Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • BobQ
    • By BobQ 13th Feb 18, 9:30 PM
    • 9,973Posts
    • 13,101Thanks
    BobQ
    Sky Soccer prices to fall?
    • #1
    • 13th Feb 18, 9:30 PM
    Sky Soccer prices to fall? 13th Feb 18 at 9:30 PM
    So with Sky paying less per game in the latest FA auction, we can look forward to lower prices.

    I think not ........
    Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.
Page 1
    • mije1983
    • By mije1983 13th Feb 18, 9:57 PM
    • 2,884 Posts
    • 18,710 Thanks
    mije1983
    • #2
    • 13th Feb 18, 9:57 PM
    • #2
    • 13th Feb 18, 9:57 PM
    Sky big winners today I think. More games, less money per game. And probably now higher prices from BT who have paid more for less, and arguably a weaker package than they have currently.

    A crazy broadcasting rule that was meant to be better for consumers, but actually ends up costing people more for the same thing.
    Last edited by mije1983; 13-02-2018 at 10:00 PM.

    • poppasmurf_bewdley
    • By poppasmurf_bewdley 14th Feb 18, 12:12 PM
    • 5,174 Posts
    • 5,298 Thanks
    poppasmurf_bewdley
    • #3
    • 14th Feb 18, 12:12 PM
    • #3
    • 14th Feb 18, 12:12 PM

    A crazy broadcasting rule that was meant to be better for consumers, but actually ends up costing people more for the same thing.
    Originally posted by mije1983
    Hopefully, following Brexit, this stupid EU rule will be ditched. On this new deal, it's still possible that someone who wants to watch all the televised matches will have to subscribe to four separate companies as there are still two tranches available!
    "There are not enough superlatives in the English language to describe a 'Princess Coronation' locomotive in full cry. We shall never see their like again". O S Nock
    • Chrishazle
    • By Chrishazle 14th Feb 18, 4:48 PM
    • 466 Posts
    • 289 Thanks
    Chrishazle
    • #4
    • 14th Feb 18, 4:48 PM
    • #4
    • 14th Feb 18, 4:48 PM
    If you think Sky or BT will drop their prices, dream on. I've recently had a go round with BT where they screwed up my broadband/line rental/phone package 2 months in a row, then my BTTV deal was expiring - ended up they offered me a 2 year deal at 50p/month more for the identical package - so line rental, BT Infinity 2 fibre, caller display, all calls, BTTV Max + extra box is 64/month.
    • iniltous
    • By iniltous 18th Feb 18, 7:12 PM
    • 1,544 Posts
    • 568 Thanks
    iniltous
    • #5
    • 18th Feb 18, 7:12 PM
    • #5
    • 18th Feb 18, 7:12 PM
    Sky big winners today I think. More games, less money per game. And probably now higher prices from BT who have paid more for less, and arguably a weaker package than they have currently.



    A crazy broadcasting rule that was meant to be better for consumers, but actually ends up costing people more for the same thing.
    Originally posted by mije1983
    Sort of goes against perceived wisdom that competition drives prices down, if Sky had no competition , then they probably would pay less to the EPL, but could charge whatever they liked and mug punters would pay whatever they asked...strange point of view some of these Sky Fanboys have, don't mind what it costs as long as it's only one direct debit
    As far as BT paying more per game, it's for less games so the money to be paid to the EPL is less than the previous auction, so perhaps BT customers will pay less, just like Sky Sports customers paid less when Sky lost the Champions League...oh wait they didn't did they
    Last edited by iniltous; 18-02-2018 at 7:36 PM.
    • mije1983
    • By mije1983 18th Feb 18, 8:36 PM
    • 2,884 Posts
    • 18,710 Thanks
    mije1983
    • #6
    • 18th Feb 18, 8:36 PM
    • #6
    • 18th Feb 18, 8:36 PM
    Sort of goes against perceived wisdom that competition drives prices down,
    Originally posted by iniltous
    It may have been made with the best of intentions, but only a fool would think this would be the outcome once a single provider was barred from purchasing all the packages. It's a misguided rule really.


    mug punters would pay whatever they asked...strange point of view some of these Sky Fanboys have, don't mind what it costs as long as it's only one direct debit
    Originally posted by iniltous
    Not sure where anyone has mentioned anything about fanboys or not minding what it costs? If you hate Sky, then that's fine.


    As far as BT paying more per game, it's for less games so the money to be paid to the EPL is less than the previous auction,
    Originally posted by iniltous
    Sky are also paying less overall, and less per game which is why I think (so far) they have come out of this better. They also have every weekend first pick and the more coveted kick off times.

