/ Technology

Sky Sports price rise: is live TV sports coverage worth the cost?

Angry sports fan

From 1 June, Sky Sports will go up in price by £1 a month. Virgin Media customers will see a £2-a-month hike for Sky Sports too. Do you think it’s worth the cost?

Last month Sky announced it will increase the cost of all but one of its TV packages from 1 June: Sky Sports is up by £1, Variety by £1.50, Family by £3 and Sky Movies by 50p. Sky normally announces price rises for September, but has broken form this year by bringing it forward. This is in time for the Euro 2016 qualifiers coverage in June and the new football season in August, but without the live UEFA Champions League games – these will be shown on BT Sport.

Virgin Media customers won’t escape a price rise either – in fact, they’ll have to pay £2 extra for Sky Sports. So why is Virgin putting up its prices too? The cable provider says it has to pay its satellite counterpart more money because Sky will pay around 70% more for next year’s Premier League TV rights.

It makes sense; if providers are paying more, then the cost is passed on to anyone using their services. But the latest is only 10 months after the last price rise in September 2014. So we decided to track the cost of getting Sky’s sports channels over more than 10 years…

Sky Sports cost since 2004

From June, Sky customers will pay at least £47 a month for the cheapest TV-only package (Sky Sports with Original Bundle), rising to £69.90 with phone and unlimited broadband (or £62.40 with a 2GB download limit) – that’s before adding extra channels. The cheapest package is £16 more a month – £192 a year – compared with September 2004, when the cheapest Sky Sports 1 + 2 bundle cost £31 with the minimum ‘2 mix’ channel pack. That 51.6% rise far outstrips the cumulative inflation rate of 28.5%.

Sky-Sports-cost-versus-inflation-since-September-2004-Which

We asked Sky to explain. It said:

‘We work hard to make Sky the best value entertainment choice for subscribers. Sky Sports will offer an unrivalled choice of top quality sport. We’ll also bring more of the shows everyone’s talking about to Sky Box Sets. On average, bills will rise by less than £3 per month.’

Avid football fans who don’t want to miss a match also need BT Sport – £13.50 from Sky or free for BT broadband customers. BT Sport is also included in the cheapest broadband, phone, TV and Sky Sports packages from Virgin Media (Big Kahuna, £58.99 for 12 months) and BT (£46.49, but no Formula 1).

Read why the cost of Sky Sports is going up on Which? Tech Daily.

Tips to save money on Sky Sports

  • Cancel – at least temporarily: You could cancel your sports package altogether, or simply drop your Sky Sports bundle when less is shown of what you want to watch – you’ll save at least £50 dropping it in June and July when there’s no Premier League. Changing your TV package should only take a quick phone call or visit to your online account, as on the Sky and Virgin Media websites.
  • Stream Sky Sports on Now TV’s streaming serviceThere’s no contract and it could be cheaper, costing £6.99 a day or £10.99 for a week for Sky Sports 1-5, F1 and News. Use Sky’s fixture list to plan a good day to start – for example, we found starting a one-week pass on 13 December would cover international cricket, golf and South Africa Sevens rugby, plus Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United football matches.

How do you watch live TV coverage of your favourite sports? Do you think Sky Sports is worth the cost?

Comments
Member

We already pay enough to Sky for what should be the ultimate in sports viewing.

Now the service is diluted by BT Sport which we refuse to pay extra for and we do not want their broadband.

If BT have so much money to spare, they should be improving their existing network so people can get decent broadband before entering the expensive sport market.

Member

Good piece of research and interesting to those who use Sky and the general public. Excellent.

Member

Sky is the British brand that I trust the least. Fortunately I don’t use their services at all any more. Instead:
– I pay Netflix US$9/month for UK HD content
– I use Hyperoptic (1Gbps) for my broadband
– I don’t have a landline

Sky was also using surcharged 084 and 087 numbers until they were outlawed by Regulation 41 of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Payments) Regulations 2013. Why does a company not realise that something is an unfair commercial practice before it is legislated against?

In my final year as a Sky customer, they gave me a 75% discount off my monthly charge. Therefore I was paying well under £10/month. You have to phone them to cancel and wait for the cancellation to take effect. Then a day before or after your service is disconnected, they will phone you and offer you a cheaper deal. You can’t get 75% off any more, but 50% is achievable. Don’t accept the first offer they make.

Member

@NFH “Why does a company not realise that something is an unfair commercial practice before it is legislated against?” It’s called greed.

I one worked for a company that did tried to do business with Sky, we spent millions getting the bid right.

During the final meeting one of the owners sons walked in (late) and said, 50% off or we walk, then the whole sky team walked out.

And they still use 084 numbers, I did complain to the regulator but they deemed them sales lines even those for existing customers to upgrade through.

Member
Malcolm says:
23 April 2015

Sky Sports pricing assumes that all users want to watch Soccer. I only use Sky Sports for the Rugby Union coverage, which used to be quite comprehensive. But when BTsport became involved we got less matches and paid more. Now the charges are going up again. Ridiculous. I am reluctant to sign up to ANY BT concern having had many dreadful experiences with them in the past. If any organisation is not fit for purpose it’s BT.

In an ideal world Sky Soccer coverage would be a separate package so that those who are happy to see their money go to vastly overpaid ‘professional’ footballers could do so, and the rest of us could simply get what we want to pay for.

Rant over.

Member

I couldn’t agree more. I hate football, but want to watch cricket, golf and rugby. The sooner they have a football only package the better. While they are at it they can get rid of non-sports such as wrestling and fishing as well.

Member
David M says:
25 April 2015

I totally agree with Malcolm, Both Sky and BT show so much football, English, European and some Scottish; I do not want to watch any of it, I loath football and its vastly overpaid players, who set an extremely bad attitude to young people. But if Sky & BT want to pay these over inflated prices for this “sport” then put it on as an extra and not as Sky Sports. Personally, like many people, I want to watch Rugby, Cricket and F1. Another wasted Sky Sports programme is “Wrestling” that should be re-named “the shouting programme” as most of the time that is all these American idiots do.
I do not want to have to pay extra for something I never watch and I certainly do not wish to contribute to overpaid footballers.

Member
John says:
25 April 2015

We agree every word. I am not a football fan and never watch football anywhere. Our sports include golf, tennis and 6 nations rugby. Why can’t Sky organise channels to give us the option of excluding football – with a consequent reduction in their monthly charge. There will come a time when like minded pensioners will cancel their contracts. I have tried to support Sky since the early 80’s and cringe at their never ending increases – in pursuit of something many do not want or need.
John

Member
Desmond High says:
25 April 2015

Like others I’m not the slightest bit interested in soccer or formula 1, which I assume the majority of my charges for Sky Sports goes towards. I suspect that Sky would increase overall viewing numbers. along with subscription and advertising revenues by offering better targeted packages. This household only watches rugby and cricket and as a cricket coach, I know full well that the absence of cricket on terrestrial (or maybe low cost subscription) is gradually losing the next generation.

Member
Peter says:
26 April 2015

I tried Now TV yesterday on it’s free trial. The excessive money being poured into football is having a negative effect on those Sky customers who wish to watch other sports plus the impact on the game and sporting ethics. Although Now TV Sport appears expensive if used constantly, for occasional use there is some good value to be had. I am now thinking of purchasing it for a week at a time for this seasons test match cricket for relevant matches that I have time to watch and cancelling my Sky subscription. The quality on an Apple TV streaming device when played on a good HD screen was excellent. For football, if you do follow one particular team, prefer just to watch those games and can’t make a home or away match, £6.99 for one day represents reasonable value in the long term.

Member
Terry D. says:
30 April 2015

I totally agree with the above comments 100%. We – the TV viewing public – are completely swamped with televised football day in , day out ! Money is no object to the plethora of worldwide football clubs who live in perpetual debt…. and who pays ? Well I know who SHOULD pay and that is the football addicts and they should pick up the tab from Football only channels ! I hate football and never watch it so why should I contribute to the astronomical costs that these clubs need to keep their overindulged foortballers in luxury ? I watch golf and Aviva Premieship rugby union , that’s all !

