Breaking the bank to watch football on TV?

[pegasi]

With reference to the half-page article on the ST today: "Breaking the bank to catch the World Cup on TV - Local football fans cry foul as many other countries charge lower fees"

Singtel make the news again for the price it will charge for the World Cup on TV, after the EPL saga last year. What's your view?

[TanWL]

This is the same feeling whenever Rolex increased their price and people cried foul, but yet people still buy.

[triton]

won't break the bank.

[dremark]

I hope he won on the betting

[Ender]

Not really a soccer fan. At most go down to a pub or coffee shop to watch.

[pegasi]

This is the same feeling whenever Rolex increased their price and people cried foul, but yet people still buy.

Quite true. But at least Rolex offer solid products in term of performance. Singtel's mio is still giving "freeze" problem and the long start-up time is just annoying. So most likely I am going to dump it after end of this EPL season.

won't break the bank.

Do you mean the amount charged is not high enough for you (to be termed "break the bank"), or you wouldn't pay for it?

[pegasi]

While the phrase "break the bank" might sound exaggerating for some, paying such amount for TV content is considered luxury for certain low-income people.

There is a rule (set by MDA I think) that says screening of certain sport events such as the Olympic Games must be made accessible to the public FOC. Sadly the World Cup is not one of those, despite it being one of the most popular sports in SG.

[voltshin]

to get the deal to broadcast EPL is not cheap.
Even thou there is demands but Singapore is such a small market.

They would rather have free broadcast in China than in Singapore in return of many viewerships and sponsorships. they can't earn much by giving it free/cheaper rate. therefore, in order to broadcast in Singapore, they have to pay more.

hope viewers don't just push the blame to Singtel/governments.

[triton]

content provider should have secured it earlier, then will be able to get more advertisers to come on board to pay for air time. this may in turn lead to content provider able to provide some "subsides" on end consumers. this would mean that consumers dont need to pay so much. the price increment is just too much.

FIFA also smart as they know singtel bid over the top price for the BPL rights. I am not sure if they made use of this information when singapore content providers negotiate for the rights to air the matches.

to get the deal to broadcast EPL is not cheap.
Even thou there is demands but Singapore is such a small market.

They would rather have free broadcast in China than in Singapore in return of many viewerships and sponsorships. they can't earn much by giving it free/cheaper rate. therefore, in order to broadcast in Singapore, they have to pay more.

hope viewers don't just push the blame to Singtel/governments.

[pegasi]

I think we spoiled the market ourselves. One of the many examples given in the article is Denmark, whose population of 5.6 millions is comparable to SG. It costs only S$6 there to watch all 64 matches.

From a business point of view, I can understand why Singtel is doing what they are doing, as the premium football contents are the only means to significantly grow their pay TV business under the current conditions. What I am more unhappy about is that, we get a substandard solution after paying the premium. One of my friends was at my place last Saturday watching the EPL matches, and he couldn't stop commenting about the freeze problem.

[Watcha]

I can only say GLCs don't have good track record when bidding, buying, paying to overseas company.

Many examples of overpaying at the cost of consumers.

[lohbros]

I hope IDA will come in to help to lower the price of watching soccer in singapore. If not, people will have to watch online streaming