Us pga black out

[azazel]

A bit off topic I don't remember it working like that though

When there was only one (Sky) wasn't it something like 72 games a season live on sky each season

Then Sky launched a second service (separate to the sports pack with something like 24 games a season (a premier league season ticket they called it) so you had to pay twice but then got 96 games or you could choose just the season ticket and get a live game most weeks (they even sold them as individual games for like £8ea)

That lasted a year or so then the season ticket got pulled into the sky pack and more games were made available (something like 140 a season and was split between two broadcasters) So that 'all the football you could ever want' number was just 72 games but now you paid two subscriptions but for twice that many games

With a total pot of 380 games a season it was the Premier League themselves that kept increasing the amount of live games they sold under each new contract as more broadcasters got into it

Now we'll have 2 or even 3 broadcasters showing around 200 live EPL games a season and you'll need subscriptions to all of them to see it all (but that's more than three times 'all the football you could ever want' remember)

And every year the prices went up

So instead of spending 4 hours a week watching 'all' the live football, now it would need 10-12 hours (just for the EPL)
So either you change your life to watch more (just because its on) or you still watch about 4 hours but are paying for three times that (or somewhere in the middle)
Either way it could be argued there is too much live EPL football so you don't need to pay for it all, just the amount you want

Problem is that many fans now expect to see their team live on tv dam near every single week (and that will be spread over all broadcasters hence the three subscriptions) Whereas 'football' fans used to be satisfied with a live game from the league now its got to be their own team home or away. If the punter wants more the punter has to pay more

Getting back to your points:

• Setanta & BT sport didn’t take some of the football, the premier league just made more available to buy
• Because sky didn’t lose any of their football they didn’t drop their price either
• And as I say you might believe you only watch the same amount of football but you bought a lot more of it

To get back kinda on topic, if they split the PGA Tour & European Tour over two broadcasters then on paper it would be great, just pay for what you want and it'll be cheaper but in reality the punter will very soon want to see both...

So 'Once upon a time' is a nice fairytale but that's all it really is

Great post. The TV companies and the EPL know full well that the majority of people will want to have access to all channels for fear of missing out on their team being on the one they don't have, whereas if you could be content with one game at the weekend and one through the week you could save a fortune. And that's before you even get into the fact that the EPL, SPL, Football League, Bundesliga, Serie A, La Liga and Ligue 1 are also all available.

 

[Jacko_G]

Hope Sky lose it they have ruined sport.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Hope Sky lose it they have ruined sport.

Who would you like to see fill the void that you would prefer, and why? Someone will and someone has to. Most sports reply on tv money now.

 

[Papas1982]

Hope Sky lose it they have ruined sport.

How so?

imo any lack of participation (in any sport) is down to parenting and technology. Kids now prefer computers to going outside and many parents seem happy to let the kids do just that.

Wimbledon has always been free on tv, is tennis in the uk thriving?

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Hope Sky lose it they have ruined sport.

Rubbish. They have invested in many sports, including those like netball well out of the mainstream and now seeing growth in participation. They provide dedicated sports coverage of many big events. What do you suggest in its place?

 

[Garush34]

New channel has entered the mix and will show it for free - http://elevensports.com/eleven-spor...mpionship-for-free-across-multiple-platforms/

 

[karlcole]

So it’s all online streaming and not on tv?

Least it’s better than nothing

 

[jmf1488]

So you have to watch it on a tablet. Great.

 

[HughJars]

How so?

imo any lack of participation (in any sport) is down to parenting and technology. Kids now prefer computers to going outside and many parents seem happy to let the kids do just that.

Wimbledon has always been free on tv, is tennis in the uk thriving?

I'm 52, I was around when computer games started, I used to play for hours, didn't stop me from playing football, golf and cycling too.

And yes, when Wimbledon is on, you see kids out with their rackets, same as we used to every June when we were young.

Cycling, look at how it's boomed over the last 20 years, with an hour of highlights prime time throughout July of the TDF no doubt partly responsible.

Kids want to do what they see on TV, golf isn't on council tv now, it's no surprise participation is crashing.

 

[Garush34]

So it’s all online streaming and not on tv?

