Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Sky Money Ruining Sports?

Is it just me who is of the opinion that sky sports messing up schedules and dishing out big money to the big clubs and a pittance to the smaller clubs is ruining sport.

Most poignant to my point is the money in Football and the fact it's very rare to see teams like Man U, Chelsea or Arsenal have a Saturday 3pm K/O.

We will be screened maybe twice this season, whereas you will have 10-15 games for each of the above sides. So we will probably get two payouts amounting to about 50-100k those clubs will make £1m or so out of the deals.

Now to disagree with myself...

It could be seen as a motivation for clubs to make money by striving to reach the very top level of football.

What are others views on Sky, their money and the effects it has on us smaller clubs.
«1

Comments

  • not only sky 'messing up' the schedule. clubs in the eufa cup play on thursday so have games moved accordingly, and sometimes clubs having to travel far in the champs league have earlier kick offs to allow extra prep time. usually whenever a merseyside team play a manchester team the kick off is moved whether on sky or not.

    i'm glad sky pump the money they do into the game. 45 (i think) clubs have had a slice of the prem money since it began and its how that money is managed is the problem. pompey at one end, and perhaps blackpool the other of the spectrum. one spunked the dough on players and are f**ked, and one improved the ground whilst being sensible with player dough. sure, they went down after 1 year but, are in a stronger position on the pitch now than 3 years ago, with better facilities.
  • Have I just woken up in 1997?
  • Sky have been overall good for football. Yes there have been some negatives, but the positives far outweigh these.
  • As a sky sports subscriber it would be hypocritical to be over critical but they have done a lot of good and a lot of bad. The bad is that there is too much money in some parts and not enough in other parts of the game. This is unhealthy and to be fair th ebig clubs are as much to blame if not more as Sky has to make decisions based on the market but thiers are about self interest.
  • I preferred it when our top league was more even. I really dislike the concept of 'the big four'. Sky are at least partly responsible for this. There are so many issues with the way football is run in this country, but I feel the biggest one is the distribution of money and how it makes the playing field so uneven for clubs outside of 'the big four'. I can remember Manchester United being relegated - will that ever happen again?
  • There's more money in every aspect of the game. It's not TV's fault that the recipients of the money often squander it on shit. I'm not too concerned that the money is unevenly divided, life and competition are uneven. As Colt says this is a tired and now tedious debate, if people are really bothered about it, don't watch TV football, if enough people do this, they'll stop splashing the cash. If people aren't prepared to quit their own armchair support then they should pipe down.
  • colthe3rd said:

    Have I just woken up in 1997?

    Do you think we'll make the play-offs?

  • colthe3rd said:

    Have I just woken up in 1997?

    My thought as well!

    You can't please everyone. Overall it's been beneficial. The big teams who don't play at 3pm on a Saturday are still playing in front of sold out crowds.
  • Sky have the Football League and the Premier League by the short n curlies
  • Sky's coverage is by far superior to any other channel. I am all for Sky and long may it continue.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Sky only produce what there is an appetite for, more people want to watch the bigger teams.

    If we go down the 'everything must be fair' route then all teams should have a 20k seater stadium to even out revenue from ticket sales. Success breeds success so big clubs stay big. Same in the business world.

    I have no problem with it, and all the money pumped into the English game has made us probably the best nation to watch football in.
  • edited August 2012
    @Addicted Do you not think that the Premiership is less interesting than it could be because it's too predictable? It got more interesting when Man City came into some money, but that's the only defining factor in Premiership success these days it seems.
  • @Saga lout

    Well, in a way its a little more predictable but at the same time the really big money hasn't been distributed unevenly by Sky but instead by the super rich tycoon owners. As you say, City is a prime example but you can look at all investment over the last 10-15 years and say the same. Without this there wouldn't be such a gap between the likes of City/United/Chelsea and Arsenal/Spurs. To lump the blame on Sky is fairly inaccurate.

