Live sports streaming has become something of a high-profile draw for many social media platforms as of late, with Twitter in particular seeking to cement itself a position as the leading source of to-the-minute sporting updates online. This has not gone unnoticed by Facebook, who have directly competed with Dorsey’s Twitter on numerous occasions as they each sought out the most lucrative broadcasting deals on offer. In this regard you could easily argue that Twitter have, on the whole, performed better, but that may change as Facebook continue to press forward into emerging markets.
One high-profile example of this was Facebook’s unsuccessful attempt to secure streaming rights for Indian Premier League (IPL) Cricket, which saw the social media giant losing out to
21st-Century-Fox-owned Star Media. While they walked out of those negotiations
with nothing to show for it, India itself is still very much factored into
their plans for the future.
Facebook’s most recent pitch in regards to sports streaming
rights was made to the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), in which they tried to convince the governing
body to allow them to stream Champions League matches in countries where they
are not currently broadcast through TV or other legitimate media sources (such
as throughout Africa and in countries such as India and Colombia). Somewhat
bizarrely, they sought this permission for free, making no monetary offer to
UEFA and instead insisting that such a deal would benefit both parties as it
would grant the Champions League and Europa League tournaments a tremendous
reach outside of Europe. UEFA were unconvinced, and swiftly declined Facebook’s
offer.
The reasoning behind UEFA’s refusal is pretty clear-cut:
they cannot be seen giving away rights for free when they have a premium
product for which other broadcast partners pay substantial sums.
This ties into the ongoing argument regarding reach versus
monetisation, and the perceived value of each.
“It is indeed good to be broadcast on Facebook in a market
where the matches aren’t shown on TV,” said one source, as reported by Digiday
UK. “But on the other hand, it could damage negotiations in the future with
other TV channels.”
Despite their rejection at the hands of UEFA, Facebook’s
ambition to beat their rivals to the punch and secure streaming/broadcasting
deals for such content in emerging markets remains strong, bolstered by the
bargaining power granted by their active user base of over 650 million
individuals who currently follow a sports team, player, or related news outlet
on the platform. It’s a similar story on Facebook-owned Instagram, which boasts
200 million of these sports-minded users.
Given the aforementioned figures, industry players such as
Misha Sher, VP of sport and entertainment at MediaCom, have stated a belief that
in the future, even the biggest games may air live and in full on Facebook.
Speaking to Digiday UK, Sher asserted that, “Rights holders will need to
consider the value that someone like Amazon or Facebook can bring to the table,
and explore what types of models will work moving forward without undermining
any existing broadcast agreements.”
Post a comment