Connect with us

FOX Sports

What Hope Is There To End Pirated Soccer Streams When Even Soccer Players Are Watching Them?

What hope is there to end pirated soccer Internet streams when even soccer players are doing it?

Above and below are screenshots of US international Alejandro Bedoya’s desktop yesterday where he was watching three separate UEFA Champions League games including one illegal stream of FOX Soccer’s broadcast of Manchester City against Borussia Dortmund.

Alejandro Bedoya’s Facebook status update on his personal account read, “Just another lonely weeknight… Champions League.”

It makes you wonder how many other soccer players watch illegal streams of professional soccer, and whether the practice is so commonplace that few people think twice about it.

The New Jersey born attacking midfielder currently plays his football at Helsingborgs IF in Sweden. The former Glasgow Rangers footballer should see some action today when his Helsingborg side plays FC Twente in the Europa League.

200+ Channels With Sports & News
  • Starting price: $33/mo. for fubo Latino Package
  • Watch Premier League, World Cup, Euro 2024 & more
Live & On Demand TV Streaming
  • Price: $35/mo. for Sling Blue
  • Watch Premier League, World Cup & MLS
Many Sports & ESPN Originals
  • Price: $9.99/mo. (or get ESPN+, Hulu & Disney+ for $13.99/mo.)
  • Features Bundesliga, LaLiga, Championship, & more
2,000+ soccer games per year
  • Price: $4.99/mo
  • Features Champions League, Serie A, Europa League & NWSL
175 Premier League Games & PL TV
  • Starting price: $4.99/mo. for Peacock Premium
  • Watch 175 exclusive EPL games per season
110+ channels, live & on-demand
  • Price: $59.95/mo. for Plus Package
  • Includes FOX, FS1, ESPN, TUDN & more



  1. Kobashi

    October 8, 2012 at 12:25 pm

    If Bob Ley who is the longest tenured on air talent at the WWL and has been the lead host at a couple of World Cups has no issues with watching online streams of the USMNT why should I?

    Fighting online sports streams is a futile effort that the TV Companies and Sports Leagues will never win because the internet is bigger than they’re.

  2. Jonny Fentoozler

    October 5, 2012 at 7:52 pm

    I follow Reading FC. I am an Australian, currently living in Canada. Now in Australia, we have glorious coverage of the EPL. In Canada, it feels like I am living in a 3rd world country (no offence to 3rd world countries)

    The only way I am able to watch my team is via illegal streams.

    I am exploring vpn / foxsoccer2go avenues as we speak, which brought me to this website.

    Why can’t Fox / Sky / ESPN offer world wide access to all the games? I would seriously pay $50 a month to be able to get access to high quality streams.

    Think about the money that could be made by offering this. Think about all of the Asians that love the EPL.

    So to answer your question – I either use an illegal stream, or go without. Now what would you choose?

  3. Matt

    October 5, 2012 at 7:35 pm

    Gaffer, I guarantee that the vast majority of people would pay for subscriptions if a few things happened. 1) They drop the price per match to a level that is far more reasonable. 2) Include ALL content live in the same format that and their app functions. 3) Advertise and provide incentives for loyal customers, and offer discounts near the end of the season. This includes offering free trials that don’t take money out of my account with the promise of returning it in a week when it’s up.

    I pay for hulu plus, netflix,’s premium subscription and NFL Sunday ticket. None of these services are perfect, but they provide great value for my subscription, and that’s why I pay for them. I haven’t pirated a match since I left college 5 months ago, partly because I am extremely fortunate to have a provider that includes FS+ in the Sports pack. But I wouldn’t hesitate for a second to end my “clean streak” to pirate a Manchester United match if FSoc didn’t air it live.

    I think every soccer fan in the states appreciates where we were just a short time ago, and how much Fox has done. But they are one of the largest media commodities in the world, so they must stay on the edge of the curve if they expect people to come back and pay exorbitant fees for their product. Until Fox and their products evolve, I’m not going back to an app that crashes and streams that are fuzzier than what I can get from a myriad of places with two clicks and an ad blocker.

  4. Lon

    October 5, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    End pirated streams? Are you havin a laugh!

