Sky's monopolizing of English football coming to an end?

Make sure you remember the date October 4th 2011. This could be the day that could completely change the football we watch and the way we watch it.

Just over a year ago a pub landlady in Portsmouth, Karen Murphy, challenged the fine she received for broadcasting football matches in her pub- but not through Sky Sports. Instead she was using a Greek satellite to show the games. On October 4th the case will be heard in the European Court of Justice and a decision could be made on the future of football broadcasting in the United Kingdom. Currently a pub subscription to Sky Sports costs around the £1,000 mark, this is ten times the amount that a subscription to the Greek football channels cost.

Here’s an extract from a newspaper which explains why she was fined and why she feels she can challenge the decision:

“In an attempt to save on the prices charged by Sky, Murphy purchased a Greek system through an importer and paid an annual subscription. The Premier League, which sells its rights exclusively to Sky in the UK, said she was breaking the law. But her lawyers claim its position contravenes the EC Treaty that guarantees free trade between member states.”

Gone are the days of grainy pictures and poor audio, with susceptible English commentary. Football streaming has developed and improved dramatically over the past few years, making almost every Premier League game and most Championship games watchable online. Could this be a reason why we are seeing attendances up and down the country dropping?

It quite possibly could be. But another huge factor is the current ticket prices. In a recent BBC survey, investigating the cost of football, it was revealed that the average cost of the CHEAPEST ticket at a Premier League club costs £24.90 and at a Championship club costs £20.40. That price is just for a ticket, not taking in to account any other optional expenses such as food, drink or programmes. If you have a family and want to take a couple of others with you to the game, you are looking at around £75 for a family day out to the football. Is it really fair to charge such high prices, all year round, when the economy is in such a state and people are being much more careful with their cash? I guess that’s another question for a different day…

The point I’m trying to make is that the increased number of people watching football on streams isn’t going to massively affect football attendances. For a company bringing in over £1bn profit each year, will they really feel a huge loss if they make pub broadcasting more affordable?

In fact, this could even be a move that could save English pubs. In a report released in March we were told that 25 pubs close down in England every week. That’s 1,300 pubs every year and over 13,000 jobs lost. I’m obviously not naive enough to suggest that the reason these pubs had to close was due to high-Sky prices, but if more pubs could show more football, not just English leagues, then they could attract more customers. To go one step further, they could even introduce special offers on drinks during these times to try and drive sales. However, the prospect of watching your League 2 side losing at home on a freezing Saturday afternoon might be a bit gloomy, compared to sitting in your local with some friends, a pint and watching a game of quality Premier League football. However, without proper evidence and trialling it is hard to prove that there may be a case of lower league sides attendances dropping if their 3pm kick off were to coincide with a big match in the Premier League that was being shown in most pubs.

The Premier League says that if this decision goes against Sky then it ‘undermines anyone who sells on a territory by territory basis’. Of course they do, if this battle were to be won by Karen Murphy and her team of lawyers, the revenue the Premier League receives could drop. But then you have to argue that if overseas companies can show all of the English games, then why can’t Sky, BBC and ESPN? Isn’t it then restricting these companies and putting them one step behind the rest of the world? If the court were to side with Mrs Murphy, then these broadcasters would retaliate with their own packages that allow them to show what football when they like.

So come the morning news on Wednesday 5th October 2011 we could be waking up to find that Sky no longer has English football by the balls, and that broadcasting football may be becoming about bringing the sport to a much wider audience, rather than in a way that makes the biggest profit. Plus, my old man might not be moaning about how few games are still shown on a Saturday at 3pm.

Churchill wrote:Disagree with clubs rising prices if attendances start to dip, it makes more sense to lower them as a way of enticing new fans and bringing back the old fans.

Churchill wrote:But then this made me think, surely it would be lower league teams that would get hit if they fancied staying in to watch the footy, rather than freezing outside wathing a poor team play poor football.

Churchill wrote:So it seems Karen Murphy has won. Or so it seems atm.

I'm sure the Premier League and Sky have been planning for this ruling and will have a plan already worked out. I think it will be interesting to see how the Premier League sell the rights next time around. There's even been talk of them creating their own channel and sub-licensing (I think that's the word) to other countries that want to show the games.

JDandfries wrote:The fact that the PL is being described as a product by some people, should tell you everyting you need to know!