Unofficial Partner Podcast
Unofficial Partner Podcast
UP465 The Bundle: The Relevent pitch deck; Bach's NBC farewell; Baller, Sidemen and the next streaming war
Welcome to The Bundle, our regular series on the sports media and streaming marketplace with co-hosts Yannick Ramcke, General Manager of OTT at the streaming service OneFootball and Murray Barnett, founder of 26West Consulting and formerly of F1, World Rugby and ESPN International.
Quiz
- What is UC3, and what significance does Relevent Sports taking over global commercial rights from Team Marketing hold for this entity?
- According to the discussion, what were some potential reasons behind UEFA and the European Club Association's decision to move away from their long-standing partnership with Team Marketing?
- What were the key components of the new long-term deal between Comcast/NBCUniversal and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), and why was the timing of the announcement considered interesting?
- Beyond just viewership numbers, what other strategic benefits do live sports like the Olympics offer to broadcasters like NBCUniversal in the current media landscape?
- Describe the unique characteristics and appeal of events like the Sidemen Charity Match and the Baller League that differentiate them from traditional sports broadcasts.
- How might an influencer like Cristiano Ronaldo broadcasting Premier Padel matches on his YouTube channel impact the reach and perception of a sport like padel?
- What does NASCAR debuting select races exclusively on Amazon Prime Video suggest about the current state of sports media consumption and the perceived reach of streaming platforms?
- Why might a major streaming platform like Amazon consider distributing content, such as Bundesliga matches in Germany, through traditional linear television channels?
- Initially exclusive to Apple TV, the MLS Season Pass is now available through other providers. What potential reasons were discussed for this shift in distribution strategy?
- What potential fundamental challenges or flaws might exist within the MLS and Apple TV partnership, as suggested by the recent changes in distribution?
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 there. Welcome. It's Richard Gillis here, and you're listening to Unofficial Partner, the sports business podcast. this is the bundle, our regular series on sports media and streaming with Co hosts Yannick Ramker, the general manager of OTT streaming service OneFootball. And Murray Barnett, founder of 26 West Consulting, formerly of Formula One, World Rugby and ESPN Disney. if you're listening to this, you'll also like the Unofficial Partner Substack newsletter, which goes out to subscribers every Thursday. If you want to join them, sign up either via unofficialpartner. com or go to Substack and search for Unofficial Partner.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:I really like this running order. So to flag what we're gonna be talking about. So we've got relevant and that decision, that U afa, uc, three U afa, European Club Association decision, and we'll get into that. We've got the NBC Olympic renewal, which again opens us up to interesting upending traditional sports broadcasting model. So we've got the Ronaldo streaming Premier Paddle, and we've got Baller League and various other bits and bobs, YouTube side men, which got enormous numbers. We need to talk about that. And then there's a question about has streaming reached a tipping point, which is quite nicely, sort of, there's a bit of jeopardy and, and naughtiness and danger in there. And then there's a bit about Amazon. what they're doing, which again is a slightly counterintuitive, so we've got loads in there and we've got the MLS and Apple. If we get through all of this, we'll do well. But as ever with the, the bundle, we are sort of, taking it as we go and picking out the main stories of the last few weeks. I think we kick off team era ends as UFO goes with relevant as Global Commercial Rights Holder. A Seismic Blows has spoke how to team marketing, which until 2022 had held the rights for the UA for Champions League property, worldwide since before 1993. So Murray was it, this was obviously a, you know, a really big story, big in sports industry story just, and it's now a few weeks old and people are sort of. Digested it and we are working out what it means and why, and all those things. What's your, first instinct on this.
Murray Barnett:It was such a big story, but the more I've thought about it, the less surprised by it because I think, you know, this being the first negotiation that's gonna be happened since uc three started,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:We should explain what uc three is for the.
Murray Barnett:C3 as a sort of joint venture vehicle of Uafa and the European Clubs Association. To sell the European or UFA Club competition. So Conference Europa and and Champions League men, men only. but you know, team had had a long relationship with UFA and it was pretty much exclusive until the last cycle where relevant secured the North American rights. And now they've gone one step further and acquired all the rights. But like I said, I think it's, I think it feels like it was probably less a criticism of team and more just wanting to do something completely new. You know, start with a new broom as it were in terms of how they were thinking about doing it. And I think, you know, you talk to various different people. have said that team have got perhaps a little bit. Too comfortable in the way that they sell and aren't innovating. I, I'm not sure that's true because, the data shows that they've been able to increase pretty substantially cycle on cycle over the years. So they, it's not that they've been doing a bad job, but perhaps there's an idea that with rights fees stagnating in, in Europe, that having an entity that's based in North America that, you know, had a, had a pretty decent success with the North American Rights to Champions League, that they're now wanting somebody that can sort of reinvigorate it on a more global basis.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:yeah, I mean, it's, it is really good setup because like you, I've been chatting and, you know, talking to a few people about it and your summary there, it, it seems like it's as much about what this new body is. You see three or Axo, it was originally called and I'm just wondering what it means about what the, you've got the European Club Association, it's, it's hard not to look at this and say they've come in much more central to the picture and then you've got. who have been there since the beginning. And this is, you know, one of the great sports marketing success stories of the last, you know, of, of the last era. there's a bit of, be careful what you wish for with the new thing, but the, the role of the clubs and the clubs of view of the relationship between u AFA and team as being close or too close. Or to your point about, quite easy, isn't it, to say, oh, they're not innovating or they're not, you know?'cause it would be interesting to see what actually it means when you get to the reality of what relevant will do. Yannick, what do you
Yannick Ramcke:I mean, I think it's a risky path to say, okay, it's creating change for the sake of changing things. I get the point that them together negotiating for the first time such agreement may be a trigger to do things differently. Yes, you can say there has been a bit of complacency on the team marketing side, but ultimately in, as you said, a rather challenging market environment and marketplace like Europe. I think especially the Champions League has been the one football property that has been quite, not even resilient or robust, but was able to show growth of the past couple of cycles, which is not, or has not been. The foregone conclusion. So I think in terms of track record was somewhat surprising. At the same time looking at relevant sports. I mean, they have been on a big client acqui acquisition spree, I think. But it was always centered and focused on the United States or the North American market. I mean, by now, pretty much every big European, or almost every big European football league is signed up and has mandated them to market and develop their brands in, in the us whether it's the Bud Legal, legal or premier League. So I'm a bit wondering, okay, why and how has been the pitch, obviously so convincing that even outside of the US they are now taking on this global mandate. So what really made the difference, because what I read was. Okay. They are taking over and hiring pretty much a big chunk of the current team marketing people to hit the, to hit the ground running. So what makes them different, especially outside of the us since in the US they already had the mandate and again, delivered with the six year agreement with paramount, with the hefty cycle over cycle increase. Is it the track record in the us but, okay. How does this translate to the global mandate? Is it, maybe, maybe it is the concept of how to exploit and utilize the rights across media, sponsorship and licensing? Maybe, and I'm completely spitballing here, but maybe there is the equity investment from the clients into. Into this new, obviously significantly growing kind of business. So, I'm a bit wondering, okay, what makes a difference to do those drastic measures and how will this differ or what is the differentiator compared to how marketing has been doing things, especially outside of the us?