  5. Marc L

    October 5, 2012 at 10:55 am

    You see this dynamic all over the place. People WILL pay for stuff they want to see if they have the OPTION to. Not everyone will, and there will always be piracy. But if you make it POSSIBLE then I think enough people will do it to make it a viable business model.

    Same with movies and TV – I’d pay to be able to download episodes of some show I like but in many cases there is not the option to do this. There is just an utterly Byzantine system of what can be distributed when and on what channels, etc. Movies are even worse. I think for X amount of time they can only be seen on hotel PPVs. Then on HBO. Then available to others. Just nonsense.

    Memo to football leagues worldwide: WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO WATCH YOU. WE ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR IT. PLEASE LET US!!!!!

  6. trickybrkn

    October 5, 2012 at 8:21 am

    This is the napster argument all over again.
    Napster and sites like it where taken down not because people just decided they didn’t like free music, they stopped places like iTunes made it easy to get music, and not just the top 40 but all of it. So while we get a pretty good choice of EPL games each week in the states, if I want to watch Barca or Roma or OM I just can’t legally.

    So if the leagues want to end illegal sharing then they need to provide an easy inexpensive alternative. as for the BeIN and FS out there. They need to as well step up their game. Soccer fans in the states are treated like money trees they can pluck from, based on a decade old model of pay per view and closed circuit tv. No one is going to pay 25 bucks to watch England anymore. I’ll just find a free stream. I’m not going to pay 15 bucks a month for FS+ to watch maybe 2 to 8 games max a month. I’m just not. I will however pay $1.99 and pick a game I am truly interested in. I expect services like ESPN3 now. And I’m not going to pay for Fox Soccer 2 go which isn’t even on the same page as ESPN3.

    You innovate or you die…

    • Matt

      October 5, 2012 at 11:12 pm

      I couldn’t agree more, tricky

    • Paul

      October 6, 2012 at 9:22 am

      Lol you’ve got it pretty good. It’s not expensive for you in the slightest. Stop your moaning and appreciate what you actually have got… Which is a damn good deal.

  7. Telo

    October 5, 2012 at 2:12 am

    I’m probably just saying what quite a few people above me have already said, but I use the illegal streams because, when I was subscribed to Fox Soccer 2 Go, they almost never aired the games I wanted to see live (Chelsea). $20/month to have to wait to see a match I want to see until the next day is not worth it. Once they fix that, and once BeIN Sport gets internet streaming at all, I’ll go back to legit streaming.

  8. brn442

    October 4, 2012 at 6:51 pm

    Gaffer yes, there will aways be people expecting to get something for nothing – however, content providers can be their own worst enemy. Even though, I am a cable subscriber – I must pay extra for foxsoccer2go. I pay for ESPN but I have no access to ESPN3, again – because of my cable company.

    I have no idea what’s going on in Serie A or La liga this season, as they are no longer on Fox and Espn – fine. But BeIN and Goltv haven’t exactly gone out of their way to promote where and how their product can be consumed especially here in the US.

    BeIN sport still, incredibly, doesn’t have an online option – hence people who do not have access to dish, comcast, or directv – (most fans,) have no way to watch those leagues here legally – outside of going to a pub.

    Consumers will pay for content, if it’s priced right and is easy to use (itunes, netflix)
    Companies who think otherwise, deserve what they get.

  9. dano328

    October 4, 2012 at 5:46 pm

    I never contemplated an illegal stream until beIN bought the rights of the programming I used to get by paying extra for Fox Soccer Plus. I want to pay for BeIN. I am angry at Time Warner and beIN. The latter for entering a market without sufficient infrastructure.
    So I used illegal streams one day & it made my security programs freak out & now I can’t be 100% certain that keystroke monitor isn’t on there. I haven’t gone to my bank from that PC ever since. I’ve learned my lesson about using the streams but definitely blame the companies mentioned for not making the programming available when I am more than willing to pay for it.

  10. Derek

    October 4, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA were supposed to end piracy in the States and in overseas. And look what happen to that legislation? They died because of the fact that millions of people were against it. It’s gonna take a long time for pirated websites to die.

  11. Paul

    October 4, 2012 at 2:09 pm

    I can’t see much point in American’s (in America!) using streams because they have most things available legally anyway. Streams are a necessity in the UK though… Unlike the rest of the world we don’t have the luxury of getting any live football on Saturday afternoons because of the weekly blackout restrictions. Unless you’re going to the match you’ve got no chance until about 10pm to see highlights. If I could legally subscribe to a season ticket or streaming service I’d do it but I don’t have the option so streams it shall be!

