The Future and Potential for Sports Broadcasting - Copenhagen Business School (CBS) 2011

SPORTS ECONOMICS HE 68 – COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL – SPRING 2011

THE FUTURE AND POTENTIAL FOR

SPORTS BROADCASTING

Written by: Hogne Ulla

CPR: 131090-3449

Signature: _______________

Email: [email protected]

Not confidential

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

When Brett Ormerod scored Blackpool‟s winning goal in the playoff match against Cardiff in

English football (soccer) May 2010 he had every reason to celebrate. Not only was Blackpool

ready for the FA Premier League, the promotion was worth a place between 70 and 90 million

pounds sterling.

TV rights around the world are sold at hefty sums and the number of sport pay-TV channels is

growing at a rapid rate. However broadcasters face challenges and with a higher number of

channels the competition and thereby prices increases. This paper will give an analysis and

discussion of how sport broadcasters operate today. Even though the case at hand is from

Scandinavia and based upon European football, much of the discussion may be similar in

other parts of the world and to other sports. Some important and relevant aspects of

broadcasting will be highlighted in this paper.

The paper offers various approaches to TV2‟s challenges. With bigger competition along with

changes in technology TV2 must change and react not to be left on the sideline. Nevertheless,

broadcasting is a game with many players whereas sport enthusiasts, right holders and

distributors are key players.

Any broadcaster must recognize this and offer a service that is both preferred and priced

correctly. The paper points out exclusive rights, social media and marketing as crucial factors.

The conclusion sets out new areas for research and focus in the future.

3

INDEX

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................2

2. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………. 3

2.1.Methodology ………………………………………………………………………3

2.2.Problem statement.....................................................................................................4

3. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION..................................................................................4

3.1. Sport broadcasting in Norway.................................................................................4

3.1.1. An introduction............................................................................................4

3.1.2. The Tippeliga – The Norwegian Premier Division......................................6

3.1.3. FA Premier League.......................................................................................7

3.2. Challenges..............................................................................................................10

3.2.1. Internal challenges......................................................................................11

3.2.2. External challenges ....................................................................................15

4. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................16

5. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................17

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1. Methodology

I will start with some history and explain how football has been broadcasted in Norway. This

includes a comparison of TV2 and state owned NRK. Secondly I will explain how TV2

operate at as a sports broadcaster including various aspects and with a main focus on the

channels TV2 Sport and TV2 Barclays Premier League. Thirdly the challenges will be spelled

out before I move on and discuss these and provide some possible solutions. In the end I will

reach a conclusion answering the question at hand and set out new areas for research. The

paper‟s focus will not be on the welfare economic perspectives of broadcasting. This matter is

already covered in the body of literature on the economics of television sports broadcasting

(Solberg, 2007; Spence et al, 1977; Neale, 1964).

4

2.2. Problem statement

The problem statement is the following:

How does TV2 (Norwegian) operate as a football (soccer) broadcaster and discuss the

challenges they are facing?

In other words, I want to use TV2 as a case and base my analysis and discussion upon their

broadcasting of football. Broadcasting may be defined as “the distribution of audio and video

content to a dispersed audience via radio, television, or other”

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcasting, retrieved 29 May 2011).

3. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Sports broadcasting in Norway

3.1.1 An introduction

Throughout history European TV broadcasting have been dominated by public service

broadcasters – so called PSBs (Solberg, 2007). Table 1 shows the three categories of

broadcasting. In Norway only non-commercial and commercial broadcasters are present. Our

case is the latter one. Because of broadcasting‟s high fixed costs and low variable costs it is a

typical “economies of scale” production (Solberg, 2002). Figure 1 illustrates this. We must

also stress that it is a public good in the sense that one person watching a game on the telly

doesn‟t make it more difficult for someone else. Buying a match-day ticket for a football

match may be defined as a private good because it makes it marginally more difficult for

someone else to get hold of a ticket. Broadcasting‟s cost for an extra viewer, hence the

marginal cost, is also very low, if not zero. Olson (1971) explains this as the non-rivalling

criterion characteristic of a public good. However, Gratton et al (2007) explain that the non-

excludability criterion is not satisfied. This due to the fact that even though it is possible to

exclude people, namely the people not paying the fee for watching, other options like pirate

cards and online streaming are available. Just in Italy over 4 million viewers used pirate cards

in 2005 (Loebbecke et al, 2005). Today steaming is a bigger threat mostly because of its

availability (of Premier League games) but also due to the fact that its quality has been

improved just the last few years.