Murray Barnett:It was, it is interesting. I was sort of thinking a little bit about the role of an agency when you have something like ufa because arguably, you know, a fifa, they could just go off and sell it themselves. But I think there's been this helpful separation that team has provided, if you like, insulating UAA from some of the sort of perhaps more difficult conversations around what some of the members would want to do in their own markets. And again, just speculating, ECA comes in and says, look, you know, we, we recognize that having an agency model is a good one because it, it kind of keeps everybody honest. But we don't want have the agency that. Wafer previously had. So again, it's this whole idea of, know, perhaps a little bit of needing to start afresh with this new joint venture.'cause you know, the, the story I heard was actually that of the people that you would expect to be pushing for change were actually the ones pushing for the status quo. And others who might be a little bit more pro team, were actually the ones advocating change. And so I think even within ECA and Uafa, there was a slightly sort of paradoxical view about what the future should, should look like.
Yannick Ramcke:Since they didn't put up the big financial guarantees in contrast to what they did in order to get the mandate in the US a couple of cycles back, there must be something else that made the difference. And I think they went into the discussion with the super straightforward and tailored approach that was either catering to the clubs and or the wafa that was convincing. So maybe. If they have a partner lined up maybe it's even like a global play, which obviously I think the clubs would love to do. There must be something that made made a difference. And maybe it just a matter of time to get this to know. But it has been somewhat surprising that all of a sudden from this US specific mandate, from this US centric operations, that relevant sports has been running to date to this, all of a sudden global mandate. And not only including media rights, but also sponsorship and licensing deals. So that's a huge mandate. What made them so, special for the teams and the federation to, to jump on that.
Murray Barnett:I think there were a couple of practical things, so I. put together an incredible bid document. I didn't see the team one, but my guess is that, you know, if you're sitting at UA for, and somebody comes up with something which is fresh and different to what you're used to seeing, even if it's just stylistically, that was probably something that was attractive. I think they also had a very strategy about who they needed to reach within the various organizations and really worked hard at that. And then I think there's a third point Yannick to your kind of comments that is in there, which is obviously it covers sponsorship, broadcast, and licensing. And I, I suspect there was some interesting in innovative ideas around the in licensing aspect of it as well. And, and I mean, you know, it's, it's obvious it'll be things like putting a Champions league final in New York. You know, those are the kind of things which I think, you know, sound very sexy and it kind of. It propels it onto the global stage. And those kind of things I think would've been very welcomed by the new organization.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:How relevant, no pun intended, is the sort of story of Formula One in America. the last few years bin, do you think looking out from UAF and the European clubs, is that something that would've played into this conversation?
Murray Barnett:Well, I think I'm right that the chairman of the board is Sean Bratches at Relevant, and he was obviously ran commercial at Formula One, so I'm sure that he took a within the documentation there was a a either overt or veil references to what was achieved with Formula One. And so I'm sure that that was a consideration.
Yannick Ramcke:I agree, even though obviously further optimizing and better exploiting the IP from Formula One compared to how it has been done under the leadership of Bernie Estone. Is a different kind of challenge compared to further optimizing a heavily optimized media and sponsorship product like the EFA Champion League. So, I, I, I think, yeah, both the track record as said, I mean they did also tremendous things for LA Liga, for example, in the US market, both in terms of regional revenues, on the media rights side. So I really think there must be either partnerships or events or other things aligned with the North American market that they have lined up where asset the ECA and OOER couldn't say no to, in fact, remained that the North American market, it's still, or like. F European football leagues and federation still are holding out hope that this is the incremental growth market. Given they're facing a saturated domestic market. There is still this hope that there is untapped potential above and beyond the European continent and with the US office here on top of the list. So why not align with someone who has proven expertise and a track record over there.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:I mean, there's limited amount. I mean, in terms of the product itself, the, then you've got, obviously you've just, you know, we're in the first season of a complete revamp of it. So they can't really do much with that. You can't, you know, you've gotta allow that to bed in. So there, in terms of the, the product itself as a tournament, I'm talking about the Champions League here, that doesn't feel like there's much, you know, sort of room there innovation. You've got to Murray's point, you know, matches in the States, which again is a conversation that that sort of is a, been around forever. But you can sort of see that that might be part of it. Early rounds in the, you know, in the states or the final in the states, which would be a big, big statement. They've done what advertising agencies do when they win a big client, which is say that they're gonna create an agent specific company or agency around, it's almost like they're recreating team relevant. And whether that's personnel or LI basis or there, there is a, an entity that is going to be driving it. So 85% of UFO's money comes from media sales. So the engine everything. Um, Three, as I understand it, is a, is a sort of, so it's a JV uafa own 51% of it. The ECA owns 49% of it. got the most sort of conflicted man in sport, which is NASA Alfi, chair of the ECA Uafa X Co member, owner of PSG and Chair of Be in Sport, which is one of the great biggest sort of contributors in terms of rights revenue into UAF. So he's both buy and seller in this process. And in terms of, it's, it's a, it's an odd one. I can't, you know, when you are looking at this from, from the outside, it'll be, again, it'll be interesting to see how much room they've got to actually evolve the product or just, is it, it feels like a new group are gonna do business as usual.
