No, as in your first point is kinda irrelevant as the people by and large complaining about spending are those supporting the rich clubs which will do fine regardless as you've said due to the frequency at which they are already televised? The group you point at being hypocritical are not likely the fans of teams that benefit most of this scheme so the hypocrisy pair with this decision?
I mean I've watched a lot of garbage match ups since lockdown that I most likely wouldn't have before, I'm sure others are the same. And for your final point yeah agree I pretty much said the same initially, but thats not the scenario we're in.
Answering your first question, no. If Liverpool are generating £3m per game from matchday revenue and are being shown on Sky anyway, they've lost £3m. If Burnley are making £500k per game and aren't being shown on Sky, they could maybe recoup half of that money. The end result, Liverpool lose £3m and Burnley lose £250k per game. I'm not sure how Liverpool, or any bigger club are doing just fine.
There's no comment on who will be paid from any ad revenue but for a match getting 10-20k viewers, I doubt that will amount to much.Who will be making money out of the adverts that Sky will include for good measure with your £15? To pretend Sky/BT won't be making money off the back of this is laughable.
My favourite is the one you get where there's barely a minute to kick off, go on squeeze a Bet365 advert in there.
The PL aren't going to move to a PPV model though - this is purely a short term thing. TV rights are sold collectively and for that to change 14 clubs would have to vote for it and that will not happen. It would be suicide for all but 3 or 4 clubs. What we will see in the future is the PL moving towards their own, netflix type service however I suspect that might be years away, in the UK at least. It might happen overseas fairly soon though.If the PPV model is embraced who do you think is going to benefit more?
Man Utd have 650m fans Worldwide.