Unofficial Partner Podcast
Unofficial Partner Podcast
UP403 The Bundle: The Sports Media and Streaming Market
Welcome to The Bundle, our deep dive in to the sports media rights economy with regular co-hosts Murray Barnett and Yannick Ramcke.
Today’s list of topics include trying to decipher FIFA’s media strategy around FIFA+ and the Club World Cup, we dip in to the French market and the challenges being faced by the country’s leading football league, Ligue1, there’s a bit on YouTube and whether the sports industry’s view of it is shifting, and finally we compare the rhetoric around the value of women’s club football with the reality of the media rights market for properties such as the WSL and FIFA and UEFA properties.
Unofficial Partner is the leading podcast for the business of sport. A mix of entertaining and thought provoking conversations with a who's who of the global industry.
To join our community of listeners, sign up to the weekly UP Newsletter and follow us on Twitter and TikTok at @UnofficialPartner
We publish two podcasts each week, on Tuesday and Friday.
These are deep conversations with smart people from inside and outside sport.
Our entire back catalogue of 400 sports business conversations are available free of charge here.
Each pod is available by searching for ‘Unofficial Partner’ on Apple, Spotify, Google, Stitcher and every podcast app.
If you’re interested in collaborating with Unofficial Partner to create one-off podcasts or series, you can reach us via the website.
Hello and welcome to Unofficial Partner. The sports business. Podcast. I'm Richard Gillis. This is an episode of the Bondo, our regular deep dive into the sports media rights economy. With my co-hosts Marie Barnet and Yannick Aramco today's list of topics include trying to decipher FIFA media strategy around FIFA pluses director. Consumer product and the club, world cup. We dip into the French market and the challenges, being faced by the country's leading football league league. And then there's a bit on YouTube and whether the sports industry's view of it is shifting. And finally we compare the rhetoric around the value of women's club football. With the reality of the media rights marketplace for properties such as the WSL and other FIFA, a new way for events.
Richard Gillis UP:Unofficial Partner is the leading podcast for the business of sport. And you can join our community of tens of thousands of people. By signing up to our weekly newsletter on sub stack, which goes out every Thursday. Or find us in the usual places, LinkedIn, Twitter, Tik, TOK, and Instagram on Unofficial Partner.
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:I like empty calories, by the way, I'm going to start using that.
Yannick Ramcke:Your nickname should be Top of the Funnel. I think that's something that's used, that you use in every podcaster we've done No, it's a, I'm Yannick full funnel.
Murray Barnett:Full funnel.
Yannick Ramcke:that's, that's my hypothesis, right? That you monetize the audience where you create and build the audience in the first place, instead of building an audience and try to migrate them to your own operator. There's so much friction in that process. You need to direct him or better monetize. Where you have the audience and it's not a supported pre-roll before your, or in front of your highlight clip.
Murray Barnett:I think we should probably talk about YouTube maybe last because I think it'd be a little bit dependent on how much time we spend on some of the others.
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:So what do we want to lead on? What's the first thing? Because obviously there's and I'm talking to Dave, about FIFA plus, with Carlo and Hugo Sharman, and we're just doing something about FIFA plus. I don't, you know, and we can do it here as well. It's just in a sort of adjunct, but I thought it was quite interesting because he was there in the, at the time of its creation. So trying to work out this, why they've done the, you know, what they're doing in terms of this investment. So, we can warm that up and we can talk about it here. What was the other thing? It was the Apple deal as well for FIFA,
Yannick Ramcke:I, I would say we start with that and because for me, like people plus and the the reports about the potential investment is like a downstream result of the fact that the PFA Club workup. is not selling as expected, which was the whole thing around Apple, which is like on paper, like a picture perfect match. But Apple again is doing deals on their own terms because they don't have to have live sports programming. And seems like they are not matching the revenue expectation from FIFA. FIFA on the other side has promised like huge sums of money to the participating clubs. So I think FIFA Plus for me, I'm not saying it's just a bargaining chip and it's a bit coincident that it's coming out right now, such report, but it's like the same tactic that every rights owner has. Has has been using, right. Only, only to see, to save, utilize the content. It all is great until it is the one and only option left, which is then where the French League is in right now.
Murray Barnett:It's a good segue. Yeah. So let's start talking about FIFA then, shall we?
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:Yeah. So there's two FIFA stories. So there's and I like the fact that we think they're linked, but we'll, we'll talk about that in a minute. So there's FIFA seeks funding partners to expand its FIFA plus broadcast platform. So this has just happened this week. FIFA has enlisted UBS bank former. Guest on the Unofficial Partner podcast, actually UBS to raise up to 2 billion for the expansion of its streaming platform, FIFA Plus, which is a Bloomberg story. The world governing body is working with Switzerland's UBS group to raise I don't know, saying 1 to 2 billion for the streaming platform launched to offer a wide range of matches from around the world. and which to date has predominantly broadcast games from smaller markets and smaller member associations. FIFA Plus was launched in 2022 with Gianni Infantino outlining that it was part of his mission to make football global, saying that it underpins FIFA's core mission of expanding and developing global football. Football globally. Now there is a second FIFA story that's been floating around, which again has been bumping around the news for a month or so, which is talks between Apple and FIFA for the Club World Cup. That was initially the story that started to break and people started to get excited. Oh, it's Apple again. And looking at. The Club World Cup, which is FIFA's much talked about attempts or idea that it's going to, you know, have a substantial break into the club game. And then it started to slow a bit. So the story then has become the headlines have included the word stall and sort of the energy being dissipated from that conversation. So that seems to me that again, it's like another Bloomberg story. So well done them. The. World governing bodies now considering selling the rights on a regional basis rather than a sort of MLS type one stop for Apple. But we'll, let's talk about this then. So, Murray Barnett, let's start with you. Let's just, let's talk about FIFA Plus, first of all, what's happening?
