Honestly, that price restructing from Sky doesn't even seem worth the hassle. I mean, unless you watch just one sport, then really, most are going to need two or three channels, which ultimately means you barely save anything, and may as well subscribe to all the damn channels anyways.
The thing that gets me is, including Sky Sports News, that's 9 channels they have. And I'm trying to think how on earth are they going to show enough content throughout the year to justify all those channels.
On paper, £27 for 8 channels, is better value than BT Sport which is round the same price but for 4 channels, but in reality, BT Sport seems to mostly have the better choice of what they show now overall compared to Sky.
Imo, Sky should've looked at doing one channel for say £12.99 per month. 2 channels for £15. The flexiblity will certainly entice people to pick and choose, but the prices may not be enough to sway enough people over.
Wouldn't surprise me if some continue to either carry on with streaming, or use the Now TV option. All in all, paying for Sport continues to be pretty damn pricey compared to any other TV structure.