FIFA and UEFA appeal against UK showing tournaments on free-to-air TV

[The Large One]

The game was diseased. Dangerous decrepit grounds, herded around like animals. Bradford, Hysel and Hillsborough in the space of 4 years. That wasn't a class issue, that was an issue with whether football could carry on as it was. 200 dead from just watching a few games of football. You are living in a dream world if you think you could just have a 'tear up' if you felt like it. I remember me and my Dad getting crushed in a so called 'tear-up' in 1987, not a year after Hillsborough at Bournemouth.

If you didn't think the game needed to change at the start of the '90's then you are completely deluded. The discussion of where we are now 20 years later is another matter, but in a lot of ways Sky saved football in 1992.

Sky turned football into something it should no longer have been.

Which is VASTLY different from saying it saved football.

 

[beorhthelm]

yes, yes, its all very nice bitching at Sky, but there is a world of football outside this country that Fifa/Uefa seem to think they own. lets not overlook the villians in this piece.

 

[Dave the OAP]

having said that if it stops ITV cutting to adverts just as England score their only decent goal in a tournement, then I am all for it.

Its just the way this world is going really...everything is about money

 

[Brovion]

....

If you didn't think the game needed to change at the start of the '90's then you are completely deluded. The discussion of where we are now 20 years later is another matter, but in a lot of ways Sky saved football in 1992.

It's outside this topic but I broadly agree with you. There are aspects of the 'cure' that I don't like (all-seater stadia and high ticket prices), but they aren't the fault of Sky per se as they don't make the laws or set the admission prices for individual clubs.

We can argue about degrees but overall the Sky influence has been good for the game: crowds are higher, stadia are better and the game appeals to a wider cross-section of society. Pining for the old days of slum stadia, smaller and more violent (and largely male) crowds is a bit like wishing they still stuck children up chimneys or down mines IMO.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Sky turned football into something it should no longer have been.

Which is VASTLY different from saying it saved football.

You may have to explain that first sentence to me, it's surely a double negative?

I did qualify my point with 'in a lot of ways' with regard to Sky. At the time, it was if you like, a 'necessary evil'. To blame Sky for footballs state, as simply a service provider however is completely naive in lot of ways. The FA are the governing body and negotiate the terms of that service along with the clubs. Football is what slices itself up, not Sky, they just sign the cheques and take our money!

 

[APACHE]

No loss, when was the last exciting tourament?

 

[Tooting Gull]

Sky turned football into something it should no longer have been.

.

Is that what you meant to say? A sentence so deep it sort of turned in on itself, Mariana-Trench stylee.

 

[Storer 68]

"Fifa and Uefa have argued that the current set-up interferes with their ability to sell television rights at the best price."

now what exactly is the purpose of Fifa and Uefa? are they commercial enterprises, with an expectation to maximise the returns on their shareholders investments? or are they supposed to be governing bodies to oversee a sport.

seriously, why do they even need the money and what do they actually spend it on (bribes aside).

They don't have ANY shareholders

They disburse monies amogst the membership

 

[Storer 68]

But remember that the Premier League was a reaction by the large clubs to get their hands on more of the money that they generated.

The fact that murdoch and Sugar also saw an opportunity to make a lot of money that saved their companies is an unfortunate side to the whole sorry saga.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

FIFA can DO ONE. Why the hell should they have any say who gets to show games in OUR country?

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

The crux of the arguement is that BBC and ITV are NOT 'free-to-air' because you need to :

a) Purchase a television set, and aerial.
b) Pay for a TV licence.

The second transaction means that you are subscribing to the broadcaster. What really sticks in the craw is the way Sky expect you to pay a further price for their programming, and a telephone or internet service that isn't what you necessarily want AND still inflict crass advertising upon you. If you could watch Sky ONLY ( or Vigin Media or BT Vision or whatever ) without having to purchase a TV licence then the legalities of free markets may come into play, but at the moment, BBC or ITV have no commercial advantage over Sky in the sense that they cannot generate revenue as they would wish to, because the TV licence is fixed by Government and not the broadcaster. Therefore it is right that the national broadcaster, who is constrained by the law as to what they can pay, should be offered these rights at a price they consider affordable.

I for one might well subscribe to Sky if it mean't I DIDN'T have to pay for a TV licence, but the law of the land doesn't allow it.

FIFA and UEFA should be reminded that the UK laws exist to protect the viewing public of the UK, NOT the vested interests of FIFA / UEFA.