New broadcast model for World Championship Match

[Alex Holowczak]

The premium pay-per-view broadcast, that will cost $15 for the whole match, or about the same price as a cinema ticket

Firstly, it would seem cinema tickets are more expensive in the USA than they are in the UK.

To distract from the main point of the thread (and Alex, you may want to clarify that you presumably aren't speaking in any official capacity on behalf of the ECF?), the right comparison with cinema tickets would be between London and New York. Outside of big cities like that, cinema tickets can vary a lot in price.

I am very happy both to clarify that I was speaking in an unofficial capacity, and that I will bow down to your greater knowledge of cinema ticket prices around the UK.

[Alex Holowczak]

Thanks for your answers. More questions/comments in a personal capacity.

Federations also get 10%.
In terms of income to specific federations: Honestly, this is a brand new model so it is quite difficult to estimate the revenue for specific federations and it will slightly depend on how successfully federations communicate to their members about it. But hypothetically, if a federation has 100,000 members and 5% sign up, then by my maths, that would result in revenue of $7,500. And that is just for the Championship. If that is repeated over the course of the Championship cycle, it soon starts to add up into some sizeable amounts.

How many federations have 100,000 members?

Let's assume a hypothetical VAT paying Federation - assuming this income is VATable - has 10,000 members at 5% takeup. That's 500 people generating $1.50 each, so that's $750, or £616 at today's exchange rate. Less VAT, that's just over £500. The hypothetical Federation would presumably rather have £500 than not, but I wonder if this amount of money justifies the spending of non-financial resources (marketing, webmaster's time) to facilitate it.

I suspect the takeup of 5% is optimistic - for example, lots of people may sign up without knowing about their Federation's code, or miss the chance to put the code in; or going via a website like Chess24, in which case Chess24 get the credit and not the Federation.

[JustinHorton]

As far as the legal action is concerned - as you can appreciate these cases take a while to reach court, but the action taken against websites that commenced at the Candidates are ongoing and nearing a court date.

In which jurisdiction?

[Andrew Murray-Watson]

A minor point, but how is Agon pronounced? (I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk about it in real life).

Sounds like a gonner, or for football fans in North London, a Gooner.

I pronounce it "A-gone" as opposed to "Ah-gone"

[Alistair Campbell]

A minor point, but how is Agon pronounced? (I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk about it in real life).

Sounds like a gonner, or for football fans in North London, a Gooner.

I pronounce it "A-gone" as opposed to "Ah-gone"

Thank-you. So like the Dutch insurer? Perhaps I have heard people talk about it in real life...

[NickFaulks]

As far as the legal action is concerned - as you can appreciate these cases take a while to reach court, but the action taken against websites that commenced at the Candidates are ongoing and nearing a court date.

In which jurisdiction?

Q: What will happen if websites do not respect World Chess’s right to control the broadcasting of the match.

A: They will be sued. That is what happened in March at the Candidates tournament, when several Web sites did unauthorized broadcasts. Though it takes time, the lawsuits are making their way through the courts in Moscow, where the tournament was held. World Chess has already retained counsel in New York and plans to aggressively pursue claims against anyone who tries to circumvent the official broadcast.

[Roger de Coverly]

plans to aggressively pursue claims against anyone who tries to circumvent the official broadcast.

What charming people !

[Alistair Campbell]

The assumption is that those sites don't have to pay for being allowed to do this (presuming that this could even feasibly be restricted). Is that assumption correct? There are restrictions (due to betting syndicates) on live transmission of tennis and cricket results, maybe in other sports as well.

I assume not.

In "real" sports, there seems to be a spectrum of broadcasting from live television pictures with “expert” commentary through radio transmissions to web-based text services with discussions post-event.

The sport will attempt to licence these and charge (presumably as the most successful these are, the fewer people will actually pay to watch in person). Radio and TV tend to pay for the privilege. On the other hand, purveyors of the written word tend not to (and even receive free entry). I've done this myself on occasion, so I assume the big National Dailies get to do it for nothing.

In practice it is very difficult to legislate against people posting quasi-commentary or pictures via mobile phones. I would guess that some of what is being done may be technically illegal, but has minimal impact on those who provide a paid product.

Again, there is a range of differences between the service provided and the activity. There is a huge gap between watching a football match on Teletext, and being there in real life (or watching on television). I submit there is less of a gap between watching text updates of a cricket match and the real thing. There is minimal gap between watching chess on Teletext and being there in real life (which is the fundamental issue).

People are willing to pay to fill in the gap (albeit paying in disguised form via a package). I suspect if expert commentary were priced separately, people would value that much less, and would tend to do without.

Legally, I’m not sure what is to stop me viewing a sporting event from a conveniently placed hill or kitchen window overlooking the arena, from tweeting comments from an event I have paid to enter, from broadcasting via Periscope (whatever that is) or for discussing events on an internet forum from freely available information.

[JustinHorton]

plans to aggressively pursue claims against anyone who tries to circumvent the official broadcast.

What charming people !

Full charm offensive here

[Matt Fletcher]

plans to aggressively pursue claims against anyone who tries to circumvent the official broadcast.

What charming people !

Full charm offensive here

Also see here (particularly the bit in ALL CAPS)

Also - is the countdown clock on the official site correct?

If I'm looking at my time zones correctly, it suggests game 1 is kicking off at 7pm local time which seems on the late side?

[JustinHorton]

Also see here (particularly the bit in ALL CAPS)

God yes I remember a similar raving passage in the agreement for Candidates coverage.

[Mick Norris]

What charming people !

Full charm offensive here

Also see here (particularly the bit in ALL CAPS)

Also - is the countdown clock on the official site correct?

If I'm looking at my time zones correctly, it suggests game 1 is kicking off at 7pm local time which seems on the late side?

2 pm local time, which is 8 pm CET according to Tarjei

[Matt Fletcher]

2 pm local time, which is 8 pm CET according to Tarjei

Thanks - I think that does mean that the 'official' countdown is a few hours behind.

[Roger de Coverly]

Also see here (particularly the bit in ALL CAPS)

YOU ALSO AGREE THAT INFORMATION ABOUT CHESS MOVES OF THE GAMES IS EXPENSIVE TO PRODUCE AND GATHER

I think that is disputed. It's expensive without doubt to run a World Championship match because of the prize funds, the staging required for live spectators and supporting media interest. Providing live text coverage of moves played requires little more than a DGT board and someone to make sure the software behaves. Weekend Congresses on minimal budgets manage OK and even cover more than one game.

There's a match taking place at Hoogeveen between Hou Yifan and Nigel Short. I'd imagine much of the budget for the match is fees, prizes and hospitality for the participants, rather than internet coverage.

[Matt Fletcher]

Also see here (particularly the bit in ALL CAPS)

(that was me, not Mick...)