Yeah, as I see, it's just a change of the name badge.
Sky used to be top dog and in the near future it'll be Amazon, Apple etc exchanging blows (keeping it on the sports topic.
) instead.
Whether it was better before when Sky controlled everything, or whether we prefer a multiude of players now, is debateable. It certainly ain't cheaper now, that's for sure.
Edit: just to step back from that for a second jfman, there are multiple players, but the point of the Big Tech cos is they are trillion/2 trillion dollar companies. They can compete with each other, but no one else on the planet has their deep pockets. So, we need to look at them four and then everyone else. In that context. Disney, Warner, Universal, Paramount etc are tier two, Big Tech is tier one.
A massive gap between the two tiers of companies.
---------- Post added at 17:22 ---------- Previous post was at 17:00 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguero9320
A Comcast/WBD combination would be interesting for the UK sports market. Would the CMA allow Sky's 11 channels, and TNT's seven, under common ownership? My answer is: probably not.
|
And just to add, if the new regulator wants to be anal about it, they can do what's been happening in the States. So, they take the premiership rights and slice them into even smaller bundles of rights. This would allow more companies to join in the bidding process and restrictions could be put in place on how many sets of rights any one company can own.
Wouldn't it be "great", if four or five companies owned premiership rights and if you wanted to watch all the matches, you would have to pay for several services....?