Has Sky ruined football?

[marcusopp]

I personally hate them.
Taking sport away from normal guys like you and me so they can charge us loads and line the pockets of themselves and players who have only just gone through puberty!

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Lots of things have ruined football, but it's far too simplistic to blame it all onto Sky.

[AthleticoSpizz]

Despicable that $ky get exclusivity of some National matches (including Cricket/Rugby etc etc), whoever sold out the rights to this should be kneecapped with a slow running battery drill.
Other than that, if Surrey based fans want to watch their team winning the Premiership and are happy to pay to view it, then thats fine by me.

[winchester_royal]

It's ruined 'football' for your average working man, but bettered it for most other groups.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Despicable that $ky get exclusivity of some National matches (including Cricket/Rugby etc etc), whoever sold out the rights to this should be kneecapped with a slow running battery drill.

when I was growing up they didn't even show England matches live in the qualifiers usually. There were hardly any live games on tv from the league either.

I do miss proper highlights though. You could watch 20 minutes of well-edited highlights and it felt like you'd watched the whole game, rather than just a collection of key chances that you get these days.

I can imagine cricket fans being annoyed though, as every ball of every home test was shown live, plus a good helping of country cricket.

[Royal Monk]

Why has sky ruined it ?
The coverage is much better than years ago . I can remember when only the FA Cup was shown live.
Most supporters who cant get to the game for whatever reason now have the chance to see there team home and away.
Its actually cheaper to watch on sky than go to the games (when you add in the other expenses of match day)

I LOVE SKY

[TBM]

I remember when MOTD was 1 main game and then just the goals of the other games......

I don't think Sky has ruined it at all - the coverage they offer is superb and without it we wouldn't see any games live on TV, so apart from going to watch your local club you had no idea on anyone else.

The greed has ruined it more than Sky has

[Terminal Boardom]

In Australia, the home test cricket is viewable on Channel 9 which is free to air and the AFL (Aussie Rules) always has 3 games also on free to air on Channel 7. Fox Sports (Murdoch owned) shows all test cricket (home and away) plus ODIs etc as well as the A-League, NRL and Super Rugby. There are plans for the A-League to show at least one game per round on free to air as the head of the AFF has conceded that the game has not grown sufficiently and that by going to Fox exclusively has not helped. I may be right in thinking that The Ashes in England will also be shown in some form on free to air.

[The Real Sandhurst Royal]

I don't think they have ruined football there coverage is fanastic.

The Premier Legaue teams get rewarded well. More coverage and money should be shared out with the championship, League One and League Two clubs.

After all not everyone supports a Premier League side.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Despicable that $ky get exclusivity of some National matches (including Cricket/Rugby etc etc), whoever sold out the rights to this should be kneecapped with a slow running battery drill.
Other than that, if Surrey based fans want to watch their team winning the Premiership and are happy to pay to view it, then thats fine by me.

But if you talk to the people at the ECB, they will tell you that the Sky money coming into the game has enabled them to do wonderful things in the areas of coaching, improved facilities, youth development and women's cricket - they'll fight tooth and nail to keep the money, and argue that the sport is much, much healthier because of this money than it would be if test matches were designated as "crown jewel events" (i.e. ones which must legally be broadcast on free-to-air).

yes, they've done the sensible thing on using the money wisely rather than just handing it over blindly to players and their agents, but what would you rather have - a healthy sport with talented kids coming through, but one that can only been seen by those who pay to watch - or the opposite?

[ZacNaloen]

Sky has helped football, given it a shit load of money etc

Mis-management of that money is what has ruined football.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Yep - I'd say that's a pretty fair simplification.

But football created the circumstances to allow that mis-management to happen.

If I had to point to any one thing that ruined football, I'd say it was the removal of the FA's Rule 34, without protest or whimper, at the request of Spurs in 1983.

....
The FA once took a robust view that clubs were not there for owners or directors to exploit. In 1899, just as professional, commercialised football was taking off, the FA imposed rules to protect the clubs' sporting heart. These allowed clubs to form limited companies, but prohibited directors from being paid, restricted the dividends to shareholders, and protected grounds from asset-stripping.

Later codified as the FA's Rule 34, these restrictions established the culture that being a club director was a form of public service, that directors should be 'custodians', to support and look after clubs. There never was a golden age of selfless club owners, but the system of clubs as not-for-profit companies did provide the basis for their phenomenal growth. Fans were never overcharged, which helped to encourage loyalty and return visits. But it was not all good news: lack of investment led to decrepit facilities, a failure to deal with hooliganism and crumbling and unsafe grounds.

The FA and their rules were in need of updating as football itself changed and modernised, but instead they surrendered completely. When, in 1983, Irving Scholar's Tottenham Hotspur became the first club to announce the intention of floating on the stock market, the club's advisers asked the FA if Spurs would be free to form a holding company to evade the FA's restrictions on dividends and directors' salaries. The FA, who have never explained why, permitted Spurs to do what they wanted. Every other club that floated after that formed holding companies similarly, to bypass the FA's rules.
....

[Wimb]

Yep - I'd say that's a pretty fair simplification.

But football created the circumstances to allow that mis-management to happen.

If I had to point to any one thing that ruined football, I'd say it was the removal of the FA's Rule 34, without protest or whimper, at the request of Spurs in 1983.

....
The FA once took a robust view that clubs were not there for owners or directors to exploit. In 1899, just as professional, commercialised football was taking off, the FA imposed rules to protect the clubs' sporting heart. These allowed clubs to form limited companies, but prohibited directors from being paid, restricted the dividends to shareholders, and protected grounds from asset-stripping.

Later codified as the FA's Rule 34, these restrictions established the culture that being a club director was a form of public service, that directors should be 'custodians', to support and look after clubs. There never was a golden age of selfless club owners, but the system of clubs as not-for-profit companies did provide the basis for their phenomenal growth. Fans were never overcharged, which helped to encourage loyalty and return visits. But it was not all good news: lack of investment led to decrepit facilities, a failure to deal with hooliganism and crumbling and unsafe grounds.

The FA and their rules were in need of updating as football itself changed and modernised, but instead they surrendered completely. When, in 1983, Irving Scholar's Tottenham Hotspur became the first club to announce the intention of floating on the stock market, the club's advisers asked the FA if Spurs would be free to form a holding company to evade the FA's restrictions on dividends and directors' salaries. The FA, who have never explained why, permitted Spurs to do what they wanted. Every other club that floated after that formed holding companies similarly, to bypass the FA's rules.
....

Never knew that before Dirkers

[Barry the bird boggler]

Wall to wall coverage and crap like SSN constantly recycling the same boring non-news 24 hours a day is not an improvement.

Before SKY and their money came along at least there was some semblence of a competitive first division, now all we've got is a crap league packed full of over rated foreigners stifling English players, top clubs that only need to actually turn up in about 10 fixtures to win the league, a money money money at all costs attitude and generally the same boring predictability about the games.

I remember when live European games and League games were actually interesting as we only got 3/4 a season. Nowadays it's live footie every night (and largely always with the same sides), loads of meaningless European games instead of a straight knockout competition, and an International calendar also packed with meaningless and pointless games - and why? So everyone can line their pockets with more money.

[Once were Biscuitmen]

Perhaps they ruined it for lower class, emotionally retarded white men but for everybody else it's been pretty fantastic.

Better players,
Better stadia,
Better coverage,
Continuing decline in football related violence and racism,

Go sky!

[semtex1871]

Perhaps they ruined it for lower class, emotionally retarded white men but for everybody else it's been pretty fantastic.

Better players,
Better stadia,
Better coverage,
Continuing decline in football related violence and racism,

Go sky!

racist....reported!!!

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Perhaps they ruined it for lower class, emotionally retarded white men but for everybody else it's been pretty fantastic.

Better players,
Better stadia,
Better coverage,
Continuing decline in football related violence and racism,

Go sky!

But that's all part of the short-term thinking that'll kill football in the long-term.

Will the affluent middle-classes be enough to sustain football in the long-term?

And will they keep going to it and be as attracted when the vibrancy and atmosphere which makes the "product" what it is has been sucked out of it because people who are lower class and emotionally retarded can't afford to go any more. Because football clubs base so much of their marketing on just that - whilst at the same time doing everything they can to drive ut the people who create it.

[winchester_royal]

Ultimately, Sky has improved football as a sporting spectacle. The players are faster, stronger, fitter, and better (in general, obviously there are exceptions). The games are played at a faster pace, on better pitches, in better stadia, in front of a far more representative crowd. Going to football is safer and a more pleasant experience for those who are female, young, or sober. There is also far more of it to watch, and we can now watch football from all corners of the globe, and see all the best players in action.

Yes there is no longer the working class element to it, but football should not just be a mode of escapism for those who want to get sloshed all weekend with a brief break for 90 minutes of sport. It's a fantastic game, which deserves as much media coverage as it gets. There is still ample opportunity to drink, chat, and sing.

[Pepe the Horseman]

Sky makes everything better.

[AthleticoSpizz]

Despicable that $ky get exclusivity of some National matches (including Cricket/Rugby etc etc), whoever sold out the rights to this should be kneecapped with a slow running battery drill.
Other than that, if Surrey based fans want to watch their team winning the Premiership and are happy to pay to view it, then thats fine by me.

But if you talk to the people at the ECB, they will tell you that the Sky money coming into the game has enabled them to do wonderful things in the areas of coaching, improved facilities, youth development and women's cricket - they'll fight tooth and nail to keep the money, and argue that the sport is much, much healthier because of this money than it would be if test matches were designated as "crown jewel events" (i.e. ones which must legally be broadcast on free-to-air).

yes, they've done the sensible thing on using the money wisely rather than just handing it over blindly to players and their agents, but what would you rather have - a healthy sport with talented kids coming through, but one that can only been seen by those who pay to watch - or the opposite?

Well, they would say that wouldn't they.

No seriously, all I see is empty seating at most County matches and even some Test ones.

Cricket (as just one example) survived before $ky, and all kids got to watch (at least) Test matches on TV....now its just the select few whose parents subscribe. not really that convinced that, that can be so good for the long term prognosis of the game......when was the last time that you overheard kids at school talking about their Bothams and Gowers?

But I'll concede that our beloved football plays to a different audience....just a shame that not all of the nation gets to watch all of their national team matches anymore.