Come on Which? Get your commercial clout in gear ! Get Sky and BT to provide Footbal ONLY channels and channels only for say , golf and rugby union and , most importantly , get them to allow people to pay for only the channels that they want rather than lumping them all together as a package .
You are our Consumer Champion and I refer you to your WHICH? PROMISE. There is enough like-minded comment above for you to do something about it !!

Member
M.Cresswell says:
3 May 2015

Absolutely agree

Member
david says:
5 May 2015

Totally agree with this comment

Member
Brian says:
8 May 2015

I totally agree with all the comments about football. I do not watch football and have suggested to Sky to make this a separate channel to be paid for by subscription, I received a standard reply ignoring my comments.
Sky having spent millions for football coverage should recover those costs for those who wish to watch it.

Member
Mike Livingstone says:
31 May 2015

I have just cancelled my Sky contract on exactly this basis.
Sky do have the best technical platform, but I just got the feeling this year that they were raising prices across the board so they could make up for their foolishly high bid for the Premiership. As someone who hates football, I just couldn’t bring myself to subscribe to Sky any longer. They need to separate the football out, so that those who watch football pay for it and those who don’t want it don’t have to.

Member
James O'Brien says:
24 January 2017

Hello , I’m wondering if you can help.
I’m new to Sky
I’m woundering can you cancel Sky sports at any time or is there a charge if you had sky sports less than a year ?
Or , has this have a catch , prices etc, depending what other package or service you have ?

All quiet confusing , what to do with wifi, broadband ect

Member

Hello James in answer to most of your questions go to : https://www.sky.com/help/articles/remove-a-package-or-cancel-your-subscription I must warn you you will lose a fair amount of money canceling it inside the contract time as that incurs extra charges . If you are thinking of leaving SKY make sure you contact your new broadband company BEFORE you cancel your SKY one.

Member
Hallcross says:
23 April 2015

The magazine article doesn’t detail the extent of Sky’s price increases. For instance the price for our Sky Variety Bundle alone is also to rise by £2 to £30/month from May. As a result, I’m changing to the Original Bundle at £22 a month. Following the change, there’s no channels that we will miss.
We are reluctant to move away from Sky as we have difficulties getting good, reliable Freeview reception and living in a rural area, we are not cabled. On the upside, as a Plusnet broadband / house phone customer, we are able and already have BT Sport for £5.99 on a rolling month by month contract. More than enough sport for us with the Premiership rugby union, Motorsport, Bundesliga and Italian football and from next season The Champions League and US sports, WTA tennis etc. etc.

Member

“We are reluctant to move away from Sky as we have difficulties getting good, reliable Freeview reception and living in a rural area, we are not cabled” – You don’t need to pay a subscription to receive free-to-air channels (the ones available on Freeview) via your Sky box. If you stop paying Sky, then you will continue to receive all these channels. However, Sky will remotely disable the Sky+ functionality of your Sky box, even though Sky+ is functionality of goods and not a service.

Member
Hallcross says:
24 April 2015

Thanks. ‘Freesat from Sky’ customers can retain their boxes to record, series link, play and pause for a mere £10/month..

Plusnet have told me that they can provide me with an alternative viewing card at no cost which will allow me to receive BT Sport’s channels without having to have a live Sky contract. I may just do this..

Member

If you can’t get Freeview have you thought about Freesat?

Member
Janet says:
25 April 2015

Same problem here. I have +1 to get digital radio upstairs. The only sport I would EVER watch is the annual boat race and I watch that on BBC!. I do not have the sports package but the price of everything else goes up and it was totally predictable that we would all be stung for the sports deal.Currently, I am watching so many re runs, in the absence of any decent new programmes, that I can almost chant the scripts alongside the actors. It is fortunate that there are such brilliant archives as Dad’s Army etc. Why are there so many ‘reality’ idiots, make overs, cooking and no talent shows that I have to pay for to get the one decent innovative Atlantic channel?
My monthly payments started at £16 and are now £46+. If Sky want to charge these prices perhaps tthey should look at a package that is chosen by the customer with a few select channels and not predesigned so that you have to have the rubbish

Member
smike says:
23 April 2015

In my opinion SKY had added little, and cost much, to the public at large..

