Murdoch "Sky saved English football"

[Placid Casual]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/4638082.stm

And heres me thinking the renewed interest was kick-started by England getting to the World Cup semis in 1990.

Maybe he meant to say "paying over the odds for Premiership football saved Sky"?

[tomas_brolin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/4638082.stm

And heres me thinking the renewed interest was kick-started by England getting to the World Cup semis in 1990.

Maybe he meant to say "paying over the odds for Premiership football saved Sky"?
i know one thing he ruined tho... politics in america....

[leg_breaker]

Yeah, he definitely saved it. High ticket prices, odd kick off times, no terracing, increasing gaps between the rich clubs and the rest, football's definitely better now...

[chelski72]

Yeah, he definitely saved it. High ticket prices, odd kick off times, no terracing, increasing gaps between the rich clubs and the rest, football's definitely better now...

murdoch has a point. there is infinitely more money in football today than there was prior to the premiership. £1.04b for a 3yr contract for broadcasting rights iirc. you wouldnt get that from selling manky pies at half time...

[michaec]

murdoch has a point. there is infinitely more money in football today than there was prior to the premiership. £1.04b for a 3yr contract for broadcasting rights iirc. you wouldnt get that from selling manky pies at half time...
You're so obviously missing the point.

If that money hadn't been poured into the game, especially concentrating the money at the top of the game, then maybe there would be a more level playing field for the clubs (between the premiership and the rest), cheaper tickets, less messing about with kick-off times, less clubs going to the wall. Sounds like a better football world than we've got now to me.

[RichardL]

murdoch has a point. there is infinitely more money in football today than there was prior to the premiership. £1.04b for a 3yr contract for broadcasting rights iirc. you wouldnt get that from selling manky pies at half time...
TV money, or the inequal distribution of it, has all but screwed up the competitive balance in the English game at the top end. It's made staying up in the premiership after promotion look like mission impossible, and it can plunge relegated teams to the verge of bankruptcy. CL TV cash (not from SKY, admittedly) has just ensured that the rich are richer than ever at the exclusion of everyone else (look at how the cash allocation is structured to ensure that clubs from smaller TV markets are unable to get the same amount of money as larger clubs, even if on the pitch results are equal).

Crowds were already rising before SKY came along. There was no surge because of SKY, and no real reason to suspect that they wouldn't have risen to similar levels, apart from perhaps the extra revenue to allow for stadium expension.

[DAGSports]

The main positive to Sky is arguably that the big league and Cup games are now televised live, which they never were before the 1990s.

Considering that many clubs pretty much sell-out every game, that's a really useful service IMHO for the loyal fans who can't get tickets for whatever reason.

I would not argue that there are too many games now shown. Two live games per weekend plus an occasional Monday-nighter is probably sufficient. And I'm sure the smaller clubs would like to see Sky pick them a bit more often, though it is a ratings business at the end of the day.

For those who would say "so what?" to increased TV coverage, I would argue that if Sky did not do it, someone else would have eventually brought all that money into the game. Most clubs throughout sports are in it for money as much as anything else IMO and considering that EPL chairmen originally tried to emulate the NFL, they'd have opened the floodgates by now. Not to mention the riches of Europe- clubs would ask why can't they generate similar millions in domestic competition.

Also, NewsCorp (Sky's parent), screens EPL action in the vast majority of countries where they own cable channels. This has helped make the Prem really popular in other countries, especially Asia. And not just Man U/Arsenal/Chelsea/Liverpool have benefitted from this; Everton of course landed a team-record shirt deal with Chang Beer, while Man City and Sheffield United of the CCC have done good business with China. Other teams are trying to follow suit.

[michaec]

The main positive to Sky is arguably that the big league and Cup games are now televised live, which they never were before the 1990s.Wrong, the BBC and ITV had a joint deal to televise live matches before Sky came along and it was free to air too.

Considering that many clubs pretty much sell-out every game, that's a really useful service IMHO for the loyal fans who can't get tickets for whatever reason.Point taken, but it also, in some cases, encourages fans to stay away and watch the game from the comfort of their living room. While this isn't a big problem for the largest clubs, the less successful clubs in the premiership often don't sell all their tickets when they're home agmes are televised live.

I would not argue that there are too many games now shown. Two live games per weekend plus an occasional Monday-nighter is probably sufficient. And I'm sure the smaller clubs would like to see Sky pick them a bit more often, though it is a ratings business at the end of the day.This weekend there were two live games on Saturday, two on Sunday and one last night. I couldn't be bothered to watch Chelsea vs Charlton on Sunday, I think there is definitely a danger of over-exposure.

For those who would say "so what?" to increased TV coverage, I would argue that if Sky did not do it, someone else would have eventually brought all that money into the game. Most clubs throughout sports are in it for money as much as anything else IMO and considering that EPL chairmen originally tried to emulate the NFL, they'd have opened the floodgates by now. Not to mention the riches of Europe- clubs would ask why can't they generate similar millions in domestic competition.Sky have changed the fundamentals of the game in England. Before Sky, all 92 league clubs had a say in the running of the game, how TV money was distributed etc., which led to a more competitive league from top to bottom. Now that power is concentrated at the very top of the game and I think most fans in England will tell you, and even fans of the really big clubs if they're truthful, that this has had an adverse effect on the game as a whole. There were always big clubs and small clubs, rich clubs and poorer clubs, but the whole advent of the premiership and Sky's football coverage and the consequent injection of money for the top tier teams has widened the gap too much between those at the very top of the game and the rest.