    • krazymunky

      October 4, 2012 at 5:05 pm

      what if it isnt the top division ? Can you find me a legal stream/or channel for every Bolton game?

      • The Gaffer

        October 4, 2012 at 5:11 pm

        It doesn’t exist anywhere. beIN SPORT has rights to the Championship matches on US TV and Internet, but not every single Championship match is available to watch live on television or the Internet anywhere in the world, as far as I know. Only select matches are.

        The Gaffer

        • Paul

          October 4, 2012 at 7:21 pm

          It’s the Championship and below that is protected by the TV blackout… If everything from the Football League was made available, people could just stay at home and watch a stream… Plus there’s the fact that there’s nowhere slightly near enough demand for it the world over.

  12. krazymunky

    October 4, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    I illegally torrent Match of the Day every week. Is there a legal way for Americans to watch that show?

    and I normally have to illegally stream Bolton games now since theyre in the championship. (Not sure how many games BEIN sports shows for that league, and I have Cox)

    • krazymunky

      October 4, 2012 at 1:22 pm

      I also pay a private blog (around $10USD every few months) that provides torrents to MOTD,The Football League Show , and other random football shows in England,Spain and other European countries.

      Are there any legal ways for Americans (or non Europeans) to get them?

    • Tony Butterworth

      October 4, 2012 at 7:29 pm

      I’m not sure it’s “illegal” to download MoTD, perhaps copyright infringement but since it’s not even a show you can get here I’m not even sure if that applies.

  13. Marc L

    October 4, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    I pay for Fox Soccer and Fox Soccer2Go and think nothing of it.

    But what happens if the EPL sells its rights to beIN, which probably won’t be available to but a fraction of the people that would want to watch?

    No choice then but to pirate it. I’d like to watch the French league and Serie A and there is no legal option for me to do so right now.

    I don’t watch the pirate streams because I don’t really trust those sites. God knows what malware or whatever else they are implanting on your computer. But who knows, in a year I may have to go that way.

    • Alfredo

      October 4, 2012 at 1:25 pm

      This is pretty much it. Charter is garbage for soccer, still has fox soccer in standard def and looks awful. Only provider in area though.

      If EPL goes to beIN, I will have NO choice but to illegally stream.

  14. NeilO

    October 4, 2012 at 11:57 am

    You forgot to include a list of websites where we can pirate from 😉 HAHA.

  15. Ryan

    October 4, 2012 at 11:49 am


    If you are so against illegal streams, why do you have an illegal 10 min video of Gary Neville on your post about his expert analysis?

    I’m sure there is a way to pay Sky(?) for the rights to embed their broadcast on your page. Probably an exorbitant amount of $$$… But you still went with the cell phone recording of a broadcast. Probably because it was available, free, and easy.

    In the end that is why people watch streams. It’s available, easy, and it’s free.

    • The Gaffer

      October 4, 2012 at 12:20 pm

      Ryan, I’m against illegal streaming of games. The YouTube clip is a few seconds of the game, not the entire 90 minutes.

      There isn’t a way to pay Sky for the rights to embed their broadcast on my site. But I do embed legal match highlights of games from FOX Soccer, who owns the rights to highlights in the US.

      The Gaffer

      • Ryan

        October 4, 2012 at 2:45 pm


        You posted a 10 min illegally obtained clip from a show that is either paid for by subscribers or through the support of ads. And your argument is that Sky videos are not available for you to embed them on your website. So you posted a youtube clip that someone made illegally with their cellphone.
        It makes no difference if we are talking about a analysis show, Mad Men, or Real vs Ajax. They are all someone elses property and the act of using and/or viewing them without paying for them is illegal.

        Am I missing something or does your reasoning sound just like the reasoning people use for watching pirated streams of soccer games?

        • The Gaffer

          October 4, 2012 at 3:07 pm

          It’s not illegally obtained. It’s posted on YouTube. There are lots of clips of programs available on YouTube. Rights holders can decide which ones to leave up there and which ones to take down. Clips of EPL games are taken down within minutes.

          It does make a difference if it’s a full 90 minute game versus a 5-minute clip of analysis. Trying to draw a comparison between the two is grasping for straws.

