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
Nigel, I think you should try and understand a little of how a business works before suggesting others 'get real'.
Why would Sky sell views of matches 'cheaply'? They should sell them at an economic price. That is the way a free market works. The only reason Sky get away with their appalling monopolistic practices is that they have no real competition.
And you have not answered the question: "Why can others sell people exactly what they want but Sky have to force people to buy what they don't in order to get what they do.
All you've managed is a piece of circular logic followed by a facile: 'get real'.
It's the ONLY viable system - used by every subscription broadcaster world wide
It's the only system because no one has used another yet.
Impeccable logic ( Not!
So all TV should consist of reality shows, quiz shows and cooking shows - sounds a pretty boring future.
Straw many argument.
None of the PSB channels show exclusively what you mention. Neither do most of the subscription ones.
You'll need to do better than making up nonsensical scenarios if you want to prosecute your argument properly.
So you expect PSB's to subsidise channels that don't perform well enough to exist.
No, Nigel, that is the point
of a public service broadcaster. The government set goals and targets for what they are expected to provide and finance it separately from the normal commercial channels. (Or, in some cases, add a public service element to commercial channels.)
Again, you really need to learn the whys and wherefores of public service broadcasting before making frankly rather hysterical arguments based on a clearly incomplete understanding.