"What is absolutely certain is that, with the greatest respect to our colleagues in the Premier League, if you’re a Bolton fan in Bolton, you subscribe to Sky because you want to watch Bolton. Everyone gets that. Likewise, if you’re a Liverpool fan from Liverpool, you subscribe. But if you’re in Kuala Lumpur there isn’t anyone subscribing to Astro or ESPN to watch Bolton, or if they are, it is a very small number."
Ian Ayre, Managing Director, Liverpool FC
In truth, Ian Ayre was not just making a case for Liverpool negotiating its own foreign broadcasting rights – although RTG admits that we are not clear as to what he is really saying. However, if you read between the lines of his statement he is saying that the entire system for sharing Premier League TV revenue is unfair be it in the UK or abroad. Yes, we understand that the deal for selling rights abroad, where all revenue is split equally, with 5% going to each club, is perhaps particularly weighted against clubs like Liverpool and Manchester United. Their following abroad is far greater than most. But if you’re against the collective approach in one arena then you are surely against it full stop. It is totally illogical to highlight it as a problem in one area and not the other.
Thankfully, for the moment, it seems that the rest of the Premier League clubs are not so keen, yet, on backing Liverpool in its stance. That may well change and become more urgent for those clubs who will fail UEFA’s new Financial Fair Play rules. For the Premier League to be viable as a viewing spectacle, and for clubs at lower levels to compete, there must be a degree of revenue sharing. In England last season, champions Manchester United picked up £60.4m in revenue as against £39.1m for lowest earners, relegated Blackpool – only around 50% more. Compare this situation to La Liga in Spain where Real Madrid and Barcelona negotiate their own TV deals. There, Madrid earned 19 times more TV revenue than teams finishing lower down the league. La Liga has reached the point where only two teams are ever likely to win the championship. The European Union has spent the best part of 50 years attempting to ensure fair and equitable trading conditions for all 27 member states, and yet, for football it totally ignores these inequities.
Just because the proposal has received such a negative response, doesn’t mean we can be complacent about it. As commercialism becomes increasingly more important than the sport of football itself, it is surely only a matter of time before the need to boost revenues in the short-term will outweigh the desire for a revenue-sharing collective that looks after the interests of the sport itself. In 2005, Chelsea first put the issue of self-negotiation of TV deals to the vote, presumably in a bid to meet Peter Kenyon’s 2010 break-even target. They were defeated 19 to one by the other clubs. It takes 14 Premier League clubs to vote in favour of any motion to change the way the Premier League operates. The greater number of rich, foreign owners we allow to take over clubs in a bid to compete financially, or even just to survive, the more the likelihood that commercial interests will eventually supersede any emotional ties that exist in preserving English football.
In RTG’s opinion, the whole issue of football on TV needs to be re-thought and given a total makeover in order to protect the interests of supporters and the game of football that we love, rather than a few wealthy owners, the Premier League and Sky TV. We don’t profess to have all the answers but we do know that our interests are not currently being looked after.
Take the present situation with Sky Sports. The current model is based on a previous time when we had precious little live football on TV. We pay a monthly fee to watch the games that Sky chooses for us to watch rather than the game we choose to watch. Those supporters who choose to attend live matches have to fit around the needs of TV scheduling – like it or lump it. We live in a time now where there is so much more live football on TV that this current model is outdated. Surely supporters should be given what they need – not what Sky wishes to push out. To add insult to injury, football supporters end up having to subsidise other minority sports such as Premier League darts, fishing and masturbation for the unemployed aka Aerobics Oz Style.
Consider this idea from RTG. At a fixed time over the weekend, every game in the Premier League is shown live and we pay to watch the game we want to watch. A recent report in the Guardian stated that there is a worldwide annual audience of 304 billion people for Premier League football. If only one pound was charged to watch these matches (ie £304,000,000,000!) this would totally dwarf the current £1.4 billion per annum deal that Richard Scudamore so proudly boasts about. The Premier League could commission its own broadcaster to show these matches on a pay per view or offer a variety of tailored packages, with occasional free to air matches, at different kick-off times to stimulate interest. The revenue would still be shared out among the clubs with home gates being a factor in how much goes to each club. Yes, it would favour clubs with bigger grounds and with more support but the onus would then be on clubs to improve their grounds, get more supporters through the turnstiles and improve the match day experience all round. With more money coming into the game rather than going into the pockets of Rupert Murdoch, Sky and the Premier League executives, clubs could afford to lower prices in order to fill up and improve their grounds. The more supporters they get into the ground, the more money they get from the TV revenue. The end result of this would be:
1. Supporters would be able to watch the match of their choice;
2. Clubs would be encouraged to fill their grounds and would have the money to improve stadia comfort and access;
3. We would not be contributing to the coffers of Murdoch and Sky but our money would go back into the game;
4. Tickets for fans to go to games would be cheaper as well as the match day experience being a lot better.
At some point in the future, it is inevitable that all games will be shown live. We should anticipate and embrace this significant change and not wait for a handful of self interested owners and administrators to dictate its terms. Let us state again, we don’t have all the answers here and this model would have to be debated thoroughly. But it gives the game back to its customers – the supporters. If we carry on down the road we are currently going, the money will increasingly be concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy people to the detriment of supporters and football itself. Sign up and help us to Reclaim the Game.