          The Gaffer

        • Matt

          October 5, 2012 at 7:18 pm

          Where is the rec button? Ryan, I couldn’t have put it better.

      • eric collins

        October 5, 2012 at 5:53 am

        i know the topic is about streaming of games. whats your take of people like me who illegally stream motd or sky sports news. if bbc was smart they should put motd on bbc should also have more than at 3 hrs,which is broken up to and an hour at an time for sky sports news. i think ssn is better than espn sportscenter

        • The Gaffer

          October 5, 2012 at 7:14 am

          Sky Sports News is already available a few times a day on FOX Soccer, so there isn’t much of a need to illegally stream it unless it’s transfer deadline day, and FOX Soccer usually streams Sky Sports News for practically the entire day.

          The Gaffer

  16. dontcallmepaddy

    October 4, 2012 at 11:29 am

    I pay $7.99 a month for Netflix Instant because it’s far less of a pain in the ass than finding illegal downloads of the movies and downloading them, plus I know they’ll be the legit, finished product. It’s worth the money.

    I’ve bought episodes of Breaking Bad and Being: Liverpool on Amazon for $1.99 an episode since it’s less hassle than trying to seek out dodgy versions online. It’s worth the money.

    I subscribed to Foxsoccer2Go for about two or three years but eventually gave it up a week ago since their streams are no more reliable than what I can now find on firstrowsports, atdhe, rojadirecta, etc. Plus the cost has gone up while there seems to be less matches that most of us care about on there. These p2p sites have improved while Fox has regressed. It’s not worth the money.

    In short, if they want us to pay for it they simply need to provide a superior, more convenient product to what they currently offer.

  17. Frill Artist

    October 4, 2012 at 11:08 am

    What a load of rubbish. Maybe if the content providers can make matches available online at a REASONABLE price, people wouldn’t pirate them. They have to realize that people want to watch on their mobile devices or laptops not be forced to pay for cable or sit in front of a TV. Only ESPN is on the right path with their ESPN3 channel but it’s still a long way. I was willing to pay for Fox Soccer 2 go but the crooks hold “hot” matches until they’ve aired on their TV network and don’t put it online until Monday. Not to mention their Android app is total crap. Both tablet and phone. Give us a reasonable online and mobile package and most of us will pay.

    • The Gaffer

      October 4, 2012 at 11:14 am

      What would you consider a reasonable price for 50 matches a month on FOX Soccer 2Go, and considering all of the costs involved to FOX on buying the rights and providing the technology to bring the games to you?

      While you don’t think you’re paying for, you are through your cable or satellite bill. Your TV provider is paying ESPN directly for, which I’m sure they pass along the fee to you in terms of your monthly subscription service.

      “The crooks hold ‘hot’ matches until they’re aired on their TV network and don’t put it online until Monday”? The only EPL game they put online on Monday is the 11am ET one from Sunday, which I’m hoping you’re watching live on TV.

      The Gaffer

      • Frill Artist

        October 4, 2012 at 1:09 pm

        Yes, I do know that ESPN3 is based on your service provider and we indirectly pay for it. What would be a good price? Well, they could offer different league packages and offer a silver package (which would be a combination) of a certain amount of leagues and a gold package which would be all their leagues and games. I’m only interested in EPL and Champions League. I might watch the odd Series A game here and there. I also like MLS. For those three with proper coverage and all that, I think something in the range of $10 – $20 would be reasonable.

      • steve

        October 4, 2012 at 1:35 pm

        If they did every match live and not delayed then what they charge is right on. Right now I am not going to pay that much and the game i want to see isn’t available until later in the day. Also, the quality of the on demand is rubbish. Great quality for the live stream though. I have voiced these issues to them and will consider subscribing again when changed.

  18. Sammy

    October 4, 2012 at 10:47 am

    I don’t understand why people have to use pirated measures to stream matches. Why can’t they just do the right thing and stream them legally? Are all of them so desperate for money that they have to earn money by taking the easy, dishonest way out through this? I hope the authorities around the world will clampdown on this misdeed eventually and stop these pirates. I guess you can’t really blame those who watch these pirated games if they are avid soccer fans who have few other options available. These people are falling into the trap of the pirates. At the same time promoting and incresing support for the legal broadcasting of games is equally important.

