New Sky Sports EFL deal.

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

EFL teams to be shown more than 20 times live on Sky Sports in 2024/25 | Radio Times

Sky Sports+ will broadcast over 1,000 live EFL games to fans – including all 36 opening weekend matches.

www.radiotimes.com

This is nothing but an attempt to scrap the blackout by stealth I'm absolutely sure of it. I'm actually not sure what the positives are from this if we exclude any talk of money.

No one asked for this, no one wants this and it reeks of over-saturation. 6 EFL games on simultaneously at 12:30 Saturday will be deeply unpopular as it penalises the fans, especially if it's a long distance away game.

5 years of this shite arrangement before the blackout is scrapped in 2029, the Premier League gets that nice shiny 3pm TV package that it's always wanted to sell whilst every EFL game eventually becomes live to stream too. That's where we'll end up.

 

[Carver]

Efl games should be on at 3pm on a Saturday, to hell with that old out dated blackout bollocks.

 

[Super_horns]

All about the money and no thoughts for the match going fans at all .

 

[That Fat Centre Half]

It probably is a step toward blackout removal. I think there has to be a reality faced to though that it’s never going to survive forever in todays world, so actually giving access to a lot more EFL games isn’t exactly the worst thing in the world?

To be honest though, I don’t really understand why Premier League games still take place at 3pm on a Saturday to be honest. It’s not exactly a prime time TV slot which is what the premier league really care about (I.e. maximum amount of eyeballs on the games possible) and with the expansion of more teams in Europe through the conference league, and indeed more European games in general, a lot of games end up being moved to Sundays anyway.

Feels like a happy medium could be struck and leave the EFL to have Saturday 3pm and the PL have any other slot they like of the weekend. Poor for match going Premier League fans but they stopped caring about those years ago anyway and to my experience the premier league fans care as much about more money for signing players as they do anything else so would happily swallow it anyway.

 

[dedwardp]

I doubt it will have as much of an impact to teams down here as it might seem at first. If every club is on 'at least' 20 times, that no doubt means most clubs in League Two will just be on 20 times other than whoever is winning the league etc. Looking through our fixtures just gone, 17 of them would have been broadcast live so it would only mean three more games having to move.

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

It probably is a step toward blackout removal. I think there has to be a reality faced to though that it’s never going to survive forever in todays world, so actually giving access to a lot more EFL games isn’t exactly the worst thing in the world?

To be honest though, I don’t really understand why Premier League games still take place at 3pm on a Saturday to be honest. It’s not exactly a prime time TV slot which is what the premier league really care about (I.e. maximum amount of eyeballs on the games possible) and with the expansion of more teams in Europe through the conference league, and indeed more European games in general, a lot of games end up being moved to Sundays anyway.

Feels like a happy medium could be struck and leave the EFL to have Saturday 3pm and the PL have any other slot they like of the weekend. Poor for match going Premier League fans but they stopped caring about those years ago anyway and to my experience the premier league fans care as much about more money for signing players as they do anything else so would happily swallow it anyway.

What you've said there is pretty much what La Liga do. La Liga have 10 individual slots for their matches ranging from 1 match Friday Night, 4 each on Saturday and Sunday and 1 on Monday Night. The Premier League did this during lockdown too and I think that's genuinely their long term goal and they'll finally achieve this in the 2029-30 season, complete with another big hike in broadcast fees.

I think 2029-30 will see every EFL match available for live streaming too and there'll be far more 3pm kickoffs after the next 5 seasons of chaos. The big question though is that 2029 will see rights probably plateau. They may rise in line with inflation but that'll be as good as it gets for EFL clubs. So I dread to see what gimmicks will be introduced in the 2030s in order to chase further revenue streams.

I do think this'll have a negative impact on match attendances though. Saturdays 3pm is the perfect time for football. A decent minority of fans work Saturday Mornings and I'm one of these fans. Pushing games to 12:30 immediately makes that an impossibility. And when the streaming of every game is introduced in 2029, that could see another decline in attendances which are currently at their best collective level since the 1950s, which would be a crying shame to undo all the hard work that's gone to building them back up.

