Watching LIVE Sports - SO expensive.

[MarkGoldsmith]

---

@Joebear wrote:

Totally agree...Sky would have far more subscribers if they lowered the price of the sports channel. It's become ridiculously expensive.

---

Unfortunately that's because sports rights have got ridiculously expensive for the broadcasters to acquire.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Joebear wrote:

It's become ridiculously expensive.

---

Paying the Premier League and F1 a total of around two billion pounds a season doesn't exactly help.  I guess those noble and selfless entities could volunteer to operate on less, in the interest of their loyal supporters...

                            *pause for laughter*

[nolte]

---

@Joebear wrote:

Sky would have far more subscribers if they lowered the price of the sports channel. 

---

While that would be true, whether it would be sufficient to replace,  would depend on whether they would get enough additional subscribers to cover.

• A 20% reduction would mean they would need to increase subscribers by 25%
• A 33% reduction would require 50% increase in subscribers 
• A 50% reduction would need to double the subscribers 

I would assume they have looked at price elasticity and effect of price changes, to find optimal market price.

[TimmyBGood]

@nolte 

And presumably there's only a finite number of households which would actually want to subscribe, even with a lower price price: commercial broadcast sports consumption of any kind is a minority interest.

In addition the clubs themselves still need stadium seats filled, as do struggling pubs with expensive Sky Sports hospitality subscriptions.

[DorsetJon]

On a similar theme,we had the Fury fight latched onto peoples already sky high subscriptions.

Suffice to say I dont think Fury or Frank Warren need to go out to get a paper round,to make ends meet or to put food on the table.

I did laugh at Sky Sports though,giving it the big one before the fight.

Given that Fury lost,Sky Sports have earily quiet.

* I didnt see the fight,I NEVER buy box office events - I dont like being ripped off more than we already are.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@DorsetJon wrote:

On a similar theme,we had the Fury fight latched onto peoples already sky high subscriptions.

---

Events like that cannot be part of a subscription: global PPV sales are intrinsic to the business model (and in any given year there may be no such bouts occurring)

[MarkGoldsmith]

---

@DorsetJon wrote:

On a similar theme,we had the Fury fight latched onto peoples already sky high subscriptions.

Suffice to say I dont think Fury or Frank Warren need to go out to get a paper round,to make ends meet or to put food on the table.

I did laugh at Sky Sports though,giving it the big one before the fight.

Given that Fury lost,Sky Sports have earily quiet.

* I didnt see the fight,I NEVER buy box office events - I dont like being ripped off more than we already are.

---

Boxing is one of those sports that just follows the money. Look at how many of the big fights happen now only in Saudi, because they are the highest bidders to host these fights. Boxers careers are generally short and as they typically only fight once or twice a year they of course are looking to maximise their income on each fight, along with the promoters and broadcasters who can only market a few big fights a year.

[nolte]

---

@DorsetJon wrote:

On a similar theme,we had the Fury fight latched onto peoples already sky high subscriptions.

---

Latched on? How?

The big boxing bouts have been on ppv for many many years

[adstott90-uk]

On the subject of pubs showing Sky as was mentioned earlier, I'd be interested to know how much it costs a pub to show a PPV vs what their normal subscription costs. I'd imagine PPV is a lot more profitable in the short-term (not that I'm suggesting it has to be one or the other, just interested).

[d2h]

---

@adstott90-uk wrote:

On the subject of pubs showing Sky as was mentioned earlier, I'd be interested to know how much it costs a pub to show a PPV vs what their normal subscription costs. I'd imagine PPV is a lot more profitable in the short-term (not that I'm suggesting it has to be one or the other, just interested).

---

@adstott90-uk 

Sky (and DAZN) had residential rights only. The Fury-Usyk fight was exclusive to TNT in licensed venues, which is where the real money is made for PPVs.

[nolte]

---

@adstott90-uk wrote:

On the subject of pubs showing Sky as was mentioned earlier, I'd be interested to know how much it costs a pub to show a PPV vs what their normal subscription costs. I'd imagine PPV is a lot more profitable in the short-term (not that I'm suggesting it has to be one or the other, just interested).

---

I remember being away with people in a city in May 2018 and there was a big fight on (google suggest Haye and Bellew on sky sports box office), some of the people really wanted to find a bar showing the fight. It wasn't easy.

The standard sky license for a commercial premises is 5 figures sum.

