Agree with a few other comments on here. For me this is just a symptom of the arcane and monopolistic business practices shown by Sports Broadcasters.
I don't think it's worth me getting into a moralistic debate on the ethics of piracy and personally I choose not to directly fund this kind of thing...
But what do they expect? Their business model has not changed one iota since the era of boxes and wires. All they've done is ramp up prices year after year after year. Now we live in a time where information and digital access has changed the way people live their lives in every conceivable way. Yet Sky and BT are still stuck in 1995.
It's all the more frustrating when there's the opportunity to offer affordable legal streaming platforms with flexible commercial arrangements which would be much higher quality. I'm absolutely sure if they did that they'd basically be printing money. They'd get multiples of the numbers of users they currently have. Who wouldn't pay a reasonable subscription or one-off fee to avoid having to surf dodgy unreliable streams and malware?
Some people say it's greed and they're not wrong. Yes they are greedy... but corporations of this size are also often totally clueless and into self-harming businesss practices because "that's the way it's always been done". The reluctance to open up this market will be yet another death knell to traditional media in 20-30 years. I know Gen Z well enough to get the strong inclination that they ain't buying your Sky Subscription Murdoch, sorry.
And the 3pm rule, while well-intentioned, is totally ineffective in this era - you simply cannot police it. It's like those stories about old laws like shooting a Welshman from Chester castle that they never got rid of, people just laugh about it and then go watch the game online. It's tragic, to be honest.