It's been very known that the Premier League overbidding has strained Sky's finances. It's culled many channels from the Sky Sub Club (PBS America, Really, Yesterday, Drama), with many having to go FTA - or at worst case scenario, closure. It's also shown how channels such as Sky Living and Challenge haven't been given as much funding in their budget (for the former, a staggering mismatch of identity for their three entertainment channels).
The impending removal of Discovery's channels from the Sky platform is an astute wake-up call. It completely shows how the overpaying for football rights has constrained finances at Sky.
If they played football, they'd be on Sky Sports though. They just can't survive outside of a Sky package as they aren't really channels that in their own right can drive subscriptions. Outside of Wimbledon, tennis is a very niche product.
The impending removal of Discovery's channels from the Sky platform is an astute wake-up call. It completely shows how the overpaying for football rights has constrained finances at Sky.
I'm the last to defend Murdoch but really do think this is more about Discovery thinking their content is worth more to UK audiences than it actually is. Yes, Discovery is a big brand world wide but I honest couldn't name a single Discovery show off the top of my head. The Australian Open is just two of the 4-6 weeks a year Eurosport really has premium sports content.
If a deal isn't struck viewers are not going to move to another platform just to continue receiving them, especially if they look at Discovery's recent negotiations meaning they're just as likely to pull the same tactic there in the near future too. Some might go to the Eurosport Player, but that is a very poorly supported service at the moment which doesn't think much beyond casting. If they're serious about Eurosport they need to get the player on Now TV and other platforms, and their current stance makes that look unlikely.
I suppose it could be argued Sky put a large chunk of their proverbial eggs into a single basket and overstretched themselves to continue to be the (mostly) home of football which appears to be the bulk of their major selling point.
At the next Premier League renewal deal, could we see Sky have to cut back on their coverage at the risk of letting BT or whoever in? After all, the current deal has caused major issues at Sky, the churn rate is up, operating profits are down... A rise in the Premier League's next asking price whenever that comes looks unaffordable, surely?
I suppose it could be argued Sky put a large chunk of their proverbial eggs into a single basket and overstretched themselves to continue to be the (mostly) home of football which appears to be the bulk of their major selling point.
At the next Premier League renewal deal, could we see Sky have to cut back on their coverage at the risk of letting BT or whoever in? After all, the current deal has caused major issues at Sky, the churn rate is up, operating profits are down... A rise in the Premier League's next asking price whenever that comes looks unaffordable, surely?
But they obviously thought things would be worse if they were losing more football though.
Would things be any better if they were shelling out less for football but driving less subscription revenue as a result?
The reason they are spending what they are on football is because they believe it generates more than what they would be otherwise. It's clearly a balancing act and that could make the next round of Premier League rights very interesting.
It is debateable where the Champions League fits into this - are Sky losing customers by not having it or are they able to offer Sky Sports at a more attractive price without it? Probably a bit of both I suspect, and for those switching to BT Sport for a bit of Premier League plus the Champions League they are probably still paying Sky via Now TV for some football.