    There are still 2 packages to sell so all that could change of course. But let's not forget that both are businesses, and their primary objective is to make money, not to keep consumers happy. The latter is just a way to the former that they have to put up with.

    However, PL is the heartbeat of Sky's sports offering while it is not so important to BT (with CL and FA Cup), so maybe BT's focus is shifting? Or maybe they have just been outdone by Sky.
    Last edited by mije1983; 18-02-2018 at 8:40 PM.

    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 18th Feb 18, 8:39 PM
    • 20,000 Posts
    • 10,981 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    • #7
    • 18th Feb 18, 8:39 PM
    • #7
    • 18th Feb 18, 8:39 PM
    strange point of view some of these Sky Fanboys have, don't mind what it costs as long as it's only one direct debit
    Originally posted by iniltous
    Are you posting to the correct thread? No one here has said that they don't mind the cost or that coverage must come from Sky..
    • iniltous
    • By iniltous 18th Feb 18, 9:01 PM
    • 1,544 Posts
    • 568 Thanks
    iniltous
    • #8
    • 18th Feb 18, 9:01 PM
    • #8
    • 18th Feb 18, 9:01 PM
    Hopefully, following Brexit, this stupid EU rule will be ditched. On this new deal, it's still possible that someone who wants to watch all the televised matches will have to subscribe to four separate companies as there are still two tranches available!
    Originally posted by poppasmurf_bewdley


    Are you posting to the correct thread? No one here has said that they don't mind the cost or that coverage must come from Sky.. See above

    As far as the EPL having to ensure no company gets all the TV rights, and a few posters here thinking that's actually a bad idea, leading to higher prices then you would imagine they would that also argue that Sky offering phone and Internet is also a bad idea , and if only BT could have a monopoly phones/internet we would have lower phone/internet prices ?, it's hard to argue that if it's desirable for Sky to move into 'telecoms' to keep BT 'honest', then how can it be undesirable for a company to move into an area dominated by Sky to keep them honest ?
    Last edited by iniltous; 18-02-2018 at 9:16 PM.
    • mije1983
    • By mije1983 18th Feb 18, 9:44 PM
    • 2,884 Posts
    • 18,710 Thanks
    mije1983
    • #9
    • 18th Feb 18, 9:44 PM
    • #9
    • 18th Feb 18, 9:44 PM
    But you are talking about 'maybes' and 'could haves'. We can all only go by the facts as they are now, and that is a person wanting to watch 100% of the televised PL games is now paying more per month than they were when Sky had a monopoly, even allowing for inflation. It's not opinion, it's a fact. So yes, it is a bad idea as most people are now paying more.

    I have no particular love for Sky or BT, but it would definitely make things cheaper if one or the other (or someone else entirely, I really don't care) could come in a buy all packages.

    I have no desire to keep any company 'honest' (again you seem to me talking about things not mentioned in the thread), but what I do have is a desire to get a cheaper price as I'm sure we all do.

    Finally, your telecoms anaology does not make sense. I am not forced to use and pay 2 different providers (say Sky and BT for example) to receive the exact same service I used to be getting which is what would be a true comparison.

    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 18th Feb 18, 10:02 PM
    • 20,000 Posts
    • 10,981 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    The truly ridiculous idea is that allowing different providers to broadcast different games would somehow cause prices to the consumer to fall. If they were all allowed to show the SAME games there might actually be competition.

    It matters little to me whether it's Sky, Virgin, BT or Amazon (unlikely, I know) which is showing the footie. What I want is for it to be cheap and easy to view all the games I want to see.

    Certainly, Brexit won't change this situation!
    • mije1983
    • By mije1983 18th Feb 18, 10:10 PM
    • 2,884 Posts
    • 18,710 Thanks
    mije1983
    If they were all allowed to show the SAME games there might actually be competition.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    This would no doubt be the best answer for consumers, and more in line with the telecoms comparison posted above.

    However, as you say this won't happen, Brexit or not. The PL, the clubs and the government all benefit too much by having the prices artificially inflated.