    • Tony Butterworth

      October 4, 2012 at 10:52 am

      Exactly how do we stream them legally ? Do tell.

      • Frill Artist

        October 4, 2012 at 11:09 am

        Exactly. The only option is Fox Soccer 2 go and I already stated the problems about using them below.

      • Sammy

        October 4, 2012 at 11:20 am

        Well, there should be enough high quality streams available, whether on TV or online right? I don’t believe there are so little or none. How do your TV providers or other companies manage to do it? I’m not someone who works in this industry, so I won’t know the process of getting the broadcasting rights and all that to answer your question. Are you trying to say that providing matches legally is an impossible task? Why is that so then? Even if that’s the case, does it really mean that you have to compromise your integrity by resorting to piracy? Come on, nothing really bad will happen to anyone just because your companies fail to secure broadcasting rights, don’t you agree?

        • Tony Butterworth

          October 4, 2012 at 11:28 am

          You see completely confused here. You cannot stream hardly any of the Champions League legally, so a dream that it should be available does not make it possible for us to watch it. You cannot stream virtually any BPL “Big” games unless they happen to be on ESPN. There’s not even a pay-per-view model for us to complain about the price of.

          • Sammy

            October 4, 2012 at 11:46 am

            Okay, I didn’t know that. Thanks for informing me. But I still have this question: Even in this case, do you really think it is okay to use piracy to stream matches? I know you have little choice other than it but don’t you think it is still wrong?

          • Sammy

            October 4, 2012 at 12:38 pm

            Wait a minute, but didn’t the Gaffer himself suggest that there are companies who stream games legally? If what you said is true, then what did he mean by this “because it’s taking money away from the companies who are spending a shedload of money on Internet rights to provide the games legally to viewers.”

            I know I may have misunderstood this, and I apologise if I have, but I wonder how these companies which the Gaffer mentioned were able to stream matches. Unless you mean they didn’t stream matches involving big teams.

            • The Gaffer

              October 4, 2012 at 12:58 pm

              There are several sources that stream games legally. For Champions League matches, live games are shown on FOX Soccer 2Go and

              The Gaffer

          • Sammy

            October 4, 2012 at 1:09 pm

            There you got it. It seems you got this wrong then, Tony. Football fans should just stick to these few sources then. It’s not a difficult thing to ask and I don’t see why they can’t.

          • Tony Butterworth

            October 4, 2012 at 3:06 pm

            There’s some very selective reading here.

            They do not stream live, the BIG games on Sat and Sun from the BPL.

            They only stream the games already on the TV on Fox Soccer to Go.

          • Tony Butterworth

            October 4, 2012 at 3:06 pm

            For Champs league was my last point there.

  19. elliott

    October 4, 2012 at 10:36 am


    I agree with the premise that trying to stop pirated streams is impossible. However, the assumption that the “pay per cable” model is necessary rubs me the wrong way. In the US, major networks have broadcasted several sports for free to viewers with TVs for decades – their model is more eyeballs = more advertising dollars.

    I don’t see why soccer has to be stuck in the late 1980’s “pay per subscriber” model. If anything, the internet has eliminated the need for content bundling and exploded the eyeballs possibility.

  20. Matt

    October 4, 2012 at 10:21 am

    He only does what I do 😉

  21. Pete

    October 4, 2012 at 10:15 am

    Yea. I’m not sure I want them to end either.

    I’ve watched the majority of my matches online because the cable company in my area didn’t offer channels that covered soccer or because the channel itself was such poor quality (I currently have Metrocast in Maryland and Fox Soccer is almost unwatchable because the picture quality is so poor).

    I also prefer the European analysis of the game. ESPN, Fox Soccer and Fox national’s “soccer experts” are a joke. Anyone who wants to argue that should watch Gary Neville breakdown a game or team and compare it to any broadcaster from a North American broadcast.

    I recently purchased the Fox Soccer 2 Go package to watch the games online. But they still don’t offer matches that are on Fox Soccer to watch on a live online stream. So if I’m not at home or in an area that has Fox Soccer, I can only watch the games offered on Fox Soccer 2 Go, which don’t include the matches that are on Fox Soccer. (What’s odd is Fox Soccer 2 Go does offer all of the Champions League matches online).

