Scotlands games to be broadcast on Nordic streaming platform.

[Skyline Drifter]

2 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Being unavailable means you can't view it. Fairly simple. Children can't watch unless their parents are able to afford it. Being able to afford other streaming platforms doesn't mean they can afford Viaplay as well.

Your entire post drips with "I'm alright Jack".

And your entire argument is factually nonsense and rolling in self entitlement.

If you cant afford two platforms you make a choice and you prioritise what you want to watch. Its not rocket science. Its not the role of Govt to legislate to save you having to make a choice for goodness sake. 

Its simply untrue to say live Scotland games are 'unavailable' to most. 

[Bully Wee Villa]

It isn't self-entitlement if you want something available to everyone. What a weird, Tory, argument.

Of course it is literally the job of government to intervene for the greater good. It is government legislation that keeps Wimbledon and the FA Cup Final free to air. They should have the same rules for vital internationals in the UK's most popular sport.

Edited December 2, 2023 by Bully Wee Villa

[Skyline Drifter]

Wanting the Govt to force something onto free tv so you dont have to decide between paying for it and your Netflix subscription is the very definition of self entitlement.

The Wimbledon Final is protected free to air, not the whole tournament. The FA Cup Final is protected, not the whole tournament. Those rules are entirely consistent with the qualifiers not being protected. You're tying yourself in knots arguing against yourself here. The whole World Cup Finals and Euro Finals tournament is protected. The qualifiers are not. I dont see any issue with this.

Edited December 2, 2023 by Skyline Drifter

[2426255]

5 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Wanting the Govt to force something onto free tv so you dont have to decide between paying for it and your Netflix subscription is the very definition of self entitlement.

Spot on. From start to finish this is what this is all about. The whole idea of making it available to a larger demographic or the most vulnerable members of our society is not the primary motivation. It's filthy self interest (tory behaviour), but worse even still to wrap it up in an altruistic motivation, that's shameful. 

Edited December 2, 2023 by 2426255

[Quentin Taranbino]

Obviously there is no official stats on it, but the number of people with firesticks (or similar) has increased rapidly over the last 5 years or so.

My back of fag packet maths, has about 50% of people I know between the ages of 20 and 50 have some sort of dodgy streaming device now where they would be able to watch the football.

Now that the services provided, the quality, support given and general ease of them has made them accessible to even the simplest of tech capable folk.

[welshbairn]

55 minutes ago, Quentin Taranbino said:

Obviously there is no official stats on it, but the number of people with firesticks (or similar) has increased rapidly over the last 5 years or so.

My back of fag packet maths, has about 50% of people I know between the ages of 20 and 50 have some sort of dodgy streaming device now where they would be able to watch the football.

Now that the services provided, the quality, support given and general ease of them has made them accessible to even the simplest of tech capable folk.

Unsurprising when you need multiple subscriptions to watch live sports these days, and another added every year. The price of Sky and the licence fee hasn't come down since these new gougers started buying up the rights so we've the choice of paying extra every year for the same product or paying the same for less. I haven't seen Champions League football since BT bought it.

[Pocketman]

1 hour ago, 2426255 said:

Spot on. From start to finish this is what this is all about. The whole idea of making it available to a larger demographic or the most vulnerable members of our society is not the primary motivation. It's filthy self interest (tory behaviour), but worse even still to wrap it up in an altruistic motivation, that's shameful. 

[Pocketman]

1 hour ago, Quentin Taranbino said:

Obviously there is no official stats on it, but the number of people with firesticks (or similar) has increased rapidly over the last 5 years or so.

My back of fag packet maths, has about 50% of people I know between the ages of 20 and 50 have some sort of dodgy streaming device now where they would be able to watch the football.

Now that the services provided, the quality, support given and general ease of them has made them accessible to even the simplest of tech capable folk.

yeh, I know more people with a firestick than I know of people who legally subscribe. If interested in football, sports or movies/tv, you would be crazy to follow the proper route to subscription, including the BBC TV licence. As for the argument of chopping and changing subscriptions on a monthly basis, I can be ersed with that route for about one month a year......

[Monkey Tennis]

7 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I think you're a bit unclear on the meaning of the word "unavailable". Choosing not to have it doesnt make it unavailable. 

