Germany has this as well. Looks slightly different and I've never payed enough attention to see if it changes. Interesting how the glass is localized :)
With prices of a monthly Sky subscription for venues ranging from 449 EUR to 1449 EUR [1], you can understand why Sky are keen to prevent the home subscription being misused.
Notably, it is also not in their interests to have too many venues showing the football games. That results in less home subscribers.
I often watch Champions League and Bundesliga football games in these sports bars. I see no reason for a home Sky subscription. It is a complete rip-off.
That seems incredibly expensive. In the US as a bar / restaurant you can get a $80 package from DirecTV that covers just about everything but the league owned channels.
DISH and DirecTV, the two major US satellite operators, pay the individual content networks a cut of the subscription for rights to broadcast. So for example if your $80 package has ESPN in it, ESPN might be getting $5 of that. Whereas common networks like ABC, NBC, TBS, CBS, TNT, Fox and similar might only get $0.50.
For public viewing they scale it based on occupancy. So if your bar is likely to have a viewer count of < 100 people, you'll fall into the normal tier. For a maxed out package with 2000 possible viewers, you'll pay $175, or $425 if you want all of the ESPN channels (Disney must be getting a huge cut of that +$250).
I wonder what keeps the American sports leagues (and/or ESPN) from charging more for public-performance licenses? I can't imagine they're doing it out of goodwill, so they must feel like they can't get UK-level fees out of bars. Maybe carrying a particular league (or even sports at all) is not as much of a "necessity" for American bars, so if they push it too much, bars will just say no thanks? In much of the UK a pub really has to have football, and usually not just any football, but the local club's games (plus "big" games).
https://planetofsports.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/38917790....