Why is it that every football season the UK's viewing public is given nothing to watch but football ?? Now personally I cant stand the sport, but I do believe in each to thier own. I have nothing against people who enjoy watching/playing the sport spending every waking moment watching it but does it have to be enforced on the rest of us ? Take this world cup thing, the same match is being shown on ITV and BBC- I fail to see the logic of this. Do the controllers really thing that 100% of the UK population want to watch it ? Even when it isnt the world cup non footballers are treated to programs being shifted around and cancelled to fit it in. I dont think that this is a broad spectrum viewing policy. The mistake came in the form of channel 5. This should have been a sports channel, that way those who want to watch it could have 24 hour football if they wanted and left us to our soaps, documentaries etc. This channel type casting does work well for the satallite viewers ( although it is restrictive in terms of having to pay through the nose for it ). The upshot is that UK broadcasters must be on another planet. In my view football should be accessible to the whole population by choice through a terrestrial channel, But It should be by choice and not enforced on those of us who really would rather watch paint dry.
the best football league in the world the english premiership has got to be shown by the best tv company in the world sky. Wathching the football on any other channel is out of the question, sky digital offers opens a whole new world with the option to change camera angles, watch just one of your favorite players, and with the superb commentry of andy graay and martian tyler its is the best way to watch football.
Why, why, why? Why are these tv companies hogging our football matches? Last season was a boom season for tv football fans, for those with On Digital (as it was known) AND Sky Sports we were in heaven. We had The Premiership, Division 1, Spanish Football, German Football, Italian Football, FA Cup, Worthington Cup, Uefa Cup and the Champions League all just a click away over a selection of channels. What the heck happened? ITV Digital happened that's what!! :( They robbed Sky viewers of the First Division, then announced that they were going to take away all our free Champions League coverage - the main reason many Digital boxes were purchased in the first place - and stick them onto their new sports channel along with another 40 Premiership Football matches and some cup games. So Sky Sports hit back and pushed more and more games onto their Sky Digital exclusive channels, we're now losing out on the top games from Spain and Germany, as well as International games (Confederations Cup anyone?), because people with On Digital can't get Sky Sports Extra, Sky Sports News and Sky Sports.com, and likewise those with Sky Digital cannot get the ITV Sports Channel and ITV Sports plus. The closest you can get it is to have the ITV Digital box which allows you to subscribe to Sky Sports 1,2 and 3 as well as the ITV Sports channels - both for different subscription fees of around £15 a month each. I thought that football was shown on tv because the tv companies could afford it while your average Joe couldn't? These two companies need to come to an agreement that will benefit the viewers not themselves, it's all very well having all these great football matches, but how about giving us a chance to see them. I along with many others I'm sure are disgusted at the fact that these companies are trying to sell us television at almost £30 a month for sport alone PLUS they want you to pay extra for their Pay Per V
iew games (sorry I mean Premiership Plus matches - pah!). Do they care? It would seem not, they only seem to want to get one over on the other. ITV Digital are constantly banging on about having more football than Sky, well what if Sky decided that they were no longer going to allow ITV Digital to broadcast their 3 sports channels? I do not have a subscription to the ITV Sports channels, so I know what I would do then. Until a compromise is reached we need to make a stand and let these companies know that we are not happy with them.
So, we head to the new season and all football fans are hungry for a portion of the sport that they love. We have a few challengers for the crown this year: Sky, ITV and BBC1 with the also rans Channel 4 and 5. Football hasnt had as much coverage as it does this season. Sky has 66 games of the Premiership with an extra 40 games on their Pay-Per-View service called Premiership Plus which is an extra option for football fans who havent had enough of Sky's action this year. On Sky, taking into account Eurosport which is also available on their system, we have coverage of the German Bundesliga, Spanish La Liga and the English and Scottish leagues, however Eurosport shows a Eurogoals programme which allows subscribers to see action from the French, Dutch, Portugese and Spanish leagues. Sky has a lot of action and I think they are probably gonna be the big winners this year as they have the lion's share of football on their channels. However, usually it is the BBC who is the biggest challenger to their crown, but the beeb is in decline as they lost Premiership highlights to ITV, and they will probably buy coverage to some British teams UEFA Cup games as they go further on in that competition, but at the moment they have no FA Cup action, as ITV has that as well, and the World Cup 2002 coverage is up in the air at the moment as BBC and ITV are being asked to pay a lot more for coverage as the German broacaster Kirch have the games and are now trying to get money back for their investment. ITV is going to be No2 to Sky this year in my opnion as they have a very good lineup of football this year, the jewel in the crown is Champions League football highlights and live games which is usually enjoyed by most football fans, they also have the massive bonus of having the Premiership highlights which were bought in the auction for rights last year and bought away from the BBC and also on the ITV digital platform which is a rival to Sky,
they have all Champions League games involving British clubs live, and coverage to most of the Nationwide league games next year. ITV is also trying to get the World Cup rights joined with the BBC, and with Sky not allowed the coverage, due to law in the UK allowing the "crown jewels" of sport to be shown on a terrestrial channel, that will get them another point up on Sky. We have the other broadcasters with football as well, Channel 4 have Scuttedo action in Football Italia which fills in the hunger for football fans on a Sunday, and also we have Channel 5 which gets random games from World Cup qualifers to European games involving British clubs. So, my opinion of Sky V Terrestrial - who is the winner is that Sky Television will be the winner, they have the best amount of coverage on this year for football fans, their presentation is second to none and it just seems like they just love their football. Also Eurosport adds to that with their coverage and the PPV action with Premiership Plus strengthens Sky's position as No1 in the Uk for football. Terrestrial is catching up with the strides ITV have made in recent years, but Sky is still the king of coverage for the football fan and allows them to indulge in their favourite sport again and again.
The amazing thing about the televising of sporting events is that there is a total monopoly and nobody seems to care! You may think I am mad, but it is true. You can only watch live premiership matches on sky. The issue isn't who produces the best coverage but the fact that there is no direct competition to see who produces the best coverage. If for instance sky decide to make every match pay per view, there is nothing anyone can do about it because there is nowhere else to watch the football. This is real travesty of football coverage, the companies that supply us with sports coverage are answereable to no one. Now, you may believe that sky has better coverage than bbc or itv or vice versa but the truth is that you are comparing match of the day to a live match, the technology and circumstances are very different. I think it is disgraceful that our national game which already is expensive to follow as a fan from the point of view of tickets and other memorabilia, that pays a fortune to players, is heading for further charges to the viewer as well. Let us not forget that we pay a monthly subscription to get the sports channels and on top of that we may be asked to pay for specific matches. As usual it is the consumer who pays the price for profit motives. I suggest that when the day comes, we should cancel our subscriptions en masse and break this insane monopoly over the broadcasting of the most popular game in the world.
I really hate it when companys take products or services and not only monopolise them but put them out of reach of people who don't have a lot of money. Sky TV have bundles of cash from all their ventures in america and have now not only come to this country and taken over tv but stolen (with large bundles of cash)our rights to watch sports and especially International games that involve our own country. I feel that those involved in the sale of our sporting events have taken away one of the great things about sport and that is that the viewing of it was available to all (and the clubs have also alienated viewers( As with all big companys ie mcdonalds,starbucks etc they move in wipe out the opposition (usually again with bundles of cash) and then proceed to charge the earth so people can enjoy the games. They seem to be able to charge what they like as there is no compotion(except itv2 who have skys left overs and c5 who have itv2s left overs). I got a leaflet through my door offering me the chance to have not only sky sports1 but 2and3 as well for about £30 a month how generous of them. Sorry SKY but it's a rip off and its about time that some sort of regulator is brought in to sort you out. Please oh please stop lining the pockets of these people if their takings go down so will the cost of watching. Lets just hope ITV can put up a fight.
my title was going to be Sky's the limit but someonme else took it. so... Is it fair that Sky can get more premiership matches, more internationals than BBC and ITV?. I personally think it is. It isnt as good for the consumer who does not have satellite or cable but that's life. The Sky sports service is extremely good. There are much more cameras at many more angles- the replays are good and the overall look is much better. With digital you have such choices as player cam - where a camera follows a specific player for 15 minutes, you can have commentary from fans of the teams playing as well as a choice of different cameras and stats options. The commentators and "experts" on sky are much better and are especially less bias. I think what makes sky better as they have 3 channels (or more with digital) dedicated to sport and so have more space and time to give attention to sporting events where as the terrestrial channels have other programs which sports get in the way of. 2 examples that really annoyed me about this was that a game was delayed for half an hour so that a soap could be shown- this is just pathetic. another is on the lsat day of the italian football season, there was a pitch invasion with 10 minutes to go, which delayed the full time - channel 4 cut off when before the end - so football fans didnt see the end because of channel4's schedule- on satellite any later programs would probably been delayed. Sky sport is miles ahead terrestrial TV when it comes to most sports - especially football -they put more money into the sport and give much better and dedicated coverage
I have had sky now for over two years, and when i see how much sports coverage, movie channels and entertainment channels there are, its a wonder that terestrial tv is still running. The sports coverage is in a league of it own, and bskyb's merge with Man united seems to have done the job. There are no limits to what sports you can choose to watch, from basketball to wrestling, to caterham seven motor racing to ice racing. The selection really is immense. Along with the selection, there is absolutely fantastic coverage, with superb camera angles and close-ups. There is also the choice of interactive, where you can choose the camera you want to use, and what player you want to close up on. Also, the entertainment factor on sky is brilliant. Sky 1, E4, and paramount all provide, what i feel is a top notch viewing spectacle. All the programmes are in a class of their own, such as the simpsons, ally mcbeal and Trigger happy tv. Sky TV is the only form of tv i could ever live with, and terrestrial is pants in relation to this.