The writing was on the wall long from early in the Satellite broadcasting era, , when Analogue SKY bought out the only competition, Digital BSB, and promptly closed it down.

A shrewd but anti-consumer ploy by Sky with two of our Terrestrial based challengers, saw them off a few years later.

In the meantime they have for many years looked to see what free to air programs are getting good viewer ratings, and buying the their broadcast rights, so that anyone hooked on Lost, House, 24hour Le Mans, or whatever, had to take a SKY prescription and pay to continue to see what was previously free.

Only recently, when credible alternatives started to emerge which they could not eliminate, have they started producing their own content, and thus offered something that the public would have had for free already, have Sky introduced some beneficial behaviour.
However they have covered their extra costs involved by massively increasing their charges to protect their very generous margins.

To be fair, it is not certain that the existing broadcasters would have added as much new Sport coverage as SKY has if it was no more. Generally however, we would all see much the same as we used to, but for free.
The main losers apart from Sky itself, being the Premier league footballers, whose wages would get back to reality.

Member

I think the main losers are the young lads and lasses who could follow sport for free when it was on terrestial. The collapse of cricket I think is in no small way a reflection of a younger generation lost.

I stopped supporting England in rugby when they took the Murdoch money and I am losing interest in F1 as it becomes disjointed. Having said that the BBC should never ever have bid to show it as the expense is absolutely huge – you wonder who and why the decision was made.

This is a resume on what is going on ;
http://motorsportstalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/14/as-f1-tv-viewing-figures-continue-to-fall-globally-is-there-a-solution-to-the-problem/

And lastly does it occur to anyone that perhaps F1 is now entertainment rather than a sport and that decisions are made to make it more interesting, to get punters, to get advertising revenue, to get status. It is certainly doing wonders for Mercedes.

Member

The only sport I really enjoy is Snooker. Luckily 99% of what I want to watch is on Eurosport in which i can just pay £3.99 & watch via the Eurosport online Player. Plus the other games are shown on BBC & ITV4 (both online feeds for free).

When BT Sport came out I was worried they might try & buy a few games. But I’ve been lucky & it’s all still on Eurosport.

I do feel sorry for football fans, i mean they need Sky & BT, just the cost alone would make me mad, might even take away the enjoyment of the game. The one time I don’t feel sorry for fans is when ITV take off Corrie for the bl**dy football. No need for that when we have so many TV channels these days.

Member

Surely the residents of Coronation Street are entitled to stay indoors and watch some football from time to time instead of having to be on parade for the whole nation to goggle at. Or is it not real life?

Member

What I find curious is how football (a game) can dominate the news to the degree it does. I confess to having no interest in the football business or its prima donnas.

Member

Likewise, I have no interest in football, but each to their own.

Do painted people like the ‘Angry sports fan’ in the introduction really attend matches or is the practice confined to viewers of Sky TV?

Member

Awesome reply John Ward haha

Member

Like Malcolm, I don’t understand the popularity of watching football, or any sport. I can truthfully say that the last game I watched was when England won the World Cup. I was a child at the time and it was not even on colour TV.

Surely sport should be about taking part.

Member

Helpfully, I think the England team were wearing a black and white strip. West German viewers could see their team in colour.

Member

I reduced my Sky subscription to basic plus HD Sports recently to reduce costs. Surely, losing the Champions League should reduce Sky’s subscription not increase it.

When NowTV offers Sports in HD will seriously think of using that as I mostly want test match cricket plus occasional football. Not sure about reliability though.

Member
PeterC says:
24 April 2015

I’ve just cancelled my sports and movies as the end of promotion price and the increase made my monthly premium jump by £18 per month. Long term customer with Sky over 25 years and no incentives to try and keep me. how’s that for loyalty…New customers offered huge incentives to join.

