I'll answer this, NO. I own a Firestick, so interest in Footy isn't waning, I alongside thousands of other fans just refuse to pay our hard earned money to the likes of sky and tnt and another bonus is I can watch a game without the likes of spitty, camel gob and the rest of the cunts commentating on a game.
I think this is very valid and just highlights that the 'product' isn't appealing (not the football itself, but the package you have to buy to engage with it legitimately) when they wrap it up in sky gift paper and charge a fortune for it every month, then you find out some of the pieces are missing so you need a TNT subscription, then Amazon prime.
It's no coincidence that music and video game piracy dropped dramatically when the product themselves were made more accessible, cheaper (but not as cheap as the Russian knock off sites so still profit to be made) and equally through different platforms.
The issue we have in England is, this profitability drives the clubs to invest, buy better players, the best players in fact, which makes the league more attractive/profitable, which attracts more investment and do on and so on.
The problem comes when the product becomes too unattractive for too many punters. Less subscribers means less audience means less value generated through sponsorship and ads. How does it become less attractive? Well either the football becomes boring, or you have a financial downturn and people look elsewhere for value.
The short version is, I don't think the premier League, rather ironically, have a very sustainable financial model. They protect clubs taking money out of the game, yet punish those wanting to bring it in . The greed of the few is driving them, and it could end up risking the league's reputation as the best in the world. Whether this new independent regulator changes that, or speeds it up, is going to be interesting.
