Interlull? There were 26 games across 12 platforms on Sunday; it’s too much
The international break is hard on all media outlets, TV especially; you have to resort to some deep mining to find some football to watch.
There is less interest in international football than was once the case. It used to be the pinnacle of the game, but these days is more usually treated like an uninvited guest.
Notably, Amazon Prime has been charging to watch internationals like Portugal v Armenia. If it was truly proud of its product, why not make it free so people could see how good it was and pay for a more high-profile game? But no. On they plough to literally some people, stuck broadcasting an outdated model, in an outmoded fashion, trying to make money from a largely financially undesirable product. I suppose even if they’ve realised this folly, they’re stuck with it until the end of the contract. But surely these are the last moments of this fractured Balkanisation of football being the norm.
Nigeria v Congo was free on FIFA+ and was really enjoyable, featuring a few hilariously poor penalties and Congo eventually winning 4-3 on spot kicks. For the neutral there was no need to pay anyone on Sunday evening.
DAZN had Atlético Madrid Women v Levante Badalonaon on PPV this weekend. I watch the WSL all the time and the Champions League too, but there are limits to what I’ll pay for. I do wonder why they bother showing it in the UK. Even in Spain, they’d surely generate more revenue by making the game free-to-air to attract a bigger audience.
On Sunday, 26 games were broadcast across 12 platforms. Only BBC, ITV, WSLYouTube and FIFA+ were free-to-air and the only audience worth its name will have been on ITV for the England game. It almost seems games are broadcast just because they can be. Nobody is making money in the UK by showing Velez Sarsfield v River Plate. I would have watched Italy v Norway but there’s no way I’d pay for that on Prime, who had the cheek to try and levy a fee.
READ: 2026 World Cup Power Rankings as England calmly carry on but Portugal doubts emerge
It’s all too much. I love world football and am lucky enough to afford to have some subscriptions – Sky, TNT, Prime – so in theory I should be a key target for broadcasters, but there’s no way I’m parting with cash to watch Shabab Al Ahli v Al Nasr on something called Triller TV. I could be a potential advertising customer (not that I buy anything except obscure jazz-rock albums of the 70s) but they seem to have decided to ignore me.
I don’t mind but what are these channels doing ignoring a football-obsessive customer? Of course advertising per se might be a busted flush now but it’s the only chance of any revenue while broadcasters insist on paying to broadcast games few will pay to see.
The whole industry looks ill. It looks like it’s eating itself to stay alive and the presenters and pundits are just hanging on to this tatty, garish, over-dressed, failed model with white knuckles.
But surely showing ever more football isn’t the answer to anything. They prove that every day. Because even if you just want subscribers to football to become an audience for your other stuff, can’t you see flaws in that? It’s all too much money and too diverse for a product you’re likely to be curious about, in my case, but not that interested in and certainly won’t buy.
The ‘boost overall viewership with football subscribers’ model is out of date when there’s so much competition for your signature and only so much time to watch any TV. It’s not just spreading the jam too thin; there’s not even bread to put the jam on.
What to do? Stop this ludicrous idea that you show everything, for a start. The goose that laid the golden eggs is now egg-bound. Stop paying ever larger broadcast fees that you’ll never recoup even through amortising them across the overall business. If advertising is not a busted flush yet, give it all away for free and rely on the bigger audiences you’ll attract. Even charge to be ad-free.
What do they think football is going to do without media money if they paid what it’s really worth? The media has got them over a barrel but don’t seem to realise. The sport’s entire financial landscape is reliant on media money, so use that dependence instead of acquiescing to it. Life will go on without Las Palmas v Albacete in Liga 2 on TV, Aldershot Town v Woking or Exeter City v Burton Albion or even any game Wolves play.
See how long before football squeals at the lack of cash and might have to rely on the grubby turnstile money, then negotiate a low, single subscription for everything in the UK and one for the ROW. What are they going to do? You control their purse strings. Act like it instead of being so supine and craven.
Some might try to strike their own deals. Big clubs have long resented getting largely the same money as less popular clubs. Let them produce and broadcast their own games if they must. Good luck getting an audience that pulls anywhere near the money they’re used to. Don’t test the elasticity of our loyalty; we’ve had the pish taken out of us for too long for the results to be positive.
Audiences won’t be smaller, probably bigger if anything. This would redress the imbalance between fees paid and numbers subscribing. It should make football much, much less wealthy and realign football’s financial realities. One or two subs for everything and if you have to show it all (you don’t) accept that a lot is an unpopular product which will never generate much money in any system and be happy you get some money at all.
Currently, it’s all totally out of control and divorced from any semblance of reality. This would, in time, stop that. But are execs too addled to realise they’re not inventing the universe but are getting actually sucked into a black hole?