What is behind the great Premier League switch-off?


Last Sunday, for the first time in as long as I can remember, I didn’t watch any football.

I wasn’t busy, it wasn’t an international break, and there wasn’t another major sporting event that I wanted to watch between 2pm and 6pm. Instead, I looked at the two Premier League games that were being shown by Sky Sports — Middlesbrough vs Watford, followed by Southampton vs Burnley — and thought: “Nah, I’ll pass.”

The uninspiring choice of Sunday games came at an awkward moment for Sky, following a report by the Daily Mail’s Charlie Sale that viewing figures were down 19 percent year-on-year. The broadcaster will have pinned hopes on Monday’s game between Liverpool and Manchester United, the clubs with the two biggest fanbases, to quell talk that the Premier League bubble is starting to burst.

So, how real is the dip in Premier League audiences? And what are the factors that could be behind Sky’s audience dropping so dramatically?

First, it should be noted that the season is still young, and normally viewing figures increase as the evenings draw in, particularly in the Sunday 4pm and Saturday 5.30pm slots. But, as someone who tracks audience figures for Spurs matches out of personal interest, there are signs that the numbers tuning in are indeed low.

The most-watched Premier League game so far this season (excluding Liverpool v Man Utd, which isn’t publicly available yet), by BARB’s “average audience” measurement, was the Manchester derby on September 10. This drew 1.18 million in the lunchtime Saturday kick off. The equivalent game last season, a Sunday 2pm kick-off, drew 1.98 million. The reverse fixture in March, in the Sunday 4pm slot, drew 1.82 million.

After the Manchester derby, by my count, the second most-watched match was Spurs vs Manchester City on October 2, which averaged 1.06 million viewers in the Sunday 2pm slot. This just pipped Chelsea vs Liverpool, a Friday night offering that averaged 1.04m.

While 1.06m is more than respectable for Spurs v Man City, it is below the average for televised Spurs matches last season, which was 1.13 million. When Spurs travelled to Manchester City in February last season, that drew 1.78m in the prime Sunday 4pm slot.

One area in particular where Sky is apparently hurting is the Sunday 4pm slot, normally the prime selection of the week. The last four matches — Swansea v Chelsea, Spurs v Sunderland, West Ham v Bournemouth and Burnley v Arsenal — all failed to crack the 1 million mark. In the equivalent fixture block last season, these matches averaged over 1 million.

(BARB’s average audience measure isn’t perfect, and the broadcasters prefer to refer to the “peak” audience figure. However, the average audience is the only one that is made public, and it serves a purpose of enabling comparisons. More explanation in my previous piece on the subject.)

So, what could be behind it?

There have been some interesting explanations raised, from the tedious football being played by some of the Premier League’s lesser lights, to piracy, cost of subscriptions and crap coverage.

These explanations are all, no doubt, true to an extent.

I watched Burnley v Watford a few weeks ago, or rather started watching it and switched off and watched a couple of old episodes of Elementary for the third time instead. The standard was abysmal, but not entertainingly so, and anything was better than watching that.

Piracy continues to advance in terms of quality and accessibility, through streaming services like Kodi and other new technology. I subscribe to both Sky Sports and BT Sport, but last Saturday at 3pm I was forced to find a stream to watch Spurs. I have zero sympathy with the Premier League (and yes, there are a number of parties that would need to agree to a change) on this score. In 2016, there is simply no justification for viewers in the UK not getting the same choice as fans everywhere else in the world. It borders on cruelty and has created a market for piracy.

When the pirated offering is better — or at least, more comprehensive — than the paid offering, it’s going to mean less people pay. How you measure this, however, I don’t know — Sky’s revenues continue to climb, but subscriber growth is growing, per the last quarterly report.

Cost is undoubtedly a factor too, especially given broader economic trends that have seen a divergence in incomes both geographically and generationally. Football on TV is incredibly expensive now. A full subscription to BT and Sky will cost over £1,000 for a household, and this doesn’t even get you 2/3 of the matches. It doesn’t feel like great value now.

I’d add here, an argument gets made that we are experiencing “overkill” due to too much football on UK TV — personally I think it is the opposite, with too many fan bases getting too small a selection of games, meaning limited incentive to subscribe. Leicester, for example, were only shown eight times in total in the season before their miraculous title-winning campaign — hardly a huge incentive to subscribe to both Sky and BT. This season, with many more Premier League games and Champions League football, it is much better value for a Leicester City fan, and you can be sure that Leicester’s audiences have crept up somewhat as a result.