I do have sky at home but obviously not in my university accomodation and it's when you go without it for a little while that you realise what you miss without it. The most obvious are the football internationals - surely everybody has as much right as the next person to support their country at this level, even if this only means watching it on tv. Why should those people with the money have an advantage over those without. Football appeals to all - not just the rich. And yet I have to say that I am guilty of great dissapointment when finding out that the last England international was to be shown on 5. The bottom line is that the coverage of Sky is better than that of 'normal' tv. Although this is only because they have a much larger budget to spend it doesn't change the fact that society now is willing to pay (if they can) if they feel that they are going to get a better product. People don't seem to expect to be able to see the national side play without paying extra - they don't this as an infringement of their rights. Sport generally is covered better on sky and it is going to continue in that way. The BBC and ITV just can not afford to compete with Sky - however much they might like to. Sky is open to new opportunites in sport as well - their recent coverage of speedway shows that they are always on the lookout for more sport to show. The football on ITV is good - there is nothing that I like more than to sit infront of the tv on a Wednesday night with a drink in one hand a pizza in the other and watch the footy. But there is just not enough of it. It blatently is not a priority either. On Sky big games get an hours build up (this can get boring at times but at least shows their commitment to the cause!) whereas on ITV you get 10 minutes by the times you've taken out the adverts. I like Sky coverage but I don't agree with it. I think sports like football, which interest so many n
ormal, everyday people should be available to normal, everyday people at no extra cost. Even if this means a slight drop in the flashines of the presentation. The commentators are equally good or bad (depending on how you see it) on all the channels and once the game has started you can't tell one coverage from another. For the more obscure sports fair enough putting them on sky - then those people who want to see them can but to expect people to pay to watch their national team qualify for the world cup just isn't on.
Well, being a lucky person who owns a digibox, my opinion will obviously be slightly biased. Despite this, I still know a good thing when I see one. Sky revolutionised football. It turned a failing sport into a multi-million pound business. It practically saved football, and made it the great interesting sport that it is today. Some may argue that the elitist 'only on sky' matches are a bad thing, and for people who cant afford sky it is very bad. But for those lucky ones that can afford it, you get unrivaled sports coverage by the best in the business. The only set back with sky football coverage is the comercial breaks at half time, that you would expect not to be there. The commentary is great, read by the best of the business which makes the matches great to listen to as well as watch. The picture quality is superb making SKY the best thing to happen to football since, well.... ever!
I think Satellite coverage is excellent for sport, there’s so much and so much variety. However, terrestrial coverage can’t be beaten for soaps/drama but the sport is pretty poor. With Satellite, you have countless channels with sport, and you have plus football, cricket, golf, American football, tennis, rugby, and lots more. You even have channel dedicated to Football news/headlines. No, such luck I am afraid when it comes to terrestrial. They do show some rugby once a year with the Six nations, but only then when Sky have chosen the best ones. They have eight or nine FA cup games a season, and some European football as well. But, for your sports fan it’s nearly not enough. They have lost the best things to Sky, although Wimbledon is still a terrestrial even. However, I was reading in a newspaper the other day that we may be made to pay for the games in the World Cup, which normally comes on free on terrestrial TV. Although, terrestrial TV has got quite a lot of sport, it did have a lot more, some has shifted from the BBC to ITV like Formula 1 and the same with Cricket from BBC 2 to Channel 4. But, the best sports on the satellite, but of course you do have to pay £27 for the sports package, which is quite a lot a month. And over a year works out as £324 which is nearly treble the TV license, so in a way you expect Sky to be better in terms of more sport because you have to pay more. However, when the football season has finished then Sky can be very poor and we normally watch much more Terrestrial TV, with athletics and the summer sports. Sky without football is I am afraid rubbish, without sounding to harsh. If we are talking on a more general level then I would say that apart from Sport which Sky clearly wins, for drama/soaps, Terrestrial TV is much better. Sky one is ok and you can watch the new episodes of X-files and Friends, but that’s only two good programmes. Terrestrial Tv has m
uch better soaps, you may have to wait for the new series of Friends and X-files but soaps like Eastenders and Brookside can’t be beaten. However, for music Satellite is much better, over eight channels, compared to one half hour Top of the Pops which is going down the pan. With Sky you get variety, a good mix of music. So Satellite is much better in terms of music. Variety wise Satellite comes on tops, you get hundreds of channels, with some excellent ones. I love Discover channels and the documentaries, not to mention Geographical, History channels which are very educational and informative. Not to mention the tonnes of cartoon channels, but there’s no Teletubbies which my daughter loves but Tom and Jerry is always on………. I think Satellite is better, but I would say Terrestrial isn’t good. Obviously with Satellite you have choices but quantity doesn’t always mean quality, and some of the programmes on Terrestrial TV are very good. Verdict: a bit of both- Satellite and Terrestrial. (can’t believe how much was pay for Sky though).