    I wouldn’t want to see an end to pirated streams. I almost had a stroke two or three years ago when was shut down by the government.

    I have no issues paying for an online service. If I could purchase a SkySports package here in the states, I would be ecstatic! But there are laws restricting it (from what I’ve heard).

  22. Fernando

    October 4, 2012 at 10:12 am

    B/c most of of the rights holders have no idea how to properly sell online access you are seeing pirated streaming all over the world.

    ESPN is the only company who has figured out how to maximize digital opportunities with not just football but all the sports they show on

    There is a cost disconnect between media vendors and fans of soccer who can get around everyone’s pay wall. That’s the fault of the media companies for not having a sound plan to attract online viewers.

    • The Gaffer

      October 4, 2012 at 10:35 am

      Fernando, I disagree. TV providers pay ESPN for the right to bring to its satellite or cable customers, which is why not everyone has access to The reason why TV providers don’t flinch at paying ESPN for is because ESPN is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. It’s got nothing to do with soccer coverage. TV providers know that customers expect and demand ESPN.

      There is no cost disconnect between media vendors and soccer fans. I think it’s more than some soccer fans would prefer to watch their soccer illegally for free instead of paying 65 cents a day for a service like FOX Soccer 2Go.

      The Gaffer

      • elliott

        October 4, 2012 at 10:38 am

        Gaffer, did you see the press on the RojaDirecta case? Even popular pirate sites don’t make enough money to cover server fees – they do it because they love sport and believe in a public right to view sport, a concept common decades ago but that has been murdered by the Reagan/Thatcher revolutions.

      • Fernando

        October 4, 2012 at 12:13 pm

        If there’s no disconnect then why is there illegal streaming then?

        If pay for FS, FS+ you shouldn’t have to pay to watch online. HBO does this for its paying customers. Again, a company trying to get as much money as they can from their customers, which they are entitled to, however as we know it’s not exactly the #1 option for football viewers.

        • The Gaffer

          October 4, 2012 at 12:22 pm

          There’s illegal streaming because there are always going to be people who want something for nothing.

          The Gaffer

          • Fernando

            October 4, 2012 at 12:28 pm

            So does HBO have a good idea or is Fox being more business savvy?

          • trickybrkn

            October 5, 2012 at 8:33 am

            That is just wrong.
            And the death of sites like napter is the proof.
            You provide a quality easy to use service. These sites die. Otherwise it will just get worse.
            Look at baseball, you see few baseball illegal streams. Because the MLB has provided a quality product.

    • PaulF

      October 4, 2012 at 10:41 am

      that’s not the main problem. I mostly got a problem with the endless amount of fees you have to pay to gain access to football.
      Take FoxSoccer for example. You have to pay sportspack which is around $12. But once you get it, they tell you if you want more games you have to pay for FSPlus which is another 12 dollars and you dont even get all the games. To get all the games you have to pay FoxSoccer2go which is another monstrous fee.

      Before GolTV lost the La Liga rights to Bein Sport, ESPN used to show a great amount of games on ESPN3. Now that Bein Sport owns them, you barely see any La Liga, Serie A or Bundesliga games anymore on ESPN3.

      MY main problem with these companies is that they prioritize “subscription” over “viewership”. They’ll never stop people from pirating matches as long as they think this way.

      • Todd Parker

        October 4, 2012 at 12:48 pm

        “subscription over viewership”
        You get it! That is the reason. Another way said: Money over Ratings. What they need to learn is that increased ratings (in the internet age a click of the button) make far more money through advertising (especially on the internet as Facebook, google, and others with an internet model will tell you)than subscriptions do.

        • The Gaffer

          October 4, 2012 at 12:56 pm

          I disagree. As someone who works in the industry, subscriptions bring in more revenue than advertising. Advertising rates have dropped significantly, which is why a lot of newspaper sites (including The Times of London) have moved to a subscription model behind a paywall where they’re making far more money than an advertising model where they had millions of visitors/pageviews.

          The Gaffer

          • PaulF

            October 4, 2012 at 2:56 pm

            no. With Subscription companies are able to plan much better as they have a guaranteed revenue stream. With ratings however, your revenue depends on viewership.

            Look at the american leagues.All of them are on free TV. Even susbcription for the leagues official channels are cheap.

