Can you be on Sky too much?

The first game of the season at Elland Road against Brighton felt so much different to previous seasons. There was a buzz, an energy around and in the ground, a sign on new positivity around the club. This was reflected by the bumper crowd of 33,432 a whole 10,000 more people that for the first home game of last season. Frozen season ticket prices, improved ticketing policy, re-engagement with the fans was all having a positive effect and people were coming back to watch the team.

The next two home league games against Yorkshire rivals Sheffield Wednesday and title contenders Queens Park Rangers saw attendances of 23,766 and 23,341 respectively. For such big games against old rivals and one of the top teams in the division you would have expected higher attendances. The issue was that both of these games were live on Sky Sports, the Sheffield Wednesday game was in fact live on Freeview via Pick TV. It’s clear that the new board want fans to come back to Elland Road, chairman Salah Nooruddin appealed to fans to "roar the team to the top of the league" ahead of the QPR match. But is being on Sky so much a hindrance to their efforts. Get the best odds on horse racing, football and other sports events on Titanbet.

I appreciate there are those fans who are not able to get to games for whatever reasons. This is not about those who attend or do not attend games but about the financial realities for football clubs of the current Football League television deal and the redistribution of money from the Premier League television deal.

Don’t get me wrong, Sky is great exposure but for two big games it’s fair to say the board would have expected attendances similar to that on the opening day. Sky obviously affects number of fans in the stadium but does it even stack up financially for the club? Let’s do some very rough calculations. Home teams get around £120,000 per televised game [1] but our attendance was say around 10,000 down. At an average ticket price of £20 this works out at £200,000. So on that basis the answer is no, for big games being on Sky is probably worse off for the club in terms of revenue.

Consistently being on Sky could also cause a drop in future ticket sales. If fans go to the games they may be more likely to purchase tickets for the next game or games in future. We’ve all seen the queues at the ticket office after home games. If they are in the pub watching there may not be the inclination to purchase tickets for future matches. Even away games being televised are an issue. Although the club may not lose out as much financially they may still lose out on future ticket sales based on the expectation that there are plenty of opportunities to watch Leeds on television.

Being on Sky regularly like Leeds are at the start of this season also means that fans may see more value in their Sky subscription than in purchasing match tickets. Clearly for a family being able to watch a couple of live games in a month represents better value than buying match tickets for the same matches for the whole family. Football League clubs really do lose out on this deal though.

Teams in the Championship earn approximately £3 million a season. £2.3 million in solidarity payments from the Premier League [2] broadcasting deal and around £750,000 from the Football League [3] deal. Assuming an average Sky Sports subscription costs £50 a month and assuming those 10,000 fans cancelled their Sky subscription and put that money towards buying match tickets that would mean an extra £6 million for the club. That represents a clear net gain for the club.

I know these numbers are guestimates and I know in reality things are no black and white. If the Football League was not televised people may just stay at home and watch they myriad of Premier League Football broadcast every week. I also know that if we were in the Premier League things would be different and the figures would most definitely add up in our favour. Premiership clubs can expect an average of around £50 million each per season and £23 million just for getting relegated. I also know that things will not change, the amount of money involved in football TV rights will mean that these deals are here to stay, I just think that the Football League clubs get an extremely raw deal.

People who are not necessarily fans of any of the 20 Premiership teams are paying out £50 a month for Sky Sports subscriptions. Their weekly dose of football is fed straight into their living rooms or locals and they no longer go to their local club. The current deal is nothing but redistribution of wealth to the already wealthy. How can any Football League broadcasting deal be good or fair when the top Championship teams are worse off for being on television?