Murray Barnett:Well, I don't, I don't think it is an odd one. I mean, I, I think it goes back to what we said, which is that they need to have. There, there was a, a desire to have a new agency or, and relevant with a, a, the useful partner to have at the time. And I, you know, I think the nature of any fresh pitch in whatever industry you're in is that you come in all guns blazing, offering a new and different approach. And whether you can actually achieve it or not becomes a, a another thing. But my guess is that they've included all of the things that we've talked about from, you know, better sponsorship, more integrated digital media, increased licensing events in new places. You know, that I know that they've promised to open local offices around the world, which is something that team didn't really have. you know, think they promised the world and then it'll be a question of, you know, can they deliver? And, you know, there's no reason why they're not going to do what they say they're going to do. But I think it's, it's them. It's always easier to advocate for change than it is to advocate for the status quo. And I think that that's, there's a weird psychology aspect to that as well is that you come in offering something new and different, it's somewhere somehow much easier to accept that, to offer that and to accept that than say, oh, let's just keep going the same way that we always have done.'cause isn't that been, hasn't that been really successful?
Yannick Ramcke:from a risk profile, it might be reasonable for uc three to accept this because I think the downside is limited, right? You have a well-oiled machine. You, I think the revenue base that you have established over the past decade it won't disappear from one day to the next just because you grew up in the licensing or in on the sales of of the ip. So it might be intriguing or the narratives and ideas and concepts. That may untap incremental revenue growth to explore this because I think downside by such a well established global property like the Champions League is somewhat limited.
Murray Barnett:Just, just a final point on it is I, I think I'll be surprised if they end up taking a lot of the senior people, at least from team. I suspect that they'll be looking to have sort of fresh people running it from a senior perspective, albeit, you know, people from the world of football. But if I was them, I'd be busy trying to round up, let's call it the, the mid-level or the more junior people at team that know how the system works, and then bring that fresh thinking at a more strategic
Yannick Ramcke:That makes absolute sense because the senior people are obviously not the people who do the heavy operational lifting. And if you look at where people and employ employees were allocated within team, I. It's more operations than sales, which was also one of the selling points from relevant, actually. I know, and we know operations, it's important to actually deliver and client service, but if you double down on the sales side, there might be the untapped potential.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Okay. Right. Let us get to the second story, which is another. Huge mega event and it's the Olympic Games and so Inks, this is from the Hollywood Reporter. I love it. I love it when a contract is described in this way. Comcast inks a$3 billion deal to keep the Olympics rights through 2036. The deal of the IOC also includes technical and advertising support surrounding the games in a major deal. Peacock and NBC Universal will be the streaming home of the Olympic games through through to. 20 34 Winter Olympics, which are in Salt Lake City and the 2036 games, which, who knows where that's gonna be. You've also got running alongside this story, which makes the timing interesting, the announcement of the new president of the IOC in the next couple of weeks. Whether or not this is Thomas Bark's sort of golden farewell and he wanted the announcement within his remit, he didn't want anyone else taking this deal, but, we'll, we'll park that for a minute. There's a few things to say in here, I think, but just give us your first run through. What's your, what was your sort of response?
Murray Barnett:They, they have quite a symbiotic relationship. And I think in some ways this is just actually recognizing that, you know, they've gone from a media buyer, if you like, they're now being called a strategic partner. And I think that that probably co has a few different strands to it. But we know that, and we've talked about this a number of times before, that, you know, live sports is one of the few things that really delivers huge value to a, to a broadcaster. And know, the numbers from post Paris. We're very, very strong. And I think that this is more a recognition of the fact that they want to, I think the timing is probably to do with, with Thomas back, but I, I, I don't know that, but I suspect that it's also that they want to get ahead of the La Olympics. Maybe a little bit of nervousness around the following summer Olympics in the Gold Coast not being a great time zone for the us. So being able to extend this until the next summer, Olympics after that is a, is a positive thing for them. But it's, but you know, it's been a very good relationship on both sides. You know, it, it, it's also the backdrop, which I'm sure Janet will talk about o this, you know, they're trying to spin off a bunch of their linear channels, their, their linear ad channels, and it was a massive streaming hit for them. And I think that they're now doubling down and saying, okay, we wanna have another 10 years of guaranteed big event that's gonna help keep driving peacock forward and is gonna help us manage this transition from sort of linear to, to a, a more direct to consumer type environment. And you can't get much bigger than the Olympics, especially when you are guaranteed, albeit a Winter Olympics at home. I do think it's gonna be interesting to see how much. This plays into where 2036 is, you know, the front runners are allegedly India and Saudi. Both of them are pretty poor time zones for the us, especially after the Gold Coast. So does that start to influence the way the IOC thinks? But there's a, there's a few different strands in there, which I'm, I'm sure you will pick up on upon.
