Sport Package

thanlon2704

With the new season of football coming up, so I'm thinking about getting Sky. It's just that that the Sports package is just so expensive and the other problem is it's missing a lot of matches to BT Sports. Does anyone know a TV package with both sport channels?

ComfortKid

If it's mostly football you want you are nearly better off with BT now. Good amount of Premier League matches, German league matchs, all of the champions league games and I think I read earlier that they have the rights for Spanish league aswell, all this and still cheaper than Sky. You could always stream the matches on Sky.

_Kaiser_

First off OP, no there's no single package that'll include the football from Sky and BT. You'll need a separate subscription to each and you'll also have to pay for Sky's basic channels as well.


As a side note, It's actually kinda ironic that back in the day you paid your Sky Sports sub (which was a lot less than it is now) and you got every match that was on. Then came Premiership Plus which required an add-on sub, now you have Setanta, Sky and BT which split the various games between them.

All in the name of "competition" of course, but which leaves the customer paying 2/3 subs that are more expensive than ever!

thanlon2704

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

First off OP, no there's no single package that'll include the football from Sky and BT. You'll need a separate subscription to each and you'll also have to pay for Sky's basic channels as well.


As a side note, It's actually kinda ironic that back in the day you paid your Sky Sports sub (which was a lot less than it is now) and you got every match that was on. Then came Premiership Plus which required an add-on sub, now you have Setanta, Sky and BT which split the various games between them.

All in the name of "competition" of course, but which leaves the customer paying 2/3 subs that are more expensive than ever!

It's ridiculous how in the modern era you have to jump through so many hoops to enjoy the beautiful game.

I remember when I was a kid that my parents had Sky but my da got rid of it in outrage as he was paying already for Sky but was being asked to pay for extra for the Big matches which p'd him off so much he canceled it.

There should be just a fair price for a sports package like €35 a month, it make it very hard for people who love football even people with an okay wage.

lertsnim

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

First off OP, no there's no single package that'll include the football from Sky and BT. You'll need a separate subscription to each and you'll also have to pay for Sky's basic channels as well.


As a side note, It's actually kinda ironic that back in the day you paid your Sky Sports sub (which was a lot less than it is now) and you got every match that was on. Then came Premiership Plus which required an add-on sub, now you have Setanta, Sky and BT which split the various games between them.

All in the name of "competition" of course, but which leaves the customer paying 2/3 subs that are more expensive than ever!

Don't forget that there is a whole lot more being shown now that isn't football. It is correct that you pay more but you get a whole lot more for your money.

_Kaiser_

lertsnim wrote: »

Don't forget that there is a whole lot more being shown now that isn't football. It is correct that you pay more but you get a whole lot more for your money.

True, but the vast bulk of the Sky (Sports) sub goes on ever-increasing football rights. BT have likewise hiked their subs this year as a result of the same thing.

It's common practise for a lot of people to drop Sports during the summer months until the league starts again in August which suggests that many people aren't that interested in what else is on.

Long term Sky's model will have to evolve in an era of on demand and high speed internet. The explosion of "other ways" to watch premium content is evidence that many are reaching the limits of what they're prepared to pay for things like football.. note: I'm not advocating this, but there's no point in pretending it doesn't exist either - or indeed the ultimate futility of Sky's current strategy of trying to get sites shut down, only for many more to spring up in their place.

Sky need to embrace this new market if it's to survive. I'd say there'd be a big demand for a "Football Package" which gave you access to only the matches but regardless of channel.. they'd make a killing and if competitively/flexibly priced would dramatically kill of the piracy (a lot like Netflix has done for example), but instead Sky seem determined to stick with what is becoming an outdated model, alienating customers with ever higher prices and charging for things that should be included (HD and Box Sets for example).

