How much would you pay for a Spurs 'TV season ticket'?

[vegassd]

I don’t overly see the issue. Right now I can’t go to matches that would ordinarily cost me an average of roughly £50 per match-ish. So, if a home game is not selected for main coverage by I can watch it glitch free for £15, which will probably only be 5/6 league matches anyway, then at least I get to watch it. Not ideal but on the premise that the bulk of this is going into the clubs pocket, I think it’s fair. That’s before you look at the fact that my dad who’d usually also be going with me may also come over to watch it, I may have my best mate who never goes to matches come round to watch it, and because I live in north Hants my petrol to get to spurs usual costs a good £15 too for the round trip anyway.

Totally agree with this - even the North Hants bit!!

In normal circumstances I think I would really enjoy having my brother and Dad over to watch a game live that none of us would usually get to. But maybe that's a bit of privilege and fortune talking. The ability to do that with a high quality picture on my TV (and I'm guessing some build up and afters) rather than hooking up a laptop and browsing through dodgy streams seems fair enough to me.

At the end of the day everyone's personal circumstances are different but I can certainly see why the PL wants to try it out. So much content is moving into full-access subscription models it's almost inevitable that football will go the same way eventually.

 

[Johnny J]

If we look at this in terms of cost per game, it's clearly a complete rip-off compared to the standard subscription cost. The difference is significantly bigger than the cost per game for a season ticket vs. individual tickets.

Sky charges the same for a one-week pass - which would allow someone to watch multiple football matches plus other sport, instead of a single game. No use for 3pm KOs though.

Sky and BT will obviously be trying to hit that sweet spot where enough people are willing to pay that it more than compensates for the people who won't. They are taking advantage of the fact that many of us would normally have spent more to go to the game, so will have the necessary cash-flow. A pure act of capitalism, rather than a show of goodwill to the fans.

Yep. Great for people who can afford it but there's zero fucking chance I'll be paying £15 to watch a single match.

Sure, it's cheaper than if you were going to the game. But that's sort of irrelevent. It's a different experience.

 

[easley91]

As someone who is unemployed and still struggling for work I for one will not be paying per game on top of my subscriptions already. It's ridiculous. Still think the Premier League should do a WWE Network/Netflix type platform where you pay a monthly fee and watch whatever game you choose. Every game is on demand in full, including highlights or a show similar to soccer Saturday if you prefer that.

Honestly think this will encourage more to the illegal streaming route.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

As someone who is unemployed and still struggling for work I for one will not be paying per game on top of my subscriptions already. It's ridiculous. Still think the Premier League should do a WWE Network/Netflix type platform where you pay a monthly fee and watch whatever game you choose. Every game is on demand in full, including highlights or a show similar to soccer Saturday if you prefer that.

Honestly think this will encourage more to the illegal streaming route.

They literally cannot launch this until the end of next season as that is when the current TV deal ends.

 

[Maxtremist]

As someone who is unemployed and still struggling for work I for one will not be paying per game on top of my subscriptions already. It's ridiculous. Still think the Premier League should do a WWE Network/Netflix type platform where you pay a monthly fee and watch whatever game you choose. Every game is on demand in full, including highlights or a show similar to soccer Saturday if you prefer that.

Honestly think this will encourage more to the illegal streaming route.

Genuine question, how will this encourage more illegal streaming when the games for PPV weren't gonna be shown in the first place?

 

[Erm33]

It's crazy to me I only pay $60 in the US and I can watch every single Spurs match over here, yet those of you that live next door to the stadium are getting price-gouged like this. Ridiculous.

$60 for what? As far as I can tell you need

Cable for nbc/nbcsn approx $50 a month
Peacock premium $9.99 a month
ESPN+ for cup games $5.99 a month unless bundled with Disney plus and hulu
BR live $9.99 a month for Europa/CL games once they stop the free streams now we're out the qualifiers....

Am I missing something?

 

[Neon_Knight_]

It's incredible to me, that Netflix gave the blueprint of overcoming illegal streaming by offering an easy to use cheap service and the prem in it's infinite wisdom thought "OR...."

I don't know how well Netflix pays producers, but I do know Spotify has hit the music industry hard, so I'm not sure it's a financially viable approach for the PL. E.g. if Sky dropped its subscription fee by 50%, I'm not convinced their customer base would double, so they would then have to bid less for the rights next time around...resulting in less money for the PL clubs.

In the music industry, Spotify has caused a lot of artists to lose out compared to their previous sales. Illegal music downloads / streams are down considerably, but the artists still lose out. Even artists who opt out of Spotify lose out, because some of their fan (customer) base is unwilling to buy music on top of a Spotify subscription.
Bands used to tour to boost album sales - generally breaking even / making a slight loss on the tour itself (apart from those filling arenas). Now they struggle to make a living as a full-time musician, while fans listening to them on Spotify (or downloading illegally) wrongly assume they make a bomb from touring.
A bit off-topic, sorry, but I'm trying to paint a picture of how a cheap TV subscription could potentially be detrimental to football.

 

[wrd]

If we look at this in terms of cost per game, it's clearly a complete rip-off compared to the standard subscription cost. The difference is significantly bigger than the cost per game for a season ticket vs. individual tickets.

Sky charges the same for a one-week pass - which would allow someone to watch multiple football matches plus other sport, instead of a single game. No use for 3pm KOs though.

Sky and BT will obviously be trying to hit that sweet spot where enough people are willing to pay that it more than compensates for the people who won't. They are taking advantage of the fact that many of us would normally have spent more to go to the game, so will have the necessary cash-flow. A pure act of capitalism, rather than a show of goodwill to the fans.