Yannick Ramcke:As you said, I think there are two sites to look at it. One, from NBC including their broadcast cable TV and streaming businesses as well as from the IOCs perspective from NBCA actually, or from Comcast perspective. I actually consider this an interesting follow up, I think from the last episode where we looked into quarterly earnings of different streamers and we were wondering, okay, I. Is peacock flatlining quarter over quarter at I think 36 million active subscribers. Is this good, bad, or indifferent? But I think we, we went away, okay. They didn't have this 10 pool subscriber acquisition event in that particular quarter. So maybe flatlining actually being able to retain the subscriber base without those smarty events is actually a good sign. And I think the Olympics might be, I mean, doesn't get more top of the pyramid then Olympics, it's a tried improvement subscriber acquisition event, and they have proven to be able to retain them. Subscribers that probably were acquired by one, one form or another of live sports programming. So I think it's just doubling down on the strategy to have those 10 per live sports programming events to, to drive new subscriber physicians, which are then retained through the the backlog and the library between those marque live sports events. Others, which they obviously have was the NFL. And the other thing that we touched on, the advertisers. So ultimately is still a re dual revenue stream model, right? You have the sub subscription fees and then the advertising. And I think they made 1.25 billion US dollars for the Paris Summer games alone. I'm not saying that. The advertising revenue stream is like already recouping most of their costs associated to such events. But for advertising those communal events, having large live audiences at scale, it's unique in today's media landscape. And then the small little benefit that these are as much corporate events as these are spectator events. You can win and dine with your advertising clients around such events. So it, it makes sense, but ultimately, if you look at what they paid for it hopefully they get their money's worth. Because if I, if you just spread the licensee across the years of the ride cycle, it turns out pretty similar. But if you actually look at the number of Olympics included, I. I think they pay almost four time as much per Olympic compared to the current cycle. So overall, I think it's, it's a good deal for Comcast security and certainty on planning. But they certainly put the big box here on the table.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:I've got a question about what the Olympic Channel is now because, know, talking about Thomas Bark's sort of legacy in the media realm. You've obviously, you know, we can assume, and I think, I know we're not being too cynical to suggest that this news, the, the, the, the timing of this is about crediting him with this, and he's certainly one of the, the big. Pluses, he's, you know, he would claim his, his NBC's relationship and when they renew to 2032 and, that bit of the story of the media story. The other bit is this enormous cost. I dunno how much it's cost, but the, you know, it's hundreds and hundreds of millions to build the Olympic channel. What is that now?'cause I just, I never hear of it and I never, I'm not quite sure where it plays in the, in the scheme of things and whether it is just white elephant now because actually the market is evolving and whether or not that's something that we'll look back on and say, that was a boom time idea.
Yannick Ramcke:I am mean curious to hear what Murray thinks because I think that is this kind of reality check that more and more rights owners are getting over the past, let's say, 12 to 18 months. That all those huge ambition ambitions regarding direct to consumer being a media company and all of that, that this has not really translated or converted into the huge plans and potential that was envisioned back then. But I don't think it's a surprise or a coincidence that you haven't heard much about it because I think describing it as a scaled back effort might be a proper proper framing to, to position this.
Murray Barnett:It's an interesting one. I think we've talked about it before, that everybody needs to have a direct to consumer media strategy, and so whether the concept of the Olympic channel was right or not, I, I think it's important for relevance and for better understanding of your audience and all the other things that we've talked about, for there to be some kind of direct to consumer media play for all sports organizations, including people like the Olympics and, and fifa. I, I think you can argue that the. That the execution maybe wasn't a hundred percent right, but the idea was, was certainly relevant. There's some cur curious things within the, the Comcast announcement around they're looking at doing new innovative joint strategic initiatives and projects, I wonder if that's a veiled agreement to collaborate more on what a peacock slash Olympic channel co-sharing of ideas. Is it Comcast getting more involved in running that on behalf of the, the Olympics? There's probably something in that or else I, I don't see why they would've it in, in that way. But I,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:A
Murray Barnett:I, I,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:question.
Murray Barnett:I think, I think the answer is like, if you've got all that money to spend, why wouldn't you spend some of it on, on a, on your direct to consumer media and. You know,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah, I mean, I think there's a, there's a, there's a, I I get it. It's just, you know, it was, it was held up as, you know, along with FIFA Plus, presumably as the, the poster children for OTT and, you know, the, the, that rights holder as media
Murray Barnett:held up
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:company.
Murray Barnett:And I I, I think that you've gotta remember
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Well, by the IOC, they spent, what is it, 600 million on it?
Murray Barnett:But, but some of it is to do with your next best alternative to, to what the, what the opportunities are in the market. So we all know that, you know, direct to consumer media is also a way to create some tension in the market. And so I think a lot of the trumpeting that they did at the time was partly to sort of remind everybody that they could go off and do it themselves if they wanted to. I think, you know, the objectives of FIFA Plus and the Olympic Channel are slightly different, or the strategies behind it were
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah.
Yannick Ramcke:I I also think that, I mean, the Olympics have the additional challenge of coming and going, right? You always have those between cycles or between Olympics periods where it's a bit for, I would say the vast majority of sports out of sight out of mind. I think this was like one particular characteristic to the Olympic channel. Why this this idea came came about. But I expect, or I think what they notice is that, okay, just by making the product more accessible, by act, by actually putting stories and content out there you need someone to amplify and multiply the region, the awareness. And this is ultimately where then the B2B and traditional media companies come back into, and this reminds me a little bit of the discussion around the NFL and the NFL network and the NFL completely doubling down on B2B licensing instead of further supporting and fortifying their in-house media unit, I think for the next three to five years, we will see a doubling down on B2B business again instead of B2C slash G two C. When it comes to rights owners.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Okay, and, and you finally, before we leave the Olympics, the discovery deal, is that still covers. European market. I always get a bit confused about this, but you've got that sort of sublicensing is it of, of the Olympics to discovery, who then sell it on to the B, BC over here? Is that, is that how it works? Is that still the case?
Yannick Ramcke:It is, they have extended this one, but fine tuned a little bit in the details, especially around this sublicensing mechanism. In the past it was solely on discovery. They pretty much set up an in-house agency to then do the local sub licensing agreements. However, at least how they have positioned it as part of the most recent extension, that's a much more collaborative approach between the IOC and discovery to. Identify and to do deals with local broadcasters and also the local broadcasters preferably free to air, have access to a much broader programming portfolio than before. So in essence, it's the same, but they find you a little bit to optimize, I guess, reach and visibility and awareness which obviously, quote unquote is to the mutual benefit of both according to press release. But some fine tuning has been done there, but it's still this European agreement.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:and Eurosport is no more, as far as I understand it, they, they.
