Royal Rumble 2002 On Sky Box Office For £14- My Thoughts (WWF Pay Per Views)

Member Name: GLT1

Product:	WWF Pay Per Views
Date:	09/01/02 (627 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Enables Fans To See An Event They Wouldn't Have Been Able To Otherwise

Disadvantages: Expensive Price, Could Lead To All Similar Events Being Made Pay-Per-View

For anyone that has read my previous wrestling-related opinion, you will know that I've been a long-time follower of the World Wrestling Federation and it's events.

Now, for those of you that have read that opinion and those that haven't (or those of you whom perhaps familiar with the WWF) I will quickly explain something about the WWF's 'Extravaganza's' or 'Pay-Per-Views' as they are known to our American friends.

Up until the middle of the 1990's, the WWF used to run five 'big' events, which were given big build-ups throughout their weekly shows that would lead up to them. These events were: The Royal Rumble (in January), Wrestlemania (in March or April), The King of The Ring (In June, though this event was only added to the calendar in 1993), Summerslam (In August) and the Survivor Series (in November).

In the United States, fans would have to order these events on 'Pay-Per-View' television, meaning that they had to pay a set one-off price for each of these events, each year.

Here in the United Kingdom the broadcast of these events was usually live on Sky (though in the beginning some were delayed) and until the arrival of the Sky Sports channels, they were shown on Sky Movies, which was a premium channel that cost the viewer extra, and which as the name suggests, usually showed films.

When Sky Sports launched, these events switched to being shown on there, along with some of the weekly WWF programming (which had previously always aired on Sky One).

Like Sky Movies, the Sky Sports channels are a premium channel that the viewer has to pay extra for on top of a basic subscription, so although we weren't having to pay to view just the one event like our fellow wrestling fans in the USA, we were still having to subscribe to an extra service that costs about £15 extra a month if we want to see the major events, plus, if you want to see the live and unedi
ted showing, you will have to switch on at 1am in the early hours of Monday morning, which can be an inconvenience if you have to get up the following morning for school/college/work, and so many people choose to record it.

Now, as the mid-ninties approached, with the WWF caught in a bitter US ratings war with it's rival WCW, more of these 'Pay-Per-View' events were announced, with titles that have sometimes changed (so I won't name them all), and with the exception of March/April, there is now a pay-per-view each month (Wrestlemania is normally in late March, early April, and so from early February until that time there are no other 'Pay-Per-View' events, and the next one after it is in May- this is to allow the full build-up and aftermath of what is the WWF's biggest event to be conveyed fully in the Federation's weekly television broadcasts).

With Sky purchasing the rights to more of these events, and the WWF's weekly 'Smackdown' show, after a year of showing these now almost-monthly events, it decided to give up the rights to some of the 'Pay-Per-Views' it had shown and these were promptly snapped up by Channel 4 (one of which was the Royal Rumble, the first of the years big WWF events, and the one featuring a unique match where 30 competitors who enter the ring at regular intervals, must eliminate each other by throwing their opposition over the top rope. The last man standing is the winner).

This was great news for the wrestling fan, who could now catch some of the premier WWF events on terrestrial television albeit on a time delay at 1.50 am, with some cuts being made, and with regular advertisement brakes. Still, it's on a non-pay channel, so I thought that it's a good deal.

With eleven of these events now, I must admit that I have often wondered how those American WWF fans feel at having to pay out eleven times a year to watch these events, and now it seems I, an
d other UK WWF fans could be about to find out.

'Pay-Per-View' television has gradually been creeping in to UK television more and more since about 1996/1997 when Britain had it' first 'pay-per-view' boxing event. These events now take place three or four times a year and cost between £12.99 and £14.99.


It has also crept into football, with Sky offering Premiership-Plus (extra Premiership football matches at a cost of £8 per match, or £50 if you order the whole set of 40 before the season started).

However, in these two instances it can be seen as a good thing. In the case of the boxing, UK audiences would not otherwise be able to see it, due to the massive fees charged by promoters and overseas television to allow Sky to show the fights. 'Pay-per-View' is actually the only option that would make it possible for Sky to bring us these fights.

In the case of the extra Premiership football matches, I also have no argument. Sky still show the same amount of Premiership content on their Sky Sports channels that they always have (statistically speaking they actually show more this season) and so you are being offered the chance to by something that was not available previously. The fee that Sky paid for these rights also needed to be recouped and the 'Pay-Per-View' scheme works well for them in this respect, as well as providing what I think is good value for the viewer if you take the £50 option.

'Pay-Per-View' has also made it's presence felt in the WWF programming of recent years, with live coverage of their two major UK events 'Rebellion' and 'Insurrextion' (regular fixtures in the WWF calendar in the last two to three years) being charged at £14.99 a time, although at least, unlike their other major events, we don't have to sit up until the early hours to see these events.

However, that could all be about to change. Channel 4 have said they f
ind the content of the WWF too violent and have given up the rights they have to the four WWF 'Pay-Per-Views'.

This left the UK with no coverage for this month’s Royal Rumble event (among three others later in the year) on January 20th.

Rumours surfaced that Channel 5 would purchase rights, but yesterday Sky announced that 'due to public demand' they have stepped in and bought up the rights to the 'Royal Rumble' and that it will be on Sky Box Office, their pay-per-view channel at a cost of £14, and will air at 1am with repeat showings throughout the week.

Now this can be both a good thing and a bad thing. I personally think that it's great that someone has stepped in and provided UK viewers with a chance to watch this great event (shaping up to be one of the best for a long time). I don't even mind about the 'pay-per-view' price, as with the football matches, it is something which would not otherwise have been available, and Sky have had to go out of their way to get it (probably at a high price, particularly, as some have suggested if it has had to enter a 'bidding war' with Channel 5 which would have pushed the price up).

However, what Sky have refused to confirm, is whether the other seven big events which it usually shows on it's Sky Sports channels (and the three released by Channel 4, though at the moment no UK broadcaster holds these rights) will be pay-only events at £14 a time.

If so, that will be at least £112 a year (possibly more if Sky choose to show the other three events that were previously owned by Channel 4), and it would involve paying for events that are normally broadcast on the Sky Sports network of channels.

Another problem is that those who like to tape the event and watch it the following day (due to the time it's shown) are going to be unable to do so, as Sky encrypt their pay-per-view events for copyright reasons. So these pe
ople may be forced to either pay for a repeat showing, or wait until the official video is released.

Only time will tell of course whether this is the case, and Sky could of course choose to show their usual events on the Sky Sports channels like they normally do.

However, if they opt to make them all pay-per-view they could turn a lot of viewers away, with the pricing of the events.

Sky and the WWF will have to be very careful how they deal with this, if they're not careful they could cause a dramatic dip in the popularity of sports-entertainment in the UK, and that would be bad news for both parties.

Summary: