Sky Sports/BBC - Women’s Super League v SPFL deal

bigy

bigy

Well-Known Member
Sky and BBC have just signed a 3 year deal with the FA to show the WSL (Women’s Super League). The deal is being reported to worth £8m per season.

How does this compare to the current SPFL deal?

I’d read somewhere it’s worth £26m per season but from the prize money on offer that doesn’t seem right.
 
Daft money for a few hundred viewers at the top end matches..dozens, if that's in Scotland.

As far as our game what we get, even the new improved contract from SKY is very poor. Maybe if they invested in it like down South our teams could have new stadia too and invest well in their infrastructure and it'd be a genuine investment for SKY to sell on like the EPL.
 
bigy said:
Sky and BBC have just signed a 3 year deal with the FA to show the WSL (Women’s Super League). The deal is being reported to worth £8m per season.

How does this compare to the current SPFL deal?

I’d read somewhere it’s worth £26m per season but from the prize money on offer that doesn’t seem right.
Click to expand...
£26m per season is the reported figure

www.bbc.co.uk

Sky wins exclusive Premiership rights in £160m deal

Scottish Premiership matches will be shown live only on Sky Sports from 2020 after the SPFL strikes a new broadcast deal worth £160m.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
If the SPFL was properly run then we would a better deal but at £26m a season for 48 live game plus 6 play-offs compered to Sky and BBC are paying for the WSL for 66 games surely must be better?

WSL are trying to market themselves better and the FA are beginning to win on that
 
Would it not be feasible for the SPFL to setup its own streaming service?

500K subscribers for £100 a season = £50m

obvs thats simplified, but Id pay that for all SPFL games
 
TheEgg said:
Would it not be feasible for the SPFL to setup its own streaming service?

500K subscribers for £100 a season = £50m

obvs thats simplified, but Id pay that for all SPFL games
Click to expand...
The "SPL TV" idea of around 20 years ago was pretty much this and was widely ridiculed as pie in the sky. In hindsight, the idea was probably ahead of its time - we now have dedicated channels available in the UK with La Liga TV as well as Sky's EPL channel.

I think in the modern climate the idea is feasible with regards to infrastructure - clubs film and broadcast their home games anyway and have been doing so for years, either live to outside the UK or on delay via their club media channels. A lot of the leagues in various sports now offer their own in-house streaming services. Bigger leagues like the NFL, NHL etc operate these services in conjunction with existing TV coverage. Personally I think the EPL could very well go this route in the next 10 years or so or at the very least, piggy back off Amazon.

The massive obstacle for an SPFL service would be getting the required number of subscribers to make it financially viable - which the main stumbling block 20 years ago. I also think that Rangers won't be too keen in giving up the live game coverage for overseas fans into a collective streaming deal.
 
haven't we not lost money as well due to the decision to giving them the pandemic title last season?

whoever is in charge of WSL is probably doing their job for all the clubs, not Dungcaster who is poodle to one team
 
Blueranger45 said:
haven't we not lost money as well due to the decision to giving them the pandemic title last season?

whoever is in charge of WSL is probably doing their job for all the clubs, not Dungcaster who is poodle to one team
Click to expand...
Yes depends on what you read

There also was a post on here at the start of season stating that the SPFL give Sky 13 extra games as part of the agreement for this season only - 39 games have been selected upto yesterday
 
superallythe2nd said:
The "SPL TV" idea of around 20 years ago was pretty much this and was widely ridiculed as pie in the sky. In hindsight, the idea was probably ahead of its time - we now have dedicated channels available in the UK with La Liga TV as well as Sky's EPL channel.

I think in the modern climate the idea is feasible with regards to infrastructure - clubs film and broadcast their home games anyway and have been doing so for years, either live to outside the UK or on delay via their club media channels. A lot of the leagues in various sports now offer their own in-house streaming services. Bigger leagues like the NFL, NHL etc operate these services in conjunction with existing TV coverage. Personally I think the EPL could very well go this route in the next 10 years or so or at the very least, piggy back off Amazon.

The massive obstacle for an SPFL service would be getting the required number of subscribers to make it financially viable - which the main stumbling block 20 years ago. I also think that Rangers won't be too keen in giving up the live game coverage for overseas fans into a collective streaming deal.
Click to expand...

we would still own overseas rights though, SPFL TV would have UK rights only.

even 250k at £100 a season (half what RTV charges) would cover the current deal

250k subs should be pretty easy once you factor in us and the scums fan base
 
rangeral said:
If the SPFL was properly run then we would a better deal but at £26m a season for 48 live game plus 6 play-offs compered to Sky and BBC are paying for the WSL for 66 games surely must be better?

WSL are trying to market themselves better and the FA are beginning to win on that
Click to expand...
Rangers and the scvm are on live telly every week. It’s an atrocious deal for both. Also need to get rid of those plastic pitches. For a neutral it’s unwatchable and you’re not going to waste a couple of hours watching heidba’
 
TheEgg said:
we would still own overseas rights though, SPFL TV would have UK rights only.

even 250k at £100 a season (half what RTV charges) would cover the current deal

250k subs should be pretty easy once you factor in us and the scums fan base
Click to expand...
You're neglecting the costs of staffing, equipment, advertising, broadcast licensing, etc., which would have to be paid out of an SPFL TV system. The £26 million/season we currently get with Sky has them paying all of these costs.
 
My better half was a Scottish Internationalist away back, and looks at the standards which are no better than away back. Any Woman’s sport must be viewed totally different and in most cases inferior to Male sport, due to physical build. As for the amount paid it’s absolutely ridiculous. As for anyone with a young girl who wants to play football Pro, get them to concentrate on being a Goalkeeper, as from what I’ve seen at least 90+% are Crap, I cringe watching them.
 
bigy said:
Sky and BBC have just signed a 3 year deal with the FA to show the WSL (Women’s Super League). The deal is being reported to worth £8m per season.

How does this compare to the current SPFL deal?

I’d read somewhere it’s worth £26m per season but from the prize money on offer that doesn’t seem right.
Click to expand...
It was £30m a season for five years, but Doncaster reduced it to £26m a year to give the poets a title.
 
Discombob said:
You're neglecting the costs of staffing, equipment, advertising, broadcast licensing, etc., which would have to be paid out of an SPFL TV system. The £26 million/season we currently get with Sky has them paying all of these costs.
Click to expand...

A sub of more than £100 per annum would cover those costs though, even a £20 per month sub (£240 per annum) equals £60m a season.

I get Im over simplifying things, but if the product was RTV quality for all SPL games a sub of between £10 and £20 pounds surely wouldnt be out of the realms of possibility
 
TheEgg said:
Would it not be feasible for the SPFL to setup its own streaming service?

500K subscribers for £100 a season = £50m

obvs thats simplified, but Id pay that for all SPFL games
Click to expand...

I wouldn't, rather watch illegal streams than pay them a penny.
 
Female sports will continue to grow. Especially with media organisations getting behind them. Firstly, the rights are very cheap and secondly, it's good PR for them and makes them socially conscious.
 
RfcIbrox said:
Rangers and the scvm are on live telly every week. It’s an atrocious deal for both. Also need to get rid of those plastic pitches. For a neutral it’s unwatchable and you’re not going to waste a couple of hours watching heidba’
Click to expand...
Yes i know most of the TV deal is made up of us and them but it down to those market the game better

228 games in the Premiership yet just 48 appear on a mainstream broadcaster at a price which is decent but could be better

But compering it to the WSL deal is daft
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top