Yannick Ramcke:I think it's, it's a market by market thing, right? So we are looking in our filter bubble holistically at it, and we spot those inconsistencies at, in this market, this is the consumer facing brand by, in the other market, it's all rolled up into discovery. Discovery Plus. And in the US there's not even a discovery plus more anymore because then there's there's max. So yes, it looks like inconsistent in terms of branding, but ultimately if I'm an end consumer, any given of market, I don't actually care. Right? It's like what? It's like whatever the go-to market proposition is in the market that I am, that's what counts for me. Yes, looking at it holistically, it doesn't look consistent, but this might be also like an idealized world. So I think Eurosport is actually still a thing in a few and maybe even a big thing in a few of the European markets in particular.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Right. Okay. Right. We're going to go into our next story and talked about sort of major Top end major broadcasters and huge properties. Talk about something else here, which is, we covered this a little bit. We did a thing, a podcast recently, which many listeners will have heard about Ronaldo and what Ronaldo is now and Theo Brand. And one of the things that came from that was his YouTube strategy. And he live streamed or the Ronaldo channel live streamed premier paddles, Riyad final, his 74 million YouTube followers in February, and about 620,000 people or viewers tuned in. You've also got Baller League, you've got side men. There is a whole load of different properties coming to market. We are doing a lot on this. Over the next few months, we're doing a couple of live events based around part of this trend. Murray just unpick what's happening here'cause there's a few sort of threads in it which we could pick out.
Murray Barnett:Sort of starting maybe at the end it was quite curious. I was in the office of one of my clients last week and the office was buzzing around the people that had been to the Side Men Charity Mattress sold out Wembley, 90,000 people. And it kind of got me intrigued because. When you sit, when you're around sports organizations, there's generally, you know, a good buzz around what sports has happened, but there seem to be some genuine excitement around this in terms of how engaged people's, you know, children and teenagers and and, and sort of, you know, family members were in, in this particular event. And, you know, some of the numbers around the side menu was, was quite astonishing. So currently over 14 million YouTube views. And just to put that into context, only three years ago they were two and a half million views. So it's, you know, it's grown massively and it's the kind of thing that wouldn't necessarily get onto TV otherwise. So. It's not, it's not a TV designed event. It's very much driven by their social media followings. And, you know, I, I, I watched some of the match myself and it's, you know, I played on the pitch at Wembley 15 years ago and was Mar only marginally worse than the, than the game that I watched.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Where did you play? Were you a, were you a sort of, I can see, right? Guess the position for, for Murray now because I'm thinking, a sort of midfield bruiser or were you a sort of creative number 10 in, you know, doing interesting things in, wide areas? What, what, what, what, what sort of position were you or where you are sort of up and down Good engine.
Murray Barnett:I, I would say that I started off wanting to be a creative winger, Allah, sort of, you know, somebody like that, and ended up being, you know, pretty static by about 10 minutes in. But anyway, that's a whole nother story. But the, but the, but the point being
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:There's a, there's an audience for everything. This is, this is the story, isn't it? Odd watch.
Murray Barnett:the, the the point being is that that's a social media event that has found its niche on social media, you know, a very significant niche. And I think you put that next to baller they've started their UK version and that's now gone the other way, where they, they're now non exclusively broadcasting also on Sky. And you kind of look at that and say, well, that's a bit weird because it's a, again, a social media event, but in actual fact. There's a part of Skye that is searching for relevance or, or that's maybe the wrong way of saying it. It's like they want to experiment with this a little bit. And so it's a win-win for everybody. It, creates a bit of relevance for baller because they're now on the Premier League broadcaster. It allows Skye to experiment with perhaps to generate something for a younger audience. And so I think that that's a really interesting test that they're doing there. And that will be that, that's the symbiotic thing where it benefits both. then you, you layer in Ronaldo who allegedly didn't get paid anything for doing this, although we know that he is a, a sort of a, a supporter of Saudi, let's call it.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:He's a, he is an investor in Premier Paddle.
Murray Barnett:I, is he an invest?
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah.
Murray Barnett:Well, so, he, I, I don't think he got paid separately for this, but you know, he also has got a relationship with, with nasa and it, it, that just seems like a very natural thing where he's also taking a look at like, what's my future after my playing career? So this a, a thing where I can start to develop myself as a sort of a, a media empire as it were? And, know, premier Paddle is going to want that to be contextualized in a, in a different way than a traditional paddle audience. Because, you know, we've discussed in the past about whether paddle is really a TV sport, and I think if anybody can make it a TV sport, it's likely to be somebody like Ronaldo putting it on, on,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah,
Murray Barnett:his channel.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:well one of the, one of the questions we had when we were talking about it was, was there was the payment. So this is, this is an interesting story in its own right. So you've got this, you know, it's quite nicely counterintuitive, premier paddle on Ronaldo's channel. then you go to the World Cup in Brazil time around the Qatar World Cup where, and it was on Casimiro channel, not the player, but the, the influencer in Brazil. So that was, you know, they didn't get to the right number that FIFA wanted, so they put it on a streamer. it's that sort of relationship in terms of, well, how is it gonna evolve?'cause now we're sort of seeing these streamers, channels of various types, whether they are sort of personality led or whether they are more corporate led. But you've got this marketplace. If you are right, I'm just interested through the rights holder's view, where the pros and cons are. There's a lot of intangible in this conversation in terms of the sort of the, the perceptions and the, the idea that you're chasing, you know, younger audiences and various other things. So there's a lot in there to sort of try and separate, but Yannick, what, what's your your view on that? Because at some point, presumably someone's gonna write, you know, if they're not already writing big checks to influencers to just be channels in a more traditional sense.
Yannick Ramcke:Unsurprisingly, and as you said, yes, a lot in there. I think that happens if you try to do three stories at at once. But let's start with.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Embrace the, embrace the
Yannick Ramcke:I'm about to do. But let's start with those influencer led distribution channels. I was surprised for a second when Murray said okay, there was nothing in there for one iro. But then the investment clarified things because I think that has become clear. Whoever has consumer access and or can com command the attention of the end user that this is one of the most variable currencies in today's media environment. And whoever has that access and can command such attention will probably or want to be, want to be compensated for that one. So, as you know, I like to think in frameworks and for me has always been content and distribution. If I have tremendous content, like top of the pyramid content, audiences will come, right? It can be on a small, very low distributed platform. And behind the high pay wall, if the content is big enough and important enough audience will find and pay for that content. On the other side, if it's like mid to long tail which pedal may or may not be at this stage of its development and growth, I obviously need to over compensate in distribution to reach and engage an audience. And nowadays, influencer led social media channels or similar means might be the math. Reach vehicles of the past, which linear television was in the past. Similar audiences nowadays might only be reachable through those channels. So, the only thing that I would say is what should not be the takeaway? That this is a shortcut to solve all the industry's challenges. Can this actually translate or transfer to big buck sports properties that make billions in revenues? I don't think the influencers are led a support that free to air distribution model is like the solution to to that one. But it also shows that and this is now maybe a finer point before I throw it back to to Murray with the boiler leak, the fact that they actually go from digital to linear. I mean, we always speak about linear to streaming transition, but it's a two way street because nowadays, now distribution system has a monopoly on the audience. It's too fragmented. It's not like in the past that if you are on linear television, you reach the entire market. Nowadays, there are different players in the market, different platforms in the market who are well equipped to reach a certain segment of the market, but no one can reach them all. And for boiler leak to penetrate the consumer mainstream or the non-digital forwards they are relying on more traditional distribution systems. And when it comes to sports in the uk, probably none better than sky. So in other words, I don't expect Sky to pay anything for the boiler leak because it's at least mutually beneficial if it works. And maybe even the boiler leak is more reliant on Sky in this case, as the other way around.
Murray Barnett:The interesting thing about both Bowler Lee. Again, the Sidemen event was that. you think about you wanna watch the best sport, right? So you are watching the Premier League because that's best clubs in the whole country that, you know, have proved themselves over time, or NFL or whatever it is. But here it's, it is purely entertainment. With sport as a backdrop, you're not watching the best players in the side men competition. You are watching the people that you are used to following. And it's, again, it's back to that whole thing with, you know, the, the, the Jake Paul and the KSI boxing, which is the fact that it's happening in a traditional sports environment is actually the wrong lens to look through. Look at it through, it's actually just about this blurring of what is entertainment and what is sport. And quite frankly, the new generations of consumers don't really care. don't want that. They don't really care whether it's sport or entertainment. They just care if it's, they just want it to be content that
Yannick Ramcke:Yeah, I think, I think there are two interesting things in there. One is the, what is the base of competition? So I don't think the base of competition is putting up an exciting sporting event. It's entertainment, which entertainment needs might be solved through sporting merits and world class performances, or through that alternative or other form of entertainment. It ultimately serves the same need, but the need is not to watch an exciting sporting event. So, because I agree, normally you want to see a world class sporting performances, but I. You don't need to consume sports in the first place. So I think that's a different base of of competition. It doesn't have to be like the best footballers in the world to actually capture time and the tension of the end consumer. And the second point is that I think those cases show how much and what well distributed channels can do for, can do for the content. They may even watch this, not because it's pattern, but it's on Oneida's YouTube channel. So it's actually, it disregard, or like, deemphasizes actually the content if it's just associated with an influencer that you are attached to one way or the other.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:It is quite interesting when you, when you flick back to the previous story about the Olympics, because Olympics is all about performance, isn't it? they've written, you know, they've, the and NBC are doing it for, for one reason, but you've also, it's the Olympics is a sort of anomaly because it's the Olympics and there's this massive halo around it. So actually, how much of it is about the performance of the sport? How much of it is just the moment? And that you could argue it's a sort of entertainment in its own right. So it's a circus. So, but so that's a bit confusing. The other part to it is when you get to. That shift, that blurring when you see, so someone like Mr. Beast goes on and does a television show. It's really strange and it doesn't really work as a piece of programming because it's sort of, the context is all, all wrong. So there's sort of assumption of blurring, but it's the channel and where you are watching it does play quite a significant role in why you're watching it. I'm interested, you know, the Side Men thing, it's a YouTube thing a sort of sense of ownership and per, you know, it is where the personalization question comes in because, because we're so atomized and our kids are so atomized in terms of just receiving their feed, it's incredibly personal and I can see that that plays into their loyalty and the excitement of seeing them at Wembley. It's, it's, it's different than just a television program. I mean, again, your point there about. Performance versus entertainment. Murray, I, I completely agree. It's, you know, I don't watch Master Chef expecting the great chefs of the world to be there. It's not about quality. It's a piece of entertainment. And I think that one of the challenges that the sports media world has got is just that they're addicted to these massive numbers and the numbers that, you know, they're chasing these, these sort of eyeball numbers the whole time, which, you
Murray Barnett:you are,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:know,
Murray Barnett:right. But like, if you think about it, the biggest success of Paris arguably was Snoop. It wasn't actually anything to do with the fact that it was an amazing tournament with fantastic performances. It was that even, you know, various established events like the Olympics are starting to recognize this crossover with entertainment and the need to provide
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:yeah.
