Premier League contests Ofcom decision over Sky Sports

[Thespence]

No surprise really.

 

The Premier League is to mount a challenge to the decision by regulator Ofcom to make Sky sell sports channels to its competitors at a discount.

 

Ofcom told Sky it must cut the price it charges rival cable, terrestrial and internet broadcasters to show its premium sports channels.

 

The broadcaster will have to sell Sky Sports 1 and 2 for up to 23% less than the current wholesale price.

 

Premier League boss Richard Scudamore said the league had "no other option".

 

Ofcom said in a statement that it was "in consumers' interests for our pay TV decisions to come into effect as soon as possible to deliver the benefits of wider choice and innovation. We are happy to defend our decision wherever necessary."

 

'Serious consequences'

 

Ofcom's inquiry began in 2007 after BT, Virgin, Top Up TV and the now-defunct Setanta, expressed concerns about Sky's dominance of the pay-TV industry. It has an estimated 85% of the market.

 

The Ofcom decision was aimed at offering viewers more choice of pay-TV services.

 

But Mr Scudamore said the move had "consequences for UK sport and UK sports fans" that were "too serious and fundamental for us to ignore".

 

He added: "By forcing Sky to sell its sports channels to its competitors at a discount, Ofcom will reduce the incentives of all broadcasters, Sky included, to invest in the acquisition of sports rights.

 

"This can only have a negative impact on the ability of sport to attract a fair return on its content in an open market, which is necessary to ensure appropriate investment in maintaining the highest quality of that content."

 

'Unwarranted intervention'

 

He said the Ofcom decision helped subsidise companies that had shown little appetite for investing in content.

 

At the same time he said it would damage the investment models that had "helped sport become a successful part of the UK economy and made sport so attractive to UK consumers".

 

Sky has already said it would appeal against the "unwarranted intervention", arguing it would be to the detriment of consumers.

 

Sky will have to sell Sky Sports 1 and 2 for £10.63 a month each - 23.4% less than at present. If the two channels are sold together, Ofcom has set a price of £17.14 - a discount of 10.5% on current wholesale charges.

 

Bodies representing rugby and cricket, as well as football, which rely on lucrative TV rights deals - have expressed misgivings over the Ofcom decision.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8623114.stm

[jdckelly]

coarse they are and rightfully so why should sky sell their product which they invest very heavily in cheap to rivals who dont invest a penny in sports

[Guest ObiChrisKenobi]

Thats how I feel as well. Its all their infrastructure in place, its their cameras, their crew, their coverage they sell on. OK, arguably it should be regulated since potentially SKY could charge whatever, but its SKY who have invested their money to make it possible.

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

Its not Sky's fault everyone else is Shit. Isn't this just Sky being pro-active in the past. I know its kind of monopolistic but also just good business. Just because every other channel fell by the way-side (anyone remember On:Digital/ITVDigital ..... god that was sh*t) so Sky was literally the only provider that could offer them doesnt mean they have to be hit with loss of earnings.

[Guest neesy111]

Its not Sky's fault everyone else is Shit. Isn't this just Sky being pro-active in the past. I know its kind of monopolistic but also just good business. Just because every other channel fell by the way-side (anyone remember On:Digital/ITVDigital ..... god that was sh*t) so Sky was literally the only provider that could offer them doesnt mean they have to be hit with loss of earnings.

 

sky have a monopoly on the pay tv market, which is restricting competition simple as! the price to get sky with the sports is a total rip off especially for pubs! £2000 a month it costs a pub to get sky in, hence why many get in the foreign equipment

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

Its not Sky's fault everyone else is s***. Isn't this just Sky being pro-active in the past. I know its kind of monopolistic but also just good business. Just because every other channel fell by the way-side (anyone remember On:Digital/ITVDigital ..... god that was sh*t) so Sky was literally the only provider that could offer them doesnt mean they have to be hit with loss of earnings.

 

sky have a monopoly on the pay tv market, which is restricting competition simple as! the price to get sky with the sports is a total rip off especially for pubs! £2000 a month it costs a pub to get sky in, hence why many get in the foreign equipment

 

Only because they were the only provider around that could offer it... they practically invented pay tv anyway. They went out and got the business, they set up the infrastructure etc as mentioned above. Who else could have competed even 3 years ago never mind 10?

I agree, its far too expensive, they are extremely well marketed and offer little more in quality or cutting edge technology than anyone else, but I still maintain you cant MAKE them give it away cheaper.

For ny on 20 years they have been the only provider that could have carried the PL and other pay tv football, if it wasnt for them the PL wouldnt recevie so much money, there wouldnt be as many games on TV, etc etc. So they should now go and shoot themselves in the foot?

It should have been rgulated years ago!!! its the F**king PL's fault.... lazy money grabbing bas**rds

[wyn davies]

Bearing in mind BT have to sell their kit on to other providers on the cheap such as SKY!, TALK TALK,CPW, TESCO,GPO etc etc then why are SKY complaining, they want everything their way.

[Thespence]

Very valid point Wyn Davies. Seems weird saying that

[tmonkey]

Monopolies are good. Competition seems to do nothing but flood the market with shit companies offering crappier services for slightly cheaper. Competition opens the floodgates for people like Mike Ashley to make big bucks from shit products and services.

 

I hope Microsoft continue to crush all it's competitors.

[Willow]

Monopolies are good. Competition seems to do nothing but flood the market with shit companies offering crappier services for slightly cheaper. Competition opens the floodgates for people like Mike Ashley to make big bucks from shit products and services.

 

I hope Microsoft continue to crush all it's competitors.