Member
Rob Muldoon says:
25 April 2015

I had a Sky TV package which used to grate as the cost per month I felt was excessive. I eventually cancelled the contract and bought a Humax TV box which ran from the same satellite dish. When cancelling I obviously got a few telephone calls from their team. I explained:- you know the feeling when you have paid off the mortgage on your house, you know, punch the air and feel like cheering? Well that’s exactly how I felt when I gave up Sky! As unpopular as it was with the rest of the household, when I explained just how much a year it actually costs, they all agreed. As far as I am concerned it was the removal of a huge millstone around my neck. I have never regretted it and I will NEVER go back! There has to be more to life than living the life of a couch potatoe!

Member
Skip says:
25 April 2015

Q. Is sky sports worth the cost?
A. No

Member

I want to watch just two sports, for which Sky have the exclusive contracts. I do not want to watch any of Sky’s “entertainment”. However, Sky has structured their packages so that one has no option but to buy an entertainment package first to be able to watch any sports. The resulting cost is outrageous.

In consequence I buy a day pass from Now TV when there is something I absolutely cannot miss, and bitterly resent both Sky and the sports bodies who choose to sell to them and therefore prevent not only me but thousands of genuine fans from being able to see the particular sport which they love. I suspect that it won’t be long before even the Now TV route is removed, either because Sky will stop offering it or they will increase the price.

Member

Sky is in business to make a profit rather than package their services to suit customers.

I have never understood why exclusive contracts for sport coverage are permitted by the Competition and Markets Authority.

Member
Susan Rayner says:
25 April 2015

I feel as though we are being hi-jacked by Sky – we don’t watch much Sports – but do watch the Golf and the occasional film- but are now paying well over £70 a month as long time customers. I feel that new customers get unfair welcome packages and older customers are ignored and we are being forced to pay for Football which we would never watch anyway. My husband feels we cannot cancel Sky as we would miss all the golf from America and now the Open too! I feel extremely annoyed by the latest hike in prices – which on our package was £4.50 a month from 1st June!

Member
Sue says:
25 April 2015

We have the minimum package we can get that includes Sky Atlantic, for Game of Thrones. If it wasn’t for that I would change to Freeview tomorrow. I’m sure the price only went up in August, and now it’s going up by another £3 per month. They say it’s because of all the wonderful extras we can take advantage of, but we don’t want or need them. I feel as though I am being forced to pay for a lot of stuff we don’t use.

Member
Tibouchina says:
26 April 2015

Although the Sky sports coverage has made some positive contributions to sport in general, it is all subsidised by the hefty fees we pay to watch. Sky is a near-monopoly, or probably will be in the not too distant future, and because of that built-in power has a big say in what happens to sport, while the viewers actually have very little power. Some corners are cut which would benefit viewers; for example, you can never trust the schedules, and sometimes it is impossible to find out what is really being broadcast. They don’t take the time or trouble to update. I find that I actually resent aspects of the current system which they have imposed – these stupid Americanised team names for the County Cricket, e.g. – and wonder at what else they might choose to do. So, yes, a fee rise like that does leave me frustrated but not quite angry enough to deny myself cricket.

Member
RobM says:
28 April 2015

As far as Sky making some positive contribution to sport is concerned, it strikes me that it has merely made the super heroe footballers even more rich than they were already. Who would ever have thought that they would ever join the ranks of the super rich! Lamborghini must have been pleased though

Member
Alf says:
26 April 2015

My main beef is why is there only one Competition and Markets Authority?

As for Sky ,they have been taking the mick for years with that American wrestl../ play-acting crap !!
I can only imagine it is staple viewing for the Jeremy Kyle set !!
Surely no-one with a brain watches !!

Member
Mikal Lyndoe says:
26 April 2015

I don’t fully understand why your angle is on Sky, BT and no apparent reference to TalkTalk/AOL
Their prices have rocketed ever since they entered the TV domain and those of us who want, quite rightly, to be prudent with expenditure are being charged a lot more for broadband and telephone charges albeit if one chooses to fire a shot across the bow of the good ship TT., and get involved in a lot of argy then, surprise, they couch any reductions that they will give me in terms of discounts on the normal prices they want; and they seem to always want to increase their prices after they have you hooked on a further `12/18 months “contract”.
To say “yes” to anything that is stated opens the floodgates as one is then on a contract and it is a devil’s own job to leave TT and avoid savage contractual obligations just because “yes” was said and, of course, they have for the purposes of “staff training” they tae every last word said to them.
It would be great to see a consumer organisation investigate telecom utilities other than BT and Sky – which two companies’ prices increases are always an excuse for TT to hike their prices, citing cost increases and justifying increases because the competition is no longer a cheap alternative.

