Talk:List of UEFA Champions League broadcasters

message: Viasats TV3 is not free anywhere I believe, certainly not in Denmark and Norway Zealot 5 zz (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Switzerland has an empty "Free" column but we enjoy the Tuesday and Wednesday games for years on public SF2!
--andreas27 13:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Switzerland

message: Under Sweden it says "Pay" but that's not 100% correctly. As TV6 (where the Final plus the high profile match of the day is air) is free if you have a digital terrestrial television box. So you can watch the Final "free" as you have to own a TV and the Box. :) --chandler 12:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sweden

message: In Norway TV3s sister channel Viasat4 takes one game every day (tuesday and wednesday) - always Manchester United and Liverpool, sometimes Chelsea (but that's another story) - and the rest of the games is sent on the TV3 VIASAT SPORT Channels.
 Recently, VIasat4 has been moved to digital which you have to pay in order to get. Viasat Sport is not free.
So Champions League in Norway is in fact not free.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.77.185 (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Norway

message: hi,
is there an equivalent list for the uefa cup/europa league for this or the next season?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.15.128.49 (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  next season? uefa cup/europa league? 

message: Why did you edit my post, Aleen? I'm from Hungary and I gave you a link with reference: http://www.sport1tv.hu/Hirek/2012/07/06/lab_bajnokok_ligaja8 . Sport1 tv will broadcast instead of Tv2.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.209.140 (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hungary 

message: Star TV had been longest Champions League Broadcaster in a single channel with owner change. I think it must be added to this... They shown first year to this year (2011) they were Uzan Company (1990-2004), Goverment Company (2004-2005) and Dogan TV Company (2005-2011)... They sold today this channel to Dogus Holding and they (Dogan TV) will probably move Champions League Free TV Broadcasts to another channel of Dogan TV (namely Kanal D or CNN Türk) but this detail is notable I think...78.160.6.94 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star TV (Turkey) 

message: I am troubled by the fact Aleenf1 continues to revert clearly sourced information about the status of the broadcasters in the United States. Multiple sources can easily be found, and I am troubled by the fact in the article's history that Aleenf1 reverts with only a blunt comment and admonishes good faith IP's only intending to add their nation's broadcasters to the articles as if they are the only one allowed to edit this article. I would like to understand what exactly is wrong with these edits that are not problems anywhere else. Nate • (chatter) 04:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Only one FTA final match doesn't significantly notable to cover as the tournament is seasoning rather then one or two match. Not only US, but France also (cited) have only the final shown FTA. Plus, non rights holder can apply from UEFA as information here. --Aleenf1 04:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter; they broadcast the final, it should be listed, otherwise someone is going to come along and assume that nobody aired it on broadcast television in the country. They aired it; common sense dictates that if it's sourced, it should be listed. And I have no idea what you're communicating with the link to the UEFA page besides an unrelated media accreditation policy. Nate • (chatter) 04:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fox owns both of those outlets. They can do whatever they want; U.S. TV works quite differently from European TV. ViperSnake151  Talk   14:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What you mean by "owns both of those outlets". They can do whatever they want? I think you made a silly comment, that is how contract works, and they cannot do whatever they want. --Aleenf1 04:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I don't get it, they have contract to work, clearly it is for final only, this doesn't change US have to pay to watch. --Aleenf1 23:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fox broadcasts the tournament as whole, through their cable outlets and also through their FTA network. Just because the FTA network only broadcasts the final, it doesn't mean that FTA coverage is non-existent. The FBC/News Corp signed a contract with UEFA to broadcast the whole thing, most of it on cable, with the final on FTA TV. As such, Fox also broadcasts a part of the tournament on FTA TV. And, as such, Fox should also be listed as a FTA broadcaster, the same way that Viasat is, although Viasat only broadcasts part of the tournament on FTA TV on countries like Sweden. JDamanWP (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Viasat have whole season for those who granted FTA coverage, that is differ to the point you talked. --Aleenf1 00:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your sentence is kind of confusing and hard to understand but after a few minutes I managed to get a hand on it. Going back to our subject, I don't understand how the Viasat case in Sweden differs from the Fox case in the US. Both operate pay-TV outlets and both have most of their UCL coverage on pay-TV, with little coverage on FTA, with the exception of a few "game of the matchday" matches, or in the case of Fox, only the final. So, Viasat as a broadcaster, well, broadcasts the competition almost on its entirety, using its pay-TV outlets (Viasat Sport, Viasat Fotboll, etc.) and its FTA outlets (since I'm referring to Sweden, it is TV6). Fox does the same bloody thing. Coverage on both its Pay-TV outlets (Fox Soccer, FX, FSN, etc.) and its FTA network (whose bloody name is, well, Fox). JDamanWP (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Even you have your point. However, one match for free in 12 months is not significantly, no notable enough to be include in article. UEFA Champions League is playing for 13 matchdays, not 1, no point at all to list broadcaster for one match only. Remember, here is not a directory. --Aleenf1 06:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

