If Sky had never existed

jester77

The Big 4 thread got me thinking, particularly the bit on "Grand Slam Sunday", about the influence Sky have had on English football over the years. I remember growing up as a kid watching Saints and Greavsie and was sad when it got axed due to Sky. Since then Sky have pumped a lot of money into the game which probably would not have happened if they didn't exist. Foreign stars were not too common either around that time either and this money influx has brought them in.

So what do you think league would be like if Sky never came about? Would the English teams be as attractive to players and investors? Would the teams be doing as well in the Champions League? Would England actually have a better national team due to less foreign players and youth players getting more of a chance?

therecklessone

The development of pay TV was inevitable.

Benedict XVI

I think it would be better to say Subscription Sports TV rather than Sky cos if Sky did not exist someone else would.

I think football would be in a similar situation as it was in the early 1990s. Not much TV coverage, smaller gulf between Division 1 and Division 2.

leninbenjamin

things could have been a lot worse than Sky. compare the premier league to Italy and Spain. at least Sky were willing to deal with the league as a whole, quite possible if they didn't exist pressure from other sources could have resulted in clubs having individual TV deals which would further upset the skewed balance.

remember the main source of inequalities in England currently is the Champions League revenue. the TV deal is among the fairest of the big leagues.

Xavi6

jester77 wrote: »

So what do you think league would be like if Sky never came about?

It would not be as good as it is now

jester77 wrote: »

Would the English teams be as attractive to players and investors?

Probably not, but then again, would any club?

jester77 wrote: »

Would the teams be doing as well in the Champions League?

Without Sky and the like there would be no Champions League. The format would never have be revamped and 'sexed up'.

jester77 wrote: »

Would England actually have a better national team due to less foreign players and youth players getting more of a chance?

Facilities require money. City never had a good youth academy really until we got the extra revenue. Catch 22 really.


Bottom line - Give me Dennis Bergkamp and Gianfranco Zola over Kerry Dixon and Mickey Quinn any day of the week.

Vic Vinegar

Xavi6 wrote: »

Without Sky and the like there would be no Champions League. The format would never have be revamped and 'sexed up'.

I think that's due mostly to the big European clubs and UEFA rather than Sky......

Savman

Without Sky there'd have been no americanisation of the beautiful game. I have to give the occasional scoff at some of the rubbish they come up with, like those ghey Wrestlemania-esque titles

GRANDSLAM SUNDAY
Bring The Rain

(cue Chelsea 0-0 Liverpool borefest)

citytillidie

mountain lips wrote: »

I think that's due mostly to the big European clubs and UEFA rather than Sky......

BSKYB were the first big TV company to pump money into football, UEFA seen the benifts and slowly changed the European Cup, to give them extra TV money.

Benedict XVI

Savman wrote: »

Without Sky there'd have been no americanisation of the beautiful game. I have to give the occasional scoff at some of the rubbish they come up with, like those ghey Wrestlemania-esque titles

GRANDSLAM SUNDAY
Bring The Rain

(cue Chelsea 0-0 Liverpool borefest)

The Americanization is awesome.

Anyway, there would have been little or no football on TV to Americanize

You would have one top flight game on RTE on a Saturday, a top flight game on ITV on Sunday at 3, the odd league Cup Game on ITV and the odd FA Cup game on BBC

SectionF

Rupert Murdoch famously said that he would use sport as a battering ram to get his business into people's living rooms.
Here's how that panned out: Never mind the game: watch the money
I think the only antidote to this global money-driven madness is to reclaim sport locally and nationally.

Charlie

Why does everybody have it in for aul Rupert anyway? Sure he gave me sky+ and for that, I am indebted to him.

I think alot of us are two young to properly remember what it was like pre-sky, and those who are old enough, have perhaps forgotten, but the English game was in rags in the late 80's early 90's.

What Sky brought was not only a substantially increased revenue stream, but a responsibility by the league and the teams to wisen up and become more professional. It is no coincidence that crowd trouble and racism severely declined since the formation of the Premiership.

Perhaps it has become a it of a monster of late with the amount of money the EPL is flooded with, but people take for granted all the positives that that money has brought (foreign stars, foreign coaches, leaner meaner players, improved youth setups) and seem to condemn the setup far to easily.

As another poster pointed out, the EPL is one of the fairest leagues in Europe in terms of distribution of the TV money. I think the gulf that exists between the top 4 and the other teams (in comparison to other European leagues) is a result of how well run the top 4 teams are. In Italy and Spain, teams regularly implode for financial or other reasons, and therefore make way for teams below them to make the step up.

Neil3030

Anyone opposed to Sky's involvement in the EPL throw their TV out the window.

And that comment about Americanization ruining the beautiful game is nonsense. Fans of the big clubs are going to watch the teams they want to watch, fans of football are going to watch the games they want. So what if they market it to get more people watching the game? How does that affect you? Do the ads annoy you? Change the channel.

Sky don't pick the teams or set out the tactics. If the game ends up a bore draw, more the fool you are to have wasted 90 mins watching it.