Murray Barnett:It seems odd to me that FIFA are looking for external investment. I mean, I think FIFA plus is a great tool for their members, but generally speaking, they've only acquired content or they're very showed content, which hasn't had value to sell elsewhere. So. If the idea is that this one to two billion is to go out and buy content, let's call it sort of the second division of sort of football, global football in content, because I think Dave has talked about it being things like Mexican league and so on, which I believe they've shown in the past. I'm not quite sure how that makes it any different other than that they're able to buy better quality, puts them in competition with people that may have already been showing it. So I'm, I'm sort of scratching my head a little bit to see what makes, what would make FIFA plus more special than where some of that content has been already. I mean, I guess you could argue that they have the ability to monetize it in a different way because they've got a broader potential reach. They're still subject to the same market forces that everybody else has, and so it seems a bit of a strange one to me. Don't know if Yannick has a slightly different take on it.
Yannick Ramcke:I mean, first things first, I hope that 2 billion Westerners is not required to spend or invest in second tier content. I think there must be something else at play if you really want to put, 2 billion properly and effectively to work. But I think this report about the reported step up in ambitions for the FIFA plus product can't be looked at without a broader context or like the other story that you mentioned before because we talked about this FIFA Club World Cup pitch. On paper was like a picture perfect match for, for Apple for all the obvious reasons that we discussed before on the bundle, it would have been a blank sheet, full exclusivity, globally available. Competition with brands and teams that should generate general market interest. So it's not an niche product. So on paper looked like foregone conclusion that this will be will be made exclusively available on Apple. But then a couple of weeks before the latest news around the potential capital rates around FIFA Plus, there were, as you said, from Bloomberg, the report that might not be as clear or as finalized as you would have expected, because ultimately there were different expectations when it comes to FIFA Plus. To the money, what FIFA expected and by the way, promise to the participating clubs at the competition and what Apple was willing to pay. So I think there is a connection between those two things because an own direct to consumer streaming service as a bargaining chip is a recurring topic and theme that has been used for quite some time now.
Murray Barnett:wonder how much the expanded UEFA Champions League is playing into some broadcasters thinking about the World Club Cup as well. Because I think there's a feeling that there's probably Other premium sports competition football competitions, which are out there.
Yannick Ramcke:I think that's something that's not only applicable to the FIFA Club World Cup, but it feels like also a much welcome, like, scapegoat for many domestic leagues right now, that the expansion of the international club and or national team competition, that that is really eating into. The, the revenues that like domestic leagues can make and potentially also such a completely new competition like the CSO Cup World Cup. But I think there are also more specific reasons. I mean, I can't really judge, but just like, looking at it or like, the the discussion around it, it It doesn't seem like that the consumer particularly cares about that new competition might be something that comes closer to when it's happening and if it's more concrete about the participating clubs and everything. But I think there's limited. consumer appetite or even awareness that something like this is supposed or is going to launch anytime soon. You have the pushback from the player unions who are getting back to the overstaffed schedule. And national governing bodies certainly are also not a fan of such a new FIFA Club World Cup. And then from a broadcaster perspective, Potential reputational risk getting into bed with FIFA on that particular tournament. So I think that's like multiple factors at play who may result in the fact that one, there is not too much competition among the broadcasters to go after this. And two, that Apple feels it's in a like beneficial bargaining position. And as said before, big tech does deal on their terms and conditions because They are not dependent on live sports programming, so, not the easiest bargaining position for FIFA, it seems like, and then such a report of, like, stepping up the ambitions for FIFA Plus. I'm not saying it's completely intentional, but certainly fits, fits the story or narrative that is supporting FIFA here in those discussions.
Murray Barnett:Well, it's kind of fascinating this thing about timing of leagues going to market because you're now in a situation where you've got three or four of the top leagues plus FIFA all in the market at the same time. They've all got their own kind of different reasons why they're in this particular situation. And, you know, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it seems like it's making the Premier League look even smarter. by having locked up their domestic rights, you know, much sooner than the other leagues.
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:So who's in the market at the moment? France.
Murray Barnett:France, Germany you've also got
Yannick Ramcke:mean, this is domestically, right? You have also internationally. And this is something actually I got into a little bit when it comes to international deals of all the leagues. I mean, they are managing this like a portfolio, so they can't afford that all deals are expiring At the same time. So normally if they run three year cycle, I mean. Most recently, cycles have become longer, but traditionally, three year cycles is like one third, one third, one third, is expiring after, after each season, but there are huge deals at risk right now, or expiring and And not renewed yet. I know the Italian Serie A is in the U S has a huge deal with Power Paramount Plus as we discussed, I think on the last episode, still pending overall, whether it's North America, South America, Europe. I think it's a complete buyer's market at this point in time, and that goes back to your point, Marie, purely market timing speaking the Premier League, even though it's more or less a rollover, What they have done. It's looking good in hindsight or looks better every single day in hindsight.
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:So if you were gaming this, it's an interesting point. I just want to pause on this. Champions League is expanding and the impact of that on the domestic leagues, because you could sort of see, you might be able to foresee it if you were a domestic league. And again, we could, we could give credit or whatever to various leagues for coming to market ahead of that. You've also got in the States. I mean, the States has become this sort of key market for, for football generally. And we've heard loads of stuff about You know, that opening up as a market. And then you look at the other bit is the NBA. You know, you have just gone from 25 billion to 75 billion in the U. S. market. I'm just wondering what the impact of all these things is if you are Okay, we've got rights to take to the US market now and fuels and like, and even as another pressure. So you've got this big, the UEFA expansion, which is crowding out local domestic markets. Then you've got the American market, which is seen to be as the sort of, okay, there's a route out for us there domestically. They've gone mad, you know, for, for various things. I'm finding it hard to be optimistic for, People selling rights, for domestic leagues.
Yannick Ramcke:I mean, I think it depends who you are because I see two trends at play here. One is that the overall market size is not growing at the same rate as before. If you look at just public communication of especially publicly listed companies, when it comes to their content spend going forward. I think the most frequently used word might be flat, like they are not in the subscriber acquisition mode anymore. It's about subscriber monetization and bottom line optimization. This is one thing. So the overall content spend is flat, flattish. And the other trend, I think it's like a concentration at the top of the pyramid top of the content pyramid. And it's a, it's a game of have and have nots. And this is why an NBA, domestically, has the price tag that they are going to have. And that's why a Serie A, in the same market, may have to take a 50 percent haircut from Paramount Plus.
