Isn't it the case though that all programmes have improved and that is just the natural evolution of things?
I'm not sure Sky can really take credit for everything.
Absoluetly Bro.
In F1 there was virtually no coverage at all until James Hunts rain soaked win at Fuji in 1976. Most races weren't covered live until the mid 80's and even then the production team for "fly away" races would remain in London and comentate on the races as if they were there. The improvment in F1 coverage has been the same natural progression as all other sports.
As has been posted above, there is a popular myth that football didn't exist 1992 BS (that's Before Sky). Football had a horendous time in the mid 80's with disasters such as the Bradford city fire and Hillsborough. Crowd trouble, the ban on English clubs from european competition in the wake of the Heisel stadium riots and the fact that country was slipping further into a deep recesion meant that ordinary families didn't go to the games. Sky arrived as football was begining to recover it's audience and takes credit for it but it was happening anyway.
PPV is about making money for the organisations that run the sport and the companies that show the games on TV. The reason the ECB want cricket to remain on Sky is because of the money it makes for the ECB. There is this persistant myth that the money cascades down but that is simply BS of the highest order. My Brother in law plays for a very high standard village cricket team and the mention of "ECB" support would just make him laugh.
Look at what the adition of money has done to Rugby. Cheeting scandels, Drug taking and high profile court cases have blighted a sport that was once known for it's respect on and off the field. Let's not forget that England were nearly thrown out of the 6 nations for trying to arrange a private deal with Sky to show England 6 nations games exclusively. Since England won the rugby world cup and live premiership games and the large majority of internationals switched to Sky attendances have fallen while the cost of competeing has risen. Since then, Richmond, London Scottish, and Orrell have gone bankrupt. Bristol have been to the brink of going out of buisness twice but have been saved by the skin of their teeth each time. Only this month Birmingham and Sollihull went in to receivership and this week Coventry have gone into liquidation.
As for the point that FB makes about skys coverage. Channel 4 won several awards and a Bafta for their cricket coverage in the immediate seasons prior to the game going to sky. Of course each terrestrial channel has to cater for all audiances and having a dedicated sporst channel means that it's easier to schedule live events that may over run. I think it shows the level of popularity of F1 at the moment that the BBC would prefer to delay their flagship saturday night light entertainment programme than cut the F1 coverage.
Remember of course that the BBC with Grandstand and ITV with world of sport did once provide all day sport coverage on a weekend. Obviously World of sport died some time back but the BBC had to give up on Grandstand due to the lack of sports they were able to show. There is now no outlet on non-pay TV for a host of Olympic sports that many brits excel at which only harms their development.
And my final point, in all sports that have gone pay per view has the cost of seeing those sports and running those sports gone up or down? Money breeds money unfortunatly. I remember when Andy Cole went from Newcastle to Man Utd for a record 7 Million pounds. That was smashed by Alan Shearer going from Blackburn to Newcastle for 15 Million pounds. Today several players have changed hands for the 30 million pound mark and Ronaldo left Man Utd for over 40 million pounds. All this money has to come from us in one way or another.
'd if I'm giving them any more of my money. That and I don't have satellite.