Least it’s better than nothing

So you have to watch it on a tablet. Great.

Yup all online, by the looks of it. Suppose you could get it on the laptop and if you have a HDMI port on the laptop get it up on the TV screen. Not idea but better than seeing none of it.

 

[USER1999]

Yup all online, by the looks of it. Suppose you could get it on the laptop and if you have a HDMI port on the laptop get it up on the TV screen. Not idea but better than seeing none of it.

So lets grow the game by showing it on an obscure streaming site, rather than put it on main stream tv. Even subscription tv is more mainstream than this dogs breakfast of an idea.

After all the bad publicity they got last year you would think they would learn.

Time to bin it off as a major?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

It will mean it’s now available to more people and at zero cost

Being on terrestrial telly would be better but for one event it’s going to be free to watch and better than paying for it but that will change next year no doubt

They aren’t going to bin it off

 

[Garush34]

So it’s all online streaming and not on tv?

Least it’s better than nothing

So you have to watch it on a tablet. Great.

So lets grow the game by showing it on an obscure streaming site, rather than put it on main stream tv. Even subscription tv is more mainstream than this dogs breakfast of an idea.

After all the bad publicity they got last year you would think they would learn.

Time to bin it off as a major?

Yeah I don't agree with it either, clearly the PGA are asking too much for it, and it seems to me this new service is just offering it for free as part of a trial.

 

[Garush34]

It will mean it’s now available to more people and at zero cost

Being on terrestrial telly would be better but for one event it’s going to be free to watch and better than paying for it but that will change next year no doubt

They aren’t going to bin it off

It may be available to more people but i think its likely less people will watch. Unless your interested in golf your not going to find it easy, as you would if it was on sky or the bbc.

 

[pinberry]

biggest misunderstanding these days in media is that everything is mobile. Yes, we do more things on mobile and mobile phones etc are great, but for watching stuff, nothing quite beats a good old fashioned tv. Having the fourth major of the year available on streaming only (don't care if it's for free or not) is just terrible.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

It may be available to more people but i think its likely less people will watch. Unless your interested in golf your not going to find it easy, as you would if it was on sky or the bbc.

I think it was only a matter of time before something went to online viewing for a sporting event - was expecting it to be Amazon or Facebook but mainly Amazon which can also be watched on the firestick

But I think what it will show is how much of a minority sport golf is. People watched the Masters and The Open because they were the majors that have been historicall broadcast - the US Open and US PGA from what I can remember never really used to be on before Sky so a lot of people don’t really have the same connection to them compared to The Masters and The Open - how many of us can recall the Lyle shot from the bunker or the Faldo putt during the Playoff or the dramatic finishes during the Open over the decades - but until recently can anyone really recall any drama at either the US Open or PGA before Sky - the general public prob don’t and I suspect a lot of golfers don’t. I suspect the only people who watch either event are hardcore golf fans - I don’t think many will buy a subscription to watch The US Open or PGA or The Players etc so this online sport company I expect won’t have much success in the UK and the USPGA will do something next year

None of be terrestrial channels are interested in either of the US events which shows how little interest there is them

The day The Masters moved to all four days at Sky was the start of the reduction in viewing for the UK public in major golf events

 

[Grant85]

I personally think pay TV broadcast should be more heavily regulated.

As many posters have pointed out, unlike many other economies where competition helps drive down consumer prices - the more providers that are involved in sports, the more that the consumer ends up paying. This is because one event is generally only broadcast by one broadcaster. It's not like if you don't like watching a game on Sky, you can switch and go to BT - which would allow the laws of economics to determine the best and cheapest provider.

The way things are going you will have all major sporting events spread over dozens of TV channels and streaming services. It will cost hundreds a month - even at discounted prices - to cover all bases.

I personally love watching sport on TV. I don't get as much time to do this as I used to. As I now I have kids I really enjoy watching golf from the states and the champions league matches. This is generally because they are all on after the kids are in bed and I can really sit down and enjoy them. If i could cover these on a single service I would & would possibly do away with the other service and maybe miss out on a lot of domestic football.

