How much are you prepared to pay for Football?

[Alex]

I get Sky Sports, at whatever cost that is. But I watch the channels all the time. Cricket over the summer gets it the most use. But a few other sports interest me too. So its not all Football I use it for.

I dont pay for BT sport now as I think its terrible value for money. £12 a month for a few games on a Saturday early afternoon when I could be out doing something better.

If Liverpool were on Id listen on the radio or something or try and find a stream.

All of Liverpool's games are on LFC TV 24 hours later for free anyway. So I rarely actually miss a game.

[EwarWoo]

Yeah, I'll get other usage out of it. Test series vs India is on foxtel, and snooker when it comes around which I miss watching.

Not massive on sports but other bits and bobs take my interest (love xgames, but its always on at some ungodly hour if I happen to be up)

[Fredo]

Justifying for all sky channels is difficult especially that I don't get to watch them bar Liverpool games. So paying for the service just when we play is a tad more justifiable.

I've run out of patience with streams, too hit and miss and having to change them in the middle of a match is incredibly annoying.

[Alex]

I would certainly go the same way with just paying for our games if I didnt watch the rest of the channels.

Most you will spend in a month is £28 at a guess.

Might get a bit more pricey given we are in the Champions League now though.

[Darkon]

Unless the PL holders don't have the CL rights. That's been a problem for years where I live, so if I quit cable I would have to pay for 2-3 streaming services

[Darkon]

I still don't understand why PL can't do what the NBA and other american sports do. NBA this season costs me £12 for a season with live feeds for 90% of the games.

I know that's exceptionally cheap, but if it cost 5 a month or something for PL, that would be awesome!

[dom9]

I've never paid for football on tv!

Well actually that's not completely true, when I was a student around the year 2000 we got the ill-fated ITV Digital for our house for a one off payment, which came with ITV Sport before it promptly went bust. Other than that however I've never had Sky anywhere I've ever lived, I just won't give Murdoch money and consider it too much to pay for TV, let alone just factoring in the football. Neither will I consider getting BT Sport, the whole thing is just bloated and excessive and much though I love this sport I hate what gross amounts of money have done to it.

If I couldn't stream games on the net for free I'd rather just listen to the radio and watch free highlights shows & broadcasts when I could, with occasional popping to the pub for big games like I always used to. I guess if there were a netflix for football, priced at a truly affordable level, convenient and technologically sound, then I would happily go for that, but where the movie & music industries eventually caught on to the only real way to combat piracy, ie providing a superior legit service for a minimal fee, football is still miles behind.

I like the Footflix / Netball idea.

I think that the TV companies are still making such a margin that there's no incentive for them to go that way to combat piracy. Too many people are willing to pay the premium still.

The film and music industries' revenues were massively under threat from piracy and so they were forced to confront the situation, kicking and screaming by start ups who found a middle way.

I still can't get my head around the fact that people who are willing to pay the premium to watch football in their own home are often the same who download films and music illegally. Why is football different? Maybe it's because we know that by paying it, our clubs can spend more on players, which gives them a chance of being more competitive? It's interesting. To me at least.

[paulg]

I have a Virgin Media package, without Sky Sports but with BT Sport bundled. I don't really watch non LFC games, unless my brothers in law are round as they are mancs and gooners.
BT has some Italian, French, German footie which I occasionally watch, but does have other sports too so I've got into College American Football and stuff a bit.

The only other way I'd consider spending money on football would be to go upto Anfield for the tour and a match. Have never been able to comfortably afford that, so it hasn't happened.

[Darkon]

Or it's simply becuase there are no good / equal quality service with live football?

You either pay the service and get live matches in 1080p and guarenteed commentators in a language you can understand + all the before and after crap if you are in to that, or you get a free stream that at best is at an acceptable quality and added bonus is some version of Latin based language.

With movies and music you can dl the exact same quality you would get on tv/cd/mp3 anyways, so there isn't any loss that way around.

[dom9]

Do you watch streams Paul?

[dom9]

I still don't understand why PL can't do what the NBA and other american sports do. NBA this season costs me £12 for a season with live feeds for 90% of the games.

I know that's exceptionally cheap, but if it cost 5 a month or something for PL, that would be awesome!

Simply supply and demand, it would seem.

The broadcasters have their costs, their margin, then the rest goes to the club's (players / agents).

[Darkon]

Simply supply and demand, it would seem.

The broadcasters have their costs, their margin, then the rest goes to the club's (players / agents).

Sure, it's a lack of incentive really, but since Americans can do it directly from the rights owners (NBA for example) and make good money on it, I don't see why the FA/PL don't have an interest in cutting out the middle man. I mean American media is dominated by cable companies and they've managed to give quality access outside them.

[EwarWoo]

Justifying for all sky channels is difficult especially that I don't get to watch them bar Liverpool games. So paying for the service just when we play is a tad more justifiable.

I've run out of patience with streams, too hit and miss and having to change them in the middle of a match is incredibly annoying.

That's where it ****s me. We have a game the wee hours of a work morning over here I have bugger all chance of watching it live, and it's like a weeks subs wasted. It's a real rip off really buying it just for PL.

But the frustration has just overwhelmed sense.

[EwarWoo]

Sure, it's a lack of incentive really, but since Americans can do it directly from the rights owners (NBA for example) and make good money on it, I don't see why the FA/PL don't have an interest in cutting out the middle man. I mean American media is dominated by cable companies and they've managed to give quality access outside them.

Potentially population effects it.

> population = spreading the cost if they can aim for saturation.

[dom9]

Sure, it's a lack of incentive really, but since Americans can do it directly from the rights owners (NBA for example) and make good money on it, I don't see why the FA/PL don't have an interest in cutting out the middle man. I mean American media is dominated by cable companies and they've managed to give quality access outside them.

It's greed. Capitalism in its purest form.

I've always found it ironic that American sports have adopted a socialist approach, with their collective bargaining agreements, wage caps and draft systems. Everyone there truly is more equal.