Member

lets all just cancel and see what happens

Member

anna – Consumer boycotts would be a very very effective way of clipping Sky’s wings.

I think that in the era of multi-nationals we are being taken for granted and any temporary blip in one market can be covered by profits in another.

The companies play a follow the leader in pricing inflation with customers suffering. There is also the aspect of most of the profit is leaving the UK anyway when you look at the likes of Virginmedia and Sky.

Deflating prices by organised boycotts or even deals should be the way to go. We laud attacks on the energy companies and new sellers into the marketplace how about Which? organises bulk deals with SKY etc using the same method as it used once on power companies.

Surely 100,000 existing Sky subscribers could be banded together to request a 20% reduction or else! : )

Businessmen are paid on the profits made and until hard commercial reality bites there will be no change in behaviour.

Member
Jean says:
27 April 2015

pay through the nose as well as pay a tv licence fee- I read the cost per month of sky and laughed out loud- this is almost the cost of gas and electricity prices which are horrendous enough for a pensioner. How on earth can any tv service be worth it? The programmes on our sets are not greatly entertaining and it is time sky realised that for a lot of people this is a rip off.
Quality of TV programmes in our homes has gone down and down over the years. I resent the fact that a company can rip us off for yet more bad entertainment products. I am afraid that the BBC licence is getting out of hand as it is. I do not want to be forced to get sky for anything.

Member
Clive Cottam says:
28 April 2015

Sky spreads the ridiculously high cost of Premiership football to all Sky Sports customers whether or not they watch football. It’s not as if Sky gets the complete package either so die-hard fans have to consider subscribing to BT as well. Higher costs for less product. It was similar story with Sky Movies – at first five new movies were offered each week, now you’re lucky to get three. And if you’re hooked on Sky Atlantic programming or F1 where else can you go? Perhaps a referral to the Monopolies Commission is in order.

Member
Nick says:
28 April 2015

Sky Sports is rubbish. It is full of adverts interupting the sport. Adverts 90% Sport 10%. It is full of repeats and stuff that nobody is interested in. I find it is an expensive way to watch adverts!

Member
Clive says:
28 April 2015

I am a sky sports subscriber and a regular premier league match goer (Chelsea). I have been annoyed by sky using their near monopoly to continually put up prices, but on the plus side the extra money to clubs means that my match ticket prices have not increased for 3 years and wont be going up next year either. The season after next sky are going to be paying a massive amount more to the premier league as a result of panicking and putting in a hugely inflated bid after bt got champions league, so I expect a big increase from sky then (West Ham are actually reducing their season ticket prices that year). Now football is split between 2 “competitors” I also have to subscribe to bt sport.I don’t have BT broadband as their customer service is appalling.

Member
Andrew GILG says:
30 April 2015

I have NO interest in football at all and would dearly like to subscribe to SKY Sports for the sports I want to watch, mainly, Rugby, Golf and Tennis.

I object strongly to the escalation in SKY prices due to its football bids.

SKY can also be arrogant, eg, the recent changes to the format of programmes recorded and to be recorded, a good idea to put most recent at the top BUT why separate recored and scheduled?

Otherwise I think SKY has been very beneficial in providing viewers a wide choice of viewing.

Member

What we don’t know is how commercially viable a “sports except football” channel would be. At the moment, cricket, rugby, tennis, golf and others are carried on the back of the revenues from the football audience. The contracts between the broadcasters and the football governing bodies and those of the other sports all combine to restrict open market competition. The fees charged to outsiders like the BBC for showing highlights or selected matches are also driven up by this imperfect market. As previous comments have demonstrated, there is plenty of elasticity of demand in screening football matches – there are enough dedicated soccer fans who “must have” it and are able to pay more and more for it. Sky has become so dominant that only the entry into the market of a company of the scale of BT could hope to bear down on consumer prices. Unfortunately, it seems merely to have driven up the cost of access to the content through the bidding wars and the greed of the sports bodies. Only mass consumer resistance could now impact on these sky-high prices.

