Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Interested in Bidding for English Premier League Streaming Rights?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why would it only be $10-15 a month when NFL Sunday Ticket on PS3 is $85 per month?
Yeah, the bloke who wrote the "piece" is probably sitting at home pissing himself at us all arguing via something he wrote. The wee dick ...
Last edited by a moderator:
^^ Quite so, and delicately put if I may say so.
For the benefit of US readers, the UK Daily Mail is a kind of combination of the National Enquirer and The Onion, but without the satire, humour, biting investigative journalism or news content.
Also I suspect a war may be about to kick off between Apple and Sky, Apple sells movies and tv shows via iTunes, BUT Sky Go is currently advertising itself as 'have access to thousands of movies and tv-shows'
Basically negating the need to ever buy anything from iTunes.
If there is ANY kernel of truth to this story, then thats probably where it's coming from. Sky are hurting Apple, So Apple will hurt sky..by yanking the main reason people have Sky Go, on their iPhone/iPad/xbox/mac/pc
Are City really big here? I've never seen a City shirt in the US except for my brother's.
As a NUFC supporter it annoys me that they are rarely shown anywhere in the US! I would LOVE a US based streaming option that would allow me to follow them each week, but that won't happen anytime soon.
Back to the original article.... I would agree with those saying that Apple would be better off partnering with a network. Sky already has the infrastructure to produce and stream. Would be great for my mates back in the UK to have an alternative option for viewing.
The EPL is the top football league in England, and one of the premiere football leagues in the world
Hmmm. That should have read: one of the premier football leagues in the world
There's a difference between premier and premiere.
Hmmm. That should have read: one of the premier football leagues in the world
There's a difference between premier and premiere.
They're Fox News in print, focusing on hatred toward immigrants, continued love of Princess Diana and half naked 'posh totty'.
This article is about football, not american football
Also, the Saints are one of the 3-4 best teams this year.
hahahahahah absolute fail.
Not really.
Sky provide Sky Go to their customers as a free app, but Sky already have their money from their customers and are simply offering another means for those customers to access what they pay for. Apple know this, there's no conflict.
Apple's customers (iTunes movie rentals) and Sky's customers are entirely different, just like Love Film and Sky have similar products, different customers, but both work on other devices (Sky Player and Love Film are on Xbox 360 too for example, so are Microsoft going to "go to war" with Sky because of the Zune Video Store? No).
I could potentially see Apple being used as way of selling the 3pm Saturday games, so long as it is with a relatively high minimum price requirement. As said the reason such games are not televised is to protect attendances at lower division games. So by setting a price that is high enough that it will still make going to games seem better value it will continue to protect those while serving those with who are willing to pay.
This is similar to the way the NFL Sunday Ticket works. Part of the reason for it being exclusive to DirecTV and relatively expensive compared to the other major leagues is that the NFL have to protect their broadcast partners. If it was a mainstream product then it would reduce the amount the amount CBS and Fox pay, but by being relatively exclusive it has little impact on them. This is not a problem for the MLB, NBA, or NHL where the majority of the TV coverage is local and team's own deals protected by blackouts on Extra Innings etc.
To a broadcaster streaming the Saturday afternoon Premier League games will only amount to the cost of streaming, being able to use the Premier League's own feeds of the games for the actual content, so a small audience being a premium should be able to make for a profitable service.
I am not saying I think this will happen, just that I can see a case for it where it opens up the possibility of selling matches while still protecting the intention of the blackout window.
But I cannot see Apple taking over TV rights because the cost would be too high, and there is a balance the Premier league needs to strike between exposure and income. A subscription TV service that is (now) in a third of all homes and most pubs and bars is probably the centre point of that. Putting coverage exclusively online and tied into a specific provider's hardware would be too much. At the very least Apple would have to give provide the AppleTV for free with a subscription in the same way Sky and cable companies do.
As much as Apple may have more than enough money in the bank to fund such a move, they would not have for long if they just continually spent it on loss making ventures just because they can. The reason they have such a surplus is by not taking stupid risks.