Rising prices, and advances in illegal streaming, may have led to a reduction among rated audiences. But it’s impossible to know how many, and it’s not like streaming sites have only sprung up this season. Also, while it seems like many, many people must be doing this if you judge by Twitter, it’s useful to remember that Twitter is a small sample and generally a terrible reflection of reality.

As for punditry, I’m not sure how much of a difference that makes. While Jamie Redknapp and Thierry Henry are dreadful, Sky still boast three of the best of the business in Gary Neville, Jamie Carragher and Graeme Souness. Sky’s coverage certainly hasn’t gotten worse compared to last year. But either way, it is fairly inconsequential — most fans tune in for the game, not the talking.

However, there are also some other explanations for Sky’s poor ratings that are worth a mention.

First, swapping their Saturday slot with BT was always going to be bad for Sky’s audience figures.

The Saturday 12.30pm kick-off routinely draws a low audience, as people have, well, life to be getting on with at that time of a weekend, whereas by 5.30pm you are far more likely to be ready to put your feet up and watch a game. The Saturday 12.30pm kick-off, however, is excellent for fans in Asia, so the Premier League will still want its big guns in that slot even if it doesn’t suit Sky.

Second, the Premier League is missing some “big” clubs this season, and this is harming ratings.

When Aston Villa played Newcastle last month, an average of more than 500,000 tuned in — that is the first time that I’ve seen a Championship match on BARB’s Top 30 weekly ranking.

The 2016/17 Premier League must feature the smallest number of “big” clubs of any edition to date.

That’s not to say the likes of Bournemouth, Swansea and Watford don’t deserve to be there, while Leeds, Villa and Newcastle should automatically be in the top flight in some Charlie Stillitano-inspired ratings stitch-up. But when you have big fanbases out of the top flight and not engaged with the Premier League, this may have an impact on TV ratings.

There are a couple of ways to quantify this idea.

Of the Top 30 club stadiums in England, just 13 are hosting Premier League football this season. Huge stadiums like Villa Park, St James’ Park, Elland Road and Hillsborough host Championship football. Stadium size is a historic measure of how big clubs once were, rather than still are, but it’s still a decent gauge. I watched Sheffield Wednesday’s Championship playoff semi-final last May at sold-out, 39,000-capacity Hillsborough. The atmosphere was extraordinary, and it sure as hell felt “big” as a TV viewer.

Further to this, there are demographic factors that may be having an impact on Sky’s ratings. While Greater London (9.8m) and Manchester (2.5m) are well represented, the West Midlands (2.4m) has only one club — and arguably its smallest in West Brom — in the top flight, while West Yorkshire (1.8 million) has none. Tyneside (774,000/7th largest in England, and that it excludes Sunderland), Nottingham (730,000/8th), Sheffield (685,000/9th) and Bristol (617,000/10th) are all major urban areas without a Premier League club.

To make a comparison, this would be like a US major league such as the NFL not having teams in Miami, Houston, Washington, Atlanta and Boston. Ratings would surely suffer.

It doesn’t mean no-one is watching Premier League football in these urban areas, but given the local nature of the majority of football support in England, this may have an impact on how many are tuning in. With all due respect to Burnley (149,000/54th) and Swansea (300,000/27th), they can’t drive the audience numbers in the same way.

(Obviously, football in Yorkshire has been struggling for a long while with Leeds and the Sheffield clubs a long way from the Premier League, but the loss of Newcastle and Aston Villa is sure to have an impact this season.)

More subjectively, how we view teams changes very slowly. I still see Leeds and Sheffield Wednesday as “big” clubs in a way that Swansea or Watford will never be, or at least not be for a long time.

To me, Newcastle, Villa, Leeds, Wednesday, Forest and Wolves still rank ahead of Watford, Burnley, Stoke, Swansea, Hull, West Brom, Middlesbrough and Bournemouth, and I suspect I’m not alone in that. There are too many games that just lack that “big match” aura — and when an early-season encounter between lower-ranked teams like Burnley vs Watford is so abysmal, it hardly encourages you to watch them again.

