For people from the UK if you have Sky TV

[musicl]

As you may have noticed that about two Premiership games this season at weekends are on Pay Per View on Sky TV. Please boy-cot these games and dont pay for them. There is a national boy-cot for this games on, it was in the pappers. Please spread the word.

[Mobile]

I wouldn't pay for them anyway to be honest. There's loads of games on Sky as it is, and since I don't support a Premiership club I'm not too bothered about watching any more.....

[El Shish]

Nobody is forcing you to buy the extra games. For sky sports subscribers there have already been two prem games per weekend anyway which is the same, if not more than last year so what are you complaining about? Sky have advertised that they are showing more games than ever before so what's the big deal? The premium/main event games are still always on Sky Sports 1/2/3 so the best is still always free to subscibers. For people already subscribed to sky sports, you could get a prem+ ticket for as low as £40-50. Over a season it'll work out at less than £1 a game or something like that so for hardened football fans who want to see as much football as possible and appreciate the choice, its really not that bad. I'm sure pound for pound we get a better deal than other countries where pay-per-view is used.

Bottom line is nobody forces you to buy these games and the biggest games are on the main sports channels

[michaec]

Bottom line is nobody forces you to buy these games and the biggest games are on the main sports channels
For the first part, yes, nobody is forcing anyone to buy the games. If you are already a Sky Sports subscriber, you're already paying a subscription in order to have sports channels to watch football, so I can't see the difference in paying extra for an extra channel. I have the season ticket and at £1 per game I'm quite happy to have it. So anyone who subscribes to SkySports, but is boycotting Prem Plus needs to seriously re-examine their stance. If you boycott the whole pay TV thing then fine, I'll respect your decision, but a half-arsed boycott of part of the deal is ridiculous.

As for the second part, be under no illusion that there will be some big games on the pay-per-view channel when the season comes to its climax. There is a reason that Sky have only published their schedule up to Christmas. After Christmas, when they see how the league is shaping up, I fully expect to see some juicy games available on pay-per-view.

[Alan_V]

For people already subscribed to sky sports, you could get a prem+ ticket for as low as £40-50.
Bottom line is nobody forces you to buy these games and the biggest games are on the main sports channels

I saw the add for Fox Sports World's Prem PPV package. Seem to recall it being $195. That's about double what you're paying. Jealous me!

[sinner78]

I never once paid for a pay-per-view game on SKY .
I reckon they will gradually try to make all games pay-per-view .

[John Boy]

As you may have noticed that about two Premiership games this season at weekends are on Pay Per View on Sky TV. Please boy-cot these games and dont pay for them. There is a national boy-cot for this games on, it was in the pappers. Please spread the word.


I think you should start an online petition. That would show 'em.

[Matt Clark]

If you have SkySports, you have no right to bitch about pay per view. You wrote their business plan with your signature on the SkySports contract.

[musicl]

I dont want these Pay Per View matches on TV for free. One live match on Sky a weekend is enough for me.
You already pay your Sky subscription and the cost for the sports channels and TV licence.
It disgraceful that Sky can simple pick and choose matches they want to charge extra for on PPV. Think if BBC started charging extra for episodes of EastEnders, the first one with cliffhanger on Monday is free, then you have to pay for Tues-Fri.
Sky are clever they put the big matches (eg Chel vs Man U) on normal SP1,2,3 but some where alone the line you will have to pay a little extra to watch them.

I just dont want the rich kids at Sky ripping us of.

[michaec]

Why is it so difficult for you to see that you are already paying to see football on SkySports 1,2,3 and Extra and that there is absolutely no difference between that and paying more for another channel?

Your analogy with Eastenders is rubbish, you can enjoy a football match as a one-off sporting event, you have to watch EastEnders all the time for it to make sense. And even then is doesn't make much sense to me.

[Matt Clark]

I dont want these Pay Per View matches on TV for free. One live match on Sky a weekend is enough for me.
You already pay your Sky subscription and the cost for the sports channels and TV licence.
It disgraceful that Sky can simple pick and choose matches they want to charge extra for on PPV. Think if BBC started charging extra for episodes of EastEnders, the first one with cliffhanger on Monday is free, then you have to pay for Tues-Fri.
Sky are clever they put the big matches (eg Chel vs Man U) on normal SP1,2,3 but some where alone the line you will have to pay a little extra to watch them.

I just dont want the rich kids at Sky ripping us of.

Look, if you're going to blame anyone, blame the Premier League. And, by extension, the Football Association for being the spineless titwanks that they were when they let that hideous bastard child of commercialism and sport come into being.

Sky, loathe them as any right-thinking human must, are just taking advantage of the opportunities afforded them by their market. Back in the late 1980's, they posited that sport would be a great driver for subscription-based TV. And every last Tom, Dick and Harry who has since signed up for them has proven them emphatically right. So when Scudamore and the rest of that pondlife were casting around for some more of the game they have hijacked to prostitute, then PPV packages were an obvious early choice.

I hate PPV as much as you do and I too fear the day when these ********** decide to make more or less every game available on that basis alone. But you can't bleat about PPV if you have already played your part in it's arrival in the UK sports market by signing up for subscription-based TV in the first place.

[Powdered Water]

But you can't bleat about PPV if you have already played your part in it's arrival in the UK sports market by signing up for subscription-based TV in the first place.

