Will pay-TV coverage of the English Premiership persist?

A few months ago, I would have answered this question with a resounding, though slightly resigned, 'yes'. But a couple of articles I've read in recent days have made me think again. First, I found the latest update in the case of Karen Murphy, the Southsea publican who recently lost her appeal to the High Court to show live Premiership football in her pub, which she had accessed via (much cheaper) Greek satellite feeds. The court found this had breached UK broadcast rights, owned exclusively by Sky. But the High Court has not yet considered whether Ms Murphy - and others like her - are supported by European law. EU laws promote competition and free movement of goods, services and people across the EU, and Ms Murphy's lawyers will argue that they apply to broadcast services just as they apply to many other goods that UK nationals purchase from their European neighbours (such as cars, food, DVDs, books, etc). The court's decision on this point could have widespread implications for sports broadcasting in the UK. Definitely one to watch. (BBC article here)

The second article that made me question the sustainability of the 'pay to view' model was about China (linked via the title of this post). Apparently, Chinese football fans have deserted televised Premiership matches in their droves - as soon as they had to pay, in fact! From a potential audience of some 30 million Chinese football fans, WinTV has managed to secure just 20,000 subscribers to Premiership games. Where have the rest of the fans gone? Well, since Chinese fans just want to watch good football, often without a strong club or league preference, most have switched to the Italian, French or German leagues - all of which are still free to view. Sounds like an own goal for the FA, doesn't it?

Sucking the passion out of sport

I read an article in Newsweek today (click on the title above to link to it) that seemed to me to sum up much of what has gone wrong with sport in Europe and North America - and perhaps elsewhere too. The article documented the careers of twin brothers Brett and Michael Yormark, presidents of the Florida panthers and New Jersey Mets respectively. They have made their money by selling every possible marketing space available to them through the sports franchises they have been involved in.

As the Newsweek journalist put it:
" To them, teams are merely the magnetic "show" for drawing an audience of consumers... Where fans see a stadium, Brett and Michael see acres of monetizable space—or, as they say on Madison Avenue, "inventory." Victory for them isn't necessarily the final score. The Yormarks' game is to help their "marketing partners," as the sponsors are known, win over new and repeat customers—the fans who are watching live (and on TV), engulfed in a blaze of logos, brand names and ads displayed on monitors, scoreboards and announcer tables. "

The Newsweek piece seems to confirm that sports fans have become pawns in other's get-rich-quick schemes. The sport itself seems secondary - indeed, the article suggests that the people running many of today's sports clubs don't actually care whether the club wins or loses, as long as advertising and related revenues are generated. How can this be squared with the needs and interests of fans? Do they welcome being 'engulfed' in advertisements? What happens to the club/franchise if they don't buy the goods that are on offer? On the other hand, if they do, then the money keeps flowing in - and managers and players get paid handsomely even if they perform badly...

I don't suppose that anyone is suggesting that all this money be taken out of sport (well, some are, but not many). But asking questions about how it is generated and, more importantly, how it is used would seem legitimate. It would be great if clubs and franchises were to give some simple explanations in return.

Do we have some powerful friends?

An interesting article on BBC online last night. Click on the title above to link to the relevant web page. Meanwhile, here's an extract:

' Minister slams 'obscene' salaries

Sports minister Gerry Sutcliffe has condemned Chelsea captain John Terry's salary as "obscene" while criticising Manchester United's ticket prices. Sutcliffe believes the sky-high wages and ticket prices are alienating fans.

Speaking at a sports summit in London, Sutcliffe said: "Good luck to John, but it is obscene to be on £150,000 a week. And United season tickets went up by 13% - holders have to automatically buy European and Carling Cup games at £200, that takes it away from ordinary fans." '

It's encouraging that UK ministers are highlighting some of the challenges inherent in today's sports 'market'. It may mean some kind of policy response is likely - though what, exactly, would that look like?

At the end of the day, these challenges are ones that sports governing bodies and clubs need to address collectively. It is, after all, in their own interest to do so, since the current situation is clearly unsustainable - particularly in football, which has been dubbed 'the game that ate itself' (source: the Guardian - an article highlighting the looming crisis in UK football 3 years ago!)... We need action, or there will be nothing left to eat!

A word about voting rights

First, I want to apologise for what may seem to be an outrageously undemocratic poll - the one through which you 'vote' to show your support opposite. I realise that this is a false vote, in that there is only one option to vote for (you don't even have 'reopen nominations' or RON as he's called...). I'm afraid that was the only technology available to me - or, at least, that I understood how to operate - so as to allow people to show support for the Campaign for the Democratisation of Sport! No (ironic) disenfranchisement intended...

Second, there are some other good options for making your voice heard on this issue. Again, no 'votes' as such. But links to two current petitions are also given opposite. Please sign up if you are remotely moved to do so! The first is the Football Supporters Federation petition to keep 'away fan' ticket prices affordable - this is quite good fun, because when you sign an email is automatically sent in your name to all the English Premiership Clubs! Of course, what you get back is an autoreply of some sort - but it's quite good fun seeing an email arrive in your in-box from 'Arsenal FC' or 'West Ham', etc. The other link is for the petition to the England and Wales Cricket Board, and is essentially geared at keeping major cricket matches 'free to view' on terrestrial television.

I'm off to hunt for more! Let's make our feelings known...

Who owns sport these days?

It's an interesting question - and it's the basis for our campaign. Increasingly, the big sports clubs are owned and controlled by equally big private interests. In the US, it's not uncommon for baseball 'franchises' to be owned by huge conglomerates. In the UK, there is a growing trend in football of clubs being bought up by millionnaire businessmen. Often these owners contribute significant investment - in new facilities and new players, for example. But the fans still drive the business, through gate receipts, merchandise and by paying to watch sporting events on television. The net flow of investment is generally from the fans to the sport. Yet fans are often excluded from decisions that affect their access to and enjoyment of their chosen game...

Over the coming months, we will be investigating how the world of sport is evolving - where the money is, how decisions are taken, how accessible it all is. Please send us your comments. And, if the way sport is evolving concerns you too, please join our campaign!