5

Table 1 – Categories of broadcasters

Category Example Funding

1 – Non-commercial NRK License fees or/and public funding

2 – Semi-commercial TV Denmark License fees, public funding or/and advertising

3 – Commercial TV2 (Norway) Advertising

One important difference between NRK and TV2 is that for NRK sports rights acquisitions

represents a cost while TV2 eyes possible income streams through advertising, commercials,

subscribers or pay-per-view fees. This situation has made NRK weaker in the sense that they

have a reduced bargaining power, later this led to NRK giving up rights for a range of

sporting events (http://www.klartale.no/norge/article152.zrm, retrieved 26 May 2011). There

has also been pressure from politicians and the public because NRK prioritized football

instead of other cultural forms.

Since a live sports program is a homogeneous product, some may argue that it is irrelevant if

it is TV2 or NRK displaying the game. There are not significant differences between the two

channels and therefore the consumption value will be the same (Solberg, 2007). Of course,

TV2 has put a lot of effort and money into their sport broadcasting, but in the end the

differences in quality will be marginal. NRK has a tradition of not sending their commentators

overseas, but instead send it from a studio in Oslo. This is of course not ideally for fans who

want to experience how the atmosphere is at the venue. NRK is also known for their

enthusiastic coverage of winter sports with well-planned reports and interviews. But when it

comes to football and especially the Norwegian Tippeliga, NRK‟s coverage has been less

attractive and without the same passion.

Another important characteristic of sports broadcasting is the groups of audience (Merkel,

1994). Table 2 illustrates these from the smallest to the biggest. Make note of the groups‟

characteristics, these differences in segments explain the pricing and why TV2 offer both a

commercial and six premium pay-TV channels. Even though the consumer group is regarded

as the biggest group we must stress that in Norway sports are the most popular TV

programmes (Hammervold et al, 2008).

One of the critics of broadcasting is its effect on match day attendance. In the FA Premier

League the facility fee paid to TV broadcasted teams will outweigh the possible loss in

6

revenue (Forrest el al, 2004). Still the attendance for the broadcasted Monday match in

English and Norwegian football have a tendency to be rather low and especially in Norway

this trend has become clearer the last few years. This has of course something to do with

weekdays versus weekend, but it is no doubt that people sometimes find their armchairs more

comfy than watching the game live in storm and hail.

Table 2 – Groups of audience

Audience group Characteristics

The fan Inelastic vertical demand with respect to

quality and price. Highest willingness to pay.

The supporter More elastic than the fan segment, thus lower

willingness to pay.

The consumer Less interested in football and watches it in

an often ritualistic and occasional way.

Figure 1 – Cost curves for a sports broadcaster

(Gaustad, 2000)

3.1.2 Tippeligaen – The Norwegian Premier Division

Football broadcasting in Norway was in the late 1990s and early 2000s a joint venture

consisting of the state run channel NRK and the commercial TV2. The co-operation with

NRK has not always been a sunshine story. The biggest fiasco was perhaps when both

channels provided the exact same pictures from the World Championship in Skiing in

Price

Units

7

Ramsau, Austria in 1999 (Solvoll, 2009). However in 1997 the French owned distributor

Canal Digital was founded and with the introduction of the channel Canal+ it soon became a

competitor and a threat to TV2 and NRK.

When the rights for the Norwegian Premier Division and the First Division from 2002-2005

was sold TV2 and NRK won the bid. They divided the most attractive matches among

themselves and sold some of the less attractive matches to Canal+. Whether this was a smart

move or not is discussable. It gave Canal+ a chance to capture a slice of the market‟s pizza

and sports fans a possibility to try the channel‟s services.

However, because of growing interest from distributors like Canal Digital and media groups

outside Norway the price escalated and the next four seasons were sold for, at that time,

unbelievable 1 billion NOK. That was more than three and a half times the price for the

period 2002-2005.

