England's Premiership Football clubs have rejected a pay-per view deal with Sky TV.

But the clubs are still in negotiations and the issue could raise its head again.

The clubs say the deal has been rejected in the game's and fans' best interests. But if that's the case, should not the very principle of pay-per-view be thrown out too?

Fans and supporters groups think so. They say they already have to pay to watch games on Sky Sports. Ticket prices are soaring. Why should they have to pay more?

Chairman of the Football Taskforce David Mellor warns clubs of fans' resentment and not to sell "the birthright of football for a bit more Murdoch money."

But the clubs and Sky take a different view.

They say the extra money is not why the deal broke down. But it would help the game. Stadia could be improved and top players would be drawn to England.

The stress however is that pay-per-view would bring games into people's homes - games which they would never have had access to before. And at around £10 a game, the cost to watch on TV is not much different from a visit to the ground.

What do you think?

Should we have pay to watch football on TV?

I'm glad the deal was rejected but I would still be prepared to pay more...
Sue Lockhart, UK

Your reaction in full

Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage | ©