No sport is now untainted by the Murdoch shilling and every sport is fighting with varying degrees of desperation to submit to the newspaper magnate's will in exchange for his money.
In exchange for selling their sports to satellite, many participants and investors have enriched themselves considerably. There is more money sloshing around in premier division football now than at any time in the past; rugby league has been entirely reorganised to fit Mr Murdoch's broadcasting schedules; rugby union is still suffering from the convulsions he precipitated by pumping unprecedented sums of money into the sport.
MPs, responding to the concerns of their constituents, are worried that the 'crown jewels' of sport will be lost to pay-to-view satellite and that 'free' terrestrial television will be left gathering up the crumbs at Mr Murdoch's table.
Now a committee of the great and good set up by Mr Chris Smith's Ministry of Culture has recommended that virtually all major sporting events should be up for grabs, sold to the highest bidder whether or not that is terrestrial television.
This raises the prospect of all live cricket, all of the Wimbledon fortnight except for the finals weekend, most football, all rugby, most athletics and golf all disappearing into Mr Murdoch's clutches.
There is something in this list for virtually every sports fan which is, of course, why Mr Murdoch would be so pleased to welcome them to satellite TV.
The fact is there are huge sums of money to be made from the nation's love affair with sport and the BBC, in particular, has neither the money nor, more importantly, the will to protect what it has.
In the long run, we will have to accept the fact that sport on television is not going to come to us free but for the purchase of a TV licence for very much longer.
In return, various sports will become considerably better off financially. The losers will be viewers who will be forced to pay much more money than in the past to watch their favourite sports (unless, admittedly, they are willing to make do with the edited highlights to be broadcast on terrestrial TV some time after the event when the outcome will be well known).
With the vast sums of money being given to the top levels of sport in Britain, it would be reasonable to ask whether the sports themselves were likely to benefit. After all, if cricket gets more Murdoch millions will the England team win a few more matches?
Unfortunately, on the evidence so far available, there is nothing to suggest more money going into a sport brings more victories for its sportsmen and women.
Football has been perhaps the biggest beneficiary of the Murdoch millions yet only one English premier division club, Chelsea, is still in European competitions. Both Aston Villa and Manchester United were knocked out this week.
And it is reasonable to ask how much of the money is being spent developing home-grown talent which will, in due course, help England to win another World Cup. Judging by the names on the Chelsea team sheet, very few indeed.
What about rugby union, which has endured the most dramatic revolution of all? The England team is now fairly clearly better than the other three home nations. But it was heavily defeated by France at the start of the Five Nations championship and in four games against the three major southern hemisphere countries, the best England could come up with was one 'heroic' draw.
This does not suggest that paying players and administrators more money than ever before actually translates into better players or more victories. And there is no reason to suppose that putting Wimbledon fortnight or the home test matches on satellite TV will suddenly turn our cricketers or tennis-players into world-beaters either. Indeed, they will be so welff they may lose the hunger that creates a will to win.
Overall, therefore, these recommendations about a B-list of sports events ripe for satellite TV suggest that we are set to become even more a nation of losers than we are already.