Murray Barnett:it's kind of like a game of musical chairs in the States, isn't it? But where the remaining chairs are less and less attractive. So if you happen to be, it's a terrible analogy, but if you happen to be one of the chairs left, you, you've got fewer and fewer people that want to sit on your chair and you're less and less attractive to them to be sat on, if you can say that.
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:I've got this demand. I want to continue this analogy for as far as it could go. if we then cycle back to FIFA plus, which is where we started on this, if FIFA genuinely thought that FIFA plus was, going to be a major player and it's worth 2 billion quid of investment of someone's money, they're going to go and, you know, build it. Presumably. At some point, the argument will be, well, where's, you need to then show the club world cup on FIFA plus, or you have to show the women's world club on FIFA plus, so that's where you'll make the money back. That's the investment that's worth it. Otherwise it's, it's just increasingly, I feel like this about the Olympic channel as well, but it's a separate conversation. It just feels like that's the sort of thing that you would do if you had loads of money and. you're building a white elephant in your own backyard. If that, again, crunching
Murray Barnett:Well, I know Yannick's got a lot to say about this, but I think the first thing I would say is there's nothing, there's nothing wrong with the quality of what FIFA plus have put together. You know, the infrastructure that's being created and the whole concept behind it is, is very laudable. And actually, as we've talked about multiple times before, everybody needs to have a direct to consumer media strategy of some description. The question becomes, is it monetizable? And I think sort of by definition, if FIFA or other leagues can sell their content elsewhere, they're probably doing that and not putting it on FIFA plus, which I guess is why they're trying to raise the money, right? So they want to spend it to make it more of a destination. But I think that that's a flawed, flawed way of looking at it because by definition, the only people that will want to sell rights to them are ones that haven't been able to sell it elsewhere.
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:Yeah. I mean, it's, like a government saying, okay, I think I'm going to spend, a great deal of money to try and energize the market. It doesn't, that doesn't feel like FIFA is now crowding out its own. member leagues, presumably, I don't, you know, or if then, if there isn't a market for the Mexican second division, then there isn't a market for it. That's, it's not FIFA's job to try and create a market for that, is it?
Yannick Ramcke:And I think it's not the 2 million 2 billion, it's not about the second Mexican League. I think you connected some dots before. In the sense of what it's a purpose and in terms of capital allocation of the, those 2 billion, it's not the tech or product anymore. It's, it's, I'm not saying it's still cheap, but in the grand scheme of things, product and technology you won't even be able to spend that amount of money. It's not the second tier content that you can. Just spend close to that amount of money. Marketing and promotion for D2C as always said is absolutely expensive, but not that expensive. So I really think in the context of the FIFA club World Cup and so on and so forth in the context of the reported revenues guaranteed for participating clubs, which as per reports are not attainable through B2B licensing. To players like Apple. I think if you connect zeo it might be something or a way to deliver on a revenue expectation for the new tournament. And I think this is where the money might be needed for and yeah, ultimately go D2C with that product, knowing that purely economically speaking. There is a huge gap between revenues that can be made and the guarantees promised on the other side for those participating.
Murray Barnett:I wonder if, having is a sort of alternate alternative model would FIFA plus with the club competition exclusively available through Apple. But I guess that then that in itself defeats the object of FIFA plus at the first place and therefore you've got mismatch of objectives and then that's not going to work either.
Yannick Ramcke:No, I I'm absolutely with you. I think best case for FIFA is that this is a bargaining chip. It does and, and it does the trick and serves the purpose as a bargaining chip, so that maybe an Apple or what was the second part of the previous story that Instead of doing a global deal with Apple, now they go market by market because this is actually revenue maximizing that such a FIFA plus and potential increase ambitions around it move some potential buyers to step up their, their bids. That's the best case because we have seen what happens if a bargaining chip becomes the only option left. And this is certainly not the route that FIFA wants to go down, at least in the short term.
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:I mean, a bargaining chip has to, you have to be able to follow through on it, don't you? Because obviously if you're sitting, if you're Apple, Thinking, well, this is just a hollow threat, you know, you're coming at me with a threat of FIFA plus, well, good luck with that, FIFA plus won't stand or fall on a three, four week tournament or however long the club world cup is in one, you know, in one summer, it's going to have to have the, you know, it's just this relentless engine of, if you're going to make money from a, from OTT. It has to have content 24 seven, presumably. It's not going to just come and go when big FIFA events are on. So I don't, again, I don't see what the, what the big idea is. I've lost track of it.
Yannick Ramcke:I mean, a thread is only as effective as it is as it is viable. And I think it has been a common theme that, as of today, D2C as a one and only distribution channel is not viable. As said, let's hope that it does or serves its purpose as a bargaining chip, but if they indeed go down the route that is laid out in the recent article of raising capital to underwrite the revenues promised to the participating clubs that might work once, but it's not a sustainable basis to run such a new competition.
Murray Barnett:I don't think I would be advising anybody to invest that kind of money in FIFA plus, because we've seen what happens when you get a minority shareholding in a particular sports organization. You're left with. a situation where you don't actually have any real control over where your money goes. So I mean, it's a little unclear what they're actually looking for, whether it's some kind of structured financing or some kind of, PE investment or whatever, but it's going to, I think, as Yannick has sort of articulated, it's very difficult to work out why there's any value for somebody of doing that.
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:So we can jump in different directions here. Cause we've got, we want to talk about YouTube and we also want to talk about, Ligue 1 in France. And we also want to talk about women's club football. So each of those, we could easily make a, a logical segue to.
Yannick Ramcke:Let's, go to Ligoune, because I think it's at NBF is fully covered because Ligoune is like one step further down the road. On all the things that we just discussed in the context of FIFA plus
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:Okay. Yannick, you build me a bridge from FIFA plus and what we've just talked about to France and we've got League Un, LFP targets 2 million subscribers. What is LFP?
Murray Barnett:the French League. Yeah,
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:I should know that.
Murray Barnett:probably the final, isn't it?