I agree with the whole thrust of your view, but I think the other side of the coin is that there is no real choice. If you want it on TV, you either pay for it on Sky or you don't get to see any. It's not like you can choose between Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola. That's the problem with 'monopoly' system, much like Microsoft where people continue to complain about its dominance while using their product because there isn't an aweful lot of choice.

The point is, I can understand why people complain, and I think it's fair enough that they do, provided that they don't have a choice due to monopolization. It's not like you can choose between Sky and some other equivalent service.

Personally I accept that we have to pay (not that I necessarily like it). It annoys me no less, but I think that's the direction everything is going, money is the language we speak now for whatever you do in our world.

What might be needed here is a strong competitor, who can compete head to head against Sky's services, kind of like how Internet Service Providers do. In which case there wouldn't be a monopoly, and price might come down as well because this time customers have the real choice (but that was only after OFTEL forced the BT to knock down internet fee to allow competition, wasn't it).

Till then, it's fair enough that some people complain, but I'm not one of them.

And besides, what I'm more bothered about is the availability of free live International matches. People might have to pay to watch individual clubs, but surely people should be able to view and support their national team free.

[The Double]

Man, the things I would do for a Prem season ticket.

[Matt Clark]

I agree with the whole thrust of your view, but I think the other side of the coin is that there is no real choice. If you want it on TV, you either pay for it on Sky or you don't get to see any. It's not like you can choose between Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola. That's the problem with 'monopoly' system
We're not in a monopoly system, per se. It's just that Sky have both the money and, after 12 years of owning live rights, the infrastructure to provide world-class coverage. The Beeb and ITV (and anyone else who fancies it) could outbid them were it financially worthwhile doing so. But it's not, so they don't. But even if Sky magically ceased to exist tomorrow, football is a cash crop - someone would stick it back onto TV. That's not really what's at issue here - we are talking about the extension of the principle of paying to watch premium content from base subscription to PPV.




What might be needed here is a strong competitor, who can compete head to head against Sky's services, kind of like how Internet Service Providers do.
A fitting parallel. The arrival of broadband as the standard delivery platform for internet content will have a significant impact on TV football in coming years. Already, most of the clubs are pressuring the authorities to allow them to show their own games via either in-house TV or, increasingly, via the Internet (where the global audience potential is an obviously attractive component of the business logic behind investment in such a service).




And besides, what I'm more bothered about is the availability of free live International matches. People might have to pay to watch individual clubs, but surely people should be able to view and support their national team free.
Depends on what you hold dearest. I'd rather watch Liverpool for free. Besides, rights to all England internationals during actual competitions are already required by law to be sold only to free-to-air broadcasters.

[Colm]

We bought the Prem Plus season ticket :o

[Chicagoon]

I saw the add for Fox Sports World's Prem PPV package. Seem to recall it being $195. That's about double what you're paying. Jealous me!

it's $299. and for only 2 games per week. (one on saturday and one on sunday)

[The Double]

it's $299. and for only 2 games per week. (one on saturday and one on sunday)

What crap. You know how great a Prem sunday ticket would be that was based on the NFL Sunday Ticket?

[Powdered Water]

We're not in a monopoly system, per se. It's just that Sky have both the money and, after 12 years of owning live rights, the infrastructure to provide world-class coverage. The Beeb and ITV (and anyone else who fancies it) could outbid them were it financially worthwhile doing so. But it's not, so they don't. But even if Sky magically ceased to exist tomorrow, football is a cash crop - someone would stick it back onto TV. That's not really what's at issue here - we are talking about the extension of the principle of paying to watch premium content from base subscription to PPV.

The issues of Prem Plus, understandably, has cropped up in a pub in recent months and the general sentiment of those who complain is that they're happy to pay UP TO a certain point, and for some, prem plus addition has gone beyond that point. I can understand the view that if noone buys Prem Plus then it'll be seen as a useless extension by the Sky (which may result in cheaper deals). I think it's unlikely seeing how many have bought it (myself included), but understandable and perfectly valid.

I agree and disagree with those people's view in parts, but the point is that I think in practice the two principles you speak of are not as independent of each other as theory would have it, because in people's minds, it all converges to the sense of value. Otherwise it'd open the door to an unlimited robbery by the businesses, which I must say is not exactly unheard of in today's capitalism, but nontheless something people have the right to voice their concern about. Slapping that down as "separate principle" is something I'd expect Sky spin doctors to say in front of the camera. In practice the people's concern transcends that boundary.

So in a way, it might be more accurate to think of it as a complaint against the pricing, as opposed to against the principle of PPV. It often comes out of people's mouths as a complaint against PPV, probably because that's where the extra cash leaks. It's kind of like, say, when a government promisses not to raise general tax, yet raise road tax (or stealth tax, if you like). Sure they're separate issues in theory, but in practice they're far from separate for the general public.

I hope there'll be stronger competition in the future, as that's really the only effective way, I think. For whatever reason the lack of competition in itself is the monopoly as far as people are concerned, in this context.

Having said all that, personally, I think the value is JUST about right. Just. The base Sports package is £31 ($50 ish), and £1 per game for extras. Not cheap and they could probably do much better, but probably unavoidable in this day and age. Sense of value also varies from person to person anyway.

With a decent competition, that might go down to £20 ish :) Or equivalent.

["Right Wing Wacko"]

Matt Clark =
http://www.sozialistische-klassiker.org/Pic/Lenin/lenin-communist-flag-4003188.jpg

[enggerland]

Or just beat 'em at their own game, watch it but don't pay 'em, I do!!

Don't Pay for Sky!!! (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5919170683)