Murray Barnett:lens for the sporting performance, even if it is the best in the world.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:We're doing a, a, a thing in at the Olympic Museum next month, which will be interesting at the SPOT event. and we were briefed with a sort of entertainment, you know, can we, can we have a conversation live on stage about this
Yannick Ramcke:and this, but here we have real world examples is that the competition is not the other sports or the other sport channel. It is entertainment at large because the end consumer hasn't allotted. A fixed amount of minutes to consuming sports. It's about, I'm not doing the stick with Netflix. Okay. Competition, sleep. But I think it's for sports as a whole and at large fighting for time and attention. Ultimately volatil share of the consumer. It, we can't take it for granted that everyone is a sports fan or consumer in the first place,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:So let's throw, let's throw, sorry. Yeah, go on.
Murray Barnett:add
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah, yeah,
Murray Barnett:here, which is that, that, you know, I've been quite sort of obsessed with the CBS coverage of Champions League in the, in the US to sort of bring it back almost
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:yeah,
Murray Barnett:story because the stuff that I see about it is not highlights of the amazing games. It's the buffoonery between
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:yeah, yeah.
Murray Barnett:Richards and, and the gang in the
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Which, which appears to be neither sport or entertainment.
Yannick Ramcke:but probably the viewership data tells you that's what the consumer wants, right?
Murray Barnett:well, it, it, it certainly, it certainly gets the
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Well, it's built for, it's built for Twitter TikTok, isn't it? You know, it's, it's, it's framed as a, just a series of, moments that they can then push out. I get, you know, and that's that, again, there's an interesting bit to it. I just wanna push us on,'cause I think the themes that we're talking about bleed into the next story, which is, has streaming reached a tipping point? So you've got nascar, which is a, I don't, you know, we used to, used to talk about NASCAR a lot 20 years ago. It's quite interesting. I don't think about NASCAR now. It used to be a case study of fan loyalty. I remember interviewing the France brothers who, who were, you know, over in in the States. And it was, it was quite, you know, it was a huge thing. I, I'm not sure where it is now in the scale of things. I'm sure it's still massive in the, for our American audiences. But, so NASCAR debuts on Amazon. Prime's five events will mark the first time that NASCAR's Premier events will be exclusively streamed digitally. What's happening here? Why is this significant? we think?
Murray Barnett:Well, the interesting thing about this was the fact that, and they would do, wouldn't they? But, you know, Steve Phelps from NASCAR was basically saying they're not expecting to see any kind of drop off compared to what the ratings would be on traditional, you know, linear channels. And that struck me as a quite a Hef, quite a big statement.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Hmm.
Murray Barnett:that with the, the NFL and NBA and other things which have also been on, on on Amazon or YouTube or Netflix, you, you're now getting to that point where it's not a consideration about whether. It's, they're just seen as another broadcast mechanism. Before they were probably having to do a lot of sort of, massaging around that their reach wasn't going to be as strong or the, the takeup wasn't gonna be as strong as perhaps linear, but they were willing to write the big check or they were willing to do other things around it. And now you are obviously getting to the stage where, and you know, it's a, it's a small test that's five of 38 races. But they're quite significant because they're happening in the latter part of the season that it, that you're now feeling like these are legitimate, that the, the reach of all these platforms and the number of subscribers that these platforms have is, is all making them a completely legitimate alternative. And it, you know, it goes back to what we talked about in, in previous episodes regarding, you know, F1 and Netflix for example. So I don't think it's even a consideration for, uh. F1 about what the reach of Netflix is for them to do a deal in the us just in the same way that NASCAR doesn't seem to be that concerned about what's, you know, whether it's gonna have an impact on their audience or not, because they, they now see the reach that Prime has in the states as well as the other benefits of it being non-linear in terms of, you know, it's able to let the sport breathe a bit more because you're not having to out into, into other programming or whatever. And so there's some really interesting things happening here.
Yannick Ramcke:I 100% agree with with Murray said, I think this is the always the trade off that, or the seeming trade off that was discussed and considered reach for this revenue by now. Okay. The question is, did streaming caught up to cable b tv or did cable TV contract. Down to, to streaming factors in terms of reach between those two distribution systems. That doesn't seem to be a big a big difference anymore. And it's not like that Amazon has millions of more and technical reach in the US compared to five years ago, but I think it just this adoption curve that you go through as a new distribution system to get consumer take up. Anecdotally, one interesting fact that I think also supports this notion is I think the NFL domestic ratings in the NFL were slightly down coming off a huge 2023 season among all broadcasters except for Amazon, which grew another 10 plus percent. Season over season because it's really this like consumer adoption. It takes some time. There is some lagging effect for consumers to adopt. But it might be this tipping point that there is no trade off between reach and revenue anymore, especially between a declining cable TV system and yeah, emerging streaming streaming system. So that really caught caught my eye, but I said Murray pretty much laid, laid this one out.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:So this question about Amazon goes linear, is that what we're, you know, so is what they're doing in Germany what they want to do elsewhere? Do we think, is this how they're gonna evolve?
Yannick Ramcke:I mean, this has been a playbook that has been run by the Zone in Germany, I think for three years now, where they have the Zone channel one and two the channels distributed via traditional distributors like telcos and so on. I think ultimately, as said before, there is now this one distribution system that has a monopoly on the audience streaming adoption, growth and growth, and gets better by the month. But it's not like that. There are consumer lags that just have not, and may never will adopt streaming technology or signing up to Prime video whatsoever. And maybe they think, okay, in Germany, prime video had the UFA Champions League now for multiple years, those who have not signed up. By now may never do so. And then you have all the strategic considerations. Okay, let's keep it exclusive to the streaming platform. So you force consumers to sign up and actually also technically adapt to new systems. But after years and years of consumers haven't done it, that actually not ask them to come to us, but go to where they are because strategy here or there, at some point you also have a p and a to serve even like a huge companies like like, Amazon. So I think it's rather a curation and discovery tool to make the content more accessible by actually moving into more traditional systems. Because if you haven't signed up by now, I. Chances are you never will unless you meet them where they are. We always think of meet meeting where they are and thinking in terms of digital environments, but the same is true for the linear environment. That's also a huge audience still living there and probably a higher income audience compared to the digital audience.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Okay. Final story, and gonna finish in the States. The MLS season pass on Apple TV will no longer be exclusive to Apple Season Pass will also be available for purchase and viewing through both Comcast's Xfinity TV service and DirecTV T-Mobile subscribers also receive complimentary access to MLS all inclusive offering as they did in 2023. So the, this I, this is something we talk about a lot because. This MLS Apple deal 10 year two and a half billion tie up. When it was announced in June, 2022, that was a seen as a big moment. It was really sort of, it got people excited about, well, this is great for Apple because it, it gives them a property and people are sort of projecting onto that, oh, it's Apple entering the rights market in a serious way. Now we're sort of three years down the road. It feels like a, sort of, the story is weakening. This feels like a, you know, why are they giving away on this? Is it not working? Murray, just what's, what's your view on this story?