The final theory, that I’m still collating data for but want to throw out there, is that Manchester United’s audiences aren’t quite what they have been in previous years. Doing my weekly checks last season, the United average audience outside the derbies against City and Liverpool was often somewhat on the low side. Understandable, really, given the dross that was played by Louis van Gaal’s team.

Liverpool still carry massive audiences as a legacy of their two decades of success, and United will continue to be a draw even as a similar dynastic decline sets in. I’m sure, in 20 years, articles will be written about whether Tottenham’s dominance is starting to wain and if broadcasters should start diversifying away to other rising teams.

But seriously, with all six of United’s opening slate of games selected for coverage (by Sky and BT), there is an argument to be made that broadcasters need to be a little more imaginative. Quite how Spurs v Leicester, the two title challengers last season, has escaped live broadcast on October 29 is truly baffling.

The Premier League’s decline comes at the same time as a sharp drop in NFL viewership, bringing the issue to greater relevance. However, trying to connect the two would be yet more conjecture, although US audiences for the Premier League are also down. Here’s a good read on the NFL issue. It should also be noted that this is only Sky’s ratings, we don’t know what is going on at BT Sport. BT Sport’s ratings for live football are routinely so low they fail to crack BARB’s weekly top 30 of non-terrestrial channels, so even though Sky’s ratings are down, at least they aren’t so low they can’t be tracked in this way.

In conclusion, in all likelihood a combination of factors are in play here. More commonly discussed factors such as cost and piracy, combined with poorly chosen matches, the absence of a number of big teams and the loss of the Saturday evening timeslot have combined to harm Sky’s ratings.

Has the bubble burst? It’s way too early to say, but I’ll be keeping an eye out, for sure.

It’s also been a very dry, warm September and October, so you never know, it may just be down to that, no matter how silly it sounds.

Thanks for reading. Please follow me on Twitter for more chat about Spurs and other things.

7 thoughts on “What is behind the great Premier League switch-off?

  1. browny26

    I’m sure that the big club’s underperformances must have a role in this. Cynical it may sound, plastics – I don’t know enough to know figures – who would have watched ‘their team’ in Manchester United play out of their world, or Chelsea with their cult heroes in Lampard and Drogba, just won’t be interested in the boring, backwards football they play. The best performing teams, and the best to watch, are the smaller teams – Spurs, Bournemouth – and these don’t have big name players. Even City lack the huge following of their neighbours, even though they have the biggest names in the league. Maybe it’s the way modern football works, but the regular tyranny of two clubs in the Premier League won’t be seen for the next few years anyway.
    On the other hand, maybe the league just isn’t as attractive as it was before. There’s a lack of characters, for me – Zlatans been quiet, Mourinhos ranting is now boring, and fans of every other club are sick of Sky’s wankfest over Klopp and Guardiola. The best players are leaving the Premier League to play in Spain, and as a result the ‘biggest’ games now feature average teams…United Liverpool was 4th vs 7th; in another seasons that could be (at this stage) Southampton vs West Ham.
    Finally, a point you’ve picked up on – there’s so so so many boring, bang average teams with little nationwide following. WBA etc illustrate this. I guess you want the best teams, not the most entertaining, but this comes at a cost.

    Great article though. Always enjoy your stuff.


    1. thespursreport Post author

      Yup, I think there is definitely something to that. Was visible last season in the run-in that United’s ratings down, wonder if there is some hangover from it this season for Chelsea too


  2. FrankfurtSpurs

    I wonder also about the correlation between local economies and the size of the official sky audiences. It seems that the local economy in say Burnley and Middlesborough is very depressed. People out of work and struggling simply cannot afford to buy Sky. The clubs that have left the premier league were in areas that were relatively (but not absolutely) better in terms of employment..


  3. Tim

    Decent analysis I feel. Given the dry subject (no offence) maybe you could have written a little less but I appreciate the desire to say everything!

    In terms of my two cents I think it’s a combination of the various factors… I understand the leagues desire to protect attendances at games, but they suggest that the product is more marketable with a full stadium – a 3pm game is the easiest, most convenient and most enjoyable to get to; I would go to a 3pm game, televised or not. 5:30 on a Sunday is less convenient given the trains, but we still get a full stadium despite the fact it would be far easier to slob at home and watch sky.