Member
RobM says:
2 May 2015

Sky high Mr Ward? Play on words perhaps but you are absolutely right. A demonstration of corporate and shareholder greed. A mass exodus could sort them out or even motivate them to be more competitive (pseudonym for ‘less greedy’) – shame Lidl or Aldi don’t join the market, it worked for food, maybe it could work for Satellite TV!

Member

Yes . . . except for getting the satellites up there in the first place, of course, it’s not exactly rocket science that would justify massive returns. Now that most properties have a dish, huge profits are available to any company that can acquire the content and they can spend their time packaging it in appealing market segments. Bundle gaming, really. The key words in the foregoing are “acquire the content” – that’s where the monopoly bites: deep pockets required.

Member
Alan says:
3 May 2015

I have been paying for a Sky variety package + Sports for about 10 years ago and I am fed up with the way the monthly cost is continually increasing. I only took the sports package so I could watch Rugby Union and League plus some cricket.Now I can see English rugby union on BT Sport (I have their broadband so get it included) but I do not want to get rid of Sky Sports because I still like to watch Rugby League and cricket. When the latest increase came through for June I rang Sky and complained. They said they had increased my package with things like Sky Go and Sky Catch Up but I told them I could not use this as because of my location (4 miles from the telephone exchange in North Devon) my broadband speed ( 1 Mbps if lucky!) was too slow to use this so I was being charged for something I could never use. I think they should charge for the basic package and then you add on any extras you want to use, I certainly would not want football of any description.
By complaining I have got £10 a month off my package (only for 10 months though so I will have to complain again next year)

Member
M.Cresswell says:
3 May 2015

The situation is worse than you say for those who do not want to watch football. We are now deprived of Rugby Premiership and Women’s tennis unless a subscription to BT is taken out. It seems to me that ‘competition’ is BAD for the customer who is being fleeced.

Member
paul says:
5 May 2015

Sky shows little or no regard for it’s customers.The recent increases are in reality giving us nothing more, despite clever marketing speak from Sky. We are unable to take Virgin where we live otherwise we would leave. Every year or so I ring Sky threaten to leave and get a temporary discount, this does get a little tiresome haggling with their call centre staff. We have sports and HD and it’s incredible they can charge for HD but when you use “match choice” or “football first” the broadcast is in SD – unbelievable!

Member

The option is to vote with your feet and not subscribe. If enough dissatisfied customers did that Sky might change their tactics. However, whilst we moan but pay up presumably we are not sufficiently motivated. I imagine their psychology is to just put the prices up below a threshold at which mutiny would take place.

Member

I agree. Tesco seems happy enough to have rather unhappy customers as long as they remain customers.

Member
Harish says:
6 May 2015

These days most of the people has high end android smartphones or iPhones. So use softwares or apps like Mobdro, Showbox, Movietube and DTv India to watch and stream live sports and movies.
No need to pay for any sky or virgin media or BT subscription.

Member

I don’t believe “most people” do. Where I live, most people enjoy family viewing through their Sky box on a large screen TV.

I sometimes wonder whther the Sky and BT executives actually believe that people who have the time to watch two-leg football matches and five-day cricket tests also have the money to go with it. Hence they whack up the rates and in doing so they are constantly pushing up the point of resistance that is the audience’s tipping point. What they lose on the helter-skelter they make up on the dodgems.

Member
Brian says:
7 May 2015

Since 2000 Sky subscriptions have gone up 95%, before the latest increase. Double the rate of inflation over the same period. Now we are being asked to pay more because they bid so much for Premier Football, which I don’t watch!
What is more I have to pay for other bundles (which I don’t want, like ‘original’ or ‘variety’) just to get the ‘sports’ package, -my main interests are cricket and golf.
There is clearly too little competition in this market and their prices are extortionate.