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:Yes, I'll take your word for it. LFP targets 2 million subscribers and 578 million euros a season for League Un's, D2C service. We've just two months to go before the start of the 24 25 campaign. LFP have yet to agree a media rights deal amid lukewarm interest from broadcasters who have yet to submit what could be considered a satisfactory offer. So Yannick,
Yannick Ramcke:I think this is what happens if your bargaining chip becomes your one and only option left. LFP,
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:is, this is the ghost of Christmas future then for, for FIFA and FIFA plus.
Yannick Ramcke:I mean, ideally FIFA plus serves its purpose as a bargaining chip and they never have to go down this road, but LFP, I mean, with a couple of months to go until the next season and with. That the next media right cycle is kicking off domestically. So we are not talking about a random mid tier international market where you do, I don't know, a single digit millions. This it's a nine figure mid to high nine figure revenue stream. That normally is not taken for granted, but it's making or breaking or can make or break leak operations. And I think what has happened here is that now they have to seriously consider what was put out there always as a, as a bargaining chip, as the option to go. With D2C leak 1 channel, which gets more and more traction, not because it's a preferred option. But it's might be what they are left with doing.
Murray Barnett:I take a slightly different take on it which is, you know, what's fascinating is if you look at the Premier League, the Premier League and Sky for a variety of different reasons in the UK have had this symbiotic relationship for, you know, tens of years now, right? and Whilst it's always sort of run as an above board process, there is a lot of communication, no doubt, that happens between Premier League and Sky, both throughout contract periods, but also engaging them in what future Tender documents look like to make sure that they're fully optimized for what the partner wants and that they have a symbiotic relationship. And the real story behind the LFP has been their ability through two or three different processes now to alienate one of the main broadcast partners in, in France, in Canal Plus, and to a certain extent, BIN. And it's been by courting new newcomers, And playing a slight game of of of roulette that they'll always be another new partner that comes into the market that's willing to buy their rights. And they're now in a situation where having gone from, can I please to be in, be in to Amazon, they're at the end of the road. There isn't another partner out there. So. Really the D two C is the, is almost like they don't have a choice but to talk that up as being something which they could go and do and it's gonna generate them some real money when they have already shown that that doesn't really work. When you look at what happened with Tele Foot and, and Media Pro, when you look at what's happened with other sports services like MCS in France. It's it, they really struggled with direct to consumer on a much smaller level. Squeak has died in France, who was a basketball vertical DTC service. It really is this situation of the last chance saloon that they're pulling this one out again as being something which is a viable alternative.
Yannick Ramcke:And I think you are touching on something very important here that market prices are made or are primarily a function of competition. It's not about the intrinsic value because why I as a, Licensing broadcasters should overpay if I don't have to, I only pay as much as I need to in order to secure the rights. And I think what new market entrants in the French market have learned or have done, they have smartened up based on the experience that previous new market entrants have done. And the point is either, or what you don't want to do is to get on bad terms with CandlePlus. Can I put the elephant in the room? The 800 pound gorilla in the market, whatever are well advised to be on good terms with them because they are effectively a gatekeeper to the end consumer and the league. has a relationship at this point in time with Candle Plus that is not in the in the best state. And what what Candle Plus has also learned is by the fact that they own the access to the customer build, based on decades of long established pay TV business. They don't have to own the content to give their customer base access to the content. So they don't even engage. And in the right sender, but everybody who engages in the right sender, make sure that they're doing it with goodwill from Kenneth. Plus that is the cases being that's the case, this new market entrance, like the zone. So I think it's really the only way for NFP to avoid. To have to go D2C is to repair the relationship with with Kennel Plus because
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:So this is,
Yannick Ramcke:is, just not a viable option at this point in time.
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:so just to, and I just want to clarify because,, a lot of people, we're, we're assuming a lot of knowledge and I think the listener will have a lot of knowledge of what's happened in the French market, but we do need to just clarify that. So when you're saying The canal blue relationship broke down and we're making the comparison between the premier league and sky and how that relationship is central to it. Would this be a bit like, so they, they went with media pro on a bigger or, you know, on that offer, is it a bit like. The Premier League saying, okay, sorry, Sky, we're going to go with Satanta. Is it, is it that sort of analogy? You say, right. Okay. They've come in, they've leveraged a load of money and we're going to take that check and we'll, we'll wave goodbye to you, our partner of 15, 20 years or whatever it is. and I'm using Satanta as a, you know, and we don't use Satanta, we use some other organization, but is it that sort of
Murray Barnett:Well, it's, it's, it's effectively, they spurned a long term partner and supporter of French football in Cannes en Plusse to then take a bigger check from somebody else. And then when that check bounced. They went back and it's the classic, you know, love a spurned type thing of they, they kind of realized that they didn't need it as much as they, they, they think that they, they thought that they did and they, there was a lot of ill will and bad feeling towards them
Yannick Ramcke:And the funny thing is, if they, after the check bounced, They didn't even get back to Canaplus. bin instantly, but gave it to Amazon at a hugely discounted price tag, which only compounded, like, the bad feelings in the, in the relationship. And, to your point, Richard, as a rights owner, nurturing or preparing the incremental rights buyer for now and for the future is part of your mandate. This is like key, key description of your, of your job, but you can't do it to the detriment of your existing partners who are paying the bills as of today. And this is why you normally carve out a small package at the carve out a small package to get into business with new licensees, but you don't license the primary package from one day to the next. To a complete new market entrant. I think it's a, it's a delicate balance to steer competition, sustainable competition, but showing or by showing the appreciation for your most important partners as of today. And I think this delicate balance might have been something where NFP misread the market a few years ago.
