Ofcom and sport
It's the end of the world as we know it.
No, this is not England manager Fabio Capello's response to pictures of Wayne Rooney limping off with a sprained ankle in Munich, but sports' response to Wednesday morning's ruling by Ofcom.
Hit Sky in the pocket and we will pay, say the sports, adding that there will be catastrophic knock-on effects for community projects and, in the case of rugby union, support for players whose careers have been cut short by injury.
Don't believe me? Well, here's Richard Scudamore, chief executive of the Premier League, the competition with arguably the most to lose from the Ofcom ruling.
"Quite simply we are extremely vexed by the whole proposition. We think its outrageous that there should be an intervention at all... it's a market that doesn't need fixing."
Some media insiders predict Sky will reduce the amount it pays for sports rights by up to a third. Such a reduction would be disastrous for a range of sports which have become far too reliant on Sky - Premier League football, English cricket, rugby union and rugby league.
Manchester United celebrate winning the first Premier League title
Ofcom's decision is ostensibly good news for armchair fans who should be given the chance to buy Sky Sports content for less - whether through rival broadcasters or from Sky itself who will surely have to lower its prices.
And Ofcom has said it will extend the ruling to any Sky channel if the broadcaster simply responds by moving its best sports content to other channels - namely Sky Sports 3 and 4.
But does it necessarily follow that Ofcom's ruling will lead to the sort of dramatic scenario sports are predicting?
Toby Syfret, a media analyst from Enders, argues that the overall impact on Sky's sports revenues will be marginal.
"Perhaps the smaller bodies would be affected, but you would have thought Sky could easily spread the pain," he says.
"I think they [the sports bodies] have a lot less to fear than they say."
Setanta - the only broadcaster to seriously challenge Sky's market dominance - collapsed. And while ESPN has the deep pockets required to take Sky on, it does not appear to want to challenge the status quo at this stage.
As for Sky, having initially built success on the back of the Premier League and then expanded into sports such as rugby union and cricket, its business is too closely linked to football, cricket and rugby to simply let them wither on the vine.
You only have to look at what's happened in past rights negotiations where there has been no realistic competitor in the market for the Premier League's live rights. Instead of going down the rights values have kept on rising - from £38.2m a year in 1992 to £438m a year in the latest deal.
In fact, the long-term impact of the Ofcom verdict and the separate review of listed events being carried out by the government may have positive effects on sport.
Both inquiries have exposed how our top sports are too reliant on Sky for their income.
That could lead to them having to come up with new ways to commercialise their rights - such as the development of internet streaming which may mean even more choice for fans.
And it may force sports, football in particular, to finally confront a threat far greater than any media watchdog - namely the exorbitant sums of money paid to players.