Do you have any evidence or even some vaguely cogent argument as to why that should be the case?
You expect a broadcaster (such as Sky) to pay X millions of pounds for the rights to show sport - then hope to reclaim a small fraction of the costs back by selling 'tickets' cheaply to each match? - get real
Just like your individual channel idea it would soon be reduced to only a tiny of matches getting shown, as they are the only ones that could show a profit.
If I want to go and see one football match I can buy a ticket. If I want to see all of one clubs matches I can buy a season ticket. If I want to buy a bottle of milk, Tesco do not insist I buy a bundle of foods I do not want or need - they just sell me a pint of milk. It seems that it's only Sky and others of their ilk that cannot sell people what they want without forcing them to buy things they don't.
It's the ONLY
viable system - used by every subscription broadcaster world wide, and by all PSB's as well - why do you think we don't still have just BBC1 and ITV1, it's because those channels generally subsidise the rest.
Thank you for supporting my point. The fact that (you believe that), without Sky's monopolistic pricing and bundling scheme, many channels would not survive as they are not providing enough of what people want to get the revenue to keep going very clearly demonstrates why the current system is flawed.
So all TV should consist of reality shows, quiz shows and cooking shows - sounds a pretty boring future
That's as may be but I wasn't suggesting that public service broadcaster channels should join commercial ones. Merely that if you want to pay for some channels it should be for you to decide which ones you want and not Rupert Murdoch.
So you expect PSB's to subsidise channels that don't perform well enough to exist, but expect all the other channels that YOU
don't watch to simply close?.