They're taking complete advantage of our ridiculous loyalty to our clubs and the belief we don't dare miss a game. We need to not give into that or this will be the norm.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

Totally agree with this - even the North Hants bit!!

In normal circumstances I think I would really enjoy having my brother and Dad over to watch a game live that none of us would usually get to. But maybe that's a bit of privilege and fortune talking. The ability to do that with a high quality picture on my TV (and I'm guessing some build up and afters) rather than hooking up a laptop and browsing through dodgy streams seems fair enough to me.

At the end of the day everyone's personal circumstances are different but I can certainly see why the PL wants to try it out. So much content is moving into full-access subscription models it's almost inevitable that football will go the same way eventually.

I think there’s an element of ‘we’ve been getting this for free since June, why should we pay now’ about this... I almost feel like the dissenting voices would be happier if they just didn’t come to an agreement and we were restricted to just the scheduled matches and relied on highlights or dodgy streams for the rest.

 

[easley91]

Genuine question, how will this encourage more illegal streaming when the games for PPV weren't gonna be shown in the first place?

Quite simply because some may be able to pay for their team's PPV game, but those like me are in a bind and need to save money where we can. Makes sense to just go the streaming route. I think the price is too much personally.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

Anyone seen anything regarding how some of this revenue will be passed to the clubs?

The Sky and BT contracts were for a limited number of games, so I assume they are now paying a huge sum extra. Perhaps this contributed to Levy being able to spend in the transfer market.

 

[easley91]

They literally cannot launch this until the end of next season as that is when the current TV deal ends.

I never said to bring it in now, just a thought on what they could do for the future. No harm in doing it on top of Sky and BT is there? People get the choice then.

 

[Doctor Dinkey]

Radio and Match of the Day will have to do, as usual.

 

[Maxtremist]

Quite simply because some may be able to pay for their team's PPV game, but those like me are in a bind and need to save money where we can. Makes sense to just go the streaming route. I think the price is too much personally.

... but that doesn't answer my point though. They're streaming the games that aren't being picked for TV. So games that weren't gonna be on anyway. So before this initiative came out, if people wanted to watch these games they'd have to stream them.

Now, people can stream them illegally or pay for a good quality version. So the same number or less will be streaming. I don't see how it increases the number streaming.

 

[wrd]

I don't know how well Netflix pays producers, but I do know Spotify has hit the music industry hard, so I'm not sure it's a financially viable approach for the PL. E.g. if Sky dropped its subscription fee by 50%, I'm not convinced their customer base would double, so they would then have to bid less for the rights next time around...resulting in less money for the PL clubs.

In the music industry, Spotify has caused a lot of artists to lose out compared to their previous sales. Illegal music downloads / streams are down considerably, but the artists still lose out. Even artists who opt out of Spotify lose out, because some of their fan (customer) base is unwilling to buy music on top of a Spotify subscription.
Bands used to tour to boost album sales - generally breaking even / making a slight loss on the tour itself (apart from those filling arenas). Now they struggle to make a living as a full-time musician, while fans listening to them on Spotify (or downloading illegally) wrongly assume they make a bomb from touring.
A bit off-topic, sorry, but I'm trying to paint a picture of how a cheap TV subscription could potentially be detrimental to football.

Yeah unfortunately in that scenario they had to compromise and even worse is that it was the smaller artists who suffered as a consequence. At least in this scenario we're talking about the prem and it wouldn't hit the lower league teams.

 

[SheffieldAndy]

... but that doesn't answer my point though. They're streaming the games that aren't being picked for TV. So games that weren't gonna be on anyway. So before this initiative came out, if people wanted to watch these games they'd have to stream them.

Now, people can stream them illegally or pay for a good quality version. So the same number or less will be streaming. I don't see how it increases the number streaming.

It may lead to better quality illegal streams as the better quality stream for the game will very quickly be pirated. Not saying that’ll encourage it, but was something that had been bouncing around in my mind about this.

 

[Maxtremist]

It may lead to better quality illegal streams as the better quality stream for the game will very quickly be pirated. Not saying that’ll encourage it, but was something that had been bouncing around in my mind about this.

Very true... doesn't increase how many people are streaming though, right?
Or are you suggesting more people might stream because there's now a HD version that might be available? I guess that might but I don't feel like the reason people weren't streaming was because it wasn't HD.

 

[SheffieldAndy]

Very true... doesn't increase how many people are streaming though, right?
Or are you suggesting more people might stream because there's now a HD version that might be available? I guess that might but I don't feel like the reason people weren't streaming was because it wasn't HD.

As I say, I don’t think it’d be the reason (that’s what I meant by encourage it in my previous reply), I think having a better stream may get a few more people doing it, but not in numbers that would make it even remotely significant.
It would most likely just make streaming a better experience for people that would have done it anyway.

 

[Trotter]

Genuine question, how will this encourage more illegal streaming when the games for PPV weren't gonna be shown in the first place?

They would have been shown.
The government would have forced them to be shown just like they have every game since lockdown.
PL clubs have just got in before government forced them to show for nothing this month and tried to make some money out of them, but this will just lead to illegal streaming

 

[Maxtremist]

They would have been shown.
The government would have forced them to be shown just like they have every game since lockdown.

I have to call false on that. The government didn't force the Premier League to show every game. The government said no to fans. The premier league then adjusted the TV schedule so every game was made available. That wasn't a Boris and co job as far as I'm aware.