[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Another telecoms company retrenches from broadcasting to focus on its core business.

https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2021...ark-this-year/

---------- Post added at 15:01 ---------- Previous post was at 14:41 ----------


I buy into the argument about sport being more valuable to Sky than as a stand-alone product from another company as it generates a range of other services - broadband, entertainment package, mobile and possibly movies too. However, companies like ESPN and Setanta were previously just selling sports packages and Sky had a monopoly on a lot of film and entertainment content, even if it allowed VM to wholesale it.

However, two things are changing in the landscape.

1. Sport now has the option of being sold as an add-on to Disney +. In the future, the same may be the case for HBO+ and Eurosport. So an investment in Premier League rights flows through to more than just a tenner a month for a stand-alone sports channel, it flows through to an investment in a whole package.

2. There hasn't been a content provider that you can substitute for Sky. If you're serious about TV as VM is, you need to have Sky's channels. However, this is being chipped away with Disney taking back its content and Warner Discovery likely to follow suit. This therefore erodes Sky's unique position and Disney+ or HBO+ with a Premier League sports offering such a breadth and depth of content be a viable substitute for Sky.

What's to stop the Premier League going alone globally longer term ?