Member

With enough pressure they will hopefully divide sport up eventually. When the Ryder Cup was on last Sky Sports 4 became ‘Sky Sports Ryder Cup’ – much better.

Eventually I predict they’ll be a ‘Sky Sports Premier League’, ‘Sky Sports Golf’, ‘Sky Sports Tennis’ etc etc, that’ll allow simplified pricing and a more customisable package, something that Sky greatly lacks at present.

When there’s no live game to show they’ll be endless re-runs, much like through the summer (‘Premier League Years’ over and over and over again).

Member
joel says:
12 May 2015

We already pay a fortune for what should be free as we have the same amount of adverts as itv and we pay them nothing as their revinue comes from the adverts.
I have started to see more repeats on sky than anything else and i am at a stage weather to cancel the whole damb thing and just stick to freeview as we already pay a fortune to the bbc for their masts.
I feel that sky is charging far too much for what they offer.
If it wasent for my wife i would has canceled it a long time ago as my parents did!

Member

I enjoy watching sport and pay for Sky Sports via Virgin Media, however I do not watch football. I am aware that I have to pay for the obcene amounts of money that is paid to football as part of my subscription to SkySport. I would like to know how much my Sky Sports TV would cost without football?
Lets start a campagn to separate football from other sports, so that football fans pay the correct amount to watch football

Member
Barry says:
9 June 2015

Absolutely agree with M.
M, if you put the petition up I will sign it and so will my wife!

Member
Paul C says:
26 May 2015

I only watch Rugby League, making it even more expensive. It’s rather galling to have a rise due to the cost of football which I can’t abide

Member
Andrew GILG says:
24 June 2015

I have just had an e-mail from BT sport upping my monthly bill from £16.50 to £19.99 a quite unjustifiable price rise caused by the madness of football.

I have NO interest in football and only watch BT Sports Tennis and Rugby.

In our hi-tech age surely it is possible to opt into ONLY a few sports NOT all of them and especially the corrupt and venal world of football.

Member
Plasticpaddy says:
30 July 2015

Andrew
You can phone Bt and stop this payment, it’s for there eufa champions league coverage if your not into it don’t pay it, we are not !

Member
Dawn trespass says:
5 September 2015

If football fans had to pay a premium for the football content then more would turn to pirate streams. Sky charge what they think the majority of customers will pay. Sad fact of life but true. I don’t pay for 1s or 0s anymore whether it be music films sports maps. Currently with sky I’ve got 60% and 100 towards bill which gives me 5 free months so guess what. .. I will cancel after 5 months I’m happy to watch pirate streams till sky give me another free deal. Every now and then sky panic and offer deals like confetti you have to catch these deals

Member

cancelled today got home checked my account they have offered me 50% off for 12 months

Member

Never joined any of them although I got a concession via BT as I am a customer . Years ago I set up several sat dishes one for 28 Astra which covers Freeview etc one for 19 Astra- covers German sat and one 13 Hotbird covers other European media . German TV provides me with free Eurosport 1 (but in German ) the others cover many sports stations from Italy /Middle -east Russia Iran Eastern European etc . Yes they are in foreign languages but I have plenty of choice I get a full German league transmissions because Germany ,unlike the UK ,subsidizes many public service TV stations including ones you would pay for here ,no I am not getting political just stating a fact. You would be very angry at the amount of new US films that are shown free in foreign countries ,including cartoons etc now if I could just invent a multi lingual translation app for sat reception I wouldnt even have to watch the very limited TV media I watch from the UK . Until you watch this you dont realise how other countries treat their citizens as regards the media this country isn’t as “liberal ” as you think.

Member

It’s very straightforward ..go to the section on streaming boxes and streaming devices on the Which site and pick one up of the best buys ..firestick is superb ..fire tv is superb as other streaming boxes …see what you can learn from there about Kodi /Sports Devil and MOBDRO and although the quality is not the same and it is not 100 % live ( a minute or so behind ) you can get all the sports what you want ..the movies are faultless way beyond sky movies package … They are murdering football between them BT and Sky ..yes the streaming pictures are not the quality of Sky TV obviously that is why you are paying so much but it’s a whole lot of fun and stops you being dependent on them