As for the PGA Championship. I don't really know what the plan is for this. Whether the PGA are trying to squeeze extra money out of broadcasters or if they want to see the whole thing streamed worldwide on their own site, but I think not getting a deal with Sky is a bad move.

I know Sky are a profit driven company but IMO they cover golf extremely well. They have a range of good and knowledgeable presenters, pundits and commentary. They put on a great show during the big events and don't have too many adverts, given they are a commercial broadcaster. Personally loved watching most of the Open coverage and especially pleased this was a Mark Roe free zone. i would imagine a lot of households were gripped yesterday with the Open coverage on Sky, even if they don't usually watch much golf.

The way this is going I believe we are going to have every sport making their own broadcast and streaming this live to anyone who wants it for a fee. Baseball already do this with a direct service run by MLB available worldwide to watch every MLB game for about £100 per annum. While this may seem good for the super fan, it will do very little to grow sports as it will become very hard to attract new viewers to a sport. No one will stumble upon the final round of a golf event while channel hopping, and get engrossed.

I believe we have already seen this happening in Boxing where pay per view events have led to most big fights not only being away from terrestrial TV, but even normal Sky or BT sport channels. Consequently, there used to be numerous UK boxers who were household names and now even some keen sports fans would be hard pushed to name 2 or 3 UK boxers who are still active.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Blame the BBC.

They find the money and resources to cover two weeks of Wimbledon each year (sometimes on both 1 & 2).

Beyond that and MOTD they show little interest in bidding for any sporting events other than those protected by the State.

All professional sports, if they are to survive, require the income from the broadcasting rights.

They can sometimes take a broader view and not always accept the highest bid but there has to be a will on the part of the broadcasters.

BTW the US Open was broadcast in the UK back in the late 80's.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Blame the BBC.

They find the money and resources to cover two weeks of Wimbledon each year (sometimes on both 1 & 2).

Beyond that and MOTD they show little interest in bidding for any sporting events other than those protected by the State.

All professional sports, if they are to survive, require the income from the broadcasting rights.

They can sometimes take a broader view and not always accept the highest bid but there has to be a will on the part of the broadcasters.

BTW the US Open was broadcast in the UK back in the late 80's.

If you are going to blame the BBC then at least go to the source - the government who have restricted their finances and cut their budget

The BBC have two channels and have to cater for every single person who watches terrestrial telly -

Wimbledon is massive - the viewing figures far out strip any golf event - believe more watched Murray win Wimbledon than any final day of the Open in recent history , Wimbledon is more popular than the golf so they will continue to try and show it , MOTD brings in about 4 mil each week and is just highlights

The BBC can’t afford to bid for all the events - they have to spread their budget across the whole spectrum including online and radio

They can’t go mad outbidding subscription channels.

If BBC went and offered £20mil for the Golf then you would get people complaining about spending millions on a minority sport

As for sports surviving on subscription telly - sorry but that’s false imo - sports survived very well before Sky came along - now it seems certain people get richer but the sports get less people watching them - how much will Golf really get from the extra £5mil Sky offered for the Open ?

And sports will always take the higher bid - it’s hard to see which sport has improved under Sky - for richer yes - improved - very debatable

 

[Grant85]

Blame the BBC.

They find the money and resources to cover two weeks of Wimbledon each year (sometimes on both 1 & 2).

Beyond that and MOTD they show little interest in bidding for any sporting events other than those protected by the State.

All professional sports, if they are to survive, require the income from the broadcasting rights.

They can sometimes take a broader view and not always accept the highest bid but there has to be a will on the part of the broadcasters.

BTW the US Open was broadcast in the UK back in the late 80's.

I wouldn't really blame the BBC. They are not a sports broadcaster and only have a limited budget to bid for certain coverage. They generally broadcast things that they do cover extremely well.

Also - it's very outdated that some events are locked in to terrestrial TV - such as Wimbledon, FA Cup Final and International Football Tournaments - yet absolute gash like this can happen to a Golf Major championship and not be on any TV channel.

Incidentally - had a quick look at the Eleven Sports site. Seems they are going to launch with a free US PGA Championship and will announce pricing plans prior to this. So at least this event will be free, but i can see myself giving this the big boycott as I don't think there is room or a need for a further broadcaster.