    • Satexpert
    • By Satexpert 18th Feb 18, 10:10 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Satexpert
    The EU rule was to stop any one broadcaster having full rights to their respective countries top flight games. Whilst I can see the intended good in this theres always been the point that the mad "Me need to watch all games..." football fan will then "have to" pay two different operators, but this needs balanced with the fact there would be the fan that could afford the 9.99p - 12.99p a month for the handful ( 1 quarter of the seasons games) of games that feature his/her team. The real problem that nobody seems to address is the complete greed of the EPL and their bed partners Sky, the two of them were happy to boost the cash paid price headlines every few years when the contract was up for renewal. I'd also like to remind fellow forum members that Sky sports offered a two tier approach to their premier league football coverage with their "Season ticket" that got you a few extra games for an extra 50, the adverts on their sports channels ect featured that Irish actor who was in that garbage "Cold Feet" series and claims to be a Man U supporter in real life. Once the EU rule came in Sky "dropped" (How lovely of them! lol) the Season ticket because quite simply they had less games to offer so couldn't have the cheek to try and hold so many games behind a additional fee wall.
    • Satexpert
    • By Satexpert 18th Feb 18, 10:23 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Satexpert
    Found one of the Prem Plus adverts on YouTube but can't post due to forum rules, but one of the lines is "For just an extra 50 gain access to an extra 40 live premiership games through Sky box office..."
    • iniltous
    • By iniltous 18th Feb 18, 10:57 PM
    • 1,544 Posts
    • 568 Thanks
    iniltous
    But you are talking about 'maybes' and 'could haves'. We can all only go by the facts as they are now, and that is a person wanting to watch 100% of the televised PL games is now paying more per month than they were when Sky had a monopoly, even allowing for inflation. It's not opinion, it's a fact. So yes, it is a bad idea as most people are now paying more.

    I have no particular love for Sky or BT, but it would definitely make things cheaper if one or the other (or someone else entirely, I really don't care) could come in a buy all packages.

    I have no desire to keep any company 'honest' (again you seem to me talking about things not mentioned in the thread), but what I do have is a desire to get a cheaper price as I'm sure we all do.

    Finally, your telecoms anaology does not make sense. I am not forced to use and pay 2 different providers (say Sky and BT for example) to receive the exact same service I used to be getting which is what would be a true comparison.
    Originally posted by mije1983
    Philosophically, monopolys good or bad ?, provide good service or bad service ?, good value or bad value ? If your answer is 'bad unless it's Sky' I'd say that makes you look like fool, or you are Rupert, or a Skyfanboy.
    I quite agree it's not the best analogy, after all one private company BT has no say in what price it can ask for its products, when another private company (EPL) has no restriction whatsoever on what it can ask for its products, but does have a restriction requiring it not to do an exclusive sweetheart deal with one 'customer'.

    Just say, to watch all EPL content costs 50/month ( 30/20 between the 2 providers ) it's nothing more than conjecture to suggest that it would be less than 50 if only 1 provider had all the games, in fact, if there was only 1 provider arguably they could (would) charge anything the could get away with because the punter has nowhere else to go if they want to watch it, that's the argument against monopolys in a nut shell.

    I agree it's not true competition, after all the EPL is only interested in maximising the financial return from its product and so only offer access to their product on terms that suit them and not the consumer , and for as long as people are prepared to pay whatever it takes to access the content, then they will be milked for all they are worth, regardless of 1 provider or 2
    Last edited by iniltous; 18-02-2018 at 11:32 PM.
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 18th Feb 18, 11:07 PM
    • 20,000 Posts
    • 10,981 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    I'd also like to remind fellow forum members that Sky sports offered a two tier approach to their premier league football coverage with their "Season ticket" that got you a few extra games for an extra
    Originally posted by Satexpert
    Perfectly aware that Sky offered a supposed "extra" package of games, but farming this out to Setanda, BT et al did not bring the price for viewing all these games down. The total price went up and customers now have to subscribe to multiple providers if they want to see all the games.

    This is nothing to do with wanting Sky to have the monopoly on Premiere League Football. This is a money-saving site and so we should be campaigning for cheaper options, regardless of which provider shows the footie.

    The only level playing field would be if all providers could show the same games. There would be nothing to stop them offering packages which provided less games for a cheaper price.
    • Satexpert
    • By Satexpert 18th Feb 18, 11:08 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Satexpert
    In direct relation to the ruling that gave smaller operations a go at bidding....... remember Setanta lol Oh my, lost uplink feeds during the middle of live games, awful picture quality on their Freeview multiplex offering, awful customer service, wasn't a good start to the post Sky monopoly.
    • Satexpert
    • By Satexpert 18th Feb 18, 11:20 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Satexpert
    Totally agree Moneyineptitude, if the same games were offered by more than one company then that would be fair, it's a laugh that the English Premier League can sell complete rights to ALL games to Bein Sports for a quarter of the price they sell the reduced game rights to their own domestic market. Its the age old UK consumer gets bumped silly again situation and it ain't going to change any time soon if at all mate that's for certain. As for Amazon having any involvement in live sports broadcasting rights....no thanks, they should pay some more tax the sods.
    • mije1983
    • By mije1983 18th Feb 18, 11:29 PM
    • 2,884 Posts
    • 18,710 Thanks
    mije1983
    Philosophically, monoploys good or bad ?, provide good service or bad service ?, good value or bad value ? If your answer is 'bad unless it's Sky'
    Originally posted by iniltous

