In the context of this thread people might be interested to know that in 2002 in Spain only Spain matches and I believe selected others were actually available on TVE. IN the group stages the only other game other than for La Seleccion shown was England-Argentina, for instance.
The remainder were only available on Canal+
Whilst BBC and ITV have sorted out the next World Cup I could foresee a scenario either for the World Cup or European Championship whereby a smiliar situation as to that in Spain in 2002 played out. England matches and maybe one or two others available FTA, the remainder on Sky or BT or some such.
I hope not but factors such as greed and a desire to continue to milk football fans' pockets might conspire to make such a situation a reality here in the UK.
Surely not. What would the government get out of it? What would any government get out of it including Spain? Who are you anticipating greed from?
Again, does it really, really matter? Sky show plenty of non-live football content throughout the week.
Of course it doesn't matter, you think it makes any difference to me? But it still begs the question of why F1 was chosen as a channel but not football. It sounds like you don't need a football channel. So why on earth would you need an F1 channel?
Of course it doesn't matter, you think it makes any difference to me? But it still begs the question of why F1 was chosen as a channel but not football. It sounds like you don't need a football channel. So why on earth would you need an F1 channel?
That scenario is very plausible for the UK. Possibly Sky or BT would acquire t rights for 2022 with a FTA partner?
Its clear that the list of protected events will become less enforceable with time. It works at present with everybody's acceptance, but if one of the significant broadcasters opted not to ply, then the legal framework may prove to be very fickle.
And why would you suggest the Government would ever move on this?
Sky Soorts 1 is home of Football
Sky Sports 2 is home of Cricket
Sky Sports 3 is home iof Tennis
Sky Sports 4 is home of Golf
Sky Aports 5 is home of European Football
And are advertised as auch so you could say Skys Main Sports they show do all have there own channels, but not by name
Few reasons
1) There's only ever one session of F1 happening at a particular time. Football has multiple games running the same time that need to be spread across multiple channels, so what use is a Sky Sports Football channel.
2) OFCOM ruling about Sky having to supply SS1 and SS2 to other TV suppliers. While Sky have played that rule a bit by shunting some of their more high profile games onto SS3 or SS4, I doubt OFCOM would be very happy if Sky took all their football off SS1 and SS2 and stuck it all on a SS Football channel.
3) Initially at least SS F1 was provided free to users who had HD subscription. This was part of an appeasement strategy to take some of the sting off some of the outcry that happened when the deal was announced. It's true that things have since changed but by then, the channel was bedded in.
4) I guess that as part of the deal with Bernie Sky committed to showing classic Grand Prix and other supplementary content.
It's true that there's a lot of downtime on the channel - but shoving that content onto the main channels may not be that desirable either.
Sky Soorts 1 is home of Football
Sky Sports 2 is home of Cricket
Sky Sports 3 is home iof Tennis
Sky Sports 4 is home of Golf
Sky Aports 5 is home of European Football
And are advertised as auch so you could say Skys Main Sports they show do all have there own channels, but not by name
Good point, I do now see that Sky Sports 1 is pretty much all football.
And are you sure Sky Sports 3 isn't the home of WWE and only Live Tennis? I just checked out the schedule.
Good point, I do now see that Sky Sports 1 is pretty much all football.
And are you sure Sky Sports 3 isn't the home of WWE and only Live Tennis? I just checked out the schedule.
Sky show other sports other than the ones listed, a channel can show other stuff too. I would guess Sky value wrestling more than tennis, especially given WWE isnt actually a sport.
Few reasons
1) There's only ever one session of F1 happening at a particular time. Football has multiple games running the same time that need to be spread across multiple channels
I never understand when you guys say this. Haven't you got an interactive multicasting system on the one channel stream?
I doubt OFCOM would be very happy if Sky took all their football off SS1 and SS2 and stuck it all on a SS Football channel.
Although in keeping with their bizzare branding, they would call their channel "Sky Soccer"
3) Initially at least SS F1 was provided free to users who had HD subscription. This was part of an appeasement strategy to take some of the sting off some of the outcry that happened when the deal was announced. It's true that things have since changed but by then, the channel was bedded in.
Financial due to the costs of getting enough HD streams, and satellite space for the streams, sorted to cover the current amount of interactive streams currently available in SD, or kinda-ish SD if you squint due to current quality.
Yes. However Sky want eyeballs on football, and shoving them behind an interactive stream doesnt produce that as much as giving dedicated channel space to them.
Yes. However Sky want eyeballs on football, and shoving them behind an interactive stream doesnt produce that as much as giving dedicated channel space to them.
Yeah, that would make sense, but when do games ever actually clash? A rare clash on Sundays or something?
What do you mean by "getting enough HD streams?" Why would it change?
The interactive streams are basically hidden channels broadcasting on satellite, there are at least 10 of those currently I think to cover all interactive events. So to cover them properly, they'd need to launch enough HD space, like how the Olympics in 2012 were covered by 24 HD and SD interactive streams.
Few reasons
1) There's only ever one session of F1 happening at a particular time. Football has multiple games running the same time that need to be spread across multiple channels, so what use is a Sky Sports Football channel.
And also as well, all the F1 that ever happens is on Sky Sports F1 because they have the rights to all of it. Sky don't have rights to all the football so it would look stupid to have Sky Sports Football showing repeats while another broadcaster shows an FA Cup game, while live darts or rugby has to squat on the red button or something because it can't go on a football channel.
Yeah, that would make sense, but when do games ever actually clash? A rare clash on Sundays or something?
Loads of times, including tonight. Arsenal on SS1, Liverpool on SS5. It also happens regularly at the weekend when Sky are showing both English and Scottish matches. And I don't want to fiddle around with a red button, I just want to switch on the telly and it's there.
The interactive streams are basically hidden channels broadcasting on satellite, there are at least 10 of those currently I think to cover all interactive events. So to cover them properly, they'd need to launch enough HD space, like how the Olympics in 2012 were covered by 24 HD and SD interactive streams.
Comments
Of course it doesn't matter, you think it makes any difference to me? But it still begs the question of why F1 was chosen as a channel but not football. It sounds like you don't need a football channel. So why on earth would you need an F1 channel?
At a guess, it's called marketing.
And why would you suggest the Government would ever move on this?
Sky Sports 2 is home of Cricket
Sky Sports 3 is home iof Tennis
Sky Sports 4 is home of Golf
Sky Aports 5 is home of European Football
And are advertised as auch so you could say Skys Main Sports they show do all have there own channels, but not by name
Few reasons
1) There's only ever one session of F1 happening at a particular time. Football has multiple games running the same time that need to be spread across multiple channels, so what use is a Sky Sports Football channel.
2) OFCOM ruling about Sky having to supply SS1 and SS2 to other TV suppliers. While Sky have played that rule a bit by shunting some of their more high profile games onto SS3 or SS4, I doubt OFCOM would be very happy if Sky took all their football off SS1 and SS2 and stuck it all on a SS Football channel.
3) Initially at least SS F1 was provided free to users who had HD subscription. This was part of an appeasement strategy to take some of the sting off some of the outcry that happened when the deal was announced. It's true that things have since changed but by then, the channel was bedded in.
4) I guess that as part of the deal with Bernie Sky committed to showing classic Grand Prix and other supplementary content.
It's true that there's a lot of downtime on the channel - but shoving that content onto the main channels may not be that desirable either.
Good point, I do now see that Sky Sports 1 is pretty much all football.
And are you sure Sky Sports 3 isn't the home of WWE and only Live Tennis? I just checked out the schedule.
Sky show other sports other than the ones listed, a channel can show other stuff too. I would guess Sky value wrestling more than tennis, especially given WWE isnt actually a sport.
I never understand when you guys say this. Haven't you got an interactive multicasting system on the one channel stream? Although in keeping with their bizzare branding, they would call their channel "Sky Soccer"
Outcry? Over what?
You would guess that they DO value wrestling more?
But then matches wont be in HD on the "interactive multicasting system".
So that's currently a technical restriction?
Financial due to the costs of getting enough HD streams, and satellite space for the streams, sorted to cover the current amount of interactive streams currently available in SD, or kinda-ish SD if you squint due to current quality.
Yes. However Sky want eyeballs on football, and shoving them behind an interactive stream doesnt produce that as much as giving dedicated channel space to them.
Havent looked, although I saw a promo for some PPV wrestling crap at the weekend so I suppose its linked into that.
Yeah, that would make sense, but when do games ever actually clash? A rare clash on Sundays or something?
The interactive streams are basically hidden channels broadcasting on satellite, there are at least 10 of those currently I think to cover all interactive events. So to cover them properly, they'd need to launch enough HD space, like how the Olympics in 2012 were covered by 24 HD and SD interactive streams.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2012/olympic-streams.html
Scottish PL games routinely clash with EPL and Championship games.
And also as well, all the F1 that ever happens is on Sky Sports F1 because they have the rights to all of it. Sky don't have rights to all the football so it would look stupid to have Sky Sports Football showing repeats while another broadcaster shows an FA Cup game, while live darts or rugby has to squat on the red button or something because it can't go on a football channel.
Loads of times, including tonight. Arsenal on SS1, Liverpool on SS5. It also happens regularly at the weekend when Sky are showing both English and Scottish matches. And I don't want to fiddle around with a red button, I just want to switch on the telly and it's there.
So it's not a technical restriction, it is possible to achieve? Just a cost restriction like you said earlier.