            When you force consumers to pay a lot of money for subscription, you are effectively pushing of people out of the market. these are the same people that then turn to pirated streams.

  23. PaulF

    October 4, 2012 at 10:01 am

    why would you want 2 end them?

    • The Gaffer

      October 4, 2012 at 10:09 am

      …because it’s taking money away from the companies who are spending a shedload of money on Internet rights to provide the games legally to viewers. In this case, the money is going into the hands of pirates instead.

      The Gaffer

      • dust

        October 4, 2012 at 10:34 am

        the companies in this country (USA) need to give better access and if these streams help them realize that then how is that a bad thing. if people could get the games they want online in good quality then i’m sure most of them would pay a reasonable price to do so.

        It’s one of the main drivers for ESPN creating their watch ESPN app that enables you to Watch the actual station on an internet connected device. Having games only on foxsoccer and not on foxsoccer2go is ridiculous. and i’m sure why alot of these streams are used.

        I pay for the sports package with Comcast and for the fox soccer2 go so they get $ 25 extra a month from me, but if I’m at work or traveling for work or with the fam somewhere I don’t get to watch it when its only available on fox soccer.

        Plus again the coverage is absolute weak sauce, so the sky feeds you can get are more like the experience people want, the set on fox seems to have had most of the investment on it. Sky has 3 chairs in a glass box at the game, but actual good coverage, with insight, interviews and atmosphere.

        perhaps these companies need to offer a better package and develop a real 5 year plan instead of slapping together the coverage in what feels liek a drunken haze.

        (Your Sky Gary Nevile post kinda proves the point as well)

        • The Gaffer

          October 4, 2012 at 10:39 am

          Dust, but soccer fans can get easy access to high quality streams where practically every major soccer game is available, either on television and/or the Internet. People can get the games they want in good quality except some of them choose not to.

          The number of games on FOX Soccer and not live on FOX Soccer 2Go have been reduced. Champions League games that are shown live on FOX Soccer are shown live on FOX Soccer 2Go now. The only EPL games shown on FOX Soccer that aren’t shown live on FOX Soccer 2Go are the 10am and 12:30pm ET ones on Saturday, and the 11am ET on Sunday.

          The Gaffer

          • dust

            October 4, 2012 at 10:48 am

            I know that but look at who those games typically are, they are the bigger clubs with the larger supporter bases.

            I pay for all the extra coverage that is out there and I don’t think its up to scratch. so I can understand why other’s don’t feel what is on offer is worth it. again not just the games broadcast, I think its more than that. How many people actually like the coverage around the games? (in the us anyways)

          • dust

            October 4, 2012 at 10:59 am

            It should be pay x and you get access anytime on any device. Like it or not that is the new model and until fox do what espn did it will still happen.

            It also depends on the emphasis in the model, and what the advertising / pr model is. eg; ESPN has a huge marketing effort and overall higher general presence. Fox soccer advertises on fox soccer. they need a comprehensive marketing push to all of america. Its their lack of willingness to financially invest n marketing and PR that is limiting any return on investment they make. for every 1 person streaming there are 3 or 4 more that would be willing to pay for the extra package for their kids or themselves if a) they new about it. b) the programming was better and reflected the maturity of the market.

            Football as a sport is fractured in the usa with not real concerted effort by anyone to raise the profile and be the ambassadors (like sky), it’s currently a bunch of competing media companies that see the potential and are all trying to grab a piece of the apparent pie without actually having a plan or understanding of the market.

      • dust

        October 4, 2012 at 10:44 am

        In-fact, as much as I do not like Ian Darke and McManaman’s annoying tangents and diatribes, ESPN seem to get and have a far better atmosphere as they use talent at the game, in the gantry.

        ESPN offered a better segment / build up to the Man Utd Spurs game and they didn’t even have the game on their US network.

        Fox would be better served, getting rid of the current pre and post game effort and just airing the sky coverage, Im sure they can replace sky with fox graphics on the feed and commercial breaks.

      • Scrumper

        October 4, 2012 at 1:33 pm

        How is money going into the hands of pirates if they’re broadcast free on the internet without a subscription?

        • The Gaffer

          October 4, 2012 at 1:38 pm

          Because the pages have a ton of ads on them.

          The Gaffer

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

More in FOX Sports

Translate »