What is a fella like me supposed to do? A sports junkie, (in this order), football, cricket, rugby league, boxing, I need at least a daily fix. And to feed the habit, I have made a pact with the devil for a number of years now and buy a subscription to Sky Sports.

When you say the words Rupert and Murdoch, you tend to be treated either as someone about to share the deadliest of viruses or as someone worth knowing for the value of getting to watch your team for nothing. Interestingly, the very people who describe the Aussie media baron as the unacceptable face of global capitalism and the destroyer of football as we know it tend to be the same folk who don't mind watching the games in a bistro pub. As long as they are not paying for the subscription....

I have a more level-headed approach. I don't earn a lot of money and if I prefer to choose to spend the sum I do earn watching Australia v India from Melbourne at 2am (that's where you'll find me tonight, folks), rather than on designer clothes (can't get any to fit me at my age) or two rounds at the boozer (can't persuade the missus to let me out), then it's my business.

'Sports coverage under Sky is so much better than terrestrial TV that any fan who can afford it, and chooses not to subscribe, is being plain stupid'


And the bottom line is that sports coverage under Sky is so much better than terrestrial TV that any fan who can afford it, and chooses not to subscribe, is being plain stupid. The quality of camera work, commentary, analysis, news, and most importantly money put back in to the production is simply superb. The 20-plus cameras at football games Sky cover are testament to giving value for money, but it is for the sheer scope of how football and cricket are covered that the company gets my hard-earned cash.

Being able to keep up with the West Indian cricketers in South Africa while flicking over to La Liga, tuning in to live Super League rugby while keeping half an eye on the home Tests, is a real pleasure. And when I think of how terrestrial channels approach sports production, I realise just how far behind Sky they are.

I'm not interested in the ethics of how or why Sky ended up with such a monopoly in the UK, although it seems to me that the company follows a mission statement that goes something like: ''We strive to give sports fans what they want when they want it at a price that is not extortionate''. The laggers at BCC Sport might take note - especially when their coverage of live football involves a studio at the game so full of people it must be a health and safety hazard.

And to put your collective minds at rest, I have not been paid by Sky for this article.

I have heard arguments against Sky that the company prices public-sector providers out of the market. Hang on, don't we pay enough for our 'free to air' licence fee as it is? And do we get good coverage of sports? On radio perhaps, but certainly not on TV where the highlight of the year in Grandstand appears to be indoor bowls or showjumping.

The only way Sky can be knocked off its monopolistic perch is for its competitors to follow suit and it is good that Setanta are having a go, and a good one at that. Like in most things in our modern world, it will be the market that determines who watches what, and when.

I've heard that you can get free coverage of Premier League football through dodgy websites. So be it. But for less than £1 a day, I'd rather pay and hear brilliant analysis of cricket from Sir Ian Botham, Nasser Hussain and the Sky team or the Martin Tyler-Andy Gray football combo than strain my eyes to try to watch an illegal stream of a game.

While watching Arsenal v Manchester United (on Sky), I saw the banner: In this order, United, kids, wife. For me, sport is my drug of choice and if I have to pay a dealer who provides me with the purest form, then I'll readily cough up. And I'd like to hear from non-subscribers who can persuade me otherwise.