting that both broadcasters are keen to scrap pay-per-view games due to their unpopularity with fans.

There are also suggestions that Premier League clubs will push to bring the price down to £10 per fixture.

It is worth noting that, because BARB estimates viewing figures rather than the number of households watching broadcasts, not all of those viewers will translate into subscriber payments.
 

Volpone

Well-Known Member

Leicester City's pay-per-view matches were watched by a considerably smaller audience than usual, according to new figures.

City's last two Premier League fixtures, the 1-0 loss to Aston Villa and 1-0 win at Arsenal, have both been broadcast on Sky Box Office, with fans paying £14.95 on top of their subscriptions to view the games.


Because of the price, there have been boycotts up and down the country, with City fans joining in, instead donating £14.95 to charity.

The British Audience Research Board (BARB) has released its latest estimates on TV audience figures, including Sky Box Office, with TV executive Joel Minsky sharing the numbers. They make for interesting reading.

On the first weekend of pay-per-view games, an estimated 20,000 people tuned in to watch City loss to Midlands rivals Villa at the King Power Stadium.

Another of the matches broadcast on Sky Box Office that weekend was Newcastle United against Manchester United, which attracted double the viewers at 40,000.

There was a big leap in viewers for Sunday's clash at the Emirates Stadium with 140,000 watching as City secured their first away win over the Gunners in 47 years.

Around 110,000 people watched Liverpool against Sheffield United on Sunday.

However, these figures pale in comparison to the viewership on Sky Sports' subscriber channels. On Saturday, Man United's game against Chelsea averaged an audience of 1.7m people, more than 10 times the number that watched City at Arsenal the following day.

These figures come from BARB viewing estimates, with 5,300 households sampled and the figures extrapolated for the population.

Minsky points out that “sampling is very statistically sound and is considered a gold standard in the UK as well as globally for TV measurement.”

Both Sky and BT Sport have declined to share viewing data themselves, and the Mirror are reporting that both broadcasters are keen to scrap pay-per-view games due to their unpopularity with fans.

There are also suggestions that Premier League clubs will push to bring the price down to £10 per fixture.

It is worth noting that, because BARB estimates viewing figures rather than the number of households watching broadcasts, not all of those viewers will translate into subscriber payments.
That's good. It means about 130,000 Arsenal fans saw their team humbled by the crafty foxes.
 

SilverFox

Well-Known Member
Still £2,242,500 these bastards will have earned. If it works on any level it will be the future. Before long every cup final or game of significance will be behind this pay wall.
 

Foxes_Trust

Active Member
I love all these "fan groups"

Of PL clubs that are wholly owned by billionaires

Chocolate fireguards the lot of them.

If people have a desperate need to feel important to a small group of people why not just have children like everyone else?
Luckily organised fans groups shrug off comments like the above and keep battling on behalf of fans....

In terms of "emails with the work experience person", one of the LCFC directors is meeting with the Foxes Trust board soon

Nationally the Premier League is sitting down with fans representatives next week to talk about the future of PPV
 

doolochfox

Member
I understand it's a fluid issue regarding ppv. Will the Premier League representatives be pushing for a break away/ the status quo/ or supporting the pyramid? I know it's late in the day, I was just trying to sync my metronome.
 