Also, NewsCorp (Sky's parent), screens EPL action in the vast majority of countries where they own cable channels. This has helped make the Prem really popular in other countries, especially Asia. And not just Man U/Arsenal/Chelsea/Liverpool have benefitted from this; Everton of course landed a team-record shirt deal with Chang Beer, while Man City and Sheffield United of the CCC have done good business with China. Other teams are trying to follow suit.Raising the image of the premiership overseas is a good thing, but there's no reason this couldn't have been done without Sky and all the adverse effects of their involvement of the game.

[leg_breaker]

Is there such a thing as too much TV coverage? If there was terracing and low ticket prices, I bet most games would sell out even if they were on TV.

[michaec]

Is there such a thing as too much TV coverage? If there was terracing and low ticket prices, I bet most games would sell out even if they were on TV.
If the game is over-exposed and the crowds go down, then the TV product becomes less attractive because part of the TV expereince is hearing the crowd and getting a piece of that atmosphere trasmitted to your armchair. In this case, I could see ticket prices going down to entice people back to the grounds. It's a delicate balance.

[tomwilhelm]

Is there such a thing as too much TV coverage? If there was terracing and low ticket prices, I bet most games would sell out even if they were on TV.
An old trick in the US... Don't allow the game to be shown in the local area if there isn't a sellout. Harder to do with satellite and whatnot, I suppose.

[Flyin Ryan]

An old trick in the US... Don't allow the game to be shown in the local area if there isn't a sellout. Harder to do with satellite and whatnot, I suppose.

There's a joke with the Arizona Cardinals. The team is so bad, but the locals don't mind cause they blackout the game so they get to see good teams. :D

[prk166]

I think whether or not the game has issues today is different than if it was on course to fall apart. Keep mind that some current issues, such as high ticket prices, have likely done more to curb hooligasm - at least in the staidum - than any problem the police have implemented.

Overall I don't think Sky saved it. I think what saved it was that there was bound to be money in it. They had the fans and even had things gloundered for another decade, I don't think it would've killed the game. And sooner or later businessmen would've came along with the same type of scheme that Sky had.

[leg_breaker]

An old trick in the US... Don't allow the game to be shown in the local area if there isn't a sellout. Harder to do with satellite and whatnot, I suppose.

How do they do that when the schedule is released weeks in advance? If I've paid for TV coverage that's advertising a game then they don't show it, I'd sue them for fraud.

[tomwilhelm]

How do they do that when the schedule is released weeks in advance? If I've paid for TV coverage that's advertising a game then they don't show it, I'd sue them for fraud.
We have free TV here in the US. Thus my point about satelite being more confusing. But I'm sure they'd find a legal way around that too. This is America, where you only have the rights if you have the cash.

[RichardL]

I think whether or not the game has issues today is different than if it was on course to fall apart. Keep mind that some current issues, such as high ticket prices, have likely done more to curb hooligasm - at least in the staidum - than any problem the police have implemented.
high ticket prices have nothing at all to do with hooliganism. The kind of thinking the assumed hooligans were unemployed or in the low intelligence/low income bracket has long since been shown up as hopelessly wrong.

Police measures, such as cctv, are widely responsible for the decline of hooliganism. A shift in attitudes, particularly post Heysel, also helped.

Prices are high because wages are so high. The SKY money pouring into the game caused hyper-inflation where salaries are concerned. Add to that the high demand meant that clubs also believed they could just keep turning the screw and the demand would still be there. This season it looks like they have come unstauck, with crowds falling in every division.

[RichardL]

We have free TV here in the US. Thus my point about satelite being more confusing. But I'm sure they'd find a legal way around that too. This is America, where you only have the rights if you have the cash.
I don't think it's technically possible to block a satellite signal as one satellite broadcasts to the whole country.

And has been said, if somebody has paid for a package, you can't block it without paying them money back. Given how small SKY's ratings are, and the fact they'd have to refund around 1/4 of the country for games in most "regions", it'd be highly unlikely they do it.

[Andy Bennett]

Crowds were already rising before SKY came along. There was no surge because of SKY, and no real reason to suspect that they wouldn't have risen to similar levels, apart from perhaps the extra revenue to allow for stadium expension.
It could even be argued that Sky removing more and more games from terrestrial TV means LESS interest in football because not everyone wants to accept the Murdoch shilling. I, for one, held out as long as possible. I went for the Telewest cable package when I lived in town and then chose OnDigital rather than Sky, (although I still had the Sky footie packages), because at least it meant I wasn't having to deal with the 'porn again' christian, Murdoch, directly.

[tomwilhelm]

I don't think it's technically possible to block a satellite signal as one satellite broadcasts to the whole country.

And has been said, if somebody has paid for a package, you can't block it without paying them money back. Given how small SKY's ratings are, and the fact they'd have to refund around 1/4 of the country for games in most "regions", it'd be highly unlikely they do it.
Oh, no. I wasn't suggesting that you guys import the idea to England! I was just pointing out one way the teams and media in the US have dealt with the problem in the past.

Anyway, back to the topic: Mr. Murdoch, not surprisingly mind you, seems to have mistaken "injected a lot of money into" for "saved". This is probably not the first time he has made this error. As far as he's concerned, as long as he's making tons of money off of it, it has been "saved". Never mind the integrity of the game or the happiness of the supporters.

There may be a few above him, but Murdoch is right up there on my personal list of people who need a good kick in the nads.

[Flyin Ryan]

I don't think it's technically possible to block a satellite signal as one satellite broadcasts to the whole country.

I don't know how they do it...or why the speedway insists on it...but to this day residents of Indiana are not allowed to see the Indianapolis 500 live. My family that has a satellite has their signal changed to different programming from ABC.(The race, by tradition, has always been shown instead at 8pm in the evening).