Murray Barnett:So there's a, there's a lot of different angles that you can take with this story, but I, I think, you know, we've talked a lot about success in a digital environment with sports like NASCAR and NFL and whoever else. And this is one that has probably not quite worked out the way that they all hoped it was. But there's another strand, which is what Yannick has just been talking about, which is you kind of have to go where the audience is. You know, you've probably already got the majority of people that are gonna watch MLS through Apple. So now you have to see if you can extract audiences, you know, elsewhere. And I think this is a case of right idea, but the, probably the wrong partnership in terms of not the right sport for Apple. And probably the same, the other way round in the sense that. For MLS, apple was maybe this suboptimal partner, which is easy to say, but if you remember when we covered this story, when it happened, it was a little bit of a, of a moment in time and a, and a need on both sides, well, certainly on the MLS side to, to do this deal. And they rightly were sort of, you know, lauded for it at the time because we all were delighted to the fact they were getting apple interested in buying sports. And it was seen as kind of innovative and cool and different. But now there's a kind of a realization that it doesn't work for every sport on every platform. You have to have a very bespoke solution for each each sport, which includes as, as you know, sort of Yannick said. Going to where the audiences are and not just assuming that you can do everything through, through one particular audience. And I think that's been the, probably the, drawback with regards to the Apple deal is that the nature of the exclusivity around it was such that, that it restricted, severely restricted the audience that it could reach. Because also Apple TV is probably the least distributed of, of the major streaming partners, if you like, and without a reputation for sport. So there are a number of factors why it perhaps didn't quite work, but that's not to say that it's, that it's not salvageable. If you listen to what MLS is saying, they're saying this is already sort of the, the be this year is the best partnership they've ever had with, with MLS and sorry, with Apple. And that, you know, with the World Cup coming next year, that, that there'll be this sort of, you know, fabulous uptick in the interest in, in, in sport in general. You've got, you know, messy firing in all cylinders. You've got World Club Cup coming, you know, there's lots of sort of, tailwinds, which which could make it a success, but it's probably gonna require a, a, a more multi-pronged distribution approach, which is what they're doing.
Yannick Ramcke:Yes.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:And they cannot, apple can opt out in 27, is that right?
Murray Barnett:Correct.
Yannick Ramcke:Now uh, I think we, we touched on a, a lot of important points here and I think just a couple of years in it now shows that there might be some fundamental flaws to this partnership. From the beginning. Might be as simple as Apple is like a company that is as vertically integrated it as anyone that wants to own all the processes from hardware to software, to services. And in this particular case, you actually outsource everything since MLS is pretty much on the hook for the entire media product when it comes through production and everything. So I can actually imagine that quite a big. Back and forth between Apple pushing the MLS to do more via the MLS sees it margin going away because they need to put the build if they invest further into production. So I think there are like just conceptually some flaws into in, in this relationship that now after a honeymoon in year one with Massi coming on board, I mean this is best case scenario, right? I think there was a bit of a donor now season season number two, yes, ESMO is said. There are some growth catalysts ahead in the next the next couple of years. But the question is also for Apple. How invested are they in this thing? Because Epic can take their time. They may or may not do something in sports. I said, we said back then, for them, that's a proof of concept. This idea of iTunes for sports where a league can pretty much retail its own media product through VI mean, let's not open up Apple's board because it might be a can of forms that we don't get orders again within the next few hours. But I still think this is a very high potential initiative and product.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:or the
Yannick Ramcke:The, the app app is bought. But again, apple has the the luxury to of time they can take things at their pace. And they don't have to do things at all if they don't want to. So let's not bury the Apple WhatsApp just now. I think that still has huge potential. But back to back to MLS there was criticism and I think being two years into a 10 year deal for that, there were a lot of news during the off season related to their partnership. Whether it's like optimizing the schedule, whether having a match of the week that is actually part of apple TV plus. Because also, like, just because you have Apple TV plus doesn't mean you have the MLS, it's a premium add-on. You have those telco corporations. You have a corporation with T-Mobile where you get a free on. Free on us, I think is the branding. So there's a lot of buttons that are pushed right now in order to get this thing a bit more off the ground as they have been so far because the criticism both like it's a bit out of sight, out of mind. And I think that's obviously obviously true. And again, as Marie said, these systems all coexist. And keeping exclusivity to the world Garden of Apple. I think they have come as far as they could have gotten with this approach. But similar as to Amazon with linear channels carried by traditional distributors, apple is now opening up. They don't do the linear channels just yet, but opening up to the Android operating system is one specific step.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Okay. Right. One to follow. That's always a nice way out of those types of conversations. And there we are. Another bundle has finished. Thank you so much for your time, Aramco and Murray Barnett. Excellent as always. And there will be, a, newsletter which will accompany this podcast If you like the bundle, you should really subscribe to the Unofficial Partner newsletter, which contains the bundle and it's very good. It's got all of our sort show notes and it's basically our briefing document that you two write, which people can click on all the links and follow our lines of thought. In the meantime, thank you both for your time.