It'll be interesting to see how the current EU probe into Sky's movie geo-blocking turns out - if that gets expanded to sports coverage, I think we'll see massive changes in how content is delivered and charged for.

don ramo

i dont understand why the premier league itself hasnt set up a sports channel, why bother with sky or bt, just do your own channel and take all the profit, if sky and bt are able to pay billions, surely theyd make more money for themselves by having their own channel, why have a middle man,

i think bt still have the better packages for the year ahead, but sky will have the better ones then again next year, and they paid 5 billion for the privilege,

ComfortKid

don ramo wrote:

i dont understand why the premier league itself hasnt set up a sports channel, why bother with sky or bt, just do your own channel and take all the profit, if sky and bt are able to pay billions, surely theyd make more money for themselves by having their own channel, why have a middle man,

Often wondered that myself. The Premier League would make even more money from selling advertising slots as well.

Dirty Dingus McGee

don ramo wrote: »

i dont understand why the premier league itself hasnt set up a sports channel, why bother with sky or bt, just do your own channel and take all the profit, if sky and bt are able to pay billions, surely theyd make more money for themselves by having their own channel, why have a middle man,

i think bt still have the better packages for the year ahead, but sky will have the better ones then again next year, and they paid 5 billion for the privilege,

Probably if they had their own channel there would be lack of competition between rival bidders.

The competition between Sky and BT has pushed the money the Premier League receive up.It looks like they both massively overpaid because of each other.

icdg

ComfortKid wrote: »

Often wondered that myself. The Premier League would make even more money from selling advertising slots as well.

It's because they make more money this way. They get two competing bidders and a nice hefty cheque at the end of the day. They don't have any production expenses and any of the need to deal with things like carriage agreements, advertising sales, hiring staff etc. And a Premier League channel would be a single product channel. Yes, they'd be getting 100% of the revenue from every subscriber, but it would be from a smaller subscriber base. And they currently get most of the money from pay-TV subscriptions in the UK and Ireland anyway.

_Kaiser_

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Probably if they had their own channel there would be lack of competition between rival bidders.

The competition between Sky and BT has pushed the money the Premier League receive up.It looks like they both massively overpaid because of each other.

Sky were/are VERY worried about BT.. the whole advertising campaign at the start of the season was really pushing the point that they still had the most matches etc

But yes, this bidding war it's resulted in might be great for the players and the league itself but the customer and attending fans have seen prices shoot up too as a result.

_Kaiser_

icdg wrote: »

It's because they make more money this way. They get two competing bidders and a nice hefty cheque at the end of the day. They don't have any production expenses and any of the need to deal with things like carriage agreements, advertising sales, hiring staff etc. And a Premier League channel would be a single product channel. Yes, they'd be getting 100% of the revenue from every subscriber, but it would be from a smaller subscriber base. And they currently get most of the money from pay-TV subscriptions in the UK and Ireland anyway.

I've seen coverage in other places/markets and it seems that someone is televising and providing commentary for every game that's on , even if it's not shown in the UK/Ireland - possibly Sky as some of the commentators are the same?

TheDoc

I'm an avid football fan, and while watching United matches, I also have an interest in Bundesliga and La Liga, as well as some other stuff in Serie A and Erdevise.

Unfortunately it got to the point where to maintain my Sky Sports and Bt pack, was costing me €120 by themselves. Which was just way to much to be paying a month for sport, so I quickly cancelled both. While BT launched a new channel, and provided some price offers in the UK to entice customers, nothing is available here. Sky are providing Sky Sports for half price (€18 a month) for a year term for existing customers.

Unfortunately just to catch all the United games, I'd need to maintain both packs, and even then I still miss some games.

I've gone down the route of not having either pack, and from last season was watching the games in a method that I'm sure you can guess. And I'm happy doing that. Champions league while no longer on Sky and is a BT offering, is still available on ITV who get a game every Tuesday and Wednesday, which you can get on a Sky subscription(you cant get ITV on UPC)

I'd echo the sentiments that sports packages are becoming more and more expensive, while becoming less and less enticing, all in the name of competition. Not defending the method I use, appreciate its not the right way to go about things, but to **** am I coughing up mad money for regression in terms of content and offerings.

