Premier League will refuse to allow live-streams of matches on their official websites.

[SpiderSpurs]

No iFollow type streaming service for the PL.

Clubs miss out on cash lifeline in major financial blow as Premier League will refuse to allow live-streams of matches on their official websites

• Clubs want to be able to give fans access to games on their official websites
• Opportunity to sell live streams would give them much needed financial boost
• It could help offset expected loss of £100m-a-month gate receipts during crisis
• But clubs have been told that the Premier League will not be permitting it

By MATT HUGHES and MIKE KEEGAN FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 22:30, 6 October 2020 | UPDATED: 00:56, 7 October 2020

Premier League clubs have suffered another major financial blow after being told they will not be permitted to sell live-streams of matches on their websites.

Clubs have been lobbying the Premier League to follow the EFL by setting up a streaming service for matches not scheduled for live broadcast in the continued absence of fans. This could generate tens of millions of pounds each month across the 20 clubs to help offset the anticipated loss of £100million-a-month gate receipts.

The clubs will meet next week to finalise broadcasting arrangements for the rest of October, but Sportsmail has learned the Premier League will not bow to pressure to set up their own version of the EFL’s iFollow system.

Several clubs have pushed for a similar direct-to-consumer sales model to be introduced in the top flight for the 160 out of 380 matches that were not sold to rights-holders Sky Sports, BT Sport and Amazon Prime, but this is not being pursued due to concerns that in the long term it would undermine the Premier League’s commercial value.

Sky Sports and BT have made clear their opposition to clubs streaming matches on the grounds that it would reduce the value of their exclusive live rights, leading to fears at the Premier League that they could demand rebates.

The 20 clubs have agreed to pay Sky a £330m rebate for the interruption to their schedules caused by last season’s shutdown, and are understandably anxious not to risk being liable for another refund.

Clubs miss out on cash lifeline as Prem rejects live-stream proposal

EXCLUSIVE: Sportsmail has learned the Premier League will not bow to pressure to set up their own version of the EFL's iFollow system. It is a significant financial blow to top flight teams.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Gmspurs]

Course they won't allow it...... Bunch of self serving tossers who don't care one bit about football - just money and how much they can fleece out of the fans.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Arnt the PL an organisation made up by their member clubs?

 

[Mandy]

Arnt the PL an organisation made up by their member clubs?

I have a vague recollection of something like that too so I looked it up on Wiki....

The Football Association Premier League Ltd (FAPL) is operated as a corporation and is owned by the 20 member clubs. Each club is a shareholder, with one vote each on issues such as rule changes and contracts. The clubs elect a chairman, chief executive, and board of directors to oversee the daily operations of the league. The Football Association is not directly involved in the day-to-day operations of the Premier League, but has veto power as a special shareholder during the election of the chairman and chief executive and when new rules are adopted by the league.

I don't really know how it works in practice though. Logically you'd expect decisions to be put to a vote so that the club's have a say, but perhaps not.

 

[r-u-s-x]

I have a vague recollection of something like that too so I looked it up on Wiki....


I don't really know how it works in practice though. Logically you'd expect decisions to be put to a vote so that the club's have a say, but perhaps not.

It happens most of the time for rules etc but I would guess that they give TV rights to a separate "company" to sell the exclusive rights, they have voted to do this.

*I thought abought it since comment, clubs have the choice to sell exclusively but have already voted to do that.

 

[SpiderSpurs]

Course they won't allow it...... Bunch of self serving tossers who don't care one bit about football - just money and how much they can fleece out of the fans.

Was talking to a Walsall fan the other day, as a ST holder he's been given full access (free) to iFollow for the rest of the season.

 

[The Swellhead Spur]

Its just a matter of time until clubs will stream their games, I'd pay £200 a year to watch every Spurs game on the official site with no ex ass or man utd commentators trashing the game

 

[Johnboy40]

It will happen one day, when they lose collective bargaining. Apparently the dippers are well in favour. They, I have read in the past, think the current TV money should be split along lines that don't include sporting merit. They allegedly figure that whilst TV money will drop, they and a few clubs, will make up the shortfall through streaming. And who cares if Bournemouth go bust.

Personally, I think Bezos is having his bean counters work out if his experiment with the rights has been worth it financially. If it is, they will blow Sky & BT out of the water next time round. Especially if Brexit means they don't have to split the broadcaster,( which was down to the EU in the first place. Apparently exclusive rights wasn't fair on the consumer. Having to pay twice to different providers is much fairer to us).

 

[Incomplete_usernam]

Would much rather pay the club a few hundred a year and have unbiased commentators on our games and be able to watch all our games than have to watch the shit Sky and BT serve up.