The latest rights for 2009-2013 were sold to Lyse, NRK and TV2 for 1.2 billion NOK. Later

Lyse sold their matches to TV2. But because TV2 has been able to broadcast six out of seven

matches they have maintained their status as the Tippeliga channel number one in Norway. In

2007 they introduced five pay-TV channels namely TV2Sport 1 to 5. The channels have been

popular and because of their strong focus on football the commitment from the subscribers is

high. In Britain a survey showed that 50 per cent of BSkyB‟s subscribers would cancel their

subscription if Sky lost the TV rights to football (Solberg, 2002). It is likely that the same

phenomenon would be true for TV2. The broadcasting of the Tippeliga could be partly

explained by the attraction of a large audience, domestic production and that it fits well with

TV2‟s desire to be a part of Norway‟s social fabric (Johnsen et al, 2007).

3.1.3. FA Premier League

In 1995 TV2 bought the rights for the English Premiership (later known as the FA Premier

League). Until then English top football was broadcasted on NRK. However in 1997 Canal+

bought the rights and served as a monopolist being for many years a popular and preferred

broadcaster of English football in Norway.

In February 2010 TV2 bought the Premier League rights for the next three seasons

(2010/2011 – 2012/2013). The sale was highly debated within Norway because many feared

Medge Consulting, which sold the rights, would sell Premier League to several channels

making it a real headache for the football fans. However, even after TV2 secured the

8

exclusive rights, the tension was building up because it for a long time was unknown which

distributors would get hold of TV2‟s new channels. The rights included matches for

television, mobile phones and Internet and since the package included matches in HD TV2

introduced three channels namely TV2 Barclays Premier League HD 1, 2 and 3. Today most

of the distributors, including Canal Digital, RiksTV, Viasat, Get and Altibox, offer either one

or more of TV2‟s Premier League channels. What TV2 paid is yet unknown but, as Figure 2

displays, the price for the Premier League rights both overseas and domestic (within England)

has escalated the last few years.

Average viewing hours

show that the winter is

the best period for

television channels

(Johnsen et al, 2007). In

this period there is

played no domestic

football in Norway, thus

gives TV2 a huge

potential in relation to

the Premier League which is played intensely as this time. Another factor that gives TV2 an

advantage is the flexibility they possess in relation to kick-off time and scheduling. (Johnsen

et al, 2007). This is good news because the Premier League is played at different times and

days during the week which would cause a problem for a PSBs and NRK in our case.

Figure 1.3 shows a possible value chain in Norway. Of course, there are more actors to add,

but the figure helps explain where the product goes - from the right holders and to the

viewers. But where does the money go? Some might guess on a fair split between right

holders, the broadcaster and distributors. A good guess, but reality displays an answer that

might surprise. For every 100 NOK the viewer is charged, 70 of them goes to the distributors,

20 goes to the right holders and only 10 goes to TV2 (Claus Bretton-Meyer / Øivind

Johannessen).

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Pou

nd

s (m

illi

on

s)

Year

Figure 2 - FA Premier League TV Rights

Domestic

Overseas

Source: Deloitte

9

Figure 3 – Value Chain

(Claus Bretton-Meyer, 2010)

TV2 used the time before the FA Premier League kicked-off in August 2010 to advertise their

new channels. For TV2 advertising served two main purposes (Gratton, 2007); firstly it gave

them a chance to inform about the product and its price and terms of sale. Secondly, it was a

tool for persuading and TV2 sought a shift in the demand, making sports broadcasting‟s

already inelastic demand curve even more inelastic allowing them to charge a relatively high

price for their new premium channels. TV2 had maximum luck. They broadcasted the 2010

FIFA World Cup and during the hundreds of hours with matches and live studio TV2

constantly reminded the viewers on what was going to happen the following autumn. Also,

during TV2‟s sports news an ad was run creating awareness and a clear position in the

consumer‟s mind.

Halfway through the season the new channel TV2 Barclays Premier League had 160,000

subscribers, this was rather impressive after just six months service. According to Øivind

Johannessen, TV2‟s finance director, the numbers per May 2011 are relatively stable and

close to the mid-season numbers. This could be explained by the interest trend for English

football. It has a generally high level of interest in the autumn and then a descending trend

until the end of the season.

One way of pricing is through windowing. In this way, using price discrimination, TV2 are

able to meet the different willingness to pay from the various audience groups. In

microeconomic terms this is known as the consumer surplus. Figure 4 illustrates windowing.

