I may be wrong but I think this is being discussed in a thread talking about how it may undermine the financial structure of the whole sport along with other sports who rely on Sky money.

on the VT rlhttps://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f

To be honest I think it would be a good idea because they'll be a lot of sports fans who won't/don't get sky(Me included) I wouldn't ever want to purchase a sky package, I'm quite happy with the channels I get through freeview.
I try to watch it round friends, at my mums or even down my (local)club which only happens when they start playing early May.

I think that sky may lose a few customers directly watching SS through them BUT they will gain an awful lot more through other mediums were they will still get a % of the fee charged.
If the fees charged to other media companies were set realistically then sky could actually increase revenue for SS in the long run.

Don't know what the outcome will be 'but haven't the Premier League and Cricket started some form of legal challenge to this ruling,as it will affect their income stream.Could see a lot of Other sports,such as ours ,onion signing up as all sponsorship will be affected somewhere down the line.

Add to those costs the use of Sky's platform. We would need to rent satellite time too and that don't come cheap.

Within the board of the RFL there are people who were involved in setting up MUTV and other channels. During previous Sky contract negotiations, the RFL seriously investigated RLTV and determined that the economic argument did not stand up to scrutiny

seen as they already show rugby league on 3&4 when schedules are full I'd suggest it's very likely. I'd imagine they'd do the same for other sports too.

Also if you were to show a live NL1 NL2 game , 3 live Super league games , 3 live NRL games, A weekly highlights package and a classic match section. They'd still be loads of the schedule to fill up.