Murray Barnett:to coin a Richard is um, there's an uh, I'm going to build an interesting bridge to politics because, you You could argue, and this is probably spiraling a little bit out of control, that the reason why BN did a deal for LFP in France originally was actually linked to various political objectives that that the Qatar had with The Sarkozy government at the time. And the interesting thing now is that the new government that's, that's about to come into France is very heavily backed by Vassal Bore, who owns Vivendi, who owns Canal plu. And so there is an argument to say, will there be some political wrangling in the background to try and bring Canal Police back into the frame? As part of this kind of. Symbiotic relationship that sort of politics has with the key Sort of sporting bodies and you know history is littered with politicians who have used sport as leverage to gain political support, you know, probably most famously with Berlusconi and you know, Forza Italia and, and, and and Telepure at the time in Italy. But it would be fascinating to see if he leverages any of his support for Le Pen and the impending government to, to sort of affect the process at all. And
Yannick Ramcke:And I think we have a few points here that might be worth pointing out because they are reflecting or are representative for what does D2C mean for a league, I think one huge opportunity that the French league has missed is all around private equity. Because for me, equity is what you use for it or to launch a D2C business, bridging the revenue gap that is there for quite some time. Dugout already has private equity fund and I think it's a 13 percent stake for CVC. In their cap table, but the cash inflow was not used to do such strategic initiatives like, okay, let's launch a D2C channel. We know in the short term, it's less monetizable than P2B licensing, but in the long run, it will position us as a league. More favorably, and we can use the cash in from CVC to like, close revenue gaps that might be there over the next one, two, three, or four years. Problem in this particular case, the CVC money was used to already which the revenue gaps created through the media pro slash Taylor foot debacle,
Murray Barnett:whether it's a factor or not, you know, Mbappé leaving definitely takes a little bit of the shine off of the league anyway. So I think you're kind of getting to a sort of a consumer facing issue with the level of interest that people have in the league with a competitive dynamic, which is not conducive to them generating any kind of money. Because you could argue that. You know, if the league was still the league of sort of Neymar, Mbappe, and others, that would give a a more casual fan more of a reason to want to buy to buy a direct to consumer service from the league.
Yannick Ramcke:and finally, but I think there's still a path toward a pragmatic solution. Also something you hinted at Murray with the change in the political scene and so on, that the relationship with Kenneth. might be repaired is that there were no recent leaks about the business case of such a D2C channel. And for me, putting the leak, putting out numbers, it's like a communication to the broadcasters. Look what is needed in order to get a deal done. And it's far from the 800 million that were initially defined as reserve price, I think, and you did it in the intro, which I think 570, 580 in me again. On average for the next three seasons. This is like now a concrete basis to negate, negotiate upon with. And then the final thing is those 570 million, I mean, this is a low margin, but data rich D2C revenue stream, right? So not even incorporating all the production costs, the cost of sales, the staffing costs distribution costs and everything. While any P2P monies, I have high margin. So, as said, we are always getting back to the same thing that the preference is to take the B2B licensing money. But some connections might be needed to be repaired in order to get there.
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:And also, presumably, I mean, you mentioned CVC, they're, they are going to take a chunk of the media rights income going forward, because obviously they've invested that, that money's got to be paid back at some point. So we're looking, what is it, about 13 percent
Yannick Ramcke:Yeah, but
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:of media rights revenues?
Yannick Ramcke:but don't tell anyone. Because it's, it's not making the headlines, but absolutely. It's like a cost position that And it's not for future growth, it's to have closed revenue gaps of the past. So
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:Okay, right. I want to talk about YouTube, because As Murray mentioned in his note, which we will publish on the on Unofficial Partner. We don't talk much about YouTube, but it is enormous. And I wonder why we don't talk about it because a lot of these conversations, when, you know, we talked about OTT, a lot of the streaming conversation, a lot of the stuff about FIFA plus, the big alternative is YouTube. We talk about Netflix a lot. We talk about DAZN, we talk about all these others, but YouTube is central to global media now. I guess the question is what's its relationship with sport and where that's going to change. So if I just sort of, I've got a A note here in 2023, YouTube launched primetime channels where users can either subscribe to you to services like Warner Brothers Discoveries Max through YouTube or find exclusive ad supported content from brands like the NFL. YouTube has seen Amazon and Apple were buying rights while also keeping users on their services to watch other content by developing primetime channels, hosting more live sports in addition to YouTube. So the highlights and analysis that have been long lived on YouTube, the service is becoming an even more significant player in activating an audience across all aspects of sports consumption. So what do we think Murray? Give us a, it's, you made a good point it's sort in plain sight, isn't it? And if you think a bit longer about it, everything seems to sort of gravitate towards it. But what's your view?
Murray Barnett:Well, this is probably a little bit more Yannick's area than mine, but what I thought was really fascinating in sort of doing a little bit of reading around this was how polarizing it seems to be amongst media executives about whether it's a sort of existential threat to their existence of subscription services or whether it's something that could be There should be absolutely sort of embraced. And there was a interesting quote in one of the articles saying about how Disney and therefore by proxy ESPN discuss YouTube every day. And that companies like, you know, Netflix and Warner Brothers Discovery have, you know, sort of almost consciously decided that they're gonna focus on the 90% of viewing that doesn't happen on YouTube and sort of push it away and, and not, and, and not, not think about it. And whether that means that they're. that they don't see it as a threat or it's a threat that they're choosing to keep behind a closed door. There's no getting away from the amount of consumption that happens through YouTube and, you know, through the great focus group of two that I have at home, I, you know, I know that my two sons spend more time watching content on YouTube. They're not any other platform by a long way. And you know, as you said in the intro, we, we don't sort of spend enough time sort of really talking about how they can impact on the sport sports world and. They've certainly, you know, bought NFL in the past and and no doubt are experimenting with other sports, but it is kind of fascinating that it's a platform that people are not in, sorry, I say people that sports executives are not embracing and actively considering and talking about as part of their overall sort of media mix.
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:Well, just before Yannick goes, I mean, one of the interests we had in the early, well, I suppose the early days of Unofficial Partner. We had Elliot Richardson on a couple of times and obviously Dugout, the, the premise of Dugout was the sale to the clubs or the membership clubs of Dugout, which were, you know, the big, big ones was that we want to divert. YouTube was the enemy. You're going to try and sort of take the viewing, football content away from YouTube. And again, it's, it's build your own and cultivate a sort of owned and operated for each club. And then Dugout was going to be the, or was, the sort of the housing of that. Obviously that's now part of OneFootball, which is where Yannick spends his days. What's where, just give us your, Perspective then on, on the YouTube question, Yannick.
