TV times

We need to talk about the relationship between football and TV

If you were the owner of a successful business, how much control over the way that business was conducted would you give to a third party? That’s the question the game needs to consider before it talks about the next broadcast deal it signs. Because the problem is that at the moment the relationship is a severe case of the tail wagging the dog.

Television companies pay a lot of money for English Premier League football alone. The current deal, which runs until 2025, will see the Premier League earn £5 billion for domestic rights, and £5.05 billion for international rights. Some of that money will go on a so-called ‘solidarity payment’ to the English Football League, some £1.6 billion to be split between the 72 clubs over the next three years.

What that means is that, between 2022 and 2025, the club finishing bottom of the Premier League will be guaranteed £106 million, while the champions will earn at least £176 million.

These are huge sums of money that have transformed the game in England, and beyond. To get some idea of just how much, when ITV paid for exclusive rights to cover English First Division football in 1988 the broadcaster paid £44m for a four-year deal.

TVcos paying what they do justifiably expect to be able to use the product to maximum benefit. Which leads us to the first point of tension. Because TVco selections, late movement of games, anti-social kick-off times and a growing influence on competitive integrity are a huge point of tension between matchgoing fans, the TVcos and the football authorities.

It's important to stress here that, on the whole, matchgoing fans understand that the TVcos have paid for a product and that games are going to be moved. But late fixture rearrangements are costing fans money in travel and in some cases preventing them from attending. The situation is getting worse as the TVcos routinely break the deadlines agreed with fan groups for rescheduling, and too many match selections demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of how the kick-off time will affect fans’ ability to attend.

There’s also a growing impact on competitive integrity, as scheduling can lead to some Clubs having more or less recovery time before or after key games. A particularly clear example of the tail wagging the dog is Sky’s delay in agreeing to reschedule the postponed North London Derby until it can be as sure as it can that the game will be a play-off for fourth place.

Fan groups have been working hard on building relationships with the TVcos for years, and there’s been some development in mutual understanding. But only some. Sky will converse and have shown some commitment to mitigating the effects of what it does. BT refuses to talk to fan groups. The BBC too often slips into old patrician tendencies and reminds us we should be very lucky it is interested in football. And Amazon don’t talk to the little people anywhere. Whenever there is disagreement, the football authorities blame the TVcos, and the TVcos blame the football authorities, with the clubs and the police sometimes thrown in as people to blame. In football, people only take responsibility for the stuff that works.

You could take the attitude that the matchgoing audience is so small in comparison to both the domestic and international TV audience that it doesn’t matter if it is disaffected. But the matchgoing audience is part of that valuable ‘product’, as the Premier League recognised when introducing the £30 away ticket price cap. And there’s a bigger point. Shouldn’t those who run the game realise the value of their product by exercising greater control over how it is used? There is a business value in defending the integrity of your brand. Ask Burberry.

It's not hard to imagine a situation where allowing TVcos almost total control of the game leads a more significant number of people to question the value of the product. The moving of games is an irritant, and I’ve mentioned how this can affect competitive integrity. But TV has shown it does not just want to influence when it covers the game, but the process of the game itself.

The introduction of VAR is solely a product of TV involvement. It further embeds TV as part of the game, and fundamentally affects the spectacle. TVcos would like you to think it is an example of technology introducing definitive solutions – but it’s clearly not, and this was never the intention. The intention was to improve the TV spectacle – not the spectacle of the game itself. It doesn’t matter that its introduction is controversial, unpopular among many, or flawed in its application. TVcos spent years agitating for it because it increases engagement, and makes TV a part of the spectacle, rather than a servant of it.

The ultimate question of whether football has got the balance in this relationship right is to ask what would happen if TV decided football was not the product it wanted. Of course, it would be foolish to suggest this will happen any time soon. But is it really wise for a product to rely so extensively on a third party? During the first stage of the pandemic, the TVcos showed their true colours by insisting that the game delivered what it had paid for. No matter that an unprecedented situation had caused a crisis – give us what we paid for or else give us a refund. These are not the actions of a friendly partner.

Football needs to be the master in the relationship, for its own good. This might mean negotiating a contract that brings in less money, but when the sums are this enormous, we’re talking marginal differences rather than existential threats. And if a slight reduction in income might lead to a slight reduction in player wages and executive renumeration – which is where the vast bulk of TV money has been spent – then that’s a welcome conversation.

So what could be negotiated in to a contract? The kick-off slots that cause most inconvenience could be blocked. TVcos should be required as a contractual term to confirm and stick to schedules by set deadlines that give fans maximum opportunity to book travel and accommodation. Transport to televised games inaccessible by public transport should be provided as a contractual obligation, not left to goodwill. Players and fan organisations should be more closely consulted on scheduling.

Away from the contract itself, we need to see progress on the proposal to introduce flexible ticketing on public transport to allow fans to buy tickets for events, not time slots. And recognition that making stadiums public transport-only destinations requires an effective public transport network.

In general, football should act as the owner of a product that is valued, and seek to maintain that value and control over it. There’s time before the next deal is signed for a proper conversation to be had, and the need for it has been picked up by Ian Herbert at the Daily Mail, who is regularly covering issues caused by the broadcasters.

TV has done great things for football. And football is a great thing for TV. But the relationship is getting increasingly dysfunctional. It makes good business sense, customer service sense and plain old common sense to improve it.

Header photo free to use courtesy of pexels.com