sparky79

Well-Known Member
The PPV doesn't need to be higher than 20k for small games and 110,000 for big games. That will work for the clubs who voted for it as they won't have the costs of staffing, marketing or policing the fixture to deduct from the revenue they get so the £14.95 'ticket price' will fill their gap in revenue just lovely.
The ****ing problem is, it's being grabbed out of the hands of the fans, disenfranchising those that can't afford to pay it every week, pissing off those who can afford it but can see the horrific incongruence with the current mood of the nation and creating a ridiculous precedent for the future and cost of how football is consumed.
The future of football is ****ing torrid; Amazon, Facebook, Google and the traditional broadcasters circling like vultures - mostly just to use football as a lever to pull people into their broader subscription, content or ecommerce services and to ensure that there is no way that they won't volunteer their personal data to be mined for other marketing purposes.
Gary Neville is right. Either the premier league and FA need to be regulated by an independent body to ensure that the long term interests of the game are protected, backed by bipartisan approved legislation or the game will become a fragmented freakshow of games every day at any time with breakaway leagues and an ever dwindling affinity with the game from a mass of people in the UK.
I'm glad we have our owners, but you can't get Pandora back in the box or stop the tide coming in. The Premier League and clubs need to be made to see sense.
In the short term, if there is some sort of PPV until the end of the season at a lower cost, then the stipulation needs to be that 25% goes to a fund to be split by EFL clubs and 25% needs to go to locally appointed charities to help with the general effort to support vulnerable people and families through the pandemic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fox Fan

Well-Known Member
Gary Neville is right. Either the premier league and FA need to be regulated by an independent body to ensure that the long term interests of the game are protected, backed by bipartisan approved legislation or the game will become a fragmented freakshow of games every day at any time with breakaway leagues and an ever dwindling affinity with the game from a mass of people in the UK.

He might be right on this, but there's no way that this government is going to spend political capital on something that will be so heavily resisted by a powerful group of billionaires - especially if you consider the absolute contempt they hold for football and it's fans.

Then if you consider how much that regulator might have to change to be worthwhile, there would be all kinds of issues. The fact that we only just avoided Saudi Arabia buying Newcastle; a human rights abusing, sports washing and all round deplorable regime, is the kind of thing I would like to see stopped - but no regulator is going to have the balls to do stuff like that.

In theory, we rules are already there too - they just need to be applied. The FA decides which leagues receive european places - and have said that a breakaway league wouldn't be allocated any (although I suppose they're already playing in Europe). They could also refuse to select players that play in that league for the national team (as they do in Rugby). The Saturday 3pm ban shows that regulations can be brought in to ensure football isn't shunted around for the pure maximisation of viewing figures too.

The problem is, and Wenger had a good point about this earlier in the week, we are now in the era of investor owners. Investors expect to see a return. We are the customers - about as loyal and as committed as any customers you'll find anywhere. The way the PL is structured, the teams within it will vote for what suits their interests, and so we will continue the march towards an ever shitter fan experience, because the only goal is to squeeze more money out of their investment.

 

Graz

Well-Known Member
The PPV doesn't need to be higher than 20k for small games and 110,000 for big games. That will work for the clubs who voted for it as they won't have the costs of staffing, marketing or policing the fixture to deduct from the revenue they get so the £14.95 'ticket price' will fill their gap in revenue just lovely.

You're probably right on this - although I'm not sure how the PPV revenue is split. Is it 50/50 between the two clubs, or does the home team get more of the 'gate' as they would with ticket sales? Don't forget you've also got Sky/BT covering their costs out of that and I assume the Premier League taking some as well - and probably some other hidden players in there too, so I'd assume the clubs aren't getting as much from PPV as they would from ticket sales.

But even if they are, I still can't see the logic in the £14.95 pricing - if it was £7.50 I'm sure you'd get a lot more than double those number of viewers. The cost for streaming is fairly static - I can't imagine it costs more to stream if there are 1000 people or 100,000 people watching, other than potentially server capacity.

Making the cost per game cheaper would get more people watching, giving more people the chance to watch their team, and probably increase revenue for all involved...

I think we'll see a drastic price cut after the next review - probably to £10 per game, but hopefully lower (£10 is still questionable for me, anything below that I'd do) or with a season ticket option that makes it cheaper.
 

Fox Fan

Well-Known Member
You're probably right on this - although I'm not sure how the PPV revenue is split. Is it 50/50 between the two clubs, or does the home team get more of the 'gate' as they would with ticket sales? Don't forget you've also got Sky/BT covering their costs out of that and I assume the Premier League taking some as well - and probably some other hidden players in there too, so I'd assume the clubs aren't getting as much from PPV as they would from ticket sales.

