It is the fornicating same thing. One man owns it all, how do you think it works?MarkMcBurney wrote:Then it's not 'BSkyB' that benefit, but the overall holding company.Fat Git wrote:Yes, because a lot of the companies that show the games in Asia are subsidiaries of the Murdoch empire.MarkMcBurney wrote: So, to confirm, you seriously think that Sky benefit financially from TV coverage in Asia?
It was Sky that made English football competitive with the giants of Europe, once upon a time, the likes of Manchester United were lucky to get the likes of Jesper Olsen to play for them, the thought that the likes of Michel Platini or Eder would ever play at Old Trafford would have been seen as ridiculous, Sky, satellite television has changed all that where the best players in the world now play in the premiership - English football didn't attract big foreign stars until very recently, the last twenty of so years, that is a fact.
Sky Sports and Fox are the same thing though are branded differently - that is how capitalism works, nobody likes global
monopolies - it might work for the crisp market domestically but the main point I was making was this, without Sky Sports,
English football would not have this global interest and they certainly are the people responsible for a) filming the games b) making
sure the games are show with the minimum of technical hitches and c) making sure those live feeds are shown all over the world via
satellite.
That is my point.