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

I doubt it will have as much of an impact to teams down here as it might seem at first. If every club is on 'at least' 20 times, that no doubt means most clubs in League Two will just be on 20 times other than whoever is winning the league etc. Looking through our fixtures just gone, 17 of them would have been broadcast live so it would only mean three more games having to move.

You do raise a fair point here.

With next season being a season where we're not hindered by the CL final being at Wembley or a Summer football tournament like the World Cup or Euros, I'm assuming there'll be 6 midweek slots as opposed to 8. So there's 6 of everyone's televised games. Throw in Bank Holiday fixtures and you've got 10 and then opening and final day is 12.

It still means 8 of the 46 games at the bare minimum will probably be moved for everyone. Even so, Sky may well be able to broadcast games that are rearranged due to postponements or cup progression too. Whether that adds to the 20 remains to be seen.

 

[Scum.]

We never seem to win on Sky TV, so I guess we should get used to weekly pastings with this new deal.

Fuck you Sky.

 

[Meadow]

I rarely go to away matches so I won't be disadvantaged. Saturday kickoff times at home don't bother me as I live 40 minutes by public transport from Plough Lane. What about away supporters travelling long distance with either an early start or a late finish?

I work Sundays. If a home match gets shifted to a Sunday I have to book holiday along with any weeknight matches. This also has a detrimental effect on our Women's team who play on Sunday's.

Not at all happy and won't ever subscribe to Sky. 1. Because it's expensive. 2. Because it puts more money in Murdoch's pockets.

 

[JJ1990]

I can't understand how this is a good deal for Sky. 6 games all kicking off at 12.30 all competing against each other for eyeballs. We know the L2 ties, unless it's a particularly interesting one, will get barely any viewers. Lower league fans are a principled stubborn bunch, can see a lot simply refusing to get the sky package unless they have one already.

The only, and I mean only, positive from this is at least they announce the first half of the season TV schedule as the fixtures come out next month. So at least people have time to study the schedule and make arranagements for any games that are moved.

It's interesting looking at the wording of the release. 20 live games for each team. But then it seems certain game weeks, such as the opening day, final day and bank holiday games(Boxing Day, Easter weekend) count towards that total. So it might be only 5-8 games in the first half of the season get moved. Still a terrible deal for all sides though. More difficult for the fans given all the fixture movement, surely not profitable for Sky, given the vast majority of Sky armchair fans surely only watch the PL. As people have said above, nobody asked for this, nobody wanted this.

Wonder how much extra money each team will get and how it could be effectively wiped out by moving several games to other time slots which in turn could impact attendance. Have they said how the TV money will be broken down per team?

 

[dedwardp]

Wonder how much extra money each team will get and how it could be effectively wiped out by moving several games to other time slots which in turn could impact attendance. Have they said how the TV money will be broken down per team?

Q&A: EFL & Sky Sports broadcast rights agreement

EFL Clubs have overwhelmingly approved a recommendation put forward by the EFL Board and Commercial Committee to enter into a new five-year broadcasting deal with Sky Sports worth £935m.

www.efl.com

When they announced this last year, they said that the deal was worth "£935m over a five-year period", representing a 50% increase.

"The uplifted element of the domestic broadcast deal is likely to be fed into the distribution calculation and be split between divisions on an 80% / 12% / 8% ratio.

"According to the existing distribution formula, clubs in the Championship will be approximately 46% better off and 25% in League One and League Two respectively."

I don't know if it would be split equally per club, but if it was 8% of £935m for League Two, that's £74.8m across five years which is roughly £623k per club each season.

 

[Agombar stool]

I rarely go to away matches so I won't be disadvantaged. Saturday kickoff times at home don't bother me as I live 40 minutes by public transport from Plough Lane. What about away supporters travelling long distance with either an early start or a late finish?

