Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Cycling fans report Warner Bros. Discovery to market regulator for “abuse of monopoly” and “price gouging” after moving cycling behind £30.99-a-month paywall, as Tory MP slams “terrible decision”

“Next month cycling coverage is going to become a prohibitively expensive luxury to a huge number of fans,” MP Ben Obese-Jecty said on Friday, as fans called for the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate the move

Warner Bros. Discovery’s controversial decision to close down Eurosport in the UK and move its cycling coverage to the £30.99-a-month TNT Sports channel has been reported to the Competition and Markets Authority by some disgruntled fans, who argue the move is an abuse of the company’s monopoly position and constitutes price gouging.

Meanwhile, on Friday morning Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty also criticised the decision – which means fans will have to shell out almost £400 a year to watch cycling on TNT Sports from March – which he said will ensure that cycling coverage “is going to become a prohibitively expensive luxury to a huge number of fans”.

On Tuesday, it was confirmed by Warner Bros. Discovery that Eurosport, after over three decades of broadcasting, is set to close down in the UK and Ireland from 28 February. The closure comes as Warner Bros. Discovery integrates all the channel’s content onto its main TNT channels, meaning cycling will now be broadcast on TNT Sports rather than Eurosport and, as it is already, available to stream on discovery+.

> How to watch cycling for less now it's moving to £30.99-a-month TNT Sports

However, Discovery’s longstanding integration project – which was cited as the key factor behind the demise of cycling-specific streaming platform GCN+ in late 2023 – also means that cycling fans will now have to pay a £30.99-a-month premium discovery+ subscription to watch bike races on TNT, a package which also includes the channel’s other sports coverage, such as Champions League and Premier League football.

That £371.88-a-year package is a whopping 343 per cent more expensive than Discovery’s previous £6.99-a-month basic subscription, a price hike that has understandably been condemned by fans, who have branded it “exploitation” and a decision that will “destroy our sport”.

2024 Tour de France peloton (ASO/Billy Ceusters)

(ASO/Billy Ceusters)

And now, a number of those fans – as well as cancelling their subscriptions – have lodged formal complaints about Eurosport’s closure and cycling’s move to TNT Sports to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the principal competitive regulator in the UK, responsible for promoting competitive markets and tackling unfair behaviour by businesses.

According to one road.cc reader who’s submitted a complaint to the CMA this week, Ben Taylor, Warner Bros. Discovery’s ‘integration’ policy represents an “abuse of a monopoly position”.

“I, like many, am flabbergasted at the Discovery+ change to cycling coverage,” Ben told us on Friday. “I’ve reported them to the Competition and Markets Authority for abuse of a monopoly position, quoting the price increases since they built that position.

I would encourage others to do the same. If we hit the CMA with lots of demands, it’s more likely that they’ll take action.”

> The rise & fall of GCN+ – is the livestream party over for cycling fans?

Ben’s stance was echoed by fellow cycling fan and Reddit user Mike, who urged his fellow viewers on the platform to report the move to the CMA for “price gouging”.

“Warner Bros. have a monopoly in sports broadcasting in several sports and have just gouged the prices,” Mike said.

“It takes two minutes to fill in the form. Putting a snarky comment when cancelling a subscription won’t do much. They’re up as long as one person pays the £31 for every four snarky comments they get.”

2024 Tour de France peloton

(ASO/Charly Lopez)

If these complaints do eventually prompt some form of action, they wouldn’t represent the first time, of course, that Warner Bros. and its sports offerings have come under the CMA microscope.

In 2022, the regular investigated – and ultimately cleared – plans to form a joint venture between Warner Bros. Discovery and BT Group, which led to BT Sport’s transformation into TNT Sport and, eventually, this year’s merger between TNT and Eurosport.

“BT Sport and Eurosport UK will be brought together to form a sports joint venture for customers, providing the JV with one of the most extensive portfolios of sports rights in the UK and Ireland,” BT said at the time of the CMA’s decision in July 2022.

“Both BT Sport and Eurosport UK will initially retain their separate brands and product propositions in the market before being brought together under a single brand in the future.”

While the venture’s chair Marc Allera described it as “an exciting new offer for live sport programming in the UK”, Discovery Sports Europe’s president Andrew Georgiou said: “Combining the capabilities, portfolios, and scale of BT Sport and Eurosport UK will be a big win for fans in the UK and Ireland, offering a new destination that will feature all the sport they love in one place.”