A is the price for the consumers with highest willingness to pay, i.e. the fan and supporter

group. At this price XA units are sold. Thus gives a profit equal the area of α. However, if

TV2 can set another price, B, they are able to attract new consumers and thereby offer the

units XB-XA. This gives an additional income of β, resulting in a total income of α+β. The

•FA Premier League

•Norwegian FA

Right holders

•TV2

•NRK

•Canal+

Broadcaster•Riks TV

•Canal Digital

•Viasat

Distributors

•Fotball fans

•You and me

Viewers/users

10

problem is that with no difference in quality both groups will buy at B giving a lower income

than α+β. The solution is then to offer a premium product (e.g. access to more

matches/channels, better quality). This will keep the first group paying price A. Today this is

solved by offering a one (TV2 Sport / TV2 Barclays Premier League) or multiple channels

(TV2 Sport 1-5 / TV2 Barclays Premier League 1-3). The group with highest willingness to

pay buys the latter one.

Figure 4 – Windowing (price discrimination)

To understand why windowing work you may consider A (window 1) as a live coverage and

B (window 2) as a delayed match. The more “windows” you have, the more consumer surplus

will be untapped. One characteristic of sports broadcasting is time sensitivity. A fan‟s

nightmare must be to catch his neighbour singing “We Are the Champions” early in the

afternoon and discover that the delayed match will be of a very low value (Gaustad, 2000).

3.2. Challenges today and tomorrow

As a sports broadcaster TV2 face challenges both inside their business, but also from external

sources. This section ought to discuss these challenges and gives an even further insight into

how TV2 operate as a broadcaster. We will start by discussing the internal matters before

moving on to the factors outside the business. Table 2 displays TV2‟s main challenges.

Price

Units

( Gaustad, 2000)

11

Table 3 - Challenges

INTERNAL EXTERNAL

Viewers/subscribers Competitors

Financial situation Technological development

Distributors World economy

3.2.1 Internal challenges

Viewers/subscribers

First and perhaps most important, the viewers represent a major challenge to TV2. Without its

viewers it is impossible to operate as a broadcaster. To attract new viewers is clearly of

importance, however there are three reasons why existing customers are more profitable than

new ones:

1. The cost of retention of an existing customer is lower than the acquisition cost for a

new one

2. Easier to cross- and up-sell goods and services to existing customers

3. Word of mouth – the recruiting will be done by existing customer. May relate this

point to the phenomenon of dads introducing sons to football.

(Beech & Chadwick, 2004: 400)

Research show that the lag effects are present meaning viewers‟ tendency to stay with the

channel and watch the next programmes (Beech & Chadwick, 2004: 376). This is good news

for any broadcaster and may be explained by commitment and that people in general spend

more time in front of the telly. This trend is also recognized and highly appreciated by

advertisers since many use exposure as a measure for success.

Demand for televised football depends on many factors including quality of the players

involved, the league‟s reputation, placement of cameras, commentators and uncertainty of

outcome (UO) (Gaustad, 2000). The latter is highly debated and several academic papers

challenge Neale (1964)‟s view. Neale used heavyweight boxing as an example and argued

that a high level of UO would result in the highest level of profits. Many articles doubt this

12

argument and findings suggest that in four out of five sports UO is of less importance

(Hammervold & Solberg, 2008). Forrest et al. (2005) find a link and a correlation between

competition and viewing figures; on the other hand, it is unclear whether it is due to sporting

or competitive factors. Another point might be that no-one can guarantee UO, neither the right

holders nor the broadcasters. Football is based on luck and one team might have a bad day at

work, one team may play against the wind, and, since referees still are human beings, they

also do mistakes.

The answer to UO might be two folded. “No”, in the sense that fans will watch the game even

though they might know their team will win – or lose, “yes” because those watching football

for entertainment and some “normal” viewers want an exciting game – if not they‟re only a

keystroke from a different channel. In addition to UO, broadcasters face another paradox: If

you ask two viewers about the quality of same match you are likely to get different answers.

One might see his favourite team play badly while the other one sees his team play one of

their best games in years. This is a major characteristic of sports thus leading to a focus on

giving the overall best impression where placement of cameras, highlights, replays and expert

commentators are all important. But these factors only partly explain demand – viewers habits

and rituals must also be considered leading us over to consumption patterns.

