Paul Barber has eased concerns we are at the dawn of a pay-per-view revolution in the Premier League.

But Albion fans are expected to give PPV a lukewarm welcome when first affects their club on Monday.

How many will pay £14.95 to watch their home game with West Bromwich Albion?

How many will give the game a miss – possibly for the first time since lockdown?

And how many will shift in their stance between now and kick-off time?

The most vocal opposition to PPV among Seagulls supporters appears to have been calmed after their club explained the situation and announced season ticket refunds.

But there still appears to be significant resistance to the extra charge to watch matches with some fans planning to boycott Monday’s game against West Brom and donate the money to a food bank instead.

In doing so, they would follow an example set by Newcastle fans, who raised £30,000 when their match against Manchester United went PPV.

The proposal to back Brighton Food Bank and similar organisations has gathered pace over social media and clearly would be of massive help to charities.

So when does simply choosing not to buy something become a boycott?

The answer in this case might be when the price of the product is parted with - but to another beneficiary instead, in this case the food bank.

Of course, it is possible to pay for the match and also support charity. And one wonders whether those who opt to pay the £14.95 might be judged adversely by those who don't.

Right from the off, the complaint about PPV appears to have been over the cost rather than the concept.

Broadcasters and the league are well within their rights to ask a fee for matches which would not otherwise have been shown live and the viewer has the option not to buy.

But this is a bit more complicated because there is a longer game too.

Clubs do not need fans to lose the habit of watching their matches, even if it can only be on TV right now.

While clubs will see their fixtures as attractive events people want to spend money on, the reality is there are some out there (not necessarily Albion right now) who actually rely on supporters showing blind or illogical faith and unceasing allegiance.

That could be lost if supporters get into the habit of NOT watching them play.

Barber has said he is unhappy with the PPV price but that it was not set by the Premier League.

The Argus:

However, Albion’s chief executive and deputy chairman has also explained why the current stop-gap arrangement is not the precursor to something more permanent.

He also struggles to see a scenario whereby the Prem goes on its own with a Netflix type set-up.

Barber (pictured above) said: “If the Premier League were to say they were going to move totally to pay-per-view and you keep your own revenues, I’d be voting against it.

“We as a football club would lose out so massively we wouldn’t be able to compete.

“Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Tottenham, Arsenal - they would sail off into the distance. We would never be able to close the gap.

“Is this the thin end of the wedge in terms of pay-per-view?

“Not if I’ve got anything to do with it when I’m at this club because it will put us at a massive disadvantage.

“Is the price point right? No, I don’t think it is. But is it right for now? Well, we didn’t have any control over it so it is what it is.”

That Barber cannot see a switch to clubs selling their own TV matches underlines how important it was to oppose Project Big Picture.

As things stand, the big six could not force through a change to sell TV rights on an individual basis. A partial switch to such a set-up was proposed in the draft of Big Picture.

Barber said: “Any kind of change to the way we sell things in the Premier League requires 14 votes. That is quite a high bar to challenge.

“If we suddenly, for example, got pressure from the big six clubs to move to a pay-per-view only model because they knew they would have many more fans than us who would pay it, they would need the support of eight other clubs to do that.

READ MORE: Duffy under pressure after tough time versus Zlatan

“By my reckoning, there aren’t enough clubs with the size of fanbase to make that worth their while.

“I’m pretty confident there wouldn’t be a model shift in terms of pay-per-view on its own or suddenly all clubs just sell their own TV.

“In terms of whether the Premier League should do it themselves and work like some of the American sports, where all the key revenues are pooled centrally and then distributed either equally or on a merit basis, that would be one of the competitive opportunities we’ve got next time we go to market.

“The challenge I think in the market itself is there aren’t that many competitors queuing up to replace Sky and BT. This is one of the challenges that we always have.

“Is Amazon going to come forward, is Apple going to come forward? Is Netflix going to come forward?

“Is there going to be someone from outer space who comes forward to suddenly buy Premier League TV rights?

“The reality is, as much as we all love our country for being what it is, it isn’t very big.

“There aren’t that many broadcasters in this country who can pay billions of pounds for Premier League rights.

“So it’s less than likely I’d say that you are going to see a new entrant coming in.

“I’d say it’s too early for us to move to a new infrastructure as a league because that will take quite a bit of setting up and quite a big lead time to be ready.

EXCLUSIVE: Why Mac Allister looks a different player now - by his football star brother

“The broadcasters aren’t silly. If we threaten we are going to do this on our own, and we’ve got about 18 months before the current deal expires, they are going to say, ‘Good luck with that’.

“They spent 20 or 30 years building up the kind of infra-structure which delivers the quality of product you see now.”

Supporters from other clubs who have featured in pay-per-view matches, including Aston Villa, Burnley, Leeds United and Manchester United, have also been raising thousands of pounds for local food banks.