Premier league now on Sky, BT and Amazon

[Mr Blonde]

I see that Amazon has picked up a 20 game Premier League package, which starts this December :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44396151

While I'm already on Sky, BT and Amazon Prime (via a Fire HD box on a non smart TV), it's surely going to get quite a few people's backs up that they have to subscribe to Sky, BT and now Amazon to see everything on offer now?

 

[Mark1989]

Old news but I do agree it's abit silly even though I have access to all of them myself.

I would love it if I could just pay Liverpool directly to see all our games as being honest there is very few other clubs I watch, it won't ever happen mind but it be nice

 

[nicktay2605]

We've been told that competition is good for the consumer and I'm sure in some sectors it is, but when it comes to viewing rights for football it's complete nonsense. The only ones that benefit from the splintering of the TV rights are the providers, the football organisations and the football clubs themselves.

As long as Sky have the majority of premier league games then I flat out refuse to subscribe to BT. It's £30 a month and that's for SD content only, if you want HD then it's another £6.50 per month, and UHD isn't even an option as far as I know. It's equally extortionate to add the Sky Sports channels as a BT subscriber, and again I don't believe that UHD is possible. I don't actually mind Amazon having some matches, at least Prime offers other decent benefits. I'd actually prefer if they took more and drove BT out of the sector.

 

[Mr Blonde]

...I don't actually mind Amazon having some matches, at least Prime offers other decent benefits. I'd actually prefer if they took more and drove BT out of the sector.

That would probably suit most people out there. I'd be happy with it if only to see the backs of BT's so called 'pundits' and match commentators.

And I'm really looking forward to the phone calls from the farther-in-law and other oldies 15 minutes before a match, with questions such as, "I still use my Sky remote, yes?", "How does this smart tv thing work again?", "I can't use this other remote at all!" and "How do I record these Amazon ones for later on?" etc etc

 

[inogen]

Yeah, the biggest dichotomy is that "the product" - "The Premier League" isn't really what most consumers are paying for. Most people who pay for TV coverage of the PL are really only interested in watching their team, the other matches are fluff.

That's what makes the idea that more matches and more providers is good for the consumer totally out of whack with most fan's reality, whilst being in the interests of the Premier League itself and the clubs in it. Until the way the product is presented changes, that's the way it is. The upside of the current arrangement is that is splits the TV revenue more equally amongst the clubs.

You have to remember that historically, a lot of the TV revenue is generated from pubs and clubs and not private subscriptions. Pubs pay an average of £20,000 per year for Sky and BT. https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-watch-pub-sky-bt-cost-rise-tv-premier-league. This is why "the product" is the whole League and not really fit for purpose for home consumption.

Also - ever wonder why so many pubs have Carling and Doom Bar on the bar? Think it's because they're popular with consumers. Think again.

 

[chroniclard]

We've been told that competition is good for the consumer and I'm sure in some sectors it is, but when it comes to viewing rights for football it's complete nonsense. The only ones that benefit from the splintering of the TV rights are the providers, the football organisations and the football clubs themselves.

As long as Sky have the majority of premier league games then I flat out refuse to subscribe to BT. It's £30 a month and that's for SD content only, if you want HD then it's another £6.50 per month, and UHD isn't even an option as far as I know. It's equally extortionate to add the Sky Sports channels as a BT subscriber, and again I don't believe that UHD is possible. I don't actually mind Amazon having some matches, at least Prime offers other decent benefits. I'd actually prefer if they took more and drove BT out of the sector.

BT Sport is 4K, I only watch it as it comes with the Virgin Media TV package.

As mentioned above I mostly only watched Liverpool games and MOTD for everything else.

 

[Droolinggimp]

Am I correct in thinking I will need a TVL to watch the Prime matches? I sub to Netflix and Prime but do not have a TVL as I don't watch broadcast TV so with the footy being LIVE I am assuming TVL is needed? If I do need it I won't be watching footy on Prime.

 

[robfosters]

Am I correct in thinking I will need a TVL to watch the Prime matches? I sub to Netflix and Prime but do not have a TVL as I don't watch broadcast TV so with the footy being LIVE I am assuming TVL is needed? If I do need it I won't be watching footy on Prime.

I presume you would need one, but without wanting to advocate breaking the law, I really wouldn’t worry about it.

 

[FrankJH]

Am I correct in thinking I will need a TVL to watch the Prime matches? I sub to Netflix and Prime but do not have a TVL as I don't watch broadcast TV so with the footy being LIVE I am assuming TVL is needed? If I do need it I won't be watching footy on Prime.