I work Sundays. If a home match gets shifted to a Sunday I have to book holiday along with any weeknight matches. This also has a detrimental effect on our Women's team who play on Sunday's.

Not at all happy and won't ever subscribe to Sky. 1. Because it's expensive. 2. Because it puts more money in Murdoch's pockets.

2. Murdoch hasn't been involved in Sky for quite some time.

 

[1862]

You do raise a fair point here.

With next season being a season where we're not hindered by the CL final being at Wembley or a Summer football tournament like the World Cup or Euros, I'm assuming there'll be 6 midweek slots as opposed to 8. So there's 6 of everyone's televised games. Throw in Bank Holiday fixtures and you've got 10 and then opening and final day is 12.

It still means 8 of the 46 games at the bare minimum will probably be moved for everyone. Even so, Sky may well be able to broadcast games that are rearranged due to postponements or cup progression too. Whether that adds to the 20 remains to be seen.

I think the blackout is lifted for international weekends too, so that should add a couple more.

As said above, the easiest middle ground would be to move PL games away from Saturday 3pm. Pretty sure this is what happens with the Bundesliga too. Ultimately I doubt that we end up with the PL actually looking for a middle ground so the blackout will go and lower league crowds will suffer.

 

[valefan16]

Personally I am ok with it, I have a season ticket and drive to games as not local so a Saturday lunchtime doesn't impact me too much but can understand the difficulty with fans on trains etc, hopefully some sense on games depending how far away they are, so not ideal putting Gillingham v Morecambe on at lunchtime!

Having all the cups games on is good I suppose as no one goes the Pizza Cup anyway and the Carabao early rounds and the away games that are further away but time will tell if it impacts crowds, everyone felt ifollow would in midweek but not so sure thats really happened, all be it the fact you dont have to pay extra for it if your a sky subscriber already may entice more to stay home than paying a tenner

 

[Gladders]

To say no one asked for this is probably wrong, pretty sure the EFL did and most clubs probably too given the increased revenue they get.

Certainly Championship clubs were complaining a few years ago that they couldn't broadcast matches themselves and were tied to Sky. This is Sky's answer and they are now probably happy because of all the extra money they will get.

Still not seen any proof that being on TV effects attendances and I follow has been a thing for several years now and attendances are higher than ever. With a lot of football fans already having sky then this might make some difference but whether enough to hit the bottom line it's unlikely.

For me personally it's a good thing an exile who already subscribes to Now TV for the formula 1, I can now watch a lot of our games without paying anything extra. I watched one game last season, going to see a lot more next season.

 

[Grimsby Road]

To say no one asked for this is probably wrong, pretty sure the EFL did and most clubs probably too given the increased revenue they get.

Certainly Championship clubs were complaining a few years ago that they couldn't broadcast matches themselves and were tied to Sky. This is Sky's answer and they are now probably happy because of all the extra money they will get.

Still not seen any proof that being on TV effects attendances and I follow has been a thing for several years now and attendances are higher than ever. With a lot of football fans already having sky then this might make some difference but whether enough to hit the bottom line it's unlikely.

For me personally it's a good thing an exile who already subscribes to Now TV for the formula 1, I can now watch a lot of our games without paying anything extra. I watched one game last season, going to see a lot more next season.

Agree

I think the only difference is you will effectively be 1 click away from a free stream rather than having to pay £10 , have a VPN or a difficult to find/bad quality one .

It will be much for accesible for those that don't want to pay for the game or subscribe to Sky - whether this makes a difference in terms of actual attendance no one really knows but as you say with the I follow crowds have grown not decreased so the drop off wasn't there then .

I suppose we will only truly find out at the end of next season with the attendance figures of clubs .

 

[WilsdenBantam]

We are set to lose between £100-150k per year under this new deal in league 2, however, should we get promoted at last then we would be better off. I suppose if it helps the financial health of clubs then ultimately it is a good thing. I just hope it just doesn't end up seeing journeymen get paid more like it has in the PL and championship.

