LogFAQs > #882858766

As others have said, they need to move with the times and offer more streaming options.

Cable (and satellite, in Sky's case) subscriptions are extortionate as fuck here in the UK and I imagine it's the same in the US. You pay for the basic package (and there are often "incentives" to take phone and internet) and then pay even more on top for sports channels. I think Sky Sports costs like another £20 on top over here. There's talk that Sky will offer individual sports channels going forward, but that doesn't go far enough honestly. They need to offer it separately without you needing a basic subscription that you might not even use if you have Netflix, for example.

Then there's the TV license here in the UK that puts some off, but that's a whole separate debate. Although, the BBC does get some sports, which is nice for those that don't have cable/satellite subs. It'd be nice if they got more like they used to before Sky gobbled it all up. That was one positive of having a national broadcaster.

Additionally, I do think our generation probably isn't as into spot as much as previous generations, which is a harder thing to change. If we want to tackle inactivity and the problems that come with it (obesity, diabetes, etc.) then interest in sport is important. Obviously that only works if people actually take part in it, but watching it gets people interested.