SKY DERIVATIVES

The hot hot debate on BBC Radio 5 Live's Your Call yesterday was, how has Sky helped sport?

It was intriguing that I later saw a newsflash that Sky was proposing a take over of Bernie Ecclestone's Formula 1.

BTW what are Ecclestone's politics? Who is he funding with his billions?

Anyway, back to Sky Sports and that hot hot debate.

In my opinion, the question was wrong. The question should have been, what has Sky done for society?

Sky Sports has driven sport into a spectator sport for the rich and into pubs and bars.

In my opinion Sky should also have placed reporters and cameras into banks and reported second by second on the gambling the banks undertook in the first decade of this century. Of course the ordinary muggins British taxpayer who watches footie down the pub would not have been interested in such activities.

But he and she is now!

Because that was the purpose of Sky Sports. The reason why Sky put so much money into UK English football is threefold, at least.
1. to inject so much money in to ordinary club football that club football became not just a past time and interest, but became a business and a very, very important potential source of fame and riches (thus diverting kids from real education)
2. to create football celebrities and news to feed the cult of uncelebrity and unnews so that the mockingbird media has plenty of gossip to print rather than to publish serious investigative journalism (that may have uncovered the derivatives scam that unravelled in 2007 in plenty of time to be avoided and saving millions of jobs and homes)
3. to drive football supporters into seeing club football as more important than international football, thus destroying patriotism.