text: But Fox broadcasts broadcasts the whole "lemon", in which it includes the final, which is broadcast on FTA TV. As such, Fox also broadcasts UCL programming on FTA TV, even if it is just about 3 hours of it. As such, there is a point in listing Fox as a FTA broadcaster of the UCL. JDamanWP (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, here is not electronic program guide, which UCL programming including highlights show shall not be mention as part of it. UCL programming can be access in Internet and mobile for weeks in broadcaster official website. Still, you got your point only, but not prove that Fox can broadcast the season live on FTA other than just the final. --Aleenf1 15:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The decision of broadcasting only the final on FTA TV parts from Fox and not from UEFA. Fox signed a contract with UEFA the broadcast the whole thing, doesn't mean where. However, Fox presented in its proposal to UEFA that it intended to broadcast the final on FTA. Fox acquired the whole thing. It doesn't matter where they are going to broadcast it, what matters is that they do it. And since they also broadcast the bloody thing on FTA TV, then Fox should also be listed as a FTA broadcaster. JDamanWP (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Rights sales differ from market to market, as I read a few months ago in a UEFA distributed .pdf file. As such, while in Europe rights are sold with in packages (for example, Package 1 is to be sold to FTA broadcasters, while Package 2, 3 and others are to be sold to Pay-TV channels) for the rest of World, UEFA handles is sales differently, only selling a unique package for a specific broadcaster, which includes all the matches from the competition. And thats how Fox managed to get their hands on the full competition.JDamanWP (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Original research. That is no reference to support your thesis, that is only chant by you. That is no whatsoever that one tv broadcaster could take it all, FTA broadcaster either make no bid or bid, that is no ref that Fox take it all, until now still you have your own POV. Similar to 2014 FIFA World Cup, that is no ref that FIFA dismissed the rights of ERT even ERT dissolved by government, however you dismissed it, then you are "know it all". --Aleenf1 13:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States 

message: Does BT Sport count as a free provider, and if so how? --Queen Lover 9 (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: BT will shown selected matches free, while it is pay TV. --Aleenf1 13:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom 15-18 

message: As it was before someone choose on its own to delete it, a distinction between FTA/PPV broadcasters should be done for the table. It would make the table clearer to understand and tidier. It's also important to underline that all broadcasters should be included (in fact, I don't understand why broadcasters like KLIK Sport, La Liga TV Bar are excluded and others doing exactly the same thing like them are included). --217.59.200.127 (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, including to confuse people too, BT Sport also offer free matches, why you didn't mention? In addition to your unsourced addition to the list, hypocrite. --Aleenf1 15:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsourced? Guess who inserted the source for Japan, Cambodia, Laos? I would have fixed BT Sport and that problem later: you know, it's difficult when you've to fix all the mistakes someone has done in the past. You're the same person who reverted all the edits until yesterday regarding those countries and their selected broadcasters. You're the same person who reverted my edit just to modify the page on your own a couple of minutes later with the same information. You're the same person who kept in the table broadcasters stealing the signal to show Champions League and the same who is discrimininating without criteria some broadcasters just to include others - with the same structure - in the table. Are you joking? And next time remember to avoid insults because you will be sanctioned otherwise. This page doesn't belong to you: deal with it! --217.59.200.127 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, keep blah blah blah with your blatantly revert and insertion of unsourced material, and unsourced claim of "stealing". Baseless, those list is not insert by me also, I'm just patrol the changes, either it is sourced or unsourced and cleanup. --Aleenf1 01:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh okay, now I see that: you just a psycopath who can't make it. I tried to be as polite as I could but when one is insulting you and mocking you this way...Fortunately, there's the article history speaking for itself and showing what kind of psycopath you're (for whoever reading, look at what he did here and here moments later and look at what happens when you edit the page, even with sourced material): keep your page for you, everyone can see what a really good job you did until now LOL Don't fear anyway, I will still modify this page: someone has to do that given you don't even know what you're talking about, mr. Rude! --37.163.52.243 (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, i'm not back myself up, i'm back the facts and even your threats. --Aleenf1 04:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  FTA/PPV 

message: I already reported this problem but Aleenf1 is doing what he wants anyway. I underlined the fact that LaLigaTV Bar and KLIK Sport should be included in the table because they're broadcasting UCL, he replied that those two broadcasters belong to Arena Sport and Movistar but if you look carefully at the table you will notice that also Futbol TV and Uzreport for Uzbekistan belong to the same broadcaster. He is reverting my edits anyway and not even providing a proper explanation for it: stop him for God's sake, he's spreading incorrect information just to defend his own line of thought arbitrary. He's just reverting every edit and now started to reinsert all those information that he understands are correct and that he didn't even know about. Stop this psychopath and arrogant user! --37.163.41.239 (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, just think yourself right would be fine, anyway you entitled to remove it if it is the same group, however more merely like you want your editing stand, after so many comments you lay here. After you put so many comments, including towards my user talk page, sounds like you attack people a lot, though uncivil, it's okay from me. --Aleenf1 04:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The only one acting like an uncivil person it's you. Can't wait for you to steal other information from other users edits, because you're such a huge psychopath that the only good version for this article must always be yours. You cannot treat other users like a doormat: reverting their edits just to reinsert the information to take all the credit it's a bit sad. I mean, you could always edit again the page to fix minor issues but each time you've to revert/undo everything...this is your style, and it's frankly very poor. Grow up. --151.45.159.101 (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the only uncivil person who talk other people uncivil and ask people to grow up. Still attacking people. --Aleenf1 11:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

text: P/S: If you think people are steal information, please do not contribute here, make your own encyclopedia website, do not come here attack people if your edit get reverted. --Aleenf1 11:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's some huge nerve. Who did revert someone else edits just to reinsert the same information again moments later?! Answer this question and realize how ridiculous you're. You went to cry for protection not once but twice because the fact someone else other than you has the last say on this article drives you crazy. Otherwise, you would've accepted my edits (and the ones of other users), and instead of reverting or undoing you would've fixed what was wrong with those edits. Instead, since you operate in bad faith, you did the opposite. But as I can see I'm repeating the same things from two weeks at least and you answer with meaningless sentences: not that I'm surprised since you're not even able to form a meaningful sentence in English (and no, I'm not discriminating anyone, just stating a fact) and your point is very weak. Learn to cooperate, because what you do is far away from it. --151.45.159.101 (talk) 12:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Still think it is better of itself... --Aleenf1 12:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic user 

message: I want to add flags MaazRajput123 (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags