Has Sky ruined football?

[Alexander Litvinenko]

I'm not going to argue with that they've made a difficult decision and decided in favour of maximising revenue at the expense of reduced audience, and I'm not going to say they've made the right choice. But they'll defend it to the hilt, and they'll also say that the limitations of terrestrial TV helped make their decision. This was pre-digital, and no TV channel would actually guarantee them the airtime and flexibility for uninterrupted coverage as they wanted it to be. Remember how the Beeb used to leave for news and sometimes kids' programmes, and also cut off before the end a lot.

The ECB also feel that a free-to-air highlights programme is also absolutely vital so that there is at least some inclusive.

It' a shame that it has to be like this, but they at least are doing positive things with the money and it is making a real difference to the sport for the future - but I can see both sides of the argument and I wish they had other options.

[maffff]

But has football ruined Sky?

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Football was the making of Sky - they received a massive commercial boost from winning the PL's broadcast contract that saved them when they looked in financial trouble - but they should arguably never have been awarded the broadcast contract in the first place.

I forget who was bidding against them for the first Premier League TV contract, but the vote amongst PL chairmen was so, so, close, and in the end it was decided by just one vote.

Participating in that vote was the Chairman of Spurs, Alan Sugar - owner of Amstrad, who had the contract to manufacture satellite receivers for Sky. But despite having such a massive and obvious vested interested in the decision, he didn't declare it and was still able to participate in the vote.

If normal business rules had been followed and Sugar's commercial interest had disqualified him, Sky may not have got the broadcast contract in the first place.

[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!

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.

The fact the atmosphere at Reading and almost every other club has been getting more subdued for years has done nothing to stop the increase in family attendance and their incremental spend the businesses crave. I would argue its quite the reverse, the less intimidating the atmosphere and less poor people around the more families will be inclined to go.

[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.

The fact the atmosphere at Reading and almost every other club has been getting more subdued for years has done nothing to stop the increase in family attendance and their incremental spend the businesses crave. I would argue its quite the reverse, the less intimidating the atmosphere and less poor people around the more families will be inclined to go.

There's probably a bit of both - the "families" may appreciate the noise and atmosphere but they don't want it too close or too threatening.

Perhaps the ultimate would be a grounds with the ends given over to cheap, safe-standing areas where there'd be fantastic atmosphere, with the two sides as seated accommodation where the families could observe the noise and atmosphere without it being too close to them.

[Once were Biscuitmen]

I think this ^^^ could work.

The clubs would have to make sure that the standing areas were separated off from the seating areas completely (so a whole stand given over to standing not fences or anything) to stop those in the seating areas migrating over and causing over-crowding in the standing zones.

However until driven to it by significantly falling revenue the clubs and government are far too risk adverse to try it. The upside would be a better experience for a sub-set of fans who would probably attend away and the downside is that if anything ever went wrong as result the government that made the change would get nailed to the wall.

[Hoop Blah]

The saturation of coverage, celebrity culture and increased wages and self-worth of the players is damaging the game massively.

A lot of that is down to Sky's money and influence.

[72 bus]

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

Most supporters ?
Which supporters can see their side home and away on sky, lets not forget that football does actually get played outside of the Premiership.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

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

Most supporters ?
Which supporters can see their side home and away on sky, lets not forget that football does actually get played outside of the Premiership.

Good point. Let's also not forget that for all those supporters who can't make the game who can see it on Sky, there will be some who can't see it because it's been re-scheduled for Sky - and quite possibly some who've lost money because of that.

[Schards#2]

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

I remember when MOTD was two games and that was it, no goals from other games. Then The Big Match on Sunday had one game and goals from a couple of others.

Sky has transformed the coverage and, for people who love to watch football on TV, Sky have improved it 1000% for the better.

[Hoop Blah]

Can't argue that Sky's coverage isn't top drawer, or that the quality of players and facilities the money has provided makes for a better spectacle but with it comes the nagatives of modern football* that I think make the game worse.

* I'm talking about the lack of honesty and behaviour, on and off the pitch, and the general attitude of players. For me that makes football a bit less enjoyable when watching live or on the telly.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Or, to summarise. Money corrupts - the more money you get, the more it corrupts.

[Ascotexgunner]

Or, to summarise. Money corrupts - the more money you get, the more it corrupts.

Indeed it does. Including the fans. Its funny in the premiership, fans seem to talk more about money than football.

[under the tin]

The saturation of coverage, celebrity culture and increased wages and self-worth of the players is damaging the game massively.

A lot of that is down to Sky's money and influence.

^^^^ This for me.
Nowadays, if you're the girlie of Blatchford town's "star" right back, you finish up on a sat channel giving beauty advice.


Whilst it's interesting to talk about how our football has evolved, post Sky, in terms of the demographic of match attendees, I do wonder how you can square this circle with our neighbours in Germany. The Bundesliga is booming, yet I presume that one can get Sky (or its German version) over there?

[Pepe the Horseman]

Fuck Sky and their live games every night this week. Wankers

[Royalclapper]

Like all things when they become too commercialised, it loses a certain element of what made it great in the first place.

The big game changer was Hillsborough not Sky. Their money has of course improved the infrastructure and increased the appeal to a newer and an infuriatingly shallower football fan who just don't want to know when the chips are down and their team isn't winning. It has also become a lot easier to follow a team without really being that involved with supporting them (apart from the Sports Channel subscriptions of course).

Sky has provided the vehicle for football to up it's game in terms of making it broadly appealing and acceptable where it wasn't so before. The trouble is football has been overfixed IMO and has drifted towards being a faceless sanitised and increasingly superficial entity.

[Franchise FC]

Fuck Sky and their live games every night this week. Wankers

But here's the thing - YOU DON'T HAVE TO WATCH THEM !!

[Pepe the Horseman]

Fuck Sky and their live games every night this week. Wankers

But here's the thing - YOU DON'T HAVE TO WATCH THEM !!

Pardon?