I THINK its anything "live" and you are required to have a tv licence, anything streamed at a later date (unless its iplayer which is now included in the licence) you are not required to have a licence


Personally I have always looked at it as though if (lets say) Sky had all 380 matches a season, they would price their tariffs MUCH higher as they could charge anything they wanted being the only supplier (to a point)

As there are three suppliers (albeit with different matches) the cost of the subs is less per sub …...although admittedly paying for 3 of them

Will happily pay for a sport sub on NowTV occasionally (mainly to try and combine a few decent F1 races with live Man Utd games) but don't plan on subbing for either BT or Amazon currently

I like watching a few games a season that aren't involving my club but not enough to make it worthwhile to get a full /permanent sub

 

[Deleted member 209350]

Very silly if you ask me.

Though there were some rumours going around recently of BT and Sky perhaps working together, in which case will help a lot

 

[MissChief]

Very silly if you ask me.

Though there were some rumours going around recently of BT and Sky perhaps working together, in which case will help a lot

BT did sign an agreement to allow Sky to retail BT Sport directly to their customers but it was supposed to be earlier this year. BT appear to be dragging their heels about this as the date and pricing still haven't been announced.

 

[FoxEye]

We've been told that competition is good for the consumer and I'm sure in some sectors it is, but when it comes to viewing rights for football it's complete nonsense. The only ones that benefit from the splintering of the TV rights are the providers, the football organisations and the football clubs themselves.

As long as Sky have the majority of premier league games then I flat out refuse to subscribe to BT. It's £30 a month and that's for SD content only, if you want HD then it's another £6.50 per month, and UHD isn't even an option as far as I know. It's equally extortionate to add the Sky Sports channels as a BT subscriber, and again I don't believe that UHD is possible. I don't actually mind Amazon having some matches, at least Prime offers other decent benefits. I'd actually prefer if they took more and drove BT out of the sector.

This isn't competition tho. This is enforced monopoly.

Ie you can't have two, three, four, 25 companies showing the same games and competing against each other. Only one company can show any one game.

That's not competition. That's the very opposite of competition - exclusive rights.

 

[MissChief]

This isn't competition tho. This is enforced monopoly.

Ie you can't have two, three, four, 25 companies showing the same games and competing against each other. Only one company can show any one game.

That's not competition. That's the very opposite of competition - exclusive rights.

It's competition in that it's not a Monopoly. But for the consumer this is 'best' so one company can't have all the rights and then hike the price up massively. When Sky did have the bigger majority of rights back in the Setanta/ESPN period before BT sport was even a thing Sky had the Premier Plus where matches were behind yet another pay wall and even with Sky Sports you had to pay another fee to access the games. I think it was £8 per game or £40 for the season or something.

 

[FoxEye]

Price hikes are happening anyway.

And no, it's not competition at all.

Competition means more than one company can compete for business making the same product.

When only one company can show any one game, that's not competition. If you want to see game X, you do not have a choice of providers.

Ergo competition is actually zero. Non-existent.

 

[MissChief]

Price hikes are happening anyway.

And no, it's not competition at all.

Competition means more than one company can compete for business making the same product.

When only one company can show any one game, that's not competition. If you want to see game X, you do not have a choice of providers.

Ergo competition is actually zero. Non-existent.

True, but the EU declared competition being able to get 'Premier League football matches' rather than individual games or teams as the deciding factor. And if you had a choice of watching BT Sport or Sky covering the same games would you really choose BT Sport with their commentators and studio guests?

 

[FoxEye]

True, but the EU declared competition being able to get 'Premier League football matches' rather than individual games or teams as the deciding factor. And if you had a choice of watching BT Sport or Sky covering the same games would you really choose BT Sport with their commentators and studio guests?

That's why real competition is good - BT would be forced to improve their frankly abysmal coverage.

But they have no incentive to atm because you have no choice but to watch the games on BT Sport.

 

[jonneymendoza]

It was cheaper and better when it was all on Sky....

 

[jonneymendoza]

It's competition in that it's not a Monopoly. But for the consumer this is 'best' so one company can't have all the rights and then hike the price up massively. When Sky did have the bigger majority of rights back in the Setanta/ESPN period before BT sport was even a thing Sky had the Premier Plus where matches were behind yet another pay wall and even with Sky Sports you had to pay another fee to access the games. I think it was £8 per game or £40 for the season or something.

Still way cheaper then £40 per month for BT sport...

 

[MissChief]

Still way cheaper then £40 per month for BT sport...

True, but BT Sport has multiple other sports and runs 24/7 across four channels. PremPlus wasn’t.

 

[jonneymendoza]

True, but BT Sport has multiple other sports and runs 24/7 across four channels. PremPlus wasn’t.

Sky also runs multiple sports too including f1 which I'm a big fan.

My point is Having one company monopolies is actually cheaper then several companies offering.