UK: Why The FAPL TV Rights Decline Was Natural And Inevitable

Last Updated: 30 April 2018
Article by Stephen Hornsby

This article first appeared in World Sports Law Report.

To justify this headline claim, it is necessary to go back a bit. Prior to the creation of FAPL, football's domestic prime events were not televised much – mainly because clubs  wanted to maintain live high attendance levels and feared that live broadcasting of matches would reduce ticket sales. There was a weekly domestic league highlights package (Match of the Day) and also the FA Cup Final but not much else on a regular basis at a purely domestic level.

ITV and BBC were only two purchasers of these broadcasting rights and they did not pay a great deal of money for them. Discontent amongst football clubs was widespread; they felt that their sport was undervalued and it was muttered that television companies were  colluding  to feather their own nests. Indeed the collusion claim was actually made publicly in relation to Match of the Day, but nothing was ever proved.

As is well known, in the early 90's, Sky entered the market for a much bigger slice of live rights (still far from the entire league programme of the First Division clubs as they then were). As if by magic, fears of a decline in ticket sales evaporated in the face of an astronomic bid from the new entrant and the old buyers duopoly became a thing of the past (or so it was thought at the time and for a long time afterwards).

Having essentially "bet the farm", Sky built up a strong market position on the strength of this prime content. Competitors – like On Digital – came and went and there were many complaints to competition regulators to no avail – save that the rights were packaged up so that it was no longer "a winner take all" tender. This remedy (which annoyed many consumers who did not want to buy multiple subscriptions) was designed to allow new entrants to get a share of the pie. In the event, some did win some of the less expensive packages but Sky managed to hold onto best ones. And the broadcasting rights fees  paid to FAPL continued their apparently inexorable rise (and with them went satellite subscriptions – and less naturally and  inevitably ticket prices as well).

A few years later again, a really big new entrant (BT) came into the market. Its major concern was the potential loss of its core telephony market (now partially liberalised) to Sky. Its entry into the sports broadcasting market was therefore a defensive move primarily and precipitated by a long but ultimately unsuccessful regulatory action which it orchestrated.  Once again rights fees increased (and the rest) as BT won the rights to some significant packages. Unlike most countries in the world, the whole competition was still not televised live.

Now bringing the story up to date, we have a significant change of direction. As the most recent tender drew near, it was thought that some new entrants would come in who would bid the prices up even higher and the linear growth of rights fees would carry on apace.  In the event, however, to the surprise of many (particularly "teenage scribblers" in the City) these new entrants failed to materialise and prices actually fell for an increased number of matches. Not all the packages have been sold as we go to press but just two buyers the Sky and BT will have the pick of the crop – as was the case before FAPL came into existence.

The details are worth spelling out. A key 5 packages have been awarded with material deflation in all of them.  Sky won 4 out of the 5 packages with 2 lower quality ones remaining.  The level of deflation amounts to 9% per game. Sky's total spend fell by about 15% per annum whereas BT cut theirs by about 8%.  Sky was obviously delighted with the outcome, winning the same amount of product, if not slightly more, because more games are being televised and, interestingly, Sky and BT are now paying the same sum per game, whilst Sky retain the Sunday and Monday rights.  In contrast to the last auction where BT was perceived to be the winner, at the very least, equality has been achieved which was a key strategic priority for Sky

Why did so many commentators get this so wrong? The answer to this is really quite simple.

BT and Sky have no long term interest in outbidding each other for prime sports content

In the above summary, it was mentioned that BT came into the FAPL market for defensive reasons. It is worth emphasising what these were. Liberalisation of telecoms brought about the real possibility that BT's dominant position could be eroded by new competitors. Sky duly entered into the telephony market (landline and broadband) and regulators and others got very excited about so called "quadplay" scenario whereby industrial giants would  compete across the entire telecoms/TV rights space including mobile (into which BT and Sky might move by strategic partnership or acquisition).  All of this would benefit consumers it would seem.  Obtaining prime content was vital for BT in this scenario.

Thus if one had asked BT whether they had been interested in spending large amounts of money getting the prime sports rights market without this threat to its core business, the answer would probably have been 'No'. Football clubs naturally benefitted from this competition between these large companies but the question that should have been asked was how long this situation could last.

What happened prior to 1992 should have provided a clue and it is as follows. Markets for prime content are very expensive to enter; once the price has been bid up to a high level that deters new entry, incumbents have no commercial interest in knocking each other out of the contest.  Firstly a knock-out blow can never really be delivered as every 4 years rights go out to tender again and the loser can come back and compete against the winner who may be suffering remorse of having paid too much.  Already it was claimed by telecoms analysists that BT had paid too much and that its expansion into less compelling content such as club rugby was a mistake.  This critique seems to have been fully taken on board this time round, and BT paid a smaller amount of money for an outcome that was not materially worse for them – though it was for the clubs.

The reluctance to deliver an implausible knock out bid is intensified by the competitive relationship between BT and SKY in the quad play markets. Ultimately, of course, there is potential for wider equilibrium, whereby Sky spends less money on trying to get into telecoms significantly "in return" for BT spending less money on sports rights. At a certain point, (subject to one possible scenario that we will come onto) without any illegal communication being necessary between the two of them, their interests coincide across the whole waterfront and rights fees will decline or stagnate.  Such an outcome will obviously not be beneficial for ever hungry football clubs.  But it is a natural outcome for the reasons we have given.

Amazon, etc have no necessary interest in expensive prime sports content

Of course the big difference between now and the situation that pertained before FAPL came into being was that satellite TV did not provide any competition to ITV and BBC. The terrestrial broadcasters had no fear in that an outsider could come in and force them to pay more for the rights they were purchasing on pain of losing out.

What could have prevented the natural outcome of declining rights fees actually occurring was the existence of new bidders. This time round the so-called smart money was on Amazon and may be even Google bidding for the rights.  Naturally, this possibility was not one that the football clubs did anything to discourage and it was duly hyped by those who have their own interest in keeping clubs happy .

However the dream scenario did not come to pass and though speculation as to why the giant digital dog dogs didn't bark is always dangerous, there are actually some pretty obvious reasons why they did not enter the fray in the way that clubs hoped/expected.

The first thing that cannot be emphasised enough is that just because something can happen it does not mean to say it will. For sure, Amazon etc has the means to buy prime sports rights, but why would it pay billions to use entry to this market as a means of achieving its presumed main business objective (which is to drive users to its shopping subscription business Prime).  Whilst purchasing Top Gear was very good for its business as it brought it into new jurisdictions, the question has to be asked what extra FAPL subscribers it could have brought to Prime.  It may well have been that Amazon took the view that it was already spending quite enough or being quite successful enough in its objectives not to need to do play this expensive sports rights game.  Whisper it very quietly, perhaps it didn't even think that football was quite the compelling product that everyone assumes it to be.

Whatever Amazon actually thought, it did not bid and its market will be extended through other means in the years ahead. Subject, of course, to regulators catching up with it at last, a possibility however remote that cannot be entirely ruled out.

Gentle decline in rights fees: the shape of things to come

So what does this all mean? At a theoretical level, it shows that markets tend to work out, as they always work out; there are peaks, there are gentle declines and then there are troughs.  There is nothing inevitable about the increase in prices for products that are perceived to be desirable.  The desirability of a product waxes and wanes; just because a lot of people feel strongly that it is indispensable does not mean to say that commercial buyers parties agree.  The net outcome is that established purchasers, especially established ones in markets like prime sports content, will have an advantage over sellers and even if there is some competition, that competition is not likely to be a fight to the death or one where rights fees increase for ever and a day.  This is particularly the case here where Sky and BT the existing incumbents compete in a number of related markets and where the strategic interests probably reside in them sticking to their own patch rather than invading someone else's and getting a bloody nose.

Medium to long term, this does not look good for the football clubs. Already they are under pressure from the regulators to increase the number of matches that are televised live.  Somehow they have managed to get away with 200 matches.  This is an outcome (restriction of output) which is a classic monopolistic device for increasing prices and it is truly extraordinary that the UK is the only major jurisdiction where this is permitted.

It follows that if the clubs want to have more total revenue, they will have to increase the output. This means they will have to accept less per match as a result than they are doing now but that is probably the only way that the total revenues can be increased. Another way that overall revenue might increase is if a terrestrial only package were to be devised for some of the less interesting matches.  This would have the benefit of bringing extra sponsorship revenues as terrestrial still attracts more eyeballs and customers don't like multiple subscriptions which the competition regulators foisted on them (for no very good reason as it turned out).  These are matters for FAPL and its advisers. In the meantime this episode shows that history is not "bunk"; instead markets tend to operate cyclically and the Brave New digital world wont change this too much.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions