Quote:
Originally Posted by zantarous
If a single a boardcaster has all the rights there would be no incentive to make those games/channels available to rivals, costs would probably still go up and they would use their monopoly to dictate and run roughshot on smaller players in the market. In the long run multiple broadcasters in sport is very much a good thing. It makes companies innovate in making their product the best it can be, there is incentive to make sure their channels are on rival platforms.
The cost of football is what is driving up the game people seem prepared to pay ludicrous amounts to watch it, there has to come a time where the broadcasters think hang on a minute we can bid crazy sums for this but will people pay that price? I really can't understand the vast sums that get forked out for football.
|
I fully agree. People seem to want to watch every single game of football, and are willing to pay through the nose for it. It seems rather mental to me. BT offers a cheaper altnerative to Sky. If people voted with their wallets over the next few seasons, Sky will make a massive loss and only then will things change. People seem to love to moan, but don't want to do anything to change.
Personally, I would like to Sky offer a football only package, a football plus all other sports packages and, finally a sports package that covers all sports without paying over the top for 100's of boring games and the odd enjoyable game of football. If I want/get the chance and can afford to see my team live, I will go to the Abbey.
I base that last paragraph purely on the understanding that Sky will continue to convince people to pay them a small fortune each month. Obviously I would prefer FTA sports and football clubs to sell their own games via their own websites. I would, equally, happily pay the ECB and RFU a yearly sub for the right to watch England on TV. The PL can, frankly, do one.