Helland et al. (2011)‟s discussion on changing consumption patterns discuss a very important

point; interactive viewing. This is best explained by giving an example:

Mikkel is watching his favourite team Arsenal’s game against Fulham on TV2 Barclays

Premier League. When the referee blows his whistle for the half time Mikkel opens his laptop.

While doing that his phone is beeping. The half-time scores from the other matches are

ticking in. On his smart phone he also checks the table and the updated top scorer list. On his

laptop he checks his score on an online fantasy football game and picks up his iPad to

continue his post in an online discussion about the offside rule. Before returning to the telly

and the discussion in the studio he checks out the goals on TV2 Sumo – TV2’s online

television service.

As we can see, many platforms are available creating an interactive engagement with the

viewer. A good example of how TV2 uses social media is the following message on Twitter.

Make note of the informal style:

13

“We’ve gotten so many wishes on sending Gary Neville’s testimonial that we’ve bought the

game. Kick-off is set at 20.25 CET on TV2 Barclays Premier League 1 & TV2 Sumo. Enjoy!”

(Editor in Chief for Sports, Vegard Jansen Hagen).

Financial situation

When TV2‟s managing director, Alf Hildrum, presented the annual report for 2010 it was

with a big smile on his face. The operating income of 335 million NOK was the record-

breaking and partly explained by TV2‟s new Premier League channels. However, the income

from advertising is still not at the level before the Credit Crunch. But the prospects for 2011

looks good with increasingly interest from both viewers and advertisers. Figure 5 shows

turnover, operating income and profit (loss), for the TV2 group of companies, the last five

years.

(Source: Annual reports TV2 2005-2010).

TV2 is famous for using their own staff actively in marketing and branding giving them an

emblematic function for the cannel (Solvoll, 2009). This is not only recognized by the

viewers, but also the advertisers. Journalists from TV2 are friendly, personal and display a

somewhat relaxed style. The same is true throughout the organizational from the cameramen

to the front desk personnel. This is implemented in TV2 through the channel‟s values as

„playful‟, „informal‟ and „down to earth‟. Many advertisers find this interesting and something

opposite of NRK‟s more distanced authority. Helland (2003) argues that TV2‟s

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Turnover 2314 2614 2744 2437 2704

Profit/Loss 53 39 38 197 222

Operating income 28 -9 184 150 335

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1000s

NO

K

Figure 5 - Turnover versus Profit/Loss and Operating Income

14

commentators‟ style focuses more on the appealing side of sports attracting both viewers and

advertisers.

As explained, TV2 is highly dependent on their income from advertising. However, new

technology has been very important in relation to this. Bjørn Taalessen in TV2 puts it this

way: “Technological innovations have not only increased the number of products, but also

enabled the integrated media companies to communicate with consumers simultaneously

through several communication channels. This, as an example, also involves interactive

communication during live programmes” (Helland et al, 2011). To include the companies

early in the process and give them chance to influence the way the communication platforms

are designed is for me considered as a key factor here. In this way advertisers are able to reach

out to their target groups and TV2 will gain through a closer tie with their co-operators.

In an email, finance director of TV2 Øivind Johannessen spelled out the following challenges

in relation to the financial situation: “Maintain our market share, keep control over costs and

keep acquiring attractive sports rights”. The first concern leads us over to the distributors.

Distributors

We define distribution as “the delivery of products from supplier (TV2) to customer (viewer)”

(Beech & Chadwick, 2004: 143). Clearly, without distributors very few, if any, could watch

football on the telly. This section discusses the importance of distributors and how TV2 could

tackle the challenges arising from the cooperation with these actors.

Since the 70s there has been a growth of new distribution technologies including cable and

satellite (Solvoll, 2007). Today the television coverage is terrestrial and 92 per cent of

Norwegian households access the channel TV2. In addition to this the Internet and

development of social media has opened new doors for broadcasters and distributors. But they

are not alone. It has also given newspapers, mobile phone operators, IP television companies,

energy companies and Internet companies a chance to enter the market (Helland, K &

Solberg, H, 2011). I our case TV2 and the telecommunication company Telenor have close

ties and share ownership of the channel TV2 Zebra which owns TV2 Barclays Premier

League and TV2 Sport. The business integration in the media industry has increased both the

competition and transmission capacity – and last but not least the price on television rights

(Helland, K & Solberg, 2011). In addition to this, new products have changed the

consumptions patterns (Mikkel‟s Arsenal match).

