Quote:
Originally Posted by nialli
All this talk in the papers about the sporting bodies weighing in, concerned that their revenues will drop as Sky will no longer pay the big bucks as they will no longer be able to promote the pay dish platform as the best (and for non-cable areas, only) place to view sport. Absolute tosh.
Why are people ignoring the impact ESPN is having on the sports rights market? With the deeper-than-Murdoch pockets of Disney backing it, it will be a far more competitive bidding process for most sports going forward than the unbalanced Sky v Setanta bidding of yore. Better we have two well-matched heavyweights in competition than a self-serving monopoly, surely?
|
I think the impact of ESPN is very interesting a question i would ask is ESPN really in competition or are they too close to sky to really compete? Sky produce ESPNS football coverage using sky production facilities,and also sky do admin for ESPN seems like a very close relationship for two companies that are supposed to be fiercly in competition to me. Setanta was completely independant in a way ESPN are not at the moment.
As for the money sporting bodies will notionally lose,well if sky sports were available on freeview would that not more then make up for the revenue that may be lost by the price cut,i mean sky could potentially sell lots of subs either via picnic or top up tv. The sporting bodies really ought to get their nose out of skys backside they seem to be thinking of the cash cow rather then the public in all of this.