No-one who doesn't support the ten sides involved each week is going to pay £15 to watch a match which doesn't involve their side. So already such pricing is excluding a huge share of the market.
And even the fans whose sides are involved are, in the main, going to be put off. Sure, there will be some sales - especially where friends or family club together to share the cost (I wonder how much social distancing and the rule of six might got out the window with some) - but would it really pull in more money than a more sensible pricing strategy?
I completely agree by the way that Sky and BT should be allowed to recoup their overheads of putting on these extra matches. I pay my subscription fully in the knowledge that I'm buying five matches each week, not ten. And that subscription price is, in part, based on their overheads involved. But £15 for 90 minutes of TV suggests that a huge share of that is pure profit (I don't pay anywhere near that on a like-for-like comparison with my monthly subscription). Pure profit which is going directly into the hands of the PL. This is such a horrendous idea, on so many levels.
It'll be interesting how the 20 clubs have agreed to share that profit. I've read that this idea was very much pushed by the big six, so one assumes that they'll be getting their share of the pot. That, in turn, suggests that any Saints fan paying £15 won't be making that payment to Saints (ie in a similar way to buying an actual match ticket). The fans of the big boys will rarely need to incur such charges, because their matches will so often be the five televised any way. So the big boys don't win under an arrangement where the viewer pays direct to their club - hence my assumption of some form of collective sharing. If so, then essentially the fans of Villa and WBA are being asked to pay to help (in part) to fund the likes of City and Spurs.