15

In the future it is important for TV2 to keep acquiring exclusive and popular sport rights. If

they lose them, they may lose not only their subscribers, but also their distributors. Some may

argue that broadcasters nowadays do not need distributors since the channels can go online

and provide the service directly to their subscribers. This is true, but at the current stage many

broadcasters, TV2 included, are highly dependent on their income from their distributors.

3.2.2 External challenges

Competitors

Both current and possible new entrants are important challenges for TV2. Sharing the same

goals as the rights holders is therefore essential when deals are made. It will also help

maintain the relationship between the broadcaster and the seller (Solberg, 2002). In this way

TV2 may be preferred instead of competitors in the negotiation phase.

Canal+ and NRK have already been discussed. The third big competitor is Viasat. The

distributor also own sports TV channels showing competitions such as the UEFA Champions

League and the Carling Cup. Under the last World Cup, TV2 and Viasat shared the rights.

Viasat‟s coverage of the Champions League on the most popular channel Viasat 4 has

relatively high viewing figures, but except for that not many people are willing to pay for their

sport premium pay-tv channels.

For all broadcasters, TV2 and Viasat included, it is important to realize that there will always

be a threat for new entrants. For the existing channels brand building and consumer

commitment are important keywords. These two channels are also both commercial channels

which means that they will be able to acquire the biggest sports events, if and only if they

keep their subscribers (and bring in new ones) as well as being attractive for advertiser.

Technological development

This matter has already been analyzed and discussed. However it could not be highlighted too

often. Technological development has been, is and will be of great importance for TV2.

Clearly, the collaborations and the mentioned business integration will be helpful here, but it

is TV2‟s own responsibility to follow the market trends and keep developing their services

keeping in mind consumers‟ growing emphasis on service quality (Beech & Chadwick, 2004:

458).

16

World economy

During recessions many businesses‟ first cuts are in the marketing budgets. TV2‟s fall in

incomes from advertising was party explained by the late-2000s financial crisis. The situation

also led to cuts in programme budgets and several employees was either laid off or sacked.

Recently TV2 has sold technology outside Norway

(http://www.tv2.no/omtv2/pressemeldinger/tv-2-satser-internasjonalt-paa-webtvteknologi-

3456319.html, retrieved 27 May 2011). This carries risk, but currency hedging will be a one

way around it. It is important to make note of the economy in Norway, which was less hit by

the crisis than other European countries. 2011 has been a year with positivism and the

following statement from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD) illustrates this: “Norway has fully recovered from the global economic crisis. Growth

is projected to rise through 2012 on the back of increasing private consumption and

investment, despite stagnating oil and gas exports

(http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3746,en_2649_37443_45270072_1_1_1_37443,00.html

, retrieved 27 May 2011).

4. CONCLUSION

The managing director of Danish TV2 Sport, Claus Bretton-Meyer, said on 12 May 2011 that

change was the single most important in sport broadcasting. However I only partly agree with

him. Of course broadcasters must follow the technological development not to be left behind,

but without basic marketing theory where the consumer‟s preferences are analyzed and needs

of the consumer are met it is not possible to succeed. There is no reason to offer a service no-

one wants. Broadcasters must bear this in mind as they face the future. Bretton-Meyer also

stated «being liked is one thing, but being preferred is what matters». This statement shows

how important it is to recognize the different types of sport fans and give them what they want

- at a price they can afford. If TV2 succeed in this the viewers will get back again and again,

maybe ending up as a subscriber of all the sports channels.

This paper has helped explain how sports broadcasters operate. The development both in

technology and consumption patterns has changed this market. It is likely that the future will

bring even more of these trends. More and more people are now holders of TVs with 3D,

internet access, a tablet and a smart phone. To succeed in this market a broadcaster must offer

more than the game. Information and feeds such as tables, statistics and news is only a

17

threesome. It is difficult to predict the future, but a user-oriented and a cohesive organization

will be crucial.