> “The Tour is the only race that matters. And that’s gone now”: Ned Boulting on the end of free-to-air Tour de France coverage in the UK and his “deep sense of loss”

The idea that Eurosport’s closure represents a “big win” for cycling fans – particularly in the wake of last year’s news that the Tour de France will no longer be broadcast on free-to-air television in the UK from 2026 – has not gained much traction both within and outside the sport in recent days, it must be said.

Responding to the news on Friday morning, Ben Obese-Jecty, the Conservative MP for Huntingdon, wrote on social media: “A terrible decision by TNT Sports to put cycling coverage behind a paywall with a 400 per cent price hike.

“With ITV having also lost the free-to-air rights of the Tour de France, next month cycling coverage is going to become a prohibitively expensive luxury to a huge number of fans.”

Tao Geoghegan Hart (Zac Williams/SWpix.com)

(Zac Williams/SWpix.com)

On Wednesday, Lidl-Trek’s British star Tao Geoghegan Hart became one of the first pros to speak out about the decision, which he described as a “huge shame”, while also questioning the “monopoly” on coverage in the UK.

“As of yet, I’ve seen little comment from pro cycling itself, especially from the many GB riders whose profiles, families, and fans it impacts so greatly,” the 2020 Giro d’Italia winner wrote in a lengthy post on Instagram.

“Let’s be clear, the sport going behind such a large paywall is a huge problem. Professional sports are all competing for the same audience. Cycling is completely reliant on this audience, it is how teams justify themselves to sponsors spending millions a year.

“Only a few teams can realistically promise a sponsor to win the Tour, but all teams can demonstrate good ROI when capturing so many eyes, hearts, and minds. It’s not only wins that can be of value. It’s the journey and the heartache too.

“I find it hard to believe many fans will be able to justify this increase in costs to follow our races and those of our female colleagues. This is a huge shame. Cycling provides such great entertainment and inspiration to so many.

“GB fans are living a real high point of the sport. There are so many GB professionals, with Tom Pidcock winning his first race for his new team this afternoon a great example of that.

> "A huge problem": Pro cycling disappearing behind £372-a-year TNT Sports paywall a "huge shame", Tao Geoghegan Hart says in lengthy post questioning "how many people have cancelled subscriptions" over price hike

“To be clear on something that many don’t understand, teams receive zero remuneration from TV rights. What do I want to say? For amateur riders, cycling has become a very expensive sport or passion. Now as a GB fan, following the upper echelons of the sport has also suddenly and massively increased in cost.

“I think it is now very relevant to realise where this money is going and where it is not. And perhaps to question the monopoly held over the sports UK coverage.

“I welcome all opinions on this and am curious to hear how many people have cancelled their subscriptions. This season I’ll try to champion more accessible media. I’ll remain incredibly grateful to our sponsors. I’ll also be very interested to hear from you all which platforms myself and Lidl-Trek should consider collaborating with.

“We want and need to remain available to all of the huge British audience that has been built up over the last 15 years of astronomic success.”

After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.

Add new comment

21 comments

Avatar
espressodan | 1 month ago
1 like

This current issue feels a lot like the music piracy boom in the 90s. The thing with entertainment is that it’s different from physical goods; it’s intellectual property that’s available to everyone. The real distinction isn’t ownership but access—getting your content in front of eyes and ears, not necessarily in your hands.

Back in the 00s, music piracy was rampant because albums and singles were expensive. The model of pumping out hits and expecting people to pay full price for each release started to fall apart, because the value just wasn’t there anymore.

The solution came when the music industry realized that a reasonable monthly subscription was the way to go. Once streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music entered the scene, music piracy dropped off significantly. People were willing to pay a fair price for easy, full access to music—something that wasn’t just convenient, but also made more sense financially.

Now, HBO Max is making a similar mistake in the digital age. They seem to think people are still stuck in the old model of "either you own it, or you don’t," treating entertainment as though it's a tangible item rather than information that’s readily available elsewhere if you're not interested in buying it.

I honestly thought Discovery+ had figured it out. They were offering full, easy access at a reasonable price, and most people didn’t hesitate to pay for the convenience. Everyone was happy with the arrangement—it was a win-win for consumers and the company.

But now, with the latest move from Discovery (or Warner Bros. Discovery), it seems like they’re backtracking. From a consumer perspective, this feels like a step backwards, not just in terms of cycling, but across the board.

Avatar
dubwise replied to espressodan | 1 month ago
0 likes

Have you seen the prices for vinyl records these days? Music piracy is still alive and kicking.

