Liverpool threaten breakaway from Premier League's TV rights deal

[Iceman]

Liverpool threaten breakaway from Premier League's TV rights deal | Football | The Guardian

 

• Current deal sees top-flight clubs share billions of pounds

• Liverpool's managing director Ian Ayre raises alternative

 

The deal that shares television's billions equally between Premier League clubs is facing its biggest threat to date after Liverpool announced they would lead a challenge for overseas TV rights to be sold on a club-by-club basis.

 

Liverpool's managing director, Ian Ayre, has insisted the break-up of the established broadcasting deal, worth £3.2bn in total to all Premier League clubs for 2010‑13, is "a debate that has to happen", with the Anfield club in favour of the Spanish model that allows Barcelona and Real Madrid to negotiate individual contracts that dwarf their domestic and European rivals.

 

Since the Premier League's foundation in 1992 its success has been largely based on the principle of collective selling, where each club no matter how lowly can expect a fixed share of TV deals with "merit" awards for finishing positions as an add‑on. Changing this model would risk revolt from the smaller clubs who stand to lose most, and thus threatens the league's very structure.

 

At present, the Premier League sells domestic and overseas broadcasting rights collectively and more than doubled international revenue in its last negotiations, from £625m for 2007‑10 to £1.4bn for 2010‑13. With the Premier League shown in 212 countries and having 98 broadcast partners around the world, it is expected the next deal will show a similar increase, with overseas rights potentially worth more than domestic for the first time.

 

Ayre believes the Premier League's four biggest global draws – Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal – deserve an increased share from 2013, with overseas broadcasting having a greater influence on the Anfield club's financial future than a new stadium. "Personally I think the game-changer is going out and recognising our brand globally," said the Liverpool managing director. "Maybe the path will be individual TV rights like they do in Spain. There are so many things moving in that particular area.

 

"What is absolutely certain is that, with the greatest of respect to our colleagues in the Premier League, but if you're a Bolton fan in Bolton, then 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's a very small number. Whereas the large majority are subscribing because they want to watch Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea or Arsenal.

 

"So is it right that the international rights are shared equally between all the clubs? Some people will say: 'Well you've got to all be in it to make it happen.' But isn't it really about where the revenue is coming from, which is the broadcaster, and isn't it really about who people want to watch on that channel? We know it is us. And others. At some point we definitely feel there has to be some rebalance on that, because what we are actually doing is disadvantaging ourselves against other big European clubs."

 

It would require 14 of the Premier League's 20 members to vote in favour of a new commercial arrangement. Though Sir Alex Ferguson recently described the collective deal as "fair", albeit while insisting clubs deserved more from overseas rights, and La Liga's system has attracted widespread criticism, Ayre believes the status quo jeopardises the financial might of the Premier League.

 

"If Real Madrid or Barcelona or other big European clubs have the opportunity to truly realise their international media value potential, where does that leave Liverpool and Manchester United? We'll just share ours because we'll all be nice to each other? The whole phenomenon of the Premier League could be threatened. If they just get bigger and bigger and they generate more and more, then all the players will start drifting that way and will the Premier League bubble burst because we are sticking to this equal-sharing model? It's a real debate that has to happen."

 

Liverpool insist their radical proposals are limited to overseas broadcasting, although success on that front could set a precedent domestically in the long term, and the club plans to raise the issue at the next Premier League meeting. Ayre's frank admission comes almost one year on from Fenway Sports Group acquiring the club from Tom Hicks and George Gillett in the high court and, along with broadcasting revenue, another major financial decision to be resolved by the American owners remains whether to construct a new stadium or redevelop their current home, Anfield.

 

Liverpool's managing director insists the club are pursuing "a parallel course" on both options, with planning regulations complicating the redevelopment of Anfield and the financial benefits of a new-build uncertain, although Ayre admits the latter option is only viable with a naming rights deal. "We have been in discussions here and in other parts of the world with a small group of people that we have narrowed down that we are targeting for naming rights. That is an absolute catalyst to building a new stadium. The economics just don't stack up without it.

 

"When will the decision be made? It'll only be when we reach an answer with both. It's hard to put a time on it. If you put a deadline on the naming rights, then you start to marginalise the deal. We aren't desperate. We think we have an amazing proposition as one of the biggest clubs in the world. I don't recall any football club of this size with this international reach that's ever done a naming rights deal. It is quite unique in that sense. Barcelona, Real Madrid and Manchester United haven't. Nobody in football has done this at this level. It's new ground and it will take what it takes."

 

Ayre, along with the former Liverpool chairman Martin Broughton, ex-chief executive Christian Purslow and Fenway Sports Group, remains the subject of a £1bn lawsuit filed by Hicks and Gillett over the events surrounding their departure last October. "It's an unwanted and unwelcome distraction. That's their prerogative but we remain extremely confident that we did the right thing," he said. The Liverpool MD offered his resignation to John W Henry following FSG's victory in the high court, and admits the five-times European champions could have entered administration had Hicks and Gillett retained control.