TheDoc

don ramo wrote: »

i dont understand why the premier league itself hasnt set up a sports channel, why bother with sky or bt, just do your own channel and take all the profit, if sky and bt are able to pay billions, surely theyd make more money for themselves by having their own channel, why have a middle man,

i think bt still have the better packages for the year ahead, but sky will have the better ones then again next year, and they paid 5 billion for the privilege,

Because with the current method they earn massive money in terms of selling the rights. As Sky and BT battle it out, not only do they see it as exclusives for their own networks, but they also have the added revenue from sub-selling licenees to terrestrial channels like ITV etc. RTE have pulled out entirely due to the costs involved, hence why they have (afaik) no champions league this year. But nor do Sky, who will not pay BT for the sub-license.

If the Premier League moved to their own dedicated channel, while they would obviously get more subscribers, they would be generating as much revenue.

In the US, the rights to matches etc. is held by the "franchises" and not the league itself, therefore you can buy subscription passes for your club, for the season. And its very good.

In an ideal world I could buy a season pass for United, and get all their games, on a dedicated channel in HD, like you can for NFL, NBA, Baseball etc. But while the money keeps growing and growing, that won't be sanctioned by the PL, who own the rights for the matches.

lertsnim

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I've seen coverage in other places/markets and it seems that someone is televising and providing commentary for every game that's on , even if it's not shown in the UK/Ireland - possibly Sky as some of the commentators are the same?

The Premier League provides those. They just happen to use the same commentators as Sky but not on the same games. For example, if Martin Tyler is commentating on a game for Sky then you wont hear him on the world feed doing the same game.

ComfortKid

Am I right in saying this all started because Sky entered the broadband market, BT retaliated by taking some football off Sky?

I always thought competition meant cheaper prices for the customers? This is having the opposite affect.

don ramo

ComfortKid wrote: »

Am I right in saying this all started because Sky entered the broadband market, BT retaliated by taking some football off Sky?

I always thought competition meant cheaper prices for the customers? This is having the opposite affect.

that's cause their competing, sky used to just acquire the premiership rights, but now with a competitor out bidding them it drives the price up, id say neither can believe their luck that all us suckers are just paying what they ask, they have it priced in such a way that its justifiable to pay it,

competition i don't think has ever lead to lower prices in the long term, once a competitor comes along prices drop to begin with, once the competitor get a foothold by paying ridiculous prices to get up and running, like say BT paying billions to get the better package, then comes the time to actually pay it, so up go the prices,

sky can easily outbid BT at every turn, in a fair market, it has the advantage of owning the whole system that distributes everything, and Sky doesn't just consist of sky sports, unlike BT who only have sport channels, but BT itself is an enormous company, on tv grounds its a minor player, but at a corporate level its more than able to compete with Sky, its by far the larger company, which is why sky is running scared, and paid 5 billion to get the better packages next year,

ComfortKid

don ramo wrote:

sky can easily outbid BT at every turn, in a fair market, it has the advantage of owning the whole system that distributes everything, and Sky doesn't just consist of sky sports, unlike BT who only have sport channels, but BT itself is an enormous company, on tv grounds its a minor player, but at a corporate level its more than able to compete with Sky, its by far the larger company, which is why sky is running scared, and paid 5 billion to get the better packages next year,

Thats kind of my point. BT are a massive phone and broadband company. Sky entered this market and took some BT customers so they decided to get the football rights. Anyone who has BT broadband gets the BT sports package absolutely free in the UK.

don ramo

ComfortKid wrote: »

Thats kind of my point. BT are a massive phone and broadband company. Sky entered this market and took some BT customers so they decided to get the football rights. Anyone who has BT broadband gets the BT sports package absolutely free in the UK.

yeah thats what happened alright, but just cause theres competition doesnt mean the price comes down, i dont think that has ever actually happened,

_Kaiser_

ComfortKid wrote: »

Thats kind of my point. BT are a massive phone and broadband company. Sky entered this market and took some BT customers so they decided to get the football rights. Anyone who has BT broadband gets the BT sports package absolutely free in the UK.

It's the same with Sky.. they're giving away a Samsung TV to new customers at the moment. 3 took over O2 here and look what happened sure - price hikes and poorer service for it.

I still think that Sky/BT are reaching the limit of their current business model though. As TheDoc points out €120 a month for the various packages is crazy money and it's only going to keep increasing until the subscriber numbers drop enough that they are forced to look at alternative options.