    As said numerous times on this thread people have no particular love for Sky, or any broadcaster. But it is now more expensive to watch PL games with 2 broadcasters than it was with one. Of that there is no doubt. There was also a 60% rise in the cost of the rights from the last Sky only deal to the joint Sky & Setanta deal, even though the amount of games were static. In fact, it was the biggest deal on deal percentage rise in PL history, and still is (yes bigger than the last one where the number of games increased and still the media couldn't stop talking about the huge rise!). How do they recoup that? They charge consumers more.


    Inould say that makes you look like fool, or you are Rupert, or a Skyfanboy.
    Originally posted by iniltous
    Haha was wondering when that would appear. Although you missed out the 'you must work for Sky' line (other employers are available) that people tend to bring out rather than admit their argument may be incorrect.


    Just say, to watch all EPL content costs 50/month ( 30/20 between the 2 providers ) it's nothing more than conjecture to suggest that it would be less than 50 if only 1 provider had all the games
    Originally posted by iniltous
    It's not conjecture, it's a fact that when the first rights package came into effect after the ruling, it was more expensive to watch all the games than it was when there was one provider. I believe Setanta charged c.10 a month? So 100 extra a year. Even allowing for PremPlus, and who knows whether that would have still be continuing today (and I think not, purely because there is only so much someone can bleed out of football fans), for the 07/08 season you were paying more than you did for the 06/07 season. Again, not conjecture, fact.

    • mije1983
    • By mije1983 18th Feb 18, 11:47 PM
    • 2,884 Posts
    • 18,710 Thanks
    mije1983
    In direct relation to the ruling that gave smaller operations a go at bidding....... remember Setanta lol Oh my, lost uplink feeds during the middle of live games, awful picture quality on their Freeview multiplex offering, awful customer service, wasn't a good start to the post Sky monopoly.
    Originally posted by Satexpert
    Setanta were pretty bad weren't they!? At least for PL coverage. I don't know what the rest of their output was/is like.

    • iniltous
    • By iniltous 19th Feb 18, 12:06 AM
    • 1,544 Posts
    • 568 Thanks
    iniltous
    As said numerous times on this thread people have no particular love for Sky, or any broadcaster. But it is now more expensive to watch PL games with 2 broadcasters than it was with one. Of that there is no doubt. There was also a 60% rise in the cost of the rights from the last Sky only deal to the joint Sky & Setanta deal, even though the amount of games were static. In fact, it was the biggest deal on deal percentage rise in PL history, and still is (yes bigger than the last one where the number of games increased and still the media couldn't stop talking about the huge rise!). How do they recoup that? They charge consumers more.




    Haha was wondering when that would appear. Although you missed out the 'you must work for Sky' line (other employers are available) that people tend to bring out rather than admit their argument may be incorrect.




    It's not conjecture, it's a fact that when the first rights package came into effect after the ruling, it was more expensive to watch all the games than it was when there was one provider. I believe Setanta charged c.10 a month? So 100 extra a year. Even allowing for PremPlus, and who knows whether that would have still be continuing today (and I think not, purely because there is only so much someone can bleed out of football fans), for the 07/08 season you were paying more than you did for the 06/07 season. Again, not conjecture, fact.
    Originally posted by mije1983
    So you are a Sky employee, and quite a senior one at that as you seem to know what Sky would pay the EPL if they had sole bidding rights...usually if you get something exclusively you pay more for it, not less...are you really arguing that the price has only risen since Sky were denied exclusivity ?
    Comparing one periods rights negotiation with another is not that enlightening , after all the number of packages, number of games in those packages , kick off times, number of first picks etc, changes each time and you do realise the EPL doesn't put them on Ebay with no reserve, the EPL know what the rights are worth, (what they are worth to the broadcaster.), and this time around there wasn't any price inflation anyway so given that BT were considered real competition to Sky how come the price hasn't rocketed his time around if having two serious bidders puts the price up ? so it is conjecture if the price would have been less if there was only Sky bidding, the EPL wouldn't take kindly if Sky were the only bidder and they put in a derisory bid, and what's more Sky given their dependence on the EPL wouldn't want to p@ss them off
    Last edited by iniltous; 19-02-2018 at 12:22 AM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

9Posts Today

4,056Users online

Martin's Twitter