    In years gone by football on TV was a rarity, a treat; then it was increasingly innovative as the quantity increased. All consumables are subject to trends. Without the continued innovation (I don’t mean novelty, or change for the sake of change) we are bound to become increasingly bored. Add to that the frustrations we all experience with things like biased reporting and a weird focus on the four largest clubs and eventually people start to switch off.

    The above is fine, though, if it’s not overly expensive. People will keep subscribing and to a large extent watching, because it’s easy enough and not so expensive. But when you start to think, ‘I don’t watch that much of this football’ and then you see a bill from Sky in excess of £100 every single month, people will start to question whether they want to keep paying. Of course this is exacerbated by (free/cheap) access to football from illegal sources and the increasing quality of those sources.

    We will see interest in the Premier League fall, whether now or in the future, partly because costs (borne by consumers) can’t increase indefinitely (football must understand, surely, that the future is more likely to see wage stagnation or even a drop in player wages and fees, than people paying £2,000 a year to sky to watch the likes of Simone Zaza and every other average player get paid £300,000 to sky the ball for 90 mins. We had a trough in 70s due to hooliganism, we will have another one due to costs and commercialisation.

    The immediate fixes (which won’t prevent the long term trend) have to be at least a reduction in what the likes of Sky charge to access football content and/or an increase in the availability of games. The quantity of football available is why, for example, the FA Cup Final has lost its importance, as it’s now ‘just another game’ rather than ‘the game’. In a world where I could pay £900 a year to see my team play at home 20 times a season, or I can pay £1200 to watch them a handful of times on TV (along with a whole bunch of teams I don’t care a great deal about) I would choose option 1. So it needs to be more compelling and the price needs to be pitched at a point where it’s worth paying for the additional quality you get on TV… at present I think they are driving ever increasing numbers toward other sources, with a willingness to accept reduced quality for the reduced cost. I pay for Netflix and Prime, because all those films are value, I do the same with Spotify, I could access all that content for free if I wanted… I don’t pay for Sky Sports because the price vs product balance has gone out of kilter. I used to be a subscriber for the best part of a decade.

    That’s my two cents anyway. Less scientific, but I think it’s a psychology shared by an increasing number of people. Even my in-laws have sought alternatives to Sky and they are hardly techy types.

    The only last question is, would a bit of regression be such a bad thing? The quality of football has certainly increased, as has the level of professionalism; however, the exponential increase in money flowing into (and swiftly back out of) the game is no longer bringing added benefits. We see the money we’ve worked very hard for land in the pockets of agents and players, many of whom do little work or add little to our sides. Not meaning to be harsh on the lad, but Tom Carroll probably earns as much in a week (maybe two) as I do in a year. God knows what his agent has earned when he’s signed contracts and what he will earn when the lad is eventually sold to Hull. But, no matter how much it is, it is far too much. Yes good players should be rewarded, but when Alan Shearer was earning £50k a week, no one was up in arms saying, ‘yeah, but really it ought to be £300k’ and he’s not eaxctly sitting in a council house now saying ‘I earned well out of football for a while, but because I didn’t earn as much in a month as most people do in a lifetime, the money has run out and now I eat a co-op meal deal for lunch and pot noodles for dinner.’ The sad thing is, some of the people who contribute to these players’ wages today do live that kind of lifestyle.

    So yeah, football could do with taking a step back. If the money disappears and football implodes a bit, it might not be the end of the world. It’s all relative, there will still be football, clubs, players etc, they will still earn a shedload and be very rich, just not quite so much as they are now. Clubs go bust in the best of times (Portsmouth) so yes some will go, but you know what, in my industry we always say, recession isn’t all bad, it sorts the wheat from the chaff and means that those businesses which survive are the strong ones which will then become even stronger, because we are no longer providing life support to the rest. Life goes on. So yeah, whatever happens, I suspect if it benefits the football watching public, no matter how hard it is to go through, it will benefit football in the end too.

    Having commented on the length of your post, I’ve gone and done the same thing with my comment! We both have too much time on our hands!


    1. thespursreport Post author

      Haha — you see what happens, it starts out as a short piece and then just goes on and on… This is why editors exist, but this blog is just a hobby with no resources.

      And BTW, I think you’ve made a v good point that a bit of deflation of PL bubble wouldn’t be worst thing. Clearly, clubs have more money right now than they can possibly spend sensibly, or in a way that improves the quality.


  4. Pingback: Winter break: Links and recent articles | The Spurs Report

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s