Yannick Ramcke:I think we have those two or we have this like opposition or like the dissent between The industry is not talking enough about YouTube, which I think might be a function of the lack of business impact that YouTube delivers for broadcasters, leagues, whatever, while every broadcaster, league or club cannot afford to not have a YouTube strategy. So, I think for YouTube, the next evolution. Step might be to generate tangible business impact for for broadcasters or leagues. So at this point in time, it's a top of funnel business, right? I put out my post match highlights, a couple of interviews. Et cetera, et cetera. I accumulate a followership, but problem is that followership is not monetizable to the same extent than a user or customer that might visit my own and operated website services. So I really think that in order to also increment the business of broadcasters and maybe leading to the fact that it's more talked about in the industry, YouTube must become like a full funnel business for any creator. On the platform because in the past, the hypothesis has been, I built up an audience on YouTube, and then I tried to migrate this audience to my own and operated streaming service or whatever I want to sell, and this looks. From a conceptual point of view, very attractive on a piece of paper, but practically speaking, there are so much friction in there to, to move audiences from one platform to another. And I think the next step might be, okay, if you are not able to migrate audiences, we might have to bring the entire business to where the audience is already. So I expect YouTube to go more into paid products to just step up and uplift the level of monetization that those users who are obviously engaging with the brand can, can ensure instead of trying to move those audience from the top of funnel YouTube to the thing that you actually want to sell on your own and operated destination.
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:It's funny though, isn't it, that we talk about TikTok ad nauseum, but we don't, you know, it's, it's I am on the cusp of buying the YouTube premium thing. And I think it's more to do with the music. So who was it that was telling me that they switched over from Spotify? So I pay Spotify, whatever it is, family thing, 20 quid a month, whatever it is. And YouTube is seen as quite a good alternative to that. And you get all the other stuff as well, and you get it ad free, blah, blah, blah. So I am, I am on the cusp of paying YouTube money for the first time ever.
Yannick Ramcke:I mean, it speaks to that from a consumer perspective, YouTube has an increasingly attractive proposition. I think where we have to look at it is from the creator perspective, which can be a random YouTuber who does a vlog or can be
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:NFL.
Yannick Ramcke:Sports. Right, or NFL. And I think they need to expand in order to be more talked about, because only what makes or breaks the business or contributes to the business in the form of revenues is ultimately what's discussed. That's why we are talking about the lack of domestic media rights agreement for the French League in France. That they ultimately need to expand like the monetization toolbox or the tools that can use right on the YouTube platform to drive business impact, aka monetization of consumers. And I think that might be the next step, launching paid products on, on YouTube or similar things that have more direct impact on the, in this case, top line of creators. Then, I'm not saying these are empty calories or it's vanity only, but having X million YouTube followers. Sounds good, but in terms of real world business impact is not that material.
Murray Barnett:Well, I mean, I have, I have a theory that we. That I'm just desperately trying to prove which I haven't done yet, which is this long tail is actually super, super important. It's that the level of engagement that you get in whatever you want to call it, second, third, fourth windows of content that are free to a wider variety of people. The problem is an industry problem. The problem is that we don't have a return path to being able to show how that monetizes people. You know, if you knew that, you know, let's take my 16 year old son, right? So he he's a Tottenham Hotspur fan. And I probably used this example before, but you know, Harry Kane goes to goes to Bayern Munich. Bayern Munich. He's not going to sit down and watch a Bayern Munich match on Sky, but he's watched the best of Harry Kane on Bayern's channel or some sort of, you know, user generated content on YouTube. And then he's asking at Christmas for a Bayern Munich shirt. Now, that, he is, he is monetizable, but we don't have that simple or simplistic return path of being able to say, Oh, because Harry's gone to Bayern, he's now bought Sky, and therefore that's a really easy measurement. And I, like I said, I don't know the answer to this, but I have a hunch that it's much more important than we think.
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:Yeah, this is interesting because it's sort of, you get to attribution models, don't you, and how flawed they quite often are. And then it's that, that bit of the that when you look at, again, go back to FIFA plus as a, as a. Strategy. Presumably the alternative is to put it on YouTube and work it out from there. YouTube got into women's football, didn't they? And I mean, when we did the brainstorm at DAZN, that was, we had the head of UK YouTube there, And so part of that was about DAZN using YouTube as a distribution channel. Is that right? Am I right in
Murray Barnett:Yeah. And I mean, Designers actually do quite a lot on YouTube to sort of cross promote the content they've got. And I think that they're talking to YouTube about sort of various pay per view type models and other monetizing, monetizable options.
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:sorry, Yannick, but just to finish that thought. I'm conscious that you two guys are very in the weeds of it. And I am, I am sort of looking at this and sometimes I get confused and I know strategies change and, evolve. are we saying that actually there is a gravitational pull back? To things like YouTubers as distribution channels. Is that where you, we, we think it may have not gone away in a lot of cases, but again, a lot of people listening to this podcast will be in charge of content at various sports of bigger, you know, various sizes and what they're hearing or have heard is, okay, you need to build your own director channel, do the data thing, do all of that. Build and they'll come, they haven't come, or there's, you know, in far, far fewer numbers than they're anticipating. And now they're saying, shit, we need the long tail, you know, Murray's talking a long tail game now. Again, we need to go back onto YouTube, we need to open that lever up and get our content out there, we'll get to the, Kids that way via, via YouTube and we'll sort a deal out. YouTube are evolving. They're under pressure from TikTok. They're looking at, they're a friendlier bunch than they were five years ago in terms of sharing and building things on top of their platform. Is that, am I completely off beam there or is that what's
Murray Barnett:Well, I think, I think we, whenever we talk about these conversations, we always see it as like binary. And it's not, it's that you need to have content on all of these platforms. It's not TikTok or YouTube or YouTube or Pay TV or YouTube or Linear TV. You've got to have a strategy for all of these platforms. And you, you know, as soon as you get into a situation
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:you do. But unless, but unless,
Murray Barnett:then you're, then you're, you're You're bound to be missing
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:but then, but then buried in the, in the right, in the kernel of sports media strategy is, is exclusivity. So if it's on YouTube, if it's on TikTok, I ain't paying for it.
Murray Barnett:but that's my point is
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:not going to monetize it.