Avatar
Jetmans Dad replied to dubwise | 3 weeks ago
0 likes

dubwise wrote:

Have you seen the prices for vinyl records these days? Music piracy is still alive and kicking.

Vinyl records are expensive to produce, and sell a tiny fraction of the amount sold on CD and streaming. It's called economies of scale ... and no one is forcing anyone to buy vinyl records. 

Avatar
Rome73 | 1 month ago
1 like

'Discovery Sports Europe’s president Andrew Georgiou said: “Combining the capabilities, portfolios, and scale of BT Sport and Eurosport UK will be a big win for fans in the UK and Ireland, offering a new destination that will feature all the sport they love in one place.”
 

who has the time to watch all this stuff anyway? Tennis, golf, football, moto GP, cars going around and around, cycling, rugby, basketball, snooker, cricket, horses, this, that and the other . . . . . . . 

Avatar
Jaijai | 1 month ago
1 like

It's no wonder people are moving to illegal iptv .To charge £30 a month for anything is pathetic .This is 1 of these occasions if they cut the price they would make more money .Sometimes less is more

Avatar
HKR | 1 month ago
4 likes

Actually it is an 830% increase over the cost of the same company's cycling coverage through GCN+, the service WBD chose to close just over a year ago.  When filing a complaint to the CMA, it is worth remembering that this is the second time WBD has chosen to terminate a service in order to consolidate cycling in a different one in order to up pricing.   Going from £39.99 per year to £31.99 per month is an 829.932% increase in 14 months.   For reference, the UK inflation rate for 2024 is expected to be 2.5% according to a report published three days ago.

The difference between 2.5% and 830% speaks volumes.  As does the tactic of removing competition to bundle sports together to ramp up pricing exponentially.  

Please remember the real increase in your reporting and please use this figure in CMA complaints.

Avatar
ceebee247 | 1 month ago
3 likes

But the issue with cycling is that the teams participating see none of this money. Football, cricket, golf all see money paid to players or teams for the TV rights. Nothing is paid by the tv companies to the cycling teams or people participating. There has to be a fundamental change to how cycling is funded because currently you will be paying £30 a month to a corporation who will give as little as they can get away with to cycling.
I'm absolutely certain the viewing figures will drop, I have many friends who watch the TDF in summer just to see the scenery and have very little interest in cycling. They of course will certainly not be paying any subscription so will no longer watch the TDF. Which sort of is one of the main selling points of any cycling tour - to show and highlight the amazing places in that country that it passes through. 
so big loss for the teams and a big loss for France in general.

Avatar
stonojnr replied to ceebee247 | 1 month ago
0 likes

remember the £30 pound covers all the sports rights they have, its not just a cycling bonanza there, theyve got football, cricket, rugby union and theyll have even more rugby soon, NBA, MotoGp, theyve now got World Superbikes, British Superbikes as well as Le Mans, World Endurance, Snooker, Olympics, winter sports, Americas cup.

and they paid for the rights, remember ITV didnt offer a competing bid, it wasnt that they were outbid, and that money goes to the sports organisers, what they do with it is their choice.

its kind of weird that people demand more money goes to cycling teams from broadcasters, whilst at the same time complaining about paying more for their coverage of it.

if the whole £30 pound per subscriber went to cycling teams, would you then be subscribing ?

Avatar
Jaijai replied to stonojnr | 1 month ago
0 likes

Why don't the offer a cycling only sub ,? Not everyone has qn interest in football or any other sports ,i watch cycling only so the rest is nonsense to me .As a corporation they do it to .maximise profit while ckain8ng it's part of an " integration plan " That's code for profit .Football and cycling are 2 different customers

Avatar
No Reply replied to stonojnr | 1 month ago
1 like

That's irrelevant. Why should the customer be forced to pay for all the sports that they dont watch? Why have to pay for football when I don't want to watch football? 

I would happily pay £15 a month for just cycling and nothing else. You ask if the whole £30 went to cycling, would i then be subscribing? My answer is no but i would pay half that amount.

Avatar
rdaddict replied to stonojnr | 2 weeks ago
0 likes

Not interested in all the other sports at all, only cycling.

Avatar
FatAndFurious | 1 month ago
1 like

There's another approach - contact the governing bodies of the other sports that you watch and have them throw their weight about somewhat.

The UCI may not care, but Big Tennis / Skiiing / Ice hockey / Archery / Fencing / Snooker / Biathlon / Judo / Speedway etc etc are all in the same (sinking) boat - you can't watch any of that either unless you pony up £30.99 a month. Lower viewing figures means lower value for sponsors, lower exposure for competitors, and lower profile of their sport.