In its early days as the Sky Television network, the service losing over £2 million per week (which after inflation is equal to nearly £4m today). Any such move has to be viewed as a long term investment. This is where Setanta collapsed, as its investors were unwilling to continue to fund the short term loses it was making, or cover the cost of the rights that saw it loses half of its Premier League games. Even ESPN in the UK are believed to still be losing something like £500,000 per week.
If Apple were to get involved it would have to be on streaming rights only, and possibly in partnership with an existing broadcaster.
In what why have exclusive rights been stopped?
The agreement with the EU that splits matches into packages and does not allow one broadcaster to hold all the packages expires at the end of the current contracts. And that stipulation was a voluntary one and it is not certain it was necessary.
The intervention that lead to it was due to the selling of all rights in a single package that effectively priced out most competitors. Breaking it into smaller packages alone countered this issue. And the belief that a choice of broadcasters would allow free-to-air networks a chance to compete, and that a choice for viewers would drive down prices have both been completely contradicted. So long as the rights continue to be sold in a way that is considered competitive I see no reason why they would be held to such a requirement.
If you mean the more recent ruling in the MPS vs Karen Murphy case, that does not in anyway prevent exclusive rights. It only affects the imposition of territorial stipulations on those rights within the EU. Any rights holder (of any content type) is still free to sell to a single broadcaster on an EU-wide basis, or even just to sell their content within one country. In the specific case with Nova the issue was with the commercial subscription being much lower than Sky. The domestic price of both services was similar that the Premier League could chose just to sell domestic rights in Greece, knowing that the inconvenience for little gain of such a service would protect the investment of their other EU partners, including those in the UK.
And such a ruling only applies to satellite TV broadcasts and not streaming services anyway.
There is no requirement for any of the Premier League being shown free to air. Only certain international tournaments, horse races, and key domestic finals have such a requirement. The latter being the FA Cup final (soccer), Challenge Cup Final (rugby league), and in Scotland the Scottish Cup Final (soccer).
Yet the Sky Sports subscription in Ireland costs the same as a subscription to both Sky Sports and ESPN in the UK, so rather than getting anything for free, you are being deprived the cheaper cost of a Sky Sports-only option.
Sky Sports do not have their own resources, they contract other companies to produce their content.
Sky use Telegenic for their Premier League coverage, I believe solely, while ESPN now use IMG. But non-televised matches in the UK are still recorded in HD anyway by Premier League Productions, a joint venture between the league and production company TWI.
If Apple had a streaming contract they would gain access to those feeds, if they took over a broadcasting contact then they would simply hire a production company just like the current broadcasts do.
This is similar to the way the NFL Sunday Ticket works. Part of the reason for it being exclusive to DirecTV and relatively expensive compared to the other major leagues is that the NFL have to protect their broadcast partners. If it was a mainstream product then it would reduce the amount the amount CBS and Fox pay, but by being relatively exclusive it has little impact on them. This is not a problem for the MLB, NBA, or NHL where the majority of the TV coverage is local and team's own deals protected by blackouts on Extra Innings etc.
To a broadcaster streaming the Saturday afternoon Premier League games will only amount to the cost of streaming, being able to use the Premier League's own feeds of the games for the actual content, so a small audience being a premium should be able to make for a profitable service.
I am not saying I think this will happen, just that I can see a case for it where it opens up the possibility of selling matches while still protecting the intention of the blackout window.
But I cannot see Apple taking over TV rights because the cost would be too high, and there is a balance the Premier league needs to strike between exposure and income. A subscription TV service that is (now) in a third of all homes and most pubs and bars is probably the centre point of that. Putting coverage exclusively online and tied into a specific provider's hardware would be too much. At the very least Apple would have to give provide the AppleTV for free with a subscription in the same way Sky and cable companies do.
As much as Apple may have more than enough money in the bank to fund such a move, they would not have for long if they just continually spent it on loss making ventures just because they can. The reason they have such a surplus is by not taking stupid risks.
