Genuine question. Would SkySports have a larger income if it were distributed on more platforms, but at a lower wholesale cost than now?

I don't think the competition authorities are saying that SkySports is intrinsically too profitable. Therefore the reduction in wholesale charges to Virgin would be marginal. It's possible they would end up having substantially more customers for the channels via TopupTV/BT and other internet providers and actually have more revenue.

The question for RL and other minority sports, is whether this will create an even bigger SportsTV Leviathan that will not have to compete so keenly on price when purchasing sports rights. If SkySports are to be forced to wholesale to other platforms, then the authorities should insist that Skysports be broken up. This would ensure that there is competition in the sports rights market.

SkySports' current cozy deal with ESPN is already a sign that SkySports is delighted to have pretend opposition channels. But when Setanta was threatening its core business, it used its effective monopoly power to put the competition out of business. People who say that Setanta weren't good enough to compete with SkySports don't understand that as the market is currently operating, nobody can compete with SkySports. SkySports can take almost any loss until the opposition is bankrupt. Hence even ESPN, who are owned by the mega corporation Disney, don't dare risk a competitive fight with SkySports.

It's true that SkySports saw a gap in the market when it was set up in 1990. They deserved to make a profit for the risk they took, but they've had a good run. It's not much different from the breakup of Rockerfeller's Standard Oil, or AT+T. At a certain point, when a commercial company gains sufficient market power to effectively monopolise the market, it has to be broken up. The RFL /RFU/ECB etc are obviously fearful of change, but it may prove to be in their interests in the longer term.

So you disagree with the highlighted parts of this post



I seem to remember you quoting very similar points many times in the past

No i agree well run and financially stable clubs will flourish, and that forcing clubs to be run like a business and that we should allow the better run companies to rise to the top


i just disagree with the idiotic premise that losing the Sky money is the way to acheive this

I presume he was one of the directors that sent Hull to the wall where by they need the RFL and Sky money vis a Gateshead merger to remain trading.

No doubt it would ' focus the mind ' though wouldn't it