I think 'most Scots' pay more for subscription tv than Viaplay charge so the argument that 'most Scots' cant afford it has no validity. The most recent figures suggest 43% of Scottish households subscribe to either Sky or Virgin cable tv and 60% of households have some sort of tv subscription including Disney, Amazon, Netflix, etc.

Such people if they cant watch Scotland games live are choosing not to do so, rather than are unable to do so.

And most of those who dont have it are certainly capable of going to a pub to watch it if they desperately want to. 

The notion that 'vast swathes' have simply no access to live footage is fallacy. I dont recall any of these arguments when the fundamentally much more expensive Sky had all our games. 

You're largely right, but personally, I object to them being on Sky as well.  

I hate this culture of sporting bodies simply selling their wares to the highest bidder, and that being something everyone accepts as normal and perfectly fine. 

It's not.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, 2426255 said:

Spot on. From start to finish this is what this is all about. The whole idea of making it available to a larger demographic or the most vulnerable members of our society is not the primary motivation. It's filthy self interest (tory behaviour), but worse even still to wrap it up in an altruistic motivation, that's shameful. 

Wait, you're suggesting that those objecting to the boundless commodifying of football, are in fact the ones guilty of Tory behaviour.

It's an interesting take - I'll give you that.  

[2426255]

23 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Wait, you're suggesting that those objecting to the boundless commodifying of football, are in fact the ones guilty of Tory behaviour.

It's an interesting take - I'll give you that.  

Thanks.

People are inherently selfish - it's written across a lot of society. I don't object to that, it's human nature. People try and kid on that they're motivations are just, I don't like that. If it's just about not wanting to pay more subs that's fine, no massive issue with that. I don't mind paying for a better quality program or choosing between subscriptions.

The Conservative Party are all about self interest and I think with this issue the majority on here it's the same. To say that individuals on here care primarily about the unemployed, pensioners and so on being able to watch Scotland is a stretch that I'm not buying basically. I think for a minority who perhaps have direct experience with individuals that has affected or can relate to then yes I'd accept that - but the majority are just using it as another argument to get the NT games for free (in my opinion).

I'm sure the commodification of football will end at some point probably along with a move away from Capitalism. It's obviously flawed, but at the moment I'm okay with things the way they are for now. I have the choice to watch high quality product enabled by the money in the game or go down locally and watch 22 men knocking lumps out of each other in a park. I don't think you'll get it both for free and high quality.

Edited December 2, 2023 by 2426255

[Skyline Drifter]

22 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

You're largely right, but personally, I object to them being on Sky as well.  

I hate this culture of sporting bodies simply selling their wares to the highest bidder, and that being something everyone accepts as normal and perfectly fine. 

It's not.

That's fine. I've no issue with that attitude. It's not mine but that's fine, we're allowed to disagree.

The notion however that games should be free because more than half the population are unable to access them if they are not though is just utter nonsense. In reality a small percentage who are housebound / under 18, and can't afford a subscription etc are actually unable to see them. Everyone else who can't is choosing not to.

[Monkey Tennis]

3 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

That's fine. I've no issue with that attitude. It's not mine but that's fine, we're allowed to disagree.

The notion however that games should be free because more than half the population are unable to access them if they are not though is just utter nonsense. In reality a small percentage who are housebound / under 18, and can't afford a subscription etc are actually unable to see them. Everyone else who can't is choosing not to.

Yes, again though, I'd prefer it there was no requirement for such a choice.  I don't think it needs to be this way.  I think it is, so that the already  profoundly rich and powerful can become a bit moreso.

[Monkey Tennis]

20 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

Thanks.

People are inherently selfish - it's written across a lot of society. I don't object to that, it's human nature. People try and kid on that they're motivations are just, I don't like that. If it's just about not wanting to pay more subs that's fine, no massive issue with that. I don't mind paying for a better quality program or choosing between subscriptions.

The Conservative Party are all about self interest and I think with this issue the majority on here it's the same. To say that individuals on here care primarily about the unemployed, pensioners and so on being able to watch Scotland is a stretch that I'm not buying basically. I think for a minority who perhaps have direct experience with individuals that has affected or can relate to then yes I'd accept that - but the majority are just using it as another argument to get the NT games for free (in my opinion).

I'm sure the commodification of football will end at some point probably along with a move away from Capitalism. It's obviously flawed, but at the moment I'm okay with things the way they are for now. I have the choice to watch high quality product enabled by the money in the game or go down locally and watch 22 men knocking lumps out of each other in a park. I don't think you'll get it both for free and high quality without the money.

I don't think it's as clear cut as you suggest.

I think objections can contain both resentment at having to pay for something when it needn't be necessary, while also recognising that it probably also excludes people.

Where any line between the two exists for people isn't really important.

I think what we've accepted happening to football finances over the last 3 decades is outrageous, and has done vast damage.

[GordonS]

FWIW the government can't make these games free. They can make it so no paid-for channel shows them and a free broadcaster doesn't. There's nothing that would require UEFA to sell the rights to a free broadcaster and if they didn't like the price being offered the might well not sell the rights at all. Infantino played chicken with broadcasters in several countries, including the UK, over this year's Women's World Cup with a deal only being reached within weeks of the tournament beginning.

Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland and Italy require at least men's competitive international matches to be shown free.

[2426255]

1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I don't think it's as clear cut as you suggest.

I think objections can contain both resentment at having to pay for something when it needn't be necessary, while also recognising that it probably also excludes people.

Where any line between the two exists for people isn't really important.

I think what we've accepted happening to football finances over the last 3 decades is outrageous, and has done vast damage.

That's fine - that's your opinion, just have to agree to disagree. I don't think it's a little bit of everything. I think it's the price at the pump.

[GordonS]

34 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

 

People are inherently selfish - it's written across a lot of society. I don't object to that, it's human nature. People try and kid on that they're motivations are just, I don't like that. If it's just about not wanting to pay more subs that's fine, no massive issue with that. I don't mind paying for a better quality program.

I had a subscription for Viaplay and its predecessor before they had the Scotland rights, so I could watch the rugby. I'm pretty sure my motivation is only about other people. When I was growing up there's no way my mum could have afforded a subscription and I first got Sky Sports when I got a decent part-time job. A fifth of the population are under 20 and a quarter of those are in poverty, with that figure rising to almost a half for those in ethnic minorities. I really don't think it's "entitlement" or "selfishness" to ask that they can watch Scotland international football games on the telly without paying.

Edited December 2, 2023 by GordonS

[Pocketman]

Just now, GordonS said:

I had a subscription for Viaplay and its predecessor before they had the Scotland rights, so I could watch the rugby. I'm pretty sure my motivation is only about other people. When I was growing up there's no way my mum could have afforded a subscription and I first got Sky Sports when I got a decent part-time job. A fifth of the population are under 20 and a quarter of those are in poverty. I really don't think it's "entitlement" or "selfishness" to ask that they can watch Scotland international football games on the telly without paying.

of course it is not. Arriving at any other conclusion is simply projection. 

[2426255]

25 minutes ago, GordonS said:

I had a subscription for Viaplay and its predecessor before they had the Scotland rights, so I could watch the rugby. I'm pretty sure my motivation is only about other people. When I was growing up there's no way my mum could have afforded a subscription and I first got Sky Sports when I got a decent part-time job. A fifth of the population are under 20 and a quarter of those are in poverty. I really don't think it's "entitlement" or "selfishness" to ask that they can watch Scotland international football games on the telly without paying.

I accept that for some that's the case. I believe you and others have wider motivation. I think you're in the minority though.

If an individual is motivated by self-interest and there are additional altruistic arguments supporting that it's probably natural to say that's your motivation from PR standpoint.

I pay/paid for viaplay because I want to watch the SNT on TV, the only reason. If I was to say it's because I don't agree with illegal streaming because it drives up prices for those following a legal process I'd be bullshitting.

Edited December 2, 2023 by 2426255

[BFTD]

19 minutes ago, GordonS said:

 I really don't think it's "entitlement" or "selfishness" to ask that they can watch Scotland international football games on the telly without paying more than the £159 per year they're already compelled to pay in order to watch terrestrial TV at all.

FTFY.

It's very weird to see people arguing that it's perfectly fine for the national team to be out of reach for people at the bottom end of society, considering the number of kids aren't engaging with Scottish football at all. I guess it must be OK because it's a middle-class pastime now anyway; the paupers have nothing to bring to the table.