Golf on TV (paying for it)

Mel Smooth

Hacker
Joined
May 4, 2017
Messages
3,786
Visit site
I see as a cost cutting exercise the BBC will be cutting 1,000 hours of tv programming this year, and half of that is from sport!

How long until they give Jeremy Vine his own cycling programme. The guys almost there with his helmet footage of people putting a cyclists life in danger whilst picking their nose at the wheel, or people that have the audacity to cross an empty cycle lane in order to get where they need to go..
 

Liverpoolphil

Grand Slam Winner
Joined
Jan 23, 2012
Messages
44,772
Location
Leighton Buzzard
Visit site
Very much agree but then again, match of the day does just that. Ditch match of the day and that is 25% of those savings done. You can get goal highlights online within minutes of the ball hitting the net.

The point was that the BBC does not want golf or, in fact, much of any other sport.

The thing with Motd it provides highlights to a lot of games that aren’t broadcast - and it’s still a huge pull for viewers

Suspect there are more than want to watch Motd than want to watch golf highlights.

it’s not that BBC don’t “want” to show golf or any other sports that they don’t show , they just have to work within budget and broadcast constraints - they have the whole population they need to try and cater for - it’s not easy even more so with more budget cuts
 

GB72

Money List Winner
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
14,344
Location
Rutland
Visit site
The thing with Motd it provides highlights to a lot of games that aren’t broadcast - and it’s still a huge pull for viewers

Suspect there are more than want to watch Motd than want to watch golf highlights.

it’s not that BBC don’t “want” to show golf or any other sports that they don’t show , they just have to work within budget and broadcast constraints - they have the whole population they need to try and cater for - it’s not easy even more so with more budget cuts

Totallly agree but if DZone get there way then all EFL games will be broadcast. Does that remove the need for any Football league highlights.

The amount of viewers is a red herring as the point of the licence fee is that the BBC can produce programmes without the concern of such commercial matters. In fact, there is an argument that is should show golf and not foorball because it is less represented elsewhere.

I would argue that the BBC would decline to show golf if the rights were handed to them free of charge.
 

GB72

Money List Winner
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
14,344
Location
Rutland
Visit site
Or an indecent price, depending on your point of view.

Not at all, you have a show that is costing tens of millions of dollars to produce per episode, you need to recoupe that and make some on top. can you imagine how bad shows like Game of Thrones would be if it was made with Doctor Who level effects.

To put forward an analogy, it is like claiming that every golf course should charge the same as your local municipal so as everyone can gain access. Both are methods of entertainment and so why should some people be allowed to pay more and seek a better experience, we should all be able to pay the same amount each year to access any course.
 

Liverpoolphil

Grand Slam Winner
Joined
Jan 23, 2012
Messages
44,772
Location
Leighton Buzzard
Visit site
Totallly agree but if DZone get there way then all EFL games will be broadcast. Does that remove the need for any Football league highlights.

The amount of viewers is a red herring as the point of the licence fee is that the BBC can produce programmes without the concern of such commercial matters. In fact, there is an argument that is should show golf and not foorball because it is less represented elsewhere.

I would argue that the BBC would decline to show golf if the rights were handed to them free of charge.

If Dazn get the EFL media rights then I suspect it will be down to what other packages will be offered. Someone will pick up the highlights on terrestrial and prob ITV

And Golf has full representation unfortunately