Jazzy

... I wouldnt have watched as much star trek


and gladiators would be remembered for wat it was rather then its corpse being dry humped by "the big O"

therecklessone

charlie mchugh wrote: »

It is no coincidence that crowd trouble and racism severely declined since the formation of the Premiership.

Sky comes a distant second to the Taylor Report as a causal factor.

SectionF

I think it's interesting and relevant that the question of age and generations has been introduced here.
Barry Smart is an old Arsenal fan, and what he says rings true. He didn't need Rupert to introduce him to football and, for him, football is about something bigger than Sky and plasma.
I don't mean to sound preachy, but there are some of us old enough, even on the interweb, to remember a time when the marketing, the market, and brand-led consumerism didn't dictate our every decision. There is a world, especially in sport, outside telly rights and replica shirts.
"Our economic system needs consumers to continually consume, to be never contented. The one choice consumers cannot be allowed to make is the choice to refrain from consuming - hence the increasing financial resources devoted to marketing and the importance of iconic sporting figures to front campaigns and be seen to ostentatiously display their consumer lifestyles. "Beckham, Woods, Sharapova, the Williams Sisters, Lewis Hamilton - it is a long list."

Charlie

therecklessone wrote: »

Sky comes a distant second to the Taylor Report as a causal factor.

Fair point. But I think sky and Murdoch's money was the carrot at the end of the stick for alot of clubs to move in that direction.

PHB

IMO it'd be worse. Why? Sky have ensured collective TV rights deals, while the other leagues don't have them and they suffer as a result.

SantryRed

Don't know how bad English football would be, but I can tell you, the Eircom League would be in a much better state.

Charlie

SantryRed wrote: »

Don't know how bad English football would be, but I can tell you, the Eircom League would be in a much better state.

That's pure speculation. The plight of Irish football has as much to do with it's own failings and incompetencies, as it does with players being attracted abroad.

SectionF

charlie mchugh wrote: »

That's pure speculation. The plight of Irish football has as much to do with it's own failings and incompetencies, as it does with players being attracted abroad.

Yeah, yeah. Any excuse...

hunter164

Ye if Sky hadn't existed you might have got off your couch/barstool and been a proper supporter and Irish Football wouldn't be in the state it is right now.

Eirebear

SantryRed wrote: »

Don't know how bad English football would be, but I can tell you, the Eircom League would be in a much better state.

I dont think that is entirely true unfotunately.

The best Irish players have left the country to ply their trade in England since the 60's, and the fans have followed them ever since.
RTE showed almost as many English games as the BBC and ITV before SKY came in and changed everything.

SantryRed

Eirebear wrote: »

I dont think that is entirely true unfotunately.

The best Irish players have left the country to ply their trade in England since the 60's, and the fans have followed them ever since.
RTE showed almost as many English games as the BBC and ITV before SKY came in and changed everything.

Still don't think iit would be as bad as it is now. I agree with your point but Sky has just made it worst.

Eirebear

SantryRed wrote: »

Still don't think iit would be as bad as it is now. I agree with your point but Sky has just made it worst.

What SKY have done have made it more excuseable for people not to go to watch games in Ireland because theyre sitting on the couch watching Reading V Derby on the telly.

Unfortunately though the actual "support" of English teams was already ingrained on society by that point, and passed from generation to generation... (remember my point about the "legends" game a while back?)

So while i can agree that SKY have made it a lot harder for Irish football to claw its way back into respectability, i would say that the FAI's incompetency and alleged corruption during footballs more formative years in Ireland are bigger culprits than SKY.

astrofool

Sky increased the profile of football beyond the premiership, and had the League of Ireland not been spectacularly mismanaged, they could have benefitted from this boom also. People in Ireland will rally around and support all sports, looking at rugby, golf, F1 (a lot of Irish travel to these), and English football. All these sports made themselves accessible, and raised their standards. League of Ireland did nothing but bicker among themselves, go bust, and not invest in any facilities (a lot of that being the FAI's fault, but not all).

Benedict XVI

SectionF wrote: »

I think it's interesting and relevant that the question of age and generations has been introduced here.
Barry Smart is an old Arsenal fan, and what he says rings true. He didn't need Rupert to introduce him to football and, for him, football is about something bigger than Sky and plasma.

I think a lot of people have a ambiguous relationship with Sky

On the one had they are very happy because Sky has given them the ability to watch so much more football on TV.

On the other hand they seem to hate the over hype and the constant, and expected, promoting of the Primership product

astrofool wrote: »

Sky increased the profile of football beyond the premiership, and had the League of Ireland not been spectacularly mismanaged, they could have benefitted from this boom also.

Back in the 1990s the LOI got compensation from Sky because the increased level and promotion of Sunday soccer in the UK would damage the LOI product (in the days when LOI was a winter Sunday afternoon game)
That compensation allowed clubs to install lights and switch games to Friday and Saturday evenings thus reducing the clash with Sky's Sunday afternoon product.