Jan 21, 2010
FIFA'S OUTRAGEOUS WORLD CUP FEE
Blame SingTel's EPL gambit
YESTERDAY'S report ('World Cup fans may miss out on all matches') indicates that Singapore will be denied the live telecast of this year's football World Cup because SingTel and StarHub will not pay the price demanded by soccer's world governing body, Fifa.
The self-destructive contest between SingTel and StarHub for the telecast rights to the English Premier League (EPL) played into Fifa's hands.
As we can afford the exorbitant price for EPL rights, why not for World Cup 2010, Fifa must have reasoned - a hard-nosed stance which is not consonant with its fair-play motto.
SingTel and StarHub say they must balance the interests of their shareholders against the passion of football-crazy Singaporeans. If that is so, how can SingTel justify its pyrrhic win of EPL rights?
It appears to have learnt an expensive lesson. The Government so far looks askance at the issue; it appears aloof to the angst of many Singaporeans.
[Right. The Govt should step in to solve this "Problem". $100m so that Singaporeans can watch football. The WORLD Cup!!! The problems of the unemployed, the homeless, the poor is NOTHING compared to the angst of the middle class football fanatics.]
If Singapore had qualified to play in South Africa (an ambitious target mooted many years ago by then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong), would the Government not have used its influence with internal and external parties to ensure we got to watch the national side play? A case can be argued for the Media Development Authority to deploy a portion of its TV licence fee - which is meant to fund public service programmes, we are repeatedly told whenever the continuing need for the fee is challenged - to help in this impasse.
[What about those people who don't watch football? Should their licence be used to pay for the wants of others? $110 per year per household. At about 1 million households, the FIFA fees would wipe out the TV license revenue. It would not be a portion. Or it would be so large a portion, there would be little left for anything else.]
What about Singapore Pools, which rakes in handsome profits from football bets? Surely its takings will be badly hurt without the live telecast. People, including policymakers, with scant interest in football will not understand the furore. Why give in to extortion, they may ask. But to many ordinary Singaporeans, it is no trivial matter.
[Singapore Pools exists to manage the need/want of people to gamble. They should not encourage gambling, merely offer an outlet for legal (i.e. taxed and controlled by the govt) gambling.]
The travesty is that many poor countries will get to watch the matches live for a token fee: An admirable bit of social work by Fifa.
But Singapore, so affluent and regarded by some as punching above its weight on various matters, must pay the price in all senses. Will we? Should we?
Tan Chak Lim
[Well, Singaporeans can go to neighbouring countries for World Cup Holidays. might be cheaper, and it would help tourism in our neighbours. All this panic over nothing. Yes, Fifa will try to squueze what they think Singapore can afford. But they have a fixed cost. And that is covered by now by all the deals struck. Singapore can either be a $100m revenue or a $15m revenue but it doesn't costs FIFA much more to sell the rights to Singapore. If they can't get $100m, they should be able to settle - maybe $50m. It's better than no deal or $0 if they can't settle. And if they don't, Singapore will go on. It won't kill us.]
MR VICTOR KHOO: 'Isn't it a shame that Singapore can host the Formula One night races and have two integrated resorts but cannot broadcast the world's most popular sports spectacle, the World Cup, which takes place only once in four years? It is obvious that Fifa chose to charge the reported $100 million for this year's World Cup television rights simply because it thinks Singapore is extravagantly wealthy. SingTel's massive $400 million bid for the English Premiership rights must have figured in Fifa's perception. The Media Development Authority (MDA) wants to stay out of the fray, citing commercialism, while government-owned Singapore Pools sidesteps potential involvement by saying broadcasting is not its business. What MDA must recognise is that football is a national passion, and it should be responsible enough to help find an answer and not wash its hands of the issue. And Singapore Pools must not forget that one of its key aims is to promote sports. Besides, sports betting is one of its revenue streams. Pools owes it to its loyal punters to help resolve the impasse.'
[Pools aim to promote sports? I think the writer mistook "pools" for swimming pools.]
