11/21/24
August 08, 2003
Sky spends £1.024bn on the rights to live broadcasts of three years of English Premiership games starting from 2004/2005. So much for the plan to share the love.
They better!
posted by lilnemo at 12:20 PM on August 08, 2003
Oh SHIT! They better NOT fuck with my FOXSPORTSWORLD!!
posted by StarFucker at 02:51 PM on August 08, 2003
I don't mind Sky Sports getting all the live rights. They do a much better job than ITV would have done. And I'm sure that all British fans will rejoice over the fact that BBC got the highlights over ITV - it's Gary Lineker, Alan Hansen and Mark Lawrenson against Gabby Logan, Barry Venison and Terry Venables. Not much choice really. Oh, and the BBC will pay a bit more than lip service to teams other than Man Utd, Arsenal and Chelsea.
posted by salmacis at 03:53 PM on August 08, 2003
Uh, no one is alleviating my anxiety over FSW!
posted by StarFucker at 04:28 PM on August 08, 2003
Sky doesn't have cable broadcast rights for the US, I'm sure. So it will get through here either by Fox or ESPN. And Fox has always been more dedicated to soccer than ESPN. I doubt much will change unless Sky gets super greedy. Which is not out of the question. Hmmm.
posted by worldcup2002 at 05:01 PM on August 08, 2003
SF: It's gonna be A-OK! Here's a PDF of FSW's schedule for next week. The EPL games are in there.
posted by worldcup2002 at 05:05 PM on August 08, 2003
WOO-HOO!!
posted by lilnemo at 05:20 PM on August 08, 2003
WC: that schedule doesn't help because the contract is not for this season. However, if you dug a little deeper you'd find that BSkyB and FSW are both owned by Rupert Murdoch's empire and therefore should be safe.
posted by billsaysthis at 10:23 PM on August 08, 2003
This contract has nothing to do with international rights. They are sold seperately. The fact that FSW and Sky are owned by the same person is irrelevent.
posted by salmacis at 02:56 AM on August 09, 2003
for what it is worth the radio rights and mobile phone rights are still open for anyone with some money to spend.
posted by gspm at 04:32 AM on August 09, 2003
Much as I detest Rupert Murdoch, it has to be said that this is good news for most English footie fans. Sky provide excellent coverage and it's accessible to most people, even if they don't take Sky, at a pub nearby. I'd also agree that it shouldn't impact upon FSW's coverage.
posted by squealy at 05:11 AM on August 09, 2003
Thank god the BBC is winning back the rights (though not for another year). Though I do wonder how Gary Lineker will justify his position as lead presenter of BBC Sport and owner of Leicester City. However, I don't really think this conflict will ever come about as Leicester are prime relegation candidates for this coming season.
posted by BigCalm at 09:44 AM on August 09, 2003
This is fantastic news. ITV 's coverage is embarrassing and their presenters are morons. At least the highlights package on BBC will be presented by people who have been trained better in projecting themselves without looking like a total wanker (Garth Crooks excepted). Who the hell told Andy Townsend to gurn at the bloody camera when he wants to emphasise a point? Sky revoutionised telly coverage in this country and continue to make great leaps forward. Before Sky we would be lucky to see about 4 live games a season, now we get 4 or 5 a week. They also offer superb highlights and discussion programmes on Sunday, that go on for hours. Blues played a meaningless friendly the other week and there was more coverage on Sky of that one game than ITV will probably give us all season.
posted by Fat Buddha at 02:58 AM on August 11, 2003
Bastards. Does Fox still get the telecast rights for the US?