But even if they are, I still can't see the logic in the £14.95 pricing - if it was £7.50 I'm sure you'd get a lot more than double those number of viewers. The cost for streaming is fairly static - I can't imagine it costs more to stream if there are 1000 people or 100,000 people watching, other than potentially server capacity.

Making the cost per game cheaper would get more people watching, giving more people the chance to watch their team, and probably increase revenue for all involved...

I think we'll see a drastic price cut after the next review - probably to £10 per game, but hopefully lower (£10 is still questionable for me, anything below that I'd do) or with a season ticket option that makes it cheaper.

I had a fantastic stream of the Arsenal match, but I would quite happily pay £10 if I knew some of that revenue was being sent to the lower league teams that are struggling. That said, I think the fair price is actually £7.50 and I imagine at that price, they would quadruple the number of viewers (if not more).
 

Jeff

Administrator
Staff member
You're probably right on this - although I'm not sure how the PPV revenue is split. Is it 50/50 between the two clubs, or does the home team get more of the 'gate' as they would with ticket sales? Don't forget you've also got Sky/BT covering their costs out of that and I assume the Premier League taking some as well - and probably some other hidden players in there too, so I'd assume the clubs aren't getting as much from PPV as they would from ticket sales.

Carlisle United published some figures relating to the PPV games in League 2.

Games cost £10 each. £8 of that goes to the clubs.
Fans buy the match via their own club's website, so they know how many home and away fans pay for the game.
The home club gets all the money (£8 each) from their own supporters, plus the money for the first 500 away fans, the rest goes to the away club.
They're earning around £5,000 for each home game from streaming, compared to around £40,000 they'd get from ticket sales.
 

sparky79

Well-Known Member
Carlisle United published some figures relating to the PPV games in League 2.

Games cost £10 each. £8 of that goes to the clubs.
Fans buy the match via their own club's website, so they know how many home and away fans pay for the game.
The home club gets all the money (£8 each) from their own supporters, plus the money for the first 500 away fans, the rest goes to the away club.
They're earning around £5,000 for each home game from streaming, compared to around £40,000 they'd get from ticket sales.

But their matchday costs would be minimal so their net revenue would be closer to what they got previously...
 

pork pie fox

Well-Known Member
But their matchday costs would be minimal so their net revenue would be closer to what they got previously...
Which costs are they saving on though? Their main cost (players) will still be the same. They'll still need staff on a matchday, albeit fewer than normal. Ground costs will still be the same (pitch maintenance etc).

The savings on costs will be a much lower percentage than the reduction in income.
 

sparky79

Well-Known Member
yeah not enormous savings i doubt, but still savings. Security, groundstaff, clean up, policing. I'm not in any way supporting PPV, but essentially i suppose im saying that if football has a long term 'virtual' audience via PPV that there may be elements of that which are more profitable for some clubs than them actually being there!
 

Jeff

Administrator
Staff member
i suppose im saying that if football has a long term 'virtual' audience via PPV that there may be elements of that which are more profitable for some clubs than them actually being there!
It might benefit clubs like Man Utd who have hundreds of thousands of fans all over the country who never actually go to games but will happily pay to watch them on TV. Everyone else will lose out.
 
Log in to stop seeing adverts

Premier League

P Pld Pts
1Tottenham 920
2Liverpool920
3Chelsea918
4Leicester918
5Southampton917
6Everton916
7Aston Villa815
8West Ham Utd914
9Wolves914
10Manchester Utd813
11Palace913
12Arsenal913
13Manchester City812
14Leeds Utd911
15Newcastle Utd911
16Brighton99
17Burnley85
18Fulham94
19West Brom93
20Sheffield Utd91

Latest posts

Advertisements

Top