Quote Originally Posted by Andy_Faber View Post
Wrong again, just logically wrong - If they've paid ? hundreds of millions for those rights, which they have, they they and by extension you clearly HAVE contributed to 'the situation we have today'. Your virtue signalling (lapped up by rA) is just cheapskating really
Ok, so the domestic premier league deal is ?6.7 billion, the BBC pay ?211 million for highlights package so a small percentage of the actual deal.

Plus there is the fact that I have to buy a licence fee if I want to watch linear TV and of my ?170 probably less than ?50 per annum goes on football if that. So my "contribution" is certainly less than 6 weeks worth of a subscription to SKY.

The BBC and ITV for that matter have always paid for broadcast rights, but haven't been willing or able to pay the huge sums the other platforms have. Its the huge sums paid by those other platforms that have generated the revenues that have created the situation we have today, which is underpinned by people being willing to fork out the monthly or often multiple monthly fees to watch the game son those platforms. Its the revenue from SKY and others that generate the big bucks.

Your logic is wrong and also your maths.

I'm in no way virtue signalling, merely stating that I have had no part in financing the ludicrous economics of the premier league. Neither have I said other people shouldn't, just pointing out that its their willingness to pay that fuels the economics.

Cheapskating is a interesting phrase, me choosing not to pay for something seems to bother you, not sure why. But its rather ironic that people moan about the money sloshing around the premier league whilst at the same time actively choosing to pay the subscriptions that feed it.

Thats rather the same as moaning about immigration, whilst enjoying the economic and other benefits of it.