The introduction of Sky television in the mid to late 80's meant that sport on television would be changed for good. Not just in a negativeway but also in a positive way. The Sky and Cable television opened up new sports chanels. It started with Sky sports and this eventually developed in to Sky sports one, two and three, Eurosport, Screen sport ( which dissappeared after a while) and Sky sports.com. These new sports channels have meant that a larger variety of sports can be watched on television. Sports that terrestrial television does not show are now covered by these sports channels. This includes, diving, badminton, judo, weighlifting, tennis etc. There is only so much sport the five channels can show between them. They tend to usually show more football than anything else and cricket comes second. The main disadvantage with these sports channels is that those people who might only want to watch certain sports which only go on for maybe a few months in the year, for example cricket and Englands tour away, well either they have to subscribe to these channels to watch only those certain matches, or they can't subscribe, they miss out.
Sky sports of late are breaking the barrieers when it comes to sports entertainment. Without a doubt it a hell of a lot better than terrestrial television, but only because they can afford to buy the rights to every sport going. I would love too see the day when the FA cup final is broadcasted on BBC1, a pipe dream indeed.But take the recent Old firm derby in Scotland. Sky were charging another £8 to watch this match. This is taken the p*** slightly. I already pay £32 a month on my shy package and they then have the cheek to ask for another £8. Tha same idea applies with the Boxing matches. Surely Sky could offer some deal to existing customers to show all football or all snooker for that particular home user, and mayve they lose out on the boxing or the cricket. Tailor made home packages for each individual home user. Surely that is the way to go.
It is common knowledge to anyone that's even remotely interested in football that if you want regular live games on TV, you have to get Sky. Unfortunately, if you do get it, you have to put up with the worst coverage of the three major football broadcasters (and it must be embarrassing for Sky when ITV is one of those broadcasters). The first thing that will annoy you about Sky Sports is the build-up to a game. If you're watching an English Premier League match or England international expect the coverage to start at least an hour before kick-off. This wouldn't be so bad if the time was filled with intelligent (a word that Sky in general doesn't seem to know the meaning of) football conversation but it isn't. Instead you get a couple of thick ex-footballers playing with some gadget that supposedly revolutionises football punditry but in reality adds nothing to it. That and five minute long (I'm not exaggerating) advert breaks which turn an hour of football chat into thirty-five minutes of football chat. Oh, and what about Mr. Hairyhands himself, Richard Keys? Like the aforementioned Mr. Shearer, Keys has had a total charisma bypass. What is worse is that Sky insist on choosing him to present every single major game they show. It's beyond belief: the man looks like a rabbit in the headlights. They also choose Martin Tyler and Andy Gray to do the commentary on every major game, never letting anyone else have a go. While Tyler is of the Clive Tyldsley school of football commentary (in other words wholly average and unremarkable), Gray is excitable to the point where he gets worked up about a particularly good throw-in and proclaims every half-decent goal (like Stan Collymore's overhead kick for Bradford) to be the best one he's ever seen. Hip-hop group Public Enemy once said 'don't believe the hype' and this is appropriate when talking about Sky's lauded interactive football coverage. Being
able to choose the camera angle you watch, view highlights and stats and even hear alternative commentary sounds great, and it is - for about three seconds. It's nothing more than a gimmick and adds nothing to watching football. As well as the big things that make Sky's football coverage the worst on television, there are so many small things that they get wrong. For example, whenever the animated on-screen graphics move, they make these little mechanical noises which I presume Sky add to lend the coverage an air of quality and class. This would work on, say, the BBC where they have got the basics right but on Sky it just makes it look like they care more about those little touches than the things that really matter. Also, the trailers for some Premier League games are laughable. In Sky's desperate attempt to have a big game every week, they end up billing a boring mid-table clash like Middlesborough vs. Spurs as if it alone is going to decide who wins the league. Still, all of this pales in comparison to Sky's ultimate insult to football fans: pay per view. At the time of writing they are trialing it for the Scottish games but there are plans to introduce it for the English Premier League games. It is disgusting that Sky expect people to pay £28 a month (the price of the cheapest subscription which includes all of the sports channels) plus £8 per game and still watch their adverts. Does Rupert Murdoch think fans will any amount of money he asks to watch football? I hope that they have more sense and decide to listen to it on the radio instead.