[colin25]

Originally Posted by Superblade7

Completely agree Chad. In the days when only Sky had the Premiership and other sports rights you had the choice of whether to subscribe to Sky Sports or not. It was a simple choice for the consumer.

However as others have pointed out, since the dawn of Setanta, ESPN and now BT Sport the competition has not really helped the consumer due to the cost increases and the fact that you now have to subscribe to two (or potentially more dependant on your interests) providers instead of just one.

Whilst competition is good for a consumer market, it is only good on comparable products. For example, if I want to buy a coffee, I can choose a local cafe, Starbucks, Costa, etc, and choose which provider I want based on my preferred taste and the price I am willing to pay. But ultimately I can get a coffee from any of them.

However, with sports rights, the fact is that Sky & BT offer completely different products as other than Premiership rights, they both have exclusive deals for the other sports they show. Whilst they keep trying to get one up on the other and pay overinflated prices for football rights it is only going to affect us, the consumer, as realistically there is no competition in this field, only a choice of whether to have none, some or all sports and the more you choose, the more you pay.

+1

I couldn't be bothered posting, recognised that for some...if they can point to sky as big bad provider, their day is complete. And nothing is for free, Virgin is not a benevolent company...more myths bust