In its early days as the Sky Television network, the service losing over £2 million per week (which after inflation is equal to nearly £4m today). Any such move has to be viewed as a long term investment. This is where Setanta collapsed, as its investors were unwilling to continue to fund the short term loses it was making, or cover the cost of the rights that saw it loses half of its Premier League games. Even ESPN in the UK are believed to still be losing something like £500,000 per week.
If Apple were to get involved it would have to be on streaming rights only, and possibly in partnership with an existing broadcaster.
In what why have exclusive rights been stopped?
The agreement with the EU that splits matches into packages and does not allow one broadcaster to hold all the packages expires at the end of the current contracts. And that stipulation was a voluntary one and it is not certain it was necessary.
The intervention that lead to it was due to the selling of all rights in a single package that effectively priced out most competitors. Breaking it into smaller packages alone countered this issue. And the belief that a choice of broadcasters would allow free-to-air networks a chance to compete, and that a choice for viewers would drive down prices have both been completely contradicted. So long as the rights continue to be sold in a way that is considered competitive I see no reason why they would be held to such a requirement.
If you mean the more recent ruling in the MPS vs Karen Murphy case, that does not in anyway prevent exclusive rights. It only affects the imposition of territorial stipulations on those rights within the EU. Any rights holder (of any content type) is still free to sell to a single broadcaster on an EU-wide basis, or even just to sell their content within one country. In the specific case with Nova the issue was with the commercial subscription being much lower than Sky. The domestic price of both services was similar that the Premier League could chose just to sell domestic rights in Greece, knowing that the inconvenience for little gain of such a service would protect the investment of their other EU partners, including those in the UK.
And such a ruling only applies to satellite TV broadcasts and not streaming services anyway.
There is no requirement for any of the Premier League being shown free to air. Only certain international tournaments, horse races, and key domestic finals have such a requirement. The latter being the FA Cup final (soccer), Challenge Cup Final (rugby league), and in Scotland the Scottish Cup Final (soccer).
Hope not cause I get ESPN for free in Ireland, Sky think we are poor
Yet the Sky Sports subscription in Ireland costs the same as a subscription to both Sky Sports and ESPN in the UK, so rather than getting anything for free, you are being deprived the cheaper cost of a Sky Sports-only option.
Sky Sports do not have their own resources, they contract other companies to produce their content.
Sky use Telegenic for their Premier League coverage, I believe solely, while ESPN now use IMG. But non-televised matches in the UK are still recorded in HD anyway by Premier League Productions, a joint venture between the league and production company TWI.
If Apple had a streaming contract they would gain access to those feeds, if they took over a broadcasting contact then they would simply hire a production company just like the current broadcasts do.
Are you talking about in a mobile device streaming sense or battle over the living room? Because they are different wars. I can watch iTunes content right now if I wanted but why would I when it's pricing is the same as BlinkBox which I can watch on my 360 or Love Film which I can watch on my PS3 and 360 as well as mobile devices and computers?
In regards to movies Apple already has a war on for streaming content and it hasn't done a thing to differentiate itself from it's competitors on that front.
As for normal TV I would much rather have Sky with it's Anytime Plus free on demand service and free Sky Go. The majority of the programmes on the app store are free on TV or on Sky, and why would I pay Apple for Top Gear when I pay a license fee for it anyway?
Why are you so hung up on the wording? It IS illegal to show games in the UK via services such as ViaSat if the FA say it is. Quite simply, they can file for breach of copyright and prosecute any individual that persists in accessing their content in this way (as they did with the infamous Portsmouth Landlady).
She had a hearing at the European Court of Justice that suggested that the FA's prosecution of her under Copyright Legislation might contravene EU Free Trade Laws. This is NOT enforceable under UK Law and Her ONLY chance of appeal is to argue to the UK High Court that they concede to the recommendations of the ECJ.
Until then, we're right to use the word "illegal" as I'm fairly certain that the last time I checked, Copyright Infringement was still illegal.
