12 Oct 2011

Chelsea reject Liverpool FC's Premier League TV rights plan...

Liverpool's managing Director Ian Ayre believes that top clubs like Liverpool, Man United and Chelsea should be able to sell their own overseas television rights, and has called for the Premier League to follow the lucrative Spanish model, where top clubs swallow up the most money. However, with League rules decreeing that 14 of 20 clubs must agree for any change to be implemented, it doesn't look like things are going to change anytime soon.

Ayre argued:

"The large majority are subscribing because they want to watch Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea or Arsenal. So is it right that the international rights are shared equally between all the clubs?".

Ayre probably expected money-grabbing clubs like Chelsea and Man United to join his crusade, but a Chelsea spokesman confirmed today that the London club has no interest in Liverpool's plan:

"Our position is that we are supportive of the Premier League deal and are content with the set-up as it is at present".

Liverpool earned £55m from Premier League TV rights last season. Apparently, that's not enough.

Jaimie Kanwar


  1. Money grabbing clubs like Chelsea?? Odd one. We have enough thanks I thought it was you guys that wanted more. We are happy to share with likes of Bolton.

  2. Last year. Real Madrid and Barca earned more individually from TV rights that Man Utd and Chelsea combined. Its not 55 million isn't a lot, but its relatively little.

  3. If you have enough, why are Chelsea's ticket prices the most expensive in the league (along with Arsenal's)?

  4. oooooooooooooooooh feeling the pich are we scousers especially after the sox had a disasterous campaign state side.

  5. How are the English clubs that get into the Champions League that don't have Billionaire owners supposed to compete with the likes of Real and Barca? Fair enough Chelsea and Man City have money to burn, so it will only leave 2 clubs at a disadvantage. But then there are the teams with a big following globally, like Liverpool who are trying to compete financially with the likes of Man City and Chelsea for Champions League football, seeing the money people spend subscribing to watch them (in Asia for example) being shared amongst their rivals - especially when you see how much money Man U and Liverpool spend promoting their brands in areas such as the Far East and the USA.

    I am biased though! YNWA

  6. I can see why the club wants it, because it is not a level playing field with other countries, notably Spain, but I think all the teams getting a similar amount of money is to the benefit of the Premier League. The difference between Barca and Real compared to the rest is so vast that it is not a competitive league. Yes, Utd and Chel$ki have dominated in recent years here, but they can still be beaten by other teams and are not scoring a vast amount of goals a season. Yes, I want Liverpool to be the best in the League, but it wouldn't mean as much if all they have to do is turn up.

    Some people won't understand the point of view I have because they only care what happens their team and not to anyone else. :-(  30-40 titles becomes meaningless, because it's either team A or B every year, with team C or D or F every 5-15 years. I know England has started to resemble that, but you would get into a situation like Scotland and Spain if Liverpool get their way.

    And I'm a Liverpool fan btw.

  7. You can always do with more. ;-))

  8. Merlin the happy Pig4:41 pm, October 12, 2011

    Think you just lost that argument Eeeeee..........just like the semi in 2005...teheheheheheheheh. 

  9. Merlin the happy Pig4:45 pm, October 12, 2011

    Do you mean " pinch " , or are you talking about Golf ?.
    Please give readers a chance of understanding your posts.
    I appreciate it must be difficult for you.

  10. Merlin the happy Pig4:54 pm, October 12, 2011

    As soon as the fair-play rules start to bite, the Chelsea, history-less, plastic flag brigade will be singing from the same hymn sheet. 
    I cant wait for the day that their little venture into the big boys league is a distant memory. All that money and no European cup, must be such a disappointment.
    Stanford Bridge is falling down
    Failing down
    Falling down
    Stanford Bridge is falling down, F88k off Chelsea.......

    You've gotta admit, I'm one funny mofo.

  11. We should worry about winning it first Ian Ayre before we start telling the Premier League how to run the league seeing that over FOUR BILLION people watch the present set up.

  12. 2 the 9zzz rooster 4 i9:06 pm, October 12, 2011

    Yep I admit it......yer 1 funny muver fcuker.

  13. Sorry but the emphasis should be on what happens within the EPL. If supporters and clubs are more interested in the Champion's League then I think we may as well bite the bullet and see the formation of a Super League. 

    It's not like the revenue distribution is anything new so I don't buy the argument that 'we spend more on our brand development' because that money is spent knowing that you have a fixed share. We'll still sell a bucket load of merchandise, website subscriptions etc. to balance out the investments.

    Right now the third best Spanish team last season (and in the history of their football), Valencia, can't even get a shirt sponsor because of how ridiculous the tv rights have become.

  14. Great points, Brad. I didn't know that about Valencia. Ridiculous state of affairs.

  15. Since when are Chelsea a global club ? Take away the russians wallet and they might be the third biggest team in London at best.

  16. Not at all MTHP ........more like the semi in 2008...  

  17. of course Chelsea are satisfied with the current TV rights deal, the share is proportional to their fan base around the globe.

  18. Everyone is missing the point here

    Liverpool are well within their rights to look for a decent share of the OVERSEAS tv rights

    OVERSEAS tv money

    That cash is £17.9m per team = £358m in total

    Liverpool are trying to become successful again and need to maximise revenues to do so

    Why shouldn't we get an equitable share based on the amount of revenue our involvement generates in overseas revenue?

    Chelsea, Man City and Man Utd will happily block our efforts as they know that the amount of extra cash that we receive would represent a far bigger chunk in proportion to our overall revenues / cash available than it would be to them

    Chelsea have Abramovich's £1 billion investment and Man City have Mansour's £1 billion and counting, United have seemingly received vast funding - their accounts are now held by a new holding company in Delaware, the most secretive place in the US - possibly based on a future lucrative sale

    (It could be that Abramovich will sell the entire plot of land that Chelsea sits on, earning up to a max of £1 billion)


  19. We shouldn't receive an "equitable" share because the other clubs rely on the current distribution to maintain some semblance of competition within the league. Two teams would come out winners with a restructured tv deal and everyone else would suffer.

  20. I believe they are one of about five or six clubs in La Liga who haven't secured a main shirt sponsor this season. Valencia are simply the highest profile however I'm unsure as to how many other teams might find themselves in similar trouble when their own sponsorships expire.

    Also worth noting that Serie A have changed to a collective bargaining agreement in regards to their overseas television rights. They are second behind La Liga in the top-to-bottom payment ratios. (10:1). The Bundesliga, who recently pinched a Champion's League spot from Serie A, are at a 2:1 ratio.

  21. So did you win the cup anyways??? Eeeew that must hurt. Anyways Chelsea ain't that popular in the East when compared to Liverpool.

  22. You said it - "semblance of competition"

    It's an illusion, there is no competition.............

    Financial fair play will mean that everyone doesn't have to join in the financial arms race

    It's OVERSEAS money pot, not all the money!!!!

  23. I COULD'N'T AGREE MORE, it's all about 'GREEDY OWNERS'

  24.  GREEDY OWNERS !!!