 

[Gladders]

We are set to lose between £100-150k per year under this new deal in league 2, however, should we get promoted at last then we would be better off. I suppose if it helps the financial health of clubs then ultimately it is a good thing. I just hope it just doesn't end up seeing journeymen get paid more like it has in the PL and championship.

Let's be honest it will do, nothing going to change that unless there's a wage cap. Clubs earn more money, most of it is going to go to players and agents

 

[Meadow]

2. Murdoch hasn't been involved in Sky for quite some time.

I stand corrected. I still wouldn't subscribe as I don't watch football on TV apart from England matches. Nothing beats attending a live match.

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

We are set to lose between £100-150k per year under this new deal in league 2, however, should we get promoted at last then we would be better off. I suppose if it helps the financial health of clubs then ultimately it is a good thing. I just hope it just doesn't end up seeing journeymen get paid more like it has in the PL and championship.

Absolutely sickening some of the wages being paid at this level now. Funny thing is because actual quality is in short supply you get mugs giving high wages to some truly bang average footballers.

20-30 years ago if you were taking home £50K a year after tax at this level it would be mostly unheard of unless you were a pet project like Whelan at Wigan or Al Fayed at Fulham.

Nowadays there are a lot of players taking home treble that after tax, with a select few even taking quadruple too!

 

[BlackHaddock]

Well I'm f__cked, I refuse to have Sky and with ifollow now only for exiles I will not see a single Grimsby game on TV unless they have another FA Cup run.

 

[Gladders]

Well I'm f__cked, I refuse to have Sky and with ifollow now only for exiles I will not see a single Grimsby game on TV unless they have another FA Cup run.

Use a VPN if you want to use ifollow

 

[BlackHaddock]

Use a VPN if you want to use ifollow

I am not IT savvy, more NIT (No Information Technology), but I will ask a few friends who know stuff and see what they say about VPN.

Cheers for the heads up.

 

[GTFCfish]

Or get a dodgy stick for £80 a year.

 

[Gladders]

I am not IT savvy, more NIT (No Information Technology), but I will ask a few friends who know stuff and see what they say about VPN.

Cheers for the heads up.

Theres many out there some free, some not, when I was in Cyprus I used Liberty Shield for security reasons and also so I could access UK content like BBC. When I came back I continued with it for a while and used international ifollow in the UK so I know it works well.

I don't bother anymore, but they are a good option, both for security reasons and also to put your internet address overseas whilst still physically in the UK!

 

[Dan Phillips]

Or get a dodgy stick for £80 a year.

£80!? I pay half that, and with two connections.

 

[1862]

I don't know if it would be split equally per club, but if it was 8% of £935m for League Two, that's £74.8m across five years which is roughly £623k per club each season.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1791362199094427945

Not sure what the income was before but this is what Accrington's owner is saying. Not sure how this tracks with regards to domestic iFollow earnings as presumably they're quite different per club. Someone on that thread is suggesting that Bradford are actually losing out on revenue from iFollow being replaced by this, not sure if that's been explained by the club or they're just assuming. I can't imagine there was loads of people buying streaming passes for non-blackout games (see posts above) but maybe I'm wrong. I think I bought 2 or 3 last season.

 

[valefan16]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1791362199094427945

Not sure what the income was before but this is what Accrington's owner is saying. Not sure how this tracks with regards to domestic iFollow earnings as presumably they're quite different per club. Someone on that thread is suggesting that Bradford are actually losing out on revenue from iFollow being replaced by this, not sure if that's been explained by the club or they're just assuming. I can't imagine there was loads of people buying streaming passes for non-blackout games (see posts above) but maybe I'm wrong. I think I bought 2 or 3 last season.

I assume as clubs got a % of each pass they sold on ifollow and this i assume is an even distribution of funds its better for smaller clubs than the bigger ones possibly?