Future research should focus on the changed consumption patterns and relate them to the

demand for sports broadcasting. Much research is outdated and has not considered the most

recent consumption trends and the technological developments. Another field worth

mentioning is football‟s competitive balance and uncertainty of outcome. Leagues, such as the

Spanish La Liga, are good examples of situations where many broadcasters fear the

development. Will people still watch the game if there is no or very little competition? New

technology and changes in product design may also affect the distribution of market power

between the businesses involved. When it comes to sports broadcasting these are all important

and should be carefully illustrated by new research.

5. REFERENCES

Scientific Papers, Articles and Reports

Beech, J & Chadwick, S (2004): The Business of Sport Management, Pearson Education

Limited, London

Bretton-Meyer, C (2010): Sports Broadcasting, lecture slides from Sports Economics,

Copenhagen Business School 2011

Forrest, D., Simmons, R. & Szymanski, S (2004): Broadcasting, Attendance and the

Inefficiency of Cartels, Review of Industrial Organization, 24: 243-265

Forrest, D, Simmons, R, & Boraimo, B (2005): Outcome uncertainty and the couch potato

audience, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 52(4), 641_661.

Gaustad, T (2000): The Economics of Sports Programming, Nordicom Review, Vol. 21, 2000,

101–113

Hammervold, R & Solberg, H (2008): TV Sports Viewers – Who Are They?, Nordicom

Review 29, pp. 95-110

Helland, K & Solberg, H (2011): Sports Broadcasting – An Accelerator of Business

Integration in the Media Industry, Nordicom Review, Vol. 32, 2011, pp. x-x.

18

Johnsen, H & Solvoll, M (2007): The Demand for Televised Football, European Sports

Management Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 4, 311-335.

Loebbecke, C & Fischer, M (2005): Pay TV Piracy and its Effects on Pay TV Provision,

Journal of Media Business Studies. 2(2), pp.17-34

Merkel, U (1994): Germany and the World Cup: Solid, reliable, often undramatic – but

successful. In J.Sugden, & A. Tomlision, Host and champions: Soccer culture, national

identities and the USA World Cup, pp. 93-118. London: Ashgate Publishing.

Neale, W (1964): The Peculiar Economics of Professional Sports, The Quarterly Journal of

Economics

Olson, Mancur (1971): The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and The Theory of

Groups, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press

Solberg, H (2007): Sports Broadcasting: Is it a Job for Public Service Broadcasters?, Journal

of Media Economics, Vol.20, pp.289-309

Solberg, H (2002): The Economics of Television Sports Rights, Norsk Medietidsskrift, Vol.9,

No.2, pp 57-80

Solvoll, M (2009): Televised Sport, BI School of Management, pp.242- 256

Spence, M & Bruce, M (1977): Television programming, monopolistic competition, and

welfare, Quarterly Journal of Econmics, 91, pp. 103-126.

TV2 Group, Annual reports 2006-2010

Electronic sources

Dagbladet (2011): Viasat rydder fem kanaler til Champions League-finalen

http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/05/26/sport/champions_league/fotball/manchester_united/barc

elona/16678017/ (retrieved 26 May 2011)

Deloitte (2011): Annual Review of Football Finance 2010

http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/uk/industries/sportsbusinessgroup/sports/football/0a4be

867d38f8210VgnVCM200000bb42f00aRCRD.html (retrieved 23 May 2011)

19

Hegnar (2010): Premier League på TV2: http://www.hegnar.no/sport_fritid/article410450.ece

(retrieved 23 May 2011)

Klar Tale (2009): Ikke football-VM på NRK http://www.klartale.no/norge/article152.zrm

(retrieved 26 May 2011)

OECD (2011): Norway - Economic forecast summary

http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3746,en_2649_37443_45270072_1_1_1_37443,00.html

(retrieved 27 May 2011)

TV2 (2011): Storsatsing etter rekordresultat i TV2

http://mobil.tv2.no/omtv2/pressemeldinger/storsatsing-etter-rekordresultat-i-tv-2-

3409356.html (retrieved 10 May 2011)

United (2011): Møter Neville med stjernene

http://united.no/united/nyheter/nyheter/moeter_neville_med_stjernene (retrieved 23 May

2011).

Wikipedia (2010): Broadcasting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcasting, retrieved 29 May

2011).