[d2h]

---

@nolte wrote:

---

@adstott90-uk wrote:

On the subject of pubs showing Sky as was mentioned earlier, I'd be interested to know how much it costs a pub to show a PPV vs what their normal subscription costs. I'd imagine PPV is a lot more profitable in the short-term (not that I'm suggesting it has to be one or the other, just interested).

---

The standard sky license for a commercial premises is 5 figures sum.

---

No, it isn't @nolte 

You can have 2 premises on the same street - one being a huge complex with an outdoor terrace, one being a micro pub - and both will pay vastly different sums. One could pay £120 a month for Sky Sports and the other could pay £1500. There's no standard fee. The same formula is used for PPV sales. 

[nolte]

---

@d2h wrote:

---

@nolte wrote:

The standard sky license for a commercial premises is 5 figures sum.

---

• No, it isn't @nolte You can have 2 premises on the same street - one being a huge complex with an outdoor terrace, one being a micro pub - and both will pay vastly different sums. One could pay £120 a month for Sky Sports and the other could pay £1500. There's no standard fee. The same formula is used for PPV sales. 

---

my basis for the 5 figure sum is the article from the journal on this from 2018 . being irish, i tend to find irish figures easier. i should have made that clearer.

https://www.thejournal.ie/pubs-sky-cost-4107319-Jul2018/#:~:text=In%20May%2C%20a%20court%20in,a%20pa....

• Similarly, the amount a pub is charged for Sky and other sports packages is based on which licence band they fall in.

  The lowest band is of turnover up to €190,000. Cribben said that 52% of pubs in the country fall within this category.

  “The average turnover of these would be around €120,000 to €130,000,” he said. “If you have someone paying for the full sports package, that’s over €13,000. That’s 1/10th. And not just 10% of profit, that’s 10% of turnover

They quote that a place with under 190k turnover would be paying a 5 figure sum (to include full sports)

They also say about the least a place would pay a month is €600. This is 2018 figures.

Further, My use of the term 'standard' for a commercial premises wasn't that everyone pays the same, it was that  for the standard content (not including ppv events but including all the sports option), i should have explained what i meant better in my post.

an irish commercial premises would be envious if they could pay €140 per month for a full sky sports packge.

[d2h]

---

@nolte wrote:

---

@d2h wrote:

---

@nolte wrote:

The standard sky license for a commercial premises is 5 figures sum.

---

• No, it isn't @nolte You can have 2 premises on the same street - one being a huge complex with an outdoor terrace, one being a micro pub - and both will pay vastly different sums. One could pay £120 a month for Sky Sports and the other could pay £1500. There's no standard fee. The same formula is used for PPV sales. 

---

my basis for the 5 figure sum is the article from the journal on this from 2018 . being irish, i tend to find irish figures easier. i should have made that clearer.

https://www.thejournal.ie/pubs-sky-cost-4107319-Jul2018/#:~:text=In%20May%2C%20a%20court%20in,a%20pa....

• Similarly, the amount a pub is charged for Sky and other sports packages is based on which licence band they fall in.

  The lowest band is of turnover up to €190,000. Cribben said that 52% of pubs in the country fall within this category.

  “The average turnover of these would be around €120,000 to €130,000,” he said. “If you have someone paying for the full sports package, that’s over €13,000. That’s 1/10th. And not just 10% of profit, that’s 10% of turnover

They quote that a place with under 190k turnover would be paying a 5 figure sum (to include full sports)

They also say about the least a place would pay a month is €600. This is 2018 figures.

Further, My use of the term 'standard' for a commercial premises wasn't that everyone pays the same, it was that  for the standard content (not including ppv events but including all the sports option), i should have explained what i meant better in my post.

an irish commercial premises would be envious if they could pay €140 per month for a full sky sports packge.

---

@nolte 

The above is irrelevant for the UK as Sky don't charge based on turnover. It's based on the rateable value of the property, with various reductions based on other factors. 

[nolte]

---

@d2h wrote:

---

.

---

@nolte 

The above is irrelevant for the UK as Sky don't charge based on turnover.

---

The forum is for sky users in both UK And Ireland so while irrelevant for those in the uk, it may be of interest to customers in Ireland.

Anyway that is my last explanation I'm giving on my initial post. 

My initial point was commercial licenses for broadcasting sport is expensive, which I admit is a relative term. I don't want a debate on what 'expensive' means