    Additionally, you also have the 'giant killings' which are enhanced even more by the 'unbeatable' persona of the big four. These types of games wouldn't be of such interest if there was a level playing field, and id actually argue that an even league would be less exciting because of the inclination towards a linear bland nature.

    Id also say that having strong teams that have been at the top for a while such as United makes European success far more of a realistic goal; making the premier league and English football in general more attractive for quality foreign players. Would the likes of Yann be content with third tier elsewhere?

    Money isn't just the defining factor in the Premiership, its the defining factor in all football at all professional levels in all countries.
  • There's more money in every aspect of the game. It's not TV's fault that the recipients of the money often squander it on shit. I'm not too concerned that the money is unevenly divided, life and competition are uneven. As Colt says this is a tired and now tedious debate, if people are really bothered about it, don't watch TV football, if enough people do this, they'll stop splashing the cash. If people aren't prepared to quit their own armchair support then they should pipe down.

    Is the gist of it, yes.

    I'd like to see more competition and give the fans a choice of subscribers but we all know so long as News Corp has a controlling interest and the ear of whomever incumbers Downing Street then change is unlikely. Sky Sports has done a lot of good for football but it's monopoly, ergo it's right to charge whatever it likes, is wrong IMO and should be broken up.

    ESPN's service is a step in the right direction at giving fans a choice but there is only one network that could challenge Sky but it seems it neither has the inclination or the will to do so.

    The BBC annual turnover is as big as Sky's but it has considerably greater overheads, an enormous gravy train (anyone that has worked for them will confess that if one man is needed for the job, the Beeb will employ three) and a 'business' model that is outdated and entirely inflexible for the modern era.

    For instance everyone knew the BBC could afford exclusive rights to F1 for the next decade if it wanted to but the saga with Sky Sports last year was dressed up to look as though the BBC was really struggling for cash. Struggling so much less than three months later it offered a record £140m for Six Nations rugby for the forseeable future and admitted to colossal overspends on the move to Salford and coverage for the Olympics.

    If the BBC were to get it's house in order it could offer an alternative to Sky. This idea that it 'can't' offer a pay-tv solution, because of the Licence Fee Agreement, is entirely inflexible and will doom them to losing more and more sports over the coming years.
  • edited August 2012
    Saga Lout said:

    @Addicted Do you not think that the Premiership is less interesting than it could be because it's too predictable? It got more interesting when Man City came into some money, but that's the only defining factor in Premiership success these days it seems.

    But that isn't Sky's fault. The Premier League clubs sell their TV rights as a group so whilst the bigger clubs may get more cash because they're on TV the most the amounts aren't vastly different and the smaller clubs still get a lot of income from TV rights compared to smaller clubs in Spain, for example.

    The blame for the uncompetative nature of the Premier League lies with the Champions League rather than Sky. Sky would love a more competative league because it would be good for the product and good for their viewing figures.
  • On a side note, I think the whole "big four" thing has vanished. That term was often used to include Arsenal and Liverpool.

    Liverpool have vanished from that, and Arsenal have been teetering for years.
  • Saga Lout said:

    @Addicted Do you not think that the Premiership is less interesting than it could be because it's too predictable? It got more interesting when Man City came into some money, but that's the only defining factor in Premiership success these days it seems.

    Did you see the results in the last week ? can hardly call those boring

  • The Premier League is very boring. I was listening to FiveLive last Sunday and the commentators were talking up the new season, along the lines of what an exciting season we have in store, too close to call between Man Utd, Man City to win the title & which of the promoted teams would go down....so just like last year then really. Some of the footy is great to watch but it is all rather inevitable TBH
  • I'm not a big fan of Sky but Man City won the league for the first time since 1968 and the members of the 'Big 4' have changed over the last 10 to 20 years. And last season none of the promoted clubs were relegated.
  • It's true that Sky are not primarily to blame for the way the TV money is distributed across football.
    The fundamental problem is that the distribution should be decided by a body that has the overall interests of football in England at heart. The Premier League should never have been allowed to exist as a separate business entity. The blame for this lies with the late Sir Bert Millichip and Graham Kelly, who sided with the chairmen pushing the idea simply because of a petty turf war with the Football League; and those chairmen pushing it, often for their own personal enrichment, such as David Dein. How can I state this so clearly? Because I just finished reading David Conn's "The Beautiful Game?". I thoroughly recommend it, if you want to understand the dynamics of the football business. It was actually written the season before Curbs left and has several very positive references to Charlton which are quite heartbreaking to read now.
    By the way I have been meaning to post up videos which show how Scandinavian fans protested against Monday night football - and won. I'll try to post them soon.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Sky may not be responsible for creating 'the big four' but I would contend that they are responsible for perpetuating and promoting it. I do agree though that the make-up of the big four has changed over the years.

