TV Payments

[White Noise]

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2012/05/14/where-the-money-went-premier-league-prize-and-tv-payments-for-2011-12-150501/



Where the money went: Premier League prize and TV payments for 2011-12


By Nick Harris


SJA Internet Sports Writer of the Year

15 May 2012

Manchester City sealed the 2011-12 Premier League title in the most dramatic fashion on Sunday, and now know the precise financial reward for the season from Premier League central funds: £60,602,289.

The massive sums on offer for simply being a member of the Premier League are highlighted again below with the release of official figures detailing League TV and merit earnings for each club for the 2011-12 season.

Clubs have three main revenue streams: match day income (from tickets, corporate dining etcetera), media  income (of which the payments listed are the largest but not the only part) and commercial income (from kit deals, sponsorship, merchandise, tours and so on).

The lowest-earning team in 2011-12 from central funds, Wolves, picked up £39,084,461 while City's cross-town rivals, United, were the second best-paid team with £60,325,337. This is the second year the £60m barrier has been broken for the top-earning teams, after last year.

Every club got £13,788,093 as an equal share of domestic TV income, plus £18,764,644m as an equal share of foreign TV income. The Premier League's income from overseas TV rights alone 2010-13 inclusive was £1.437bn (£439m a year). Rights are now up for auction for 2013-16.

In the central payments for 2011-12, facility fees – £485,000 per live TV match in the UK plus bits and pieces for net, phone and delayed rights – varied depending how many times each club featured in live matches, between a minimum of 10 times and a maximum of 26.

Each place in the table was worth £755,062 in prize money, with that amount going to the bottom club (Wolves) and 20 times that amount (£15,101,240) going to City.

The biggest winners and losers, year on year in terms of improved and decreased payments were Newcastle and Aston Villa respectively. Newcastle's total money went up £7m from £47.2m to £54.2m, while Villa's went down £7m from £49m to £42m. See table below for full details, and compare with previous seasons: Payments for 2010-11 / Payments for 2009-10

'Parachute' payments were made to seven former League clubs, with Birmingham, Blackpool and West Ham each getting £15,475,005 to assist their landings in the Championship. This money helped all three to make the play-offs, with Blackpool facing West Ham on Saturday for the right to return to the PL (Promised Land).

The ratio in central earnings between City at the top and Wolves at the bottom is 1.55 to 1.


DISTRIBUTION of Premier League central funds 2011-12 (All amounts £ sterling)

Place = finishing position in the table. Live = live games on Sky/ESPN combined.

BBC = games on Match of the Day. N.Live = games shown 'near live'.

Note: Facility fees increase with more live TV games; merit payments grow in increments of £755,062 per place from 20th to 1st.

[White Noise]

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2011/05/24/where-the-money-went-premier-league-prize-and-tv-payments-for-2010-11-240503/



Where the money went: Premier League prize and TV payments for 2010-11


By Nick Harris

SJA Internet Sports Writer of the Year

24 May 2011

The massive financial rewards simply for being a member of the Premier League are highlighted again today with the release of official figures detailing PL earnings by club for the 2010-11 season. The lowest-earning team, Blackpool, picked up £39,080,036 from the League in TV cash and prize money while the best-paid team, Manchester United, earned £60,429,052. This is the first time the £60m barrier has been broken for the top-earning team.

Elsewhere today, a feature highlighting the flip side to this story: Mind the gap! Leaving the Premier League can seriously damage your wealth

What isn't in doubt are the huge sums on offer for being part of the world's most popular football league. Full list of payments in table below.

The figures for all clubs are carried in the table below. Every club got £13.82m as an equal share of domestic TV income, plus £17.93m as an equal share of foreign TV income.

Facility fees (£485,000 per live TV match in the UK plus bits and pieces for net, phone and delayed rights) varied depending how many times each club featured in live matches, between a minimum of 10 times and a maximum of 26. Each place in the table was worth £756,756 in prize money, with that amount going to the bottom club (West Ham) and 20 times that amount (£15,135,120) going to Manchester United.

From this season, the increased income streams from the improved 2010-13 overseas TV deals kick in. As we reported in March last year, the overseas rights alone will earn the League £1.437bn for 2010-13 inclusive.

The ratio in earnings from central funds between United at the top and Blackpool at the bottom is 1.55 to 1.

The Premier League's chief executive, Richard Scudamore, says: 'We believe that our income distribution mechanism, the most equitable of Europe's major football leagues, rewards sporting success while also guaranteeing a significant amount of broadcast revenue to each club in order that they plan from one season to the next.

'Many have commented on the competitive nature of this season's Barclays Premier League. The clubs deserve huge credit for putting on a fantastic competition. We believe the way we distribute broadcast income plays a part in allowing each club to compete at the highest level.'

DISTRIBUTION of Premier League central funds 2010-11 (All amounts £ sterling)

Place = finishing position in the table. Live = live games on Sky/ESPN combined.

BBC = games on Match of the Day. N.Live = games shown 'near live'.

Note: Facility fees increase with more live TV games; merit payments grow in increments of £756,756 per place from 20th to 1st.

[White Noise]

And the figures for the 09/10 season -

[valdeingruo]

Almost the exact amount two seasons in a row.

[MJG]

I see we and few others only reached the contractually obliged ten games live.

[b+w geezer]

I see we and few others only reached the contractually obliged ten games live.

Seems about half the teams are like that each season. Overseas interest (lack of) is what they appear to have in common. It's self-perpetuating, but too bad. In general clubs like us and those others do brilliantly out of the TV compared to our Spanish equivalents, who just take a fraction of the what the two big boys get.

[valdeingruo]

Lets see, top 4 twice and then two random matches, sounds about right.

[AlFayedsChequebook]

I see we and few others only reached the contractually obliged ten games live.

Seems about half the teams are like that each season. Overseas interest (lack of) is what they appear to have in common. It's self-perpetuating, but too bad. In general clubs like us and those others do brilliantly out of the TV compared to our Spanish equivalents, who just take a fraction of the what the two big boys get.

We do, but I am not sure it is something to feel bad about.

The Spanish (and until recently Italian) league system is dysfunctional precisely because of the huge disparity in money between the clubs. Four or five Spanish clubs this season have been in serious financial trouble. Eventually Spain will see the light, as the Italians have, and go for collective bargaining. Until then, the Spanish league will continue to be a very odd place.

[b+w geezer]

The Spanish (and until recently Italian) league system is dysfunctional precisely because of the huge disparity in money between the clubs.

Agree (as in last sentence of my post), but at the same time clubs like Bilbao and Atletico Madrid, who are relatively poorly rewarded by TV, have strong teams by English standards. And yet ours is the best league (?). How do we square those two things?

[AlFayedsChequebook]

The Spanish (and until recently Italian) league system is dysfunctional precisely because of the huge disparity in money between the clubs.

Agree (as in last sentence of my post), but at the same time clubs like Bilbao and Atletico Madrid, who are relatively poorly rewarded by TV, have strong teams by English standards. And yet ours is the best league (?). How do we square those two things?

The fact that Chelsea, who have been awful this season, have beaten one of the greatest Spanish teams of all time?

Also - For some stupid reason, English teams ('big teams) refuse to take the Europa League seriously.

p.s. I dont think the premiership is the 'best league' per se, but along with the likes of the German, French and now Italian leagues is more competitive