 

"Certainly the bank had the power to call in the debt and at the time there wasn't anyone ready to take on that debt. So I guess the answer to that [would Liverpool have gone into administration] is yes. It's hypothetical but based on where we were and based on the circumstances at the time that was a very real threat. That was the case in the final hours. That was one of the other routes we could have gone down."

[Guest ShoePiss]

There's no way 14 of the 20 clubs would support this idea. Instead of doing what Barca and Real Madrid are doing those clubs should be forced to share the tv revenue more fairly with the rest of La Liga. I know there's been some effort there but UEFA need to do something.

 

The situation with Barca and Madrid isn't fair on premier league teams right now and when FFP kicks it's even more of an unfair advantage.

[moof]

We should be allowed to negotiate our own deal, defo. Why should we share our money with Norwich and fucking Stoke?

[theghost]

I'll just leave this here.

 

"The socialism I believe in is everybody working for the same goal and everybody having a share in the rewards. That's how I see football, that's how I see life."

[Newport]

I think it's quite disgusting. It's not fair and I don't want it to be like in Spain. We've still got a lot more financial potential ahead of most other clubs without the TV money.

[dirk grout]

We should be allowed to negotiate our own deal, defo. Why should we share our money with Norwich and fucking Stoke?

 

See above.

[Newport]

 

"The socialism I believe in is everybody working for the same goal and everybody having a share in the rewards. That's how I see football, that's how I see life."

 

Exactly. The other clubs are just as much part of the league as we are.

[Guest the boy]

Why should we be forced to share it equally? Liverpool Football Club is a global brand, and it's about time we started treating it that way.

 

You nothing whatsoever of what you're talking about. As it stands, club such as ourselves, United, Barca, Inter and Bayern are hamstrung by the likes of Paris St Germain and Man. City, who can roll in under sugar daddies without paying any penalty whatsoever in domestic or European condition. We are sharing revenue with the likes of Wigan, Blackburn and QPR, whilst contributing a far greater portion of audience which contributes to that revenues.

 

The money earned from tv deals is essentially subsided from advertisement and sponsorship. It's about time that we begin to ask, how many people will watch Manchester City vs. Malaga in European competition versus how many will watch Barcelona vs. Liverpool. The only people whose interests lie in sugar-daddy clubs are the sugar-daddyies themselves. Both UEFA and their sponsors will be concerned with fitting as many of the brand 'giants' as possible into their competition. If they do not, then it is simply a matter of time before a European split-off league is established. You need only follow the comments of Paolillo, Rummenige, Ayre, Gill, Henry, Kroneke etc.

[dirk grout]

We should be allowed to negotiate our own deal, defo. Why should we share our money with Norwich and fucking Stoke?

 

In fact, why don't we just fuck norwich, stoke and the rest off and join a european super league? Far more money for us. Better still, lets move half if not all of the games to the far east or the us, again, lots more money for us.

[dirk grout]

Why should we be forced to share it equally? Liverpool Football Club is a global brand, and it's about time we started treating it that way.

 

You nothing whatsoever of what you're talking about. As it stands, club such as ourselves, United, Barca, Inter and Bayern are hamstrung by the likes of Paris St Germain and Man. City, who can roll in under sugar daddies without paying any penalty whatsoever in domestic or European condition. We are sharing revenue with the likes of Wigan, Blackburn and QPR, whilst contributing a far greater portion of audience which contributes to that revenues.

 

The money earned from tv deals is essentially subsided from advertisement and sponsorship. It's about time that we begin to ask, how many people will watch Manchester City vs. Malaga in European competition versus how many will watch Barcelona vs. Liverpool. The only people whose interests lie in sugar-daddy clubs are the sugar-daddyies themselves. Both UEFA and their sponsors will be concerned with fitting as many of the brand 'giants' as possible into their competition. If they do not, then it is simply a matter of time before a European split-off league is established. You need only follow the comments of Paolillo, Rummenige, Ayre, Gill, Henry, Kroneke etc.

 

I totally agree with the bit in bold. The rest is almost impossible to comprehend.

[etho]

It's going to happen eventually unfortunately, i'm just disappointed, but not surprised given that the owners are clearly very commercially savvy media operators who want liverpool to be successful, but ultimately want to make money and we are in a business sense an enormous global brand, almost on a par with Mcdonalds, which shares it's revenue with smaller clubs. So from a commercial view it makes sense.

 

That said, Chelsea came along and made football a bit worse, but I learned to live with it once I saw it wasn't a bottomless pit and others could compete on the same scale. What's happening at Man City is a farce, and for me it's ruining football. Which players are going to be loyal and not go to them when they pay double what most other clubs can afford to pay (see Nasri for Arsenal)

 

and this for me would be the nail in the coffin. An uncompetitive premier league (yes the same clubs usually finish high now, but at least any of those teams can be beaten by any other) would lead towards the inevitable in a few years, the European Super League.

 

I don't want the European Super league, I want football as I love it now (or did until Man City came along), and while I would watch it, would it ever be the same again?

[moof]

We're one of the best supported teams in the world. Yet we have to dilute our earnings to share with the no mark teams who have 1/10th of the earning potential we have. Liverpool FC is a business, not a charity.

[Guest ShoePiss]

We should be allowed to negotiate our own deal, defo. Why should we share our money with Norwich and fucking Stoke?

 

To the detriment of the domestic league, future home grown players and the national team? Fuck off with that selfish shite.

 

I'll just leave this here.

 

"The socialism I believe in is everybody working for the same goal and everybody having a share in the rewards. That's how I see football, that's how I see life."

 

Well said.

 

Why should we be forced to share it equally? Liverpool Football Club is a global brand, and it's about time we started treating it that way.

 

You nothing whatsoever of what you're talking about. As it stands, club such as ourselves, United, Barca, Inter and Bayern are hamstrung by the likes of Paris St Germain and Man. City, who can roll in under sugar daddies without paying any penalty whatsoever in domestic or European condition. We are sharing revenue with the likes of Wigan, Blackburn and QPR, whilst contributing a far greater portion of audience which contributes to that revenues.

 

The money earned from tv deals is essentially subsided from advertisement and sponsorship. It's about time that we begin to ask, how many people will watch Manchester City vs. Malaga in European competition versus how many will watch Barcelona vs. Liverpool. The only people whose interests lie in sugar-daddy clubs are the sugar-daddyies themselves. Both UEFA and their sponsors will be concerned with fitting as many of the brand 'giants' as possible into their competition. If they do not, then it is simply a matter of time before a European split-off league is established. You need only follow the comments of Paolillo, Rummenige, Ayre, Gill, Henry, Kroneke etc.

 

Barca hamstrung? It's you that doesn't know what you're talking about.

[Guest ShoePiss]

We're one of the best supported teams in the world. Yet we have to dilute our earnings to share with the no mark teams who have 1/10th of the earning potential we have. Liverpool FC is a business, not a charity.

 

There's more to the game than just chasing money.

[Liverpool lad]

Let's make the league even more predictable, let's shit on smaller clubs and look after ourselves, great work guys. What kind of a product will be left to sell if becomes stale?

 

Funny how the Italian's are trying to move towards a fairer system.

[dirk grout]

There's more to the game than just chasing money.

 

Indeed.

[moof]

Do we want LFC to be as good as it can be on the field? Or just competitive?

 

Any money we can make from tv deals would be rightfully ours, this isn't the same as being bought by some Sheikh and having money ploughed in.

[moof]

There's more to the game than just chasing money.

 

Yes I agree. I just don't want to see LFC continually being left behind. We're one of the biggest teams on the planet, why not capitslise on that??

[dirk grout]

Do we want LFC to be as good as it can be on the field? Or just competitive?

 

Any money we can make from tv deals would be rightfully ours, this isn't the same as being bought by some Sheikh and having money ploughed in.

 

I take it you'll be up for a european super league or us playing our games overseas then?

[moof]

I take it you'll be up for a european super league or us playing our games overseas then?

 

No

[dirk grout]

No

 

You seem confused. You either want us to maximise profits no matter the cost or you don't.

[Guest ShoePiss]

Do we want LFC to be as good as it can be on the field? Or just competitive?

 

Any money we can make from tv deals would be rightfully ours, this isn't the same as being bought by some Sheikh and having money ploughed in.

 

I want them to be as good as they can be but not to the detriment of domestic league, fa cup and league cup.

 

People around the world want to watch the premier league and do so because the big four doesn't automatically win every game against those outside it. The best thing about the premier league is that games versus Norwich or even Stoke can still be competitive and entertaining. Take that money away from all of these small clubs that you're sneering at and the league is dead. Obviously the eventual winners of the league has hardly changed in the last 25 years but game by game it's a competitive league.

 

What happens to Liverpool then? Playing in some twatty euro league? FUCK THAT RIGHT OFF.

 

Liverpool should never be about chasing cash at all costs, there's over a 100 years of tradition and history and I would not want to be a part of something that destroyed all of that just to gain extra revenue.

[moof]

You seem confused. You either want us to maximise profits no matter the cost or you don't.

 

Not confused, sunshine. I wasn't aware that there was no middle ground.

 

I'll happily allow the PL to keep raping us if it means we can stay in the city.

[moof]

I want them to be as good as they can be but not to the detriment of domestic league, fa cup and league cup.

 

People around the world want to watch the premier league and do so because the big four doesn't automatically win every game against those outside it. The best thing about the premier league is that games versus Norwich or even Stoke can still be competitive and entertaining. Take that money away from all of these small clubs that you're sneering at and the league is dead. Obviously the eventual winners of the league has hardly changed in the last 25 years but game by game it's a competitive league.

 

What happens to Liverpool then? Playing in some twatty euro league? FUCK THAT RIGHT OFF.

 

Liverpool should never be about chasing cash at all costs, there's over a 100 years of tradition and history and I would not want to be a part of something that destroyed all of that just to gain extra revenue.

 

Who wants to watch Stoke V Norwich?

 

The reason people watch the pl is because of ourselves, the mancs, chelsea etc.

[Guest ShoePiss]

Who wants to watch Stoke V Norwich?

 

The reason people watch the pl is because of ourselves, the mancs, chelsea etc.

 

You're missing the point or are ignoring it. I don't need to explain where I'm coming from any further.