Is the football really so much better now, as opposed to Pre Sky?

[Salsa Party Animal]

There is lot of improvement in the game, but football is less exciting these days compared to the 80s and 90s. I think there is too much money in the game and the big club is too rich and strong for 5th place teams and below. I would like to see NFL Salary cap and draft choice brought into the game to make it more competitive but it won't work as top players can always play in different country.

[pauliewalnuts]

The quality and quantity of TV coverage has gone through the roof.

I hate Murdoch and Sky, but I have to say, their coverage is very good indeed.

I remember when ITV had the rights in the late 80s. They'd show the occasional live match, one a month or something, when they could be arsed, and there was no extra content beyond the 90 minutes, plus Saint and Greavsie on Saturday morning.

In fact, ITV's coverage is still pretty shocking.

[philthebar]

More technical players, but to me less excitement and more predictable.

I hate the hype - just give me the football.

[itbrvilla]

Didn't experience pre sky footbqall but feel it was definately better as a kid ~1994 onwards.

[andyh]

Many have said that the fact that most footballers are mercenaries is very true.
Obvioulsy, the fact that SKY money has made clubs richer is a big factor, but I maintain the bigger factor was the Bosman ruling.
It handed so much power to players, which co-incided with the SKY money hitting the game with the consequences we have now.     

[DeKuip]

You can watch exciting games of football in any division and in non-league as you always have been able to, but there's no doubting that the levels of technical ability and fitness are far greater nowadays.
Premier League money has brought an influx of top foreign players who are an absolute joy to watch - people like Bergkamp and Zola. A lot of out-and-out cloggers and thugs made a living out of being a professional footballer in England a couple of decades ago whereas someone like Ashley Young might not have made it.

I'd rather watch a player like David Silva than say Ian Ure or Dennis Smith. But then I'd rather watch from a packed terrace having paid the equivalent of a couple of pints to get in!

[SteveD]

£50+ to watch a game at QPR on a Sunday lunchtime, when it's live on telly.

Of course not.

[KevinGage]

No, no it isn't.

[Stu]

When the hope is gone, then there's no point. Oh look, Man U have signed a sponsorship deal for their training kit to the tune of £40m.

I'm fast becoming attracted to the cheaper options of Rugby and Cricket, both of which aren't subject to the ridiculous levels of hype, nor suffer from the utter mismatch of power between the champions league teams and the rest.

Football is not competitive.

[TopDeck113]

Different eras.

I do feel it was more competitive in the 70s and 80s.  That's not really reflected in the silverware: in the last 20 years of the original Football League set-up, seven different clubs were Champions with Liverpool winning it in eleven of those years; four clubs have won the Premier League in its 20 years, Man Utd being crowned champions on twelve occasions. However, when you consider how many different clubs finished in what is now the holy grail of the Top 4, it was a much more open competition.

Skill level has improved, as has the pace of the game.  Helped by the marginalising of the player whose whole purpose was to destroy.  However, in many ways footballers  now are in many ways identikit athletes, which has led to the demise of the maverick. 

Grounds are safer, but have become soulless arenas.

Would I rather watch Villa circa 1977 from a packed Holte terrace or the present team  from a plastic seat? No contest.  Would I rather watch Villa circa 1986 from a crumbling away terrace, through cage bars and barded wire or the present team from a plastic seat, but with clear sight lines.  Again, no contest.  Do I think £40+ for the privilege is value for money?  No way.

The biggest change is the saturation coverage in the broadcast and print media.             

[lordmcgrath5]

Technically better yes.

Was it better standing on the Holte watching the likes of Platt and Cowans rather than a bunch of millionaires with no comprehension of the real world ?

Absolutely.

That pretty much sums it up.

[Toronto Villa]

It's easy top wax lyrical about how great things used to be. Modern football while it has plenty things wrong with it has a number of pros, and is a far safer environment than back in the 80's and a little of the 90's. Football was being pushed in the direction of cleaning up it's act before Sky, but the new money helped out. What it has created in my opinion is an obsession with a select few clubs to the point that smaller clubs have become marginalized. For the real evil in football today is the CL. It has created a financial gap the likes of which we may never see close.

[cdbearsfan]

Compared to when I started watching football, 1988, I would say the standard is better. Wimbledon had just won the FA Cup and half the league started emulating their "style" of football. Ok, we've still got bloody Stoke but most teams attempt to play football now.

While it may upset some of the "not a man's game any more" complainants, I prefer the stricter refereeing now. Pele and Diego Maradona were both kicked out of the game for long periods, football was the weaker for their absence. Teams try that now to, say, Lionel Messi, and they will be on nine bookings and three sent off before long so they have to try to stop him fairly.

The back-pass rule has also proved a wonderful invention.

Of course, I wouldn't put any of these innovations down to Sky.

Despite the fact that, I would say, the game is now more pleasing on the eye, it doesn't necessarily make football more exciting. The fact that teams can never get promoted and start challenging for the title, and that teams without billions to spend can't compete, have made football more tedious.

The cup competitions are also rubbish now. For reasons that have been stated many times on here.

[Karlos96]

I prefer it before Sky.  I still don't think the Premiership is great as they make out every week I see players who can't control the ball, can't pass the ball, but Sky would have you believe it's the best it's ever been. 

I hate what the game has become teams full of mercenaries who don't care about the team they play for or come to think of it who's bench they sit on, as long as they pick up their ridiculous wages at the end of each week.

Then we have the same teams winning things year after year, any team that gets close will lose their best players, teams being more interested in finishing fourth than winning the FA Cup, what is the bloody point?

The worst thing for me is that hope has been removed, take that away from fans and you don't have a lot left.

[hawkeye]

In terms of the game itself, Techicaly better- without doubt but that is really all that has improved.
The fact that they have taken competition out of the Top League and reduced the FA Cup to an afterthought has ruined it.