topic Re: Sky Sports Coverage in What's On

Sky Sports Coverage

JamPV — Mon, 06 Jan 2025 12:51:09 GMT

I have subscribed to Sky Sports on and off the last few years so please excuse me for any misinformation. I'm trying to gauge the feeling about what's covered on Sky now compared to how things were.

Back in the day any sport not covered by terrestial TV was on Sky. They had a real monopoly. Now it's become quite split with various sports across various channels. Monopolies are generally are seen as bad as the provider can charge what they like although I did use to think Sky charges were reasonable considering what they offfered. Now if you like all the sports and want to watch all the matches it requires various subscriptions which must cost more than a single Sky subscription would have done. So was everything being under one roof with Sky a good thing? I think it was for the cost implications but I'm interested in other people's views.

My other question is Sky have lost all the Champions League football, some of the premier league, England autumn intenrnationals rugby, any test cricket that's when England play abroad. Has the cost been reduced to reflect that Sky are no longer paying out to cover those events? Are we paying the same or similar for less?

I don't have all the numbers to back up that last question but when I cancelled Sky Sports last year it did feel like that.

I'm just interested to see what anyone else thinks about this.

Jamie

Re: Sky Sports Coverage

nolte — Mon, 06 Jan 2025 13:13:01 GMT

While rights have changed over time,

In terms of premier league, the number of games broadcast on the main sky sports have increased steadily (exceptions being in a period where additional games were broadcast as a Premier plus which was additional cost, and then covid lockdowns)

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Premier_League_broadcasters

Then there is the increase rights for the efl from this season

Sky have also added other rights. Wta and atp tennis for example.

Since 2012, sky also have had f1.

They have lost rights of course in that period too, but in terms of cost of rights, due to intense bidding the cost of things so sky rights for 128 premiership matches would be more expensive than previously.

Re: Sky Sports Coverage

Exiled-in-HH — Mon, 06 Jan 2025 13:57:16 GMT

Do you think competition for buy Sports rights should be ended?

Do you think the Sports rights sellers should be limited to whom they can sell the rights?

Re: Sky Sports Coverage

JamPV — Mon, 06 Jan 2025 14:24:17 GMT

The sale of broadcasting rights and who they go is something I'm interested in but don't know enough about. My initial question was what's better for the consumer Sky having all the coverage or it being split among different broadcasters. To answer your question I prefer the open market so there is compeition and they should be able to sell to whoever they want. If I had a subscription for Sky, TNT, Prime Video and whatever the sports Sky used to have are now on would that cost the same as Sky having all of those sports?

A free market should be better but what's better for the consumer here?

Re: Sky Sports Coverage

TimmyBGood — Mon, 06 Jan 2025 14:25:51 GMT

@Exiled-in-HH wrote:

Do you think the Sports rights sellers should be limited to whom they can sell the rights?

Not possible without intervention by Government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofcom_Code_on_Sports_and_Other_Listed_and_Designated_Events

Re: Sky Sports Coverage

TimmyBGood — Mon, 06 Jan 2025 14:30:33 GMT

@JamPV wrote:

If I had a subscription for Sky, TNT, Prime Video and whatever the sports Sky used to have are now on would that cost the same as Sky having all of those sports?

More to the point, could Sky possibly afford to secure exclusive rights to everything, given they are a regional platform with a shrinking customer base and would be competing against global-scale streamers who have almost unlimited access to funding?

Re: Sky Sports Coverage

Exiled-in-HH — Mon, 06 Jan 2025 15:55:00 GMT

@JamPV wrote:
The sale of broadcasting rights and who they go is something I'm interested in but don't know enough about. My initial question was what's better for the consumer Sky having all the coverage or it being split among different broadcasters. To answer your question I prefer the open market so there is compeition and they should be able to sell to whoever they want. If I had a subscription for Sky, TNT, Prime Video and whatever the sports Sky used to have are now on would that cost the same as Sky having all of those sports?

A free market should be better but what's better for the consumer here?

If Sky had to pay for everything they have to charge more?

Not everyone wants everything🤔

Re: Sky Sports Coverage

JamPV — Mon, 06 Jan 2025 16:11:55 GMT

The last couple of posts are really to the point. I might be unusual or in the minority in that I want to watch every game of every sport.

Also broadcasting is evoving and the streaming channels are the future given they can be accessed from anywhere in the world. Netflix had two NFL games on Christmas Day. I'm answering my pwn point here but it's not realistic for Sky to have all those sports, it was always going to be split among other broadcasters.

Re: Sky Sports Coverage

japitts — Mon, 06 Jan 2025 17:10:15 GMT

@JamPV wrote:

Also broadcasting is evoving and the streaming channels are the future given they can be accessed from anywhere in the world. Netflix had two NFL games on Christmas Day.

There are major issues with putting live events on online-only providers. For starters, the major sports broadcasters (Sky & TNT) have both linear broadcast channels and also a streaming offering. Online-only streamers don't have a broadcast offering.

Thus online-only inherently limits the audience.

Re: Sky Sports Coverage

MarkGoldsmith — Mon, 06 Jan 2025 17:33:26 GMT

@japitts wrote:
@JamPV wrote:

Also broadcasting is evoving and the streaming channels are the future given they can be accessed from anywhere in the world. Netflix had two NFL games on Christmas Day.
There are major issues with putting live events on online-only providers. For starters, the major sports broadcasters (Sky & TNT) have both linear broadcast channels and also a streaming offering. Online-only streamers don't have a broadcast offering.

Thus online-only inherently limits the audience.

Also as Netflix have found out with their recent live sports streams experiments the technology involved to make sure the stream works with no issues is quite costly and complex.

It will get better but the question will remain over whether its value for money for the streamers as they will need to not only pay money for the rights but also invest in the IT infrastructure.