Even if the ruling goes against the Premier League, the rights package is up for renewal very shortly and it will simply necessitate them forgoing the European Portion of the Package and swallowing the "drop in the ocean" £200m approx. that represents for the whole EU territory for the sake of preserving the UK SKY deal (which is worth closer to £2bn) OR they sell a Europe-wide license (which would make the rights package even more attractive to people like ESPN & Al Jazeera and drive the price up through competition) OR they make up the difference by inventively licensing new ways to access THEIR content.
Absolutely unreal. Not sure Murdoch would let go off the EPL without a fight though.
Perhaps they could go for Formula 1 as well?
Oh yes please ... F1 live on my iPad here in the States would be awesome.
Well this story is not on the BBC News website so I'm calling BS until it is. And can anyone REALLY see the football league agreeing to dropping their prices and profits to please Apple like the music industry??!!! I can't. Because the Music industry was loosing money, football isn't.
Sky don't show every Premier League game, even taking into account ESPN's share.
I'm guessing Apple's deal will be for non-major games.
And why not seeing as America has a race or two next season? But I think F1 rights are different as Sky only bid for UK viewing, each country has separate rights for F1 I think? Certainly seem to be lots of different camera crews at the races?
Macrumors, the English premier league isnt one of the premier leagues in the world. It is THE top football league in the world, anyway you look at it, most viewers, most money, most interest.
Even if it is rumour & conjecture, the more I think about it, the more I feel it makes sense for Apple to at least consider the UK and the EPL as a test-market.
The Brits love their football in a tribalistic way that is not often understood outside of our little island off the coast of the European mainland. Football is THE sport. Attendances are healthy from the top end to the bottom leagues & we swallow content from SKY & ESPN (or BBC MOTD) like hungry hippos. If Apple make their service the bona fide way of accessing EPL content...then the masses will make sure that they have access to that method of obtaining the content. The loyalty is to the club...not the broadcaster.
They could then use this Trojan Horse to not-so-subtly push other content at people who had the Football as their "in".
Then it's just a case of chasing rights to IPL, NFL, F1 etc. etc. and dragging people (whether kicking & screaming or otherwise) to whatever new service/product it is that they have lurking in the wings for us to drool over.
My instinct is that Apple (if interested) would stick to the streaming element of the rights package. The steaming license is incredibly cheap when compared to the SKY broadcast deal due to it being a younger, less traditional delivery method and yet has huge potential to grow massively over the term of the license package, particularly if Apple get it right in terms of how the content is delivered to it's hardware (both existing and speculative)
As others have said, Apple is NOT a Network, nor do I imagine they have any desire to be, but if they stick to streaming, they could simply partner with someone like SKY/ESPN to deliver the programming content from their studios before stabbing them in the back in 5 year's time when the market split falls heavily in favour of streamed content.
The Brits love their football in a tribalistic way that is not often understood outside of our little island off the coast of the European mainland. Football is THE sport. Attendances are healthy from the top end to the bottom leagues & we swallow content from SKY & ESPN (or BBC MOTD) like hungry hippos. If Apple make their service the bona fide way of accessing EPL content...then the masses will make sure that they have access to that method of obtaining the content. The loyalty is to the club...not the broadcaster.
They could then use this Trojan Horse to not-so-subtly push other content at people who had the Football as their "in".
Then it's just a case of chasing rights to IPL, NFL, F1 etc. etc. and dragging people (whether kicking & screaming or otherwise) to whatever new service/product it is that they have lurking in the wings for us to drool over.
My instinct is that Apple (if interested) would stick to the streaming element of the rights package. The steaming license is incredibly cheap when compared to the SKY broadcast deal due to it being a younger, less traditional delivery method and yet has huge potential to grow massively over the term of the license package, particularly if Apple get it right in terms of how the content is delivered to it's hardware (both existing and speculative)
As others have said, Apple is NOT a Network, nor do I imagine they have any desire to be, but if they stick to streaming, they could simply partner with someone like SKY/ESPN to deliver the programming content from their studios before stabbing them in the back in 5 year's time when the market split falls heavily in favour of streamed content.