    I don't like all the hype that goes with Sky coverage, but others on here think that it is a necessary evil. The BBC got in on the act too during the Olympics with their pre-recorded profiles of particular athletes all slow motion and deep serious voices - a big turn-off for me.
  • I wonder how many of you claiming Sky have ruined football have the pretty box with all the channels in your front rooms.
  • Sky's coverage of Football is absolutely brilliant when you compare it to the likes of BBC and especially ITV.

    They do a good job of building excitement and Sky Sports News is a godsend.

    On another sidenote, I think this season's Premier League line-up is one of the strongest seen in quite a year now that big clubs like Southampton and Reading are back there. Teams that can actually sell out their stadiums, unlike dross like Bolton and Blackburn.
  • Good points on both sides of the argument. I agree with Prague Addick's take on things 100%. Sky don't decide how the greedy distribute the cash.

    The Sky four are, and always will be the same, regardless of league position. Yes they have changed in the past, but 20 years of blanket coverage of Liverpool on terestrial TV in the 70s and 80s still leaves them with many, many 1000s more armchair fans than Man City. It will take City ten years of constant success, and Liverpool ten (more) years of relative failure to overtake them.

    If it had not been for millionaires intervening, we would have had twenty years of either Man Utd or Arsenal winning the Premier League, no one else would have had a look in...
  • Changed the title as the money is my issue not the tv shows and games shown.
  • edited August 2012
    I heard something this morning that when the new Tv deal kicks in the team who finish bottom in the Premiership will get more money than Man City did last season for winning the Premiership.

    When it kicks in , and how much it is i do not know , if someone could enlighten me please?

    I bet your bottom dollar , pardon the pun that clubs will still overspend.
  • For the person stating Man U will be on TV 10 to 15 times this season - try more like 25-30 times. Ridiculously disproportionate.

    All it is doing is turning the Championship into a Premiership 2 what with all the parachute payments spread over a number of years.
    Look at some of the wealth in our division, some of the players and the wages. Leicester the other night had an embarrassment of striking options. Anyone relegated from the Prem has loads of money and it's just going to get worse.

    I love Sky but I do think there should be a fairer spread of the money. Just think do the Premiership teams really need £30m a year? Could you take £1m a year from the 20 top flight clubs and spread that out over the lower leagues. I know they give some out but its just not enough for the smallest clubs
  • Actually I have been trying to find out the precise distribution of TV money to clubs. It is remarkably difficult to get it. If anybody can find an authoritative source on the web, I'd be grateful to get it.

    Swisdom - actually if it was really Premiership 2 it would not be so bad. Murray and Varney argued that for years when we were at the top table. As it is, as you say, Leicester have far more resource than us. I don't think that's fair, and it makes our current Board 's job more difficult and risky than it ought to be.
  • I heard something this morning that when the new Tv deal kicks in the team who finish bottom in the Premiership will get more money than Man City did last season for winning the Premiership.

    When it kicks in , and how much it is i do not know , if someone could enlighten me please?

    I bet your bottom dollar , pardon the pun that clubs will still overspend.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/13/premier-league-tv-rights-3-billion-sky-bt
  • Thanks Colt , so an extra 14million a season , basically you could have another over priced 'star' such as Stephen Fletcher who left Wolves recently for 14 million!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!