Give me a £4.99/month per-sport subscription, and I'd be interested, for the two sports I actually watch.

Avatar
brooksby | 1 month ago
3 likes

But isn't this just what any monopoly does? Because they can and nobody has any alternative.

Avatar
DoomeFrog | 1 month ago
1 like

It feels to me TNT have over spent on obtaining football coverage rights (again!  I was suckered into OnDigital and ITV Sport back in the day) for which most people will probably be choosing between Sky Sports and TNT and I would suggest Sky is the better option for football anyway (not that I have a subscription).

So the only way to shore up that investment is to get others not interested in football to the party to pay for it while suggesting it is for sports fans.  Assumptions are that you like one sport you like them all so will be happy to pay.  While it has worked for Sky, lets be honest Sky's offering is 90% football with a bit of Cricket.  Even Sky realised that F1 should have it's own subscription.

Avatar
stonojnr replied to DoomeFrog | 1 month ago
1 like

TNT paid the market going rate for football subs as they're done through an auction with rights holders

The market regulator fixed it so no one broadcaster could take all the Premier league rights, which resulted in the fragmentation across multiple broadcasters & subscriptions and ultimately higher costs paid by fans.

So be careful what you wish for.

Avatar
Carior replied to stonojnr | 1 month ago
1 like

Paying the "market rate" doesn't mean they didn't pay too much.

Fundamentally I agree with both principles - the division of football packages (thanks OFT/CMA) has been bad for consumers - rather than generating competition it has created a portfolio of expensive subscriptions rather than just one.

I also won't argue with the contention that this reeks of fans of smaller sports being made to subsidise football coverage.  TNT (and its predecessor challengers whether Setanta or w/e) have always faced the challenge that they are fundamentally an add on for those hardcore football fans who want more than just Sky's offering.

What I think is the bigger shame out of all of this is that it makes all sport less accessible for viewers.  As long as I can remember as a kid in the 90s, I would have a fortnightly plea to my parents to let me stay up and watch the Man United Champions League games on ITV.  Every lever was pulled - pjs before kick off, clean teeth at half time - that's all lost and I can't remember the last time I watched European Football as in truth one sports subscription is an indulgence that I can afford but not justify - an additional subscription is untenable.

That said, don't hold your breath - I don't think the CMA will take this on.  Market definition is fiendishly complex but there's quite a lot on what the market is for sports rights and TV coverage, its not straightforward but I don't think this is a case the CMA would take on - especially not at the moment when its taken a kicking for being anti-business from every possible angle and is definitely not in an "open lots of complex cases" mindset.

Avatar
Surreyrider replied to DoomeFrog | 1 month ago
1 like

I have Sky Sports because I like football and cricket too. They have a lot of those sports but not as much as before - England tours are now regularly to be found on other subscription channels. So I am in a quandary. I could ditch Sky and use that money for TNT to get all the cycling and a bit of football although I am against such a huge price hike, or stay as is (I don't pay anywhere near £31 a month for Sky Sports).

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to Surreyrider | 1 month ago
2 likes

They do the same with the rugby, used to get all the premiership rugby and the European cup on BT sport, then it moved to TNT and all of a sudden you only get the premiership, if you want the European cup as well you have to subscribe to Premier Sports for an extra £15 a month. Given the greed-propelled trajectory in this area one wonders how long it will be before the Tour de France will be segregated and require an extra subscription over and above the £31.99 already demanded.

Avatar
lesterama | 1 month ago
2 likes

road.cc wrote:

That £371.88-a-year package is a whopping 443 per cent more expensive than Discovery’s previous £6.99-a-month basic subscription

443 per cent of the previous price, which is 343 per cent more. Still a ridiculous increase, but numbers matter.

Keep those complaints flooding in to the CMA, but with the right percentages.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to lesterama | 1 month ago
1 like

Yup. Also

Quote:

They’re up as long as one person pays the £31 for every four snarky comments they get.

Nope. More like one for every three and a half (or two for every seven, if you prefer).

Avatar
Festus replied to lesterama | 1 month ago
0 likes

Virgin Media as just sent me an email explaining the change, 2 things they have got wrong first telling me that TNT sports will only be £18 per month and secondly not mentioning that its discovery plus you join for TNT as a vm customer I already pay to watch discovery channels so now I will have to pay twice

 

Latest Comments