This is the problem…

People know they CAN watch any game on an illegal stream if they cannot get to the game. However, many, like myself, would ideally like to do so legally and pay for it but it’s made so difficult that they push potential revenue away and toward the illegal streams, just to protect the TV deals.

If they broadcast all games and/or introduced a premier league iFollow, I wonder if the perceived wisdom that stadiums would be empty would hold true? I would suggest that wouldn’t be the case. They’re ignoring the fact that anybody can watch any game if they want to right now, for free, and they’re also doing so usually without consuming Sky’s advertising. And even if it is a sky stream, you see their adverts but you’re not counted in the viewing statistics which reduces the potential advertising revenue. (Same for other broadcasters)

In a broadcaster+ifollow model, the broadcasters might have lower viewing per game but they’d have more games and therefore more advertising spots they can charge for, even though it might be less. They’d have more people subscribing (I believe) who currently use free streams simply due to availability. And clubs could have a second income stream from fans who only want to watch their club’s games on a subscription or pay per view basis.

I mean, ideally you’d just take the overall revenue of all services and split it equally between all premier league teams in that case rather than ifollow being on a club per club basis.

Posted By: Legacy Fan, Sep 11, 10:38:14