Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
While I understand the concerns people have expressed that PPV may replace subscription TV, I do think this has been over-hyped. The matches that are PPV would not have been accessed at all without it, so there is no problem there. If you don’t want to watch PPV matches, then simply don’t watch them. This is a temporary, not a permanent arrangement.
I can’t see Sky and BT replacing PPV to replace their subscription packages. The increased cost will simply mean that they get fewer participants. PPV only works where individuals want a one-off experience. It does not work for a whole season of football.
|
As a non-football fan by your own admission I'm uncertain if you are the right person to opine on this as someone completely unaffected both in the short and long term of PPV football.
Sky and BT don't need to replace their subscription models with this - the Premier League could do this for them. While nobody expects a 'whole season' to end up being £15 a go, because that's simply ridiculous, but it only takes a handful of key games - the must see games - to make the situation for the end users - the actual football fans.
Boxing PPV started out around one per year then suddenly accelerated as providers realised this was a way to gouge fans of more money for the more attractive bouts. Now we have six in the space of two months totalling £110.
Beware the unanticipated outcomes of 'extra games' being make available in the innocuous manner that you describe.