FIFA'S OUTRAGEOUS WORLD CUP FEE
Blame SingTel's EPL gambit
YESTERDAY'S report ('World Cup fans may miss out on all matches') indicates that Singapore will be denied the live telecast of this year's football World Cup because SingTel and StarHub will not pay the price demanded by soccer's world governing body, Fifa.
The self-destructive contest between SingTel and StarHub for the telecast rights to the English Premier League (EPL) played into Fifa's hands.
As we can afford the exorbitant price for EPL rights, why not for World Cup 2010, Fifa must have reasoned - a hard-nosed stance which is not consonant with its fair-play motto.
SingTel and StarHub say they must balance the interests of their shareholders against the passion of football-crazy Singaporeans. If that is so, how can SingTel justify its pyrrhic win of EPL rights?
It appears to have learnt an expensive lesson. The Government so far looks askance at the issue; it appears aloof to the angst of many Singaporeans.
[Right. The Govt should step in to solve this "Problem". $100m so that Singaporeans can watch football. The WORLD Cup!!! The problems of the unemployed, the homeless, the poor is NOTHING compared to the angst of the middle class football fanatics.]
If Singapore had qualified to play in South Africa (an ambitious target mooted many years ago by then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong), would the Government not have used its influence with internal and external parties to ensure we got to watch the national side play? A case can be argued for the Media Development Authority to deploy a portion of its TV licence fee - which is meant to fund public service programmes, we are repeatedly told whenever the continuing need for the fee is challenged - to help in this impasse.
[What about those people who don't watch football? Should their licence be used to pay for the wants of others? $110 per year per household. At about 1 million households, the FIFA fees would wipe out the TV license revenue. It would not be a portion. Or it would be so large a portion, there would be little left for anything else.]
What about Singapore Pools, which rakes in handsome profits from football bets? Surely its takings will be badly hurt without the live telecast. People, including policymakers, with scant interest in football will not understand the furore. Why give in to extortion, they may ask. But to many ordinary Singaporeans, it is no trivial matter.
[Singapore Pools exists to manage the need/want of people to gamble. They should not encourage gambling, merely offer an outlet for legal (i.e. taxed and controlled by the govt) gambling.]
The travesty is that many poor countries will get to watch the matches live for a token fee: An admirable bit of social work by Fifa.
But Singapore, so affluent and regarded by some as punching above its weight on various matters, must pay the price in all senses. Will we? Should we?
Tan Chak Lim
[Well, Singaporeans can go to neighbouring countries for World Cup Holidays. might be cheaper, and it would help tourism in our neighbours. All this panic over nothing. Yes, Fifa will try to squueze what they think Singapore can afford. But they have a fixed cost. And that is covered by now by all the deals struck. Singapore can either be a $100m revenue or a $15m revenue but it doesn't costs FIFA much more to sell the rights to Singapore. If they can't get $100m, they should be able to settle - maybe $50m. It's better than no deal or $0 if they can't settle. And if they don't, Singapore will go on. It won't kill us.]
MR VICTOR KHOO: 'Isn't it a shame that Singapore can host the Formula One night races and have two integrated resorts but cannot broadcast the world's most popular sports spectacle, the World Cup, which takes place only once in four years? It is obvious that Fifa chose to charge the reported $100 million for this year's World Cup television rights simply because it thinks Singapore is extravagantly wealthy. SingTel's massive $400 million bid for the English Premiership rights must have figured in Fifa's perception. The Media Development Authority (MDA) wants to stay out of the fray, citing commercialism, while government-owned Singapore Pools sidesteps potential involvement by saying broadcasting is not its business. What MDA must recognise is that football is a national passion, and it should be responsible enough to help find an answer and not wash its hands of the issue. And Singapore Pools must not forget that one of its key aims is to promote sports. Besides, sports betting is one of its revenue streams. Pools owes it to its loyal punters to help resolve the impasse.'
[Pools aim to promote sports? I think the writer mistook "pools" for swimming pools.]
1 comment:
World Cup is once in four years, FIFA is holding us to ransom. And Casbaa is critising us... taking us for fools. Their argument, our regional media hub status would suffer yeah... right.... more like our wallets imo. This is a classic case of monopoly here, only 1 world cup, there is no other alternative, either pay up or dont watch! I rather not watch.
Post a Comment