Murray Barnett:you talk about exclusivity, you're talking about like the live match, right? There are, there's tons of other content, or the live event, there's tons of other content that you're able to, to, to figure out how you monetize, whether that's delayed clips, you know, the game around the game, shoulder programming, all of that kind of stuff.
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:Again, I, again, if you've, if just to push on that, I watch stuff on YouTube like highlights, and I think this is a mistake I would have paid for the, you know, and, and there's a, the idea that highlights on YouTube are not conflicting with me buying a sub on Sky is completely flawed because the more that.
Murray Barnett:there watching it on YouTube, not watching it on Sky. There's a pretty good chance that, that with some rights that you're watching on YouTube. There's stuff that you're actually paying for elsewhere, but you're choosing to watch it on YouTube because that's the, that's the platform you happen to be in front of. The other point I would make is my, to keep going back to my 16 year old son, is even if you put it on Sky, that's not where he's watching his content. So it's, it's also, it's not just about the windowing of content between, you know, direct payment and indirect payment. It's also about audience segment. You know, I would argue that if you're a very forward thinking rights holder, you would turn around and say my audience on Sky is actually very different to my audience on YouTube. And therefore, when I'm going to go and sell content to pay TV, I may take a hit in the pure financial terms, but I'm better off being co exclusive with a bunch of other platforms. Because my Father isn't going to sit there and watch content on YouTube, but he will sit down and watch it on Linear Sky Sports, just in the same way that the converse is true for my son.
Yannick Ramcke:think that's key that no one, no broadcaster, no platform, no one has a monopoly on the audience for that. The audience is too fragmented nowadays, meaning you have to go where the audience is. And yes, everybody, every broadcaster would prefer to have the direct customer relationship to have direct customer ownership. Problem is then the growth ceiling is reached rather sooner than later and not at the number where you probably have sustainable business operations. So this goes back to what you said, Richard, they are opening up again because they saw that directly owning the customer relationship only gets you so far. You actually depended on third party platforms or distributors. To get access to the consumer. And I think the one change that we need to see now is, okay, if there's a return to YouTube, and as I said, every broadcaster, every club needs to have a YouTube strategy because it's too important, but how can I draw a more direct connection between engagement and monetization on those platforms? Because an NBA and NFL can credibly say. We are more popular than ever, but this popularity and engagement is spread across much more channels and platforms than it was in the past. I think the industry challenge is now how you can monetize those new forms. of engagement, which may take place outside of your own and operated own service. But how can I monetize the YouTube audience? And this is what I meant with an expanded toolbox for creators to monetize those audiences and services. on YouTube directly because asking the YouTube user who, who watched my highlight to now go to skysport. com and watch it there might be a challenge that doesn't have the best odds to be succeeded in.
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:Okay. So just to find that is interesting stat that you sent over there, Murray. So in March 24, YouTube was valued at 400 billion as a standalone company, more than Disney and Comcast combined. So you've got a younger audience, 93 percent of teenagers said that they've used YouTube far outpacing TikTok, 63%, Snapchat, 60, Instagram, 59. So. Yeah, fascinating. And I'm gonna, I'm gonna jump from there to it may or may not be relevant to women's club football. Is our final story. Media rights, value, growth, gloomy? So this question is coming up a lot in terms of Where we stand between the estimated value or the optimism around women's football, specifically women's club football and the rights market. So the, this, the bundle market that we talk about all day, every day, and. I'll just get a couple of points here. 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup, UEFA Euro 22, 22 and 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup started a revolution in women's football rights during 2021 and 2022. UEFA Women's Champions League, England's Women's Super League, Germany's Frauenbundesliga, Spain's La Liga F and Sweden's Damalsvenskan all struck their first media rights deals, independent of their nationality. of men's football properties. So there has been a great deal of change and there is growth and there is trying to, this question is trying to balance what, what's the media rights market saying about women's club football?
Murray Barnett:The trajectory for women's football remains really strong but I think it's that there's this everybody wants to move so quickly and so aggressively in terms of what the values are. And there was a, there was a something there from Dawn Airy, the chairman of the WSL that was saying that the WSL would become a 1 billion revenue league by 2033, and that that was based on sort of central and club revenues. And this was based on a pretty decent and detailed business plan over the course of the next 10 years. Now that's balanced by, when you talk to. People involved in acquiring these rights that they think that they have already baked in some of the upside in the previous deals that they've paid. So if you look at WSL's current deal with Sky, it's around seven million pounds a season. And sky, you know, reportedly willing to go up a little bit on that. But the view from the WSL is that it's worth twice as much as that. And then, of course, if you start building that incrementally, you start then saying, well, if if it's gone from 7 to Gone seven to to 15, then the next one means it's gonna go to 30 and then 30 goes to 60, et cetera, et cetera. And then they get close to some of those valuations. But the point being is that I, whilst there is a lot of goodwill and I'm, you know, I don't say this with any side, it's just what I, you know, hear as I talk to people and curious to see what Yannick thinks is that. Everybody has got a lot of goodwill towards women's sport and women's football in particular. Everybody wants to see it be successful. The problem is that there's a desire from those involved in women's football that it should grow much quicker than the market is demanding.
