|
Post by madridgas on Nov 12, 2024 13:06:04 GMT
Interesting comments from the CEO of Cambridge United (Business of Sport on You Tube) suggest that the Sky Deal works for them, even with them recently having a crowd 1k down (albeit that might have been partly due to them being on their losing run).
EFL income has gone from £119m pa under iFollow to £179m pa. I was under the impression that iFollow income was split based on each clubs subscribers, but under the new Sky deal it is quoted as being 80% Championship / 12% League 1 / 8% League 2
So IF iFollow was on that basis, Rovers would have received £119m x 12% / 24 = £595k
They now get £179m x 12% / 24 = £895k. £300k more than last year + Overseas iFollow income still. The increase equates to £13k a game, so this weekend, with Tickets in the Thatchers for £20, we are talking about 650 fans. Less when you take into account drinks, food bought and that's not taking into account the atmosphere
Clearly if you are doing well with big / sell out crowds, it's great news, if you are down the bottom with crowds impacted, it's probably a great buffer. Certainly helps the clubs with small crowds best,
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Nov 12, 2024 13:12:22 GMT
I guess it depends on whether the SKY money outweighs the fans who don't pay on the day because they stay at home?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Nov 12, 2024 20:28:03 GMT
I thought the Sky money was also linked to how many of a club's games were shown live? I could be wrong but can you see Birmingham City etc accepting the same amount a season as Cambridge etc?
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 14, 2024 8:33:46 GMT
I suspect there is a lot of politics at play overall here. At face value Sky have overpaid for EFL rights at a time when the value of many other TV rights across Europe is stationary at best and falling at worst (although there are exceptions to that). Why do that unless there is a wider motive...?
I wouldn't be surprised if at some point the EFL/Premier League tries to change the number of teams/leagues to cut fixture congestion. Instead of 20 (PL) and 24 (Champ, L1 and L2) why not 16 (PL), 18 (PL2), 18 (Champ), 20 (L1) and 20 (L2)? Players and their unions would support it, most managers would be behind it and the increase in TV money from broadcasting more fixtures covers the loss of home fixtures/gate receipts. Creating PL2 (which I assume has been a plan for a long time but they couldn't figure out how to make it palatable) means that most clubs stay in the same tier, and many actually move up one.
Will it happen? Probably not, but it's now 32 years since the PL was created, and I think some are itching for more change...
|
|