Superleague talks

[OskarOskarius]

Amazon will have the rights from 2021 onwards, it is unlikely that they are going to pay much more than before as viewership has fallen in recent years. Sky subscription costs 15 euros per month, for example the second leg between FC Bayern and Chelsea had 490.000 viewers and the final 1.040.000 viewers in their network.

Truth with modification. Amazon have the right for tuesday evening matches. The rest is owned by DAZN. Exception being the final which will be broadcasted by DAZN and ZDF. In the source below it is evident that the price DAZN/Amazon paid was substantially higher than the previous deal owned by Sky, which is why Sky opted out. The same happened in Sweden, where Telia substantially outbid NENT. ”Bild reported that DAZN had won the rights to all other matches. It quoted Sky Deutschland Chief Executive Carsten Schmidt as saying the broadcaster had fought hard for the rights but had not been prepared to pay the high price to win them.” You have quoted an old TV deal while I quoted new media deals for Italy, Spain, France and UK which is the explanation for the low €200 million price.

Source

 

[OskarOskarius]

Would just like to make this point: The markets outside of Europe are going to be more important to those in charge because they are viewed as ones with potential for growth while Europe is pretty much tapped out (this is actually happening in American sports as well). Whether one feels this is desirable is besides the point because it's what is happening and will continue to happen.

That’s like saying Africa is a more important market to Apple than the US. The new cycle saw substantial increases. Telias deal for instance is worth €100 million/season. That’s maybe a 100 % increase from the previous cycle and very close to what the Americans and Chinese pay.

 

[Albatros]

Truth with modification. Amazon have the right for tuesday evening matches. The rest is owned by DAZN. Exception being the final which will be broadcasted by DAZN and ZDF. In the source below it is evident that the price DAZN/Amazon paid was substantially higher than the previous deal owned by Sky, which is why Sky opted out.

Most of the games are completely unprofitable ballast. DAZN subscription costs 12 euros per month, you can calculate roughly how many subscriptions they have to sell before they can dream of breaking even. Amazon Prime is 8 euros.

 

[OskarOskarius]

Most of the games are completely unprofitable ballast. DAZN subscription costs 12 euros per month, you can calculate roughly how many subscriptions they have to sell before they can dream of breaking even. Amazon Prime is 8 euros.

I could, but why would I? DAZN isn’t making money. But it’s a start-up, so that’s that.

 

[Albatros]

Hard to see where they would get the money to lose hundreds of millions of euros more annually. Especially as some of Sky's existing customers will be more likely to switch to their Austrian service which will continue to include the Champions League also in the future.

 

[OskarOskarius]

Hard to see where they would get the money to lose hundreds of millions of euros more annually. Especially as some of Sky's existing customers will be more likely to switch to their Austrian service which will continue to include the Champions League also in the future.

It’s a growth company. In last half of 2019 they doubled their number of subscribers from 4 to over 8 million. Their priority right now is not to make money but win markets shares. They report losses but most of those losses are due to high investments in content. They are doing what Spotify and Netflix have been doing for over a decade. As long as there are willing investors they will continue.

 

[Albatros]

It's not just about content but also about the fact that they're an online streaming service that is not even available in television.

 

[OskarOskarius]

It's not just about content but also about the fact that they're an online streaming service that is not even available in television.

DAZN applies for German linear distribution licence

 

[Albatros]

They already have several such licences, they are used to broadcast the games in sports bars and other such establishments. Of course they could also establish a TV channel in the future, but at the moment there's nothing of the sort.

 

[OskarOskarius]

They already have several such licences, they are used to broadcast the games in sports bars and other such establishments. Of course they could also establish a TV channel in the future, but at the moment there's nothing of the sort.

Do you have a point or are you just trying to bore me to death?

 

[Voight]

So now their goal is to destroy Champions League, Liverpool and Man U can f*** off. Best part of Champions League is when you get Cinderella runs.

And like the last attempt, at least 3 of the big English clubs were not supportive of it, so lets not assume that all 6 are supportive of the idea.

I believe the FA was making noise about not allowing any English teams to join.

Perez has wanted this for more than a decade.

I don't think they are burying the lead, Just that Perez and Real should've been included with Liverpool and Man U.

Would teams still have to follow FFP rules if this isn't UEFA sanctioned? If the answer is no, makes sense why Perez as well as the other big dogs want their own super league.

 

[spintheblackcircle]

 

[Voight]

Is that not collusion? Or at least unethical?

 

[Islay1989]

Is that not collusion? Or at least unethical?

Ethics in a billion dollar business? Surely you jest.

 

[Voight]

Ethics in a billion dollar business? Surely you jest.

Stupid me forgot FIFA and ethics dont belong and will never be in the same sentence

 

[sabremike]

Imagine a World Cup without any of the best players in the world. I mean this isl such a laughably empty threat.

 

[hatterson]

Imagine a World Cup without any of the best players in the world. I mean this isl such a laughably empty threat.

I think the point is to try to scare the players so they (hopefully) put pressure on the clubs not to join such a league, but you're right, I can't fathom them actually choosing to hold a WC without the players from the top 15-20 teams in the world.

 

[Franck]

I don't see the news here. FIFA are obviously not going to approve of any kind of football being played outside of their and their member associations sanction.

 

[Dr Salt]

I don't see the news here. FIFA are obviously not going to approve of any kind of football being played outside of their and their member associations sanction.

Agreed though I'm happy they are stepping in anyways.

 

[gary69]

I think the point is to try to scare the players so they (hopefully) put pressure on the clubs not to join such a league, but you're right, I can't fathom them actually choosing to hold a WC without the players from the top 15-20 teams in the world.

And those super league clubs would probably organize a tournament between their players of same nationality, to rival a World cup at same time.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

The fact FIFA felt compelled to make such a statement shows the threat is more real than ever actually. It's meant to say "if you do this, there'll be a fight, so knock it off" but they wouldn't feel the need to publish such attempts at intimidation if they didn't think this thing was real.

 

[Jersey Fresh]

Fan backlash will do more to scupper this than empty FIFA threats.

 

[Albatros]

And those super league clubs would probably organize a tournament between their players of same nationality, to rival a World cup at same time.

It would be a very small tournament given the number of players available.

 

[cgf]

It would be a very small tournament given the number of players available.

But it would still draw enough viewers from FIFA's tournament that FIFA would be forced to back off of this threat before the next tournament.

 

[cgf]

Fan backlash will do more to scupper this than empty FIFA threats.

I'm not sure that's true. At least not amongst fans of those giants and neutrals interested in watching top-level football.