Yannick Ramcke:Yeah, I fully agree. I think, and it's, it's something that we are getting slowly, but surely, but it's also a delicate topic to touch upon. I think expectations are about to be right side or corrected a little bit. Because for me, I think they are just fundamental differences in the consumer market, how men's and women's football is perceived and. I think the end consumer is absolutely interested in women's football. They are willing to spend time to engage with women's football. Are they willing to pay money for women's football to the same extent as they are for men's football? I think not to the same level. And I think there have been some recent changes including I think I read that the UEFA also what are the sales mandate for commercial rights to two circles instead of selling out globally to a broadcaster, which was the zone in the past. I think it's. an indication for the direction where the woman's game has to go and the revenue mix for the woman's game might look differently compared to the men's game. It will be more heavy on sponsorships and advertising compared to media rights, which does the heavy lifting for the, for men's football. Because for brands, it's still a draw, like the image transfer, brand association, it's a very attractive advertising. Environment, but what are sponsors dependent on, on reach? And then we always say revenue versus reach when it comes to media rights. It's a trade off. So I think there are just some fundamental differences and any business case or hypothesis that is betting everything on increased media rights income, I would say might not be the most reasonable approach for women's football. Where the sponsorship sponsorship and advertising revenue stream might be more material and relevant
Murray Barnett:Well, I think there are two points I wanted to make. One is I think it's fascinating that they've awarded the rights to two circles, because as you say, that's definitely pointing to a more balanced media mix, and I'm not sure if it's come out publicly, but I think that's exactly what two circles are planning to do in terms of looking at broad reach from a media perspective and then making up that money in sponsorship. Where you've got commercial partners that want to be associated with the brand of women's football. The other thing which, which I read, which I thought was really fascinating is this idea that women's sports viewership tends to be much younger. And so those people have not yet matured to the level where Where they are buying pay TV subscriptions and the traditional ways in which media rights have been monetized and therefore it's just going to take a while for those young consumers, if you like, to mature into being. You know, pay television consumers of the future and whether that's pay television in terms of traditional pay television in terms of OTT, it doesn't really matter, but the point being is that they're not of a generation at the moment where they are willing to pay for content.
Yannick Ramcke:And in turn, it's the demographic that the advertising industry is especially interested in. And women's game is still at a stage where you should minimize the barriers to engage. And the paywall is a killer for engagement. So I think especially in the short term and short term, I mean, next three to five years it is really prioritizing reachable revenues, leveraging and benefiting from the, from being a highly attractive advertising environment. And then as you said, Marie, like five to 10 years down the line, the media rights revenue stream might catch up because willingness to pay is established and it's in general a more established consumer product, but overall expectations, especially when it comes to short term media rights income, I think Need to be right size to to some extent.
Murray Barnett:Just one more point on that. And we kind of touched upon it earlier. It's this symbiotic relationship between media partners and rights owners that if WSL and the other women's club leagues, and indeed, you know, UEFA with the women's champions league could get it right in terms of building strong partnerships with the, with broadcasters, they could. set the right base for the long term future, just in the same way that a men's Premier League would be nowhere if it hadn't done that with Sky in the UK. I
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:So in the other bit of, you know, outside of the media conversation, you've got the investment question. So you've got this, these stories that, you know, of, of multi club ownership groups. Almost on a weekly basis stories are coming out, Mercury being the most famous, but you've, you've got you know, a number of others. I'm interested in their, in their investment thesis, because this bit of the conversation must be central to that. So do we think that they're seeing something else? Do they see a different alternative bundle will evolve? We, again, The other part is betting. If you were looking at betting and saying, okay, when you're, when you're talking to the private equity groups, a lot of them say, yeah, when it's talking about men's football, betting is much more central to the conversation. There's a whole debate about whether women's football wants to, or should engage with betting brands and betting companies. And that You know, in terms of just working out where the money is going to come from, and if we take Dornieri at face value and say a billion quid in 10 years, then If it's not the traditional linear media rights model, we feel it's much more of a sort of sponsor driven property, which again, I think in my head, I keep going back to, well, how would you capitalize on that? Where are they? And I go back to YouTube. Initially, it's a simplistic argument, but what would you do if you were running the WSL in terms of media strategy? In the next five to 10 years, what's your plan? Where would you put this product? If you think it's a sponsor driven, it's more in it, it's more a formula E proposition than formula one, is it not? There's a, there's a more of a, there's a purpose driven brand sell rather than a sheer eyeballs. Media sales.
Murray Barnett:I don't think that's a good analogy at all. I know, I know,
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:I was quite
Murray Barnett:I know, I know why you were trying to build that bridge, but I think it's a very different thing and that's probably a topic for a different conversation. But I think to answer your question, It's about building an audience like everything. It's, you've got to start small. You've got to nurture it and see it find its footing, which I still think it's in the very early days of doing. And that's a,
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:by the way, just, but just before you go on, I get, I get that, but what's, and it might be wonky. It might be a wonky bridge. What's wrong with the Formula E analogy? I think the Formula E I see is the money is, is coming from sponsors who are building platform around a particular Issue around
Murray Barnett:well, I mean, I don't know how much you want to get into the technicalities of it, but I, you know, my personal opinion is that formulary is a flawed model because ultimately it's not, it's, it's, it's. When you compare it against Formula One, it's not particularly compelling and I, you know, I applaud everybody that's working on Formula E and what they're, what they're doing to, to, to try and amend and change that. But I think the difference is in women's football, you've actually got a really compelling. opportunity there to showcase really, really well played top quality sport that's actually appealing to a completely different audience. If you like, the issue with Formula E is it's trying to feed off an existing motorsport audience. Whereas I'd argue that Formula that women's football is actually finding a completely new audience and the crossover with an existing, let's call it male football audience is. It's probably going to become less prevalent as it moves forward.
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:fair enough. Yannick, what'd you think?
Yannick Ramcke:I think especially based on your question, what what I do if I'm the or if I'm the WSL, I really liked the point from all regarding what's your media partner and I think short term revenue maximization in terms of media rights income. Is not what the woman's game should do right now, because in order to untap the long term potential, there must be investment. And at this stage, it is investment into the future into the presentation of the product, the accessibility of the product, et cetera. I think long term Media rights income will become relevant short term. They need to, ultimately the brands are paying the bills as we speak right now. And we all remember the criticism from the UEFA regarding the European the women's European championship that no broadcaster is willing to pay. I mean, it's not charity, right? It ultimately, there must be a return on investment for
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:That was FIFA, wasn't it? Or was it UEFA as well? It was definitely FIFA. Both.
Yannick Ramcke:So. I think it's, it's rich of our revenues and commercial revenues first in the short term doesn't mean media rights income can't catch up over the long run, but it's too nascent of a product in order to really tie the screws on monetization at this stage.
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:Right. Okay. Well, listen. As ever, thank you very much for your time. And we're we will reconvene in a month's time. I think we've got something else on FIFA plus coming up, which we'll we'll talk about at some point, but in the meantime, Murray Barnett, thank you very much for your
Murray Barnett:Thank you.
Richard Gillis Unofficial Partner:and Yannick Ramke, thank you.
Yannick Ramcke:pleasure as always.