Sky Sports wins live Premier League rights

[JPL]

It was inevitable that the Sky bid for Premier League matches would be very high indeed - Sky just could not afford to take the risk that BT Sports might win the bulk of Premier League coverage. The entire Sky Sports business would have been in jeopardy if BT Sports had won and Sky Sports no longer had either Premier League or Champions League.

As a subscriber to both Sky Sports and BT Sports, I just wish the rights could be negotiated rather won via sealed bid - it would surely save me a great deal in subscription fees.

[speedyrite]

I agree with the opinion that BT have arguably scared Sky into overpaying for the rights it won yesterday.

[Meteosat]

It's a dark day all round. Increasing the revenues to the already vastly overpaid agents and players, whilst clubs receive less, an inevitable increase in costs to SKY subscribers, and more fuel for the mentality that every year they need to ask for 'more'.

Who's up for starting a league entitled 'Just for Fun' ?!!!

[Isitme]

I find it staggering that Sky can spend almost half their annual turnover for the part of the rights to one sport. To me paying over 11 million pounds to televise one football match is grotesque. I just hope they recover this by advertising and increases in the Sports subscription and not by a general increase to every one. There is probably a good case for splitting off football from their main Sports package. This would result in a reduction in the cost for 'other sports' and an increase in football subscribers.

It is a sobering thought that they are spending more on football than BBC raise in licence fees for a whole year.

[speedyrite]

Yes it's on the verge of (if not actually) being ridiculous now!

As a Sky Sports subscriber with no interest in watching PL football, it pains me that I will still be "milked" with the rest of the herd for yet more cash to pay for this madness.

I say, in the interest of fairness and objectivity, bring on a range of lower priced "Sky Sports <name your major sport, e.g. F1, Cricket etc>" subs as an alternative and make the PL football fans pay "the price" for watching PL football.

[lettice]

As someone who likes many sports, football, golf, cricket, f1, other 4 wheeled motorsport in the main, I do think Sky sports for me is still pretty cheap per month for the coverage they provide on tv, online, sky go etc and I get something I really enjoy with the quality, analysis, catchup extra programming that really keeps me very happy.

As for splitting it off, the other (non football) sports would suffer. Over the last years I've seen many industry calculations showed that these other sports are enjoying the much increased revenue they gain from the rights, and they would now not go backwards to the pre rights days. The paying public though would not pay enough to carry the rights for the other sports in any volume to create the income they have now.
As a complete package from sky or other providers, shared resources help to supplement those rights at the lower level and attract interest, whereas as single or a smaller package the research found it would fall short by a long way.
F1 FOM have for many years looked at trying a subscription service, but it would have to be at such a low level to even get any interest and they increase their income much higher through worldwide rights issues.

As for the increase in PL income, it is the ultimate footballing league and one of the highest paid sporting events worldwide, hence popular and successful for that reason to attract larger audiences.
The FA do pass a fair percentage of that money over to ground level football too, they do not have to.
Do remember sky also have Italy and Germany now.
Im sure sky did not want to pay over the odds, but over time, we may see the annual increase of 1% or 2% as we have in the past, but with loyalty offers probably stay the same or as sports fans we are paying less at the moment anyway with the free broadband offer

Im glad really that sky has the majority, as having to pay for two subscriptions is not good for the customer, at least as it is now you can see the majority and at least friend/ family share easily if you have to see some of whats elsewhere occasionally.

[speedyrite]

Fair comment @lettice if I was a multi-sport fan I doubt that I would disagree with what you say in para 1, and what you say in para 2 may well be right. But I just despair at the unfairness of what *ALL* subscribers - and particularly non-PL football fans - will face in terms of price increases to pay for all this.

I understand why Sky had to win the bid but I think Sky have got it badly wrong in terms of what they have (over-)paid.

And the financial analysts are already questioning how Sky are going to cover that extra £300m a year in costs: £200m from internal cost cutting and £100m from customers. That's a "lotta wonga"!

Are Sky running such a sloppy ship that they can find £200m from internal cost cutting? I doubt it somehow!

No I think this is a serious mis-step too far (and as a Sky shareholder via my SIPP it gives me no pleasure to say any of this at all.)

[wizard200]

Hello All
I am afraid I have to agree with 'Speedyrite' that Sky do appear to have paid well over
the 'Odds' for these packages although I expect they were worried about BT getting
more of the pie !! & as I mentioned before although I would love to have the Sports Pack
as like 'lettice' I really enjoy football / F1 / rugby & a few other sports the cost is just to
great !! if you were able to pick & mix the channels & reduce the family pack price to
the channels you watch rather then pay for ones you or anybody never watches this
may allow more people to take the sports package. but it wont happen !!
I fail to see how sky will avoid a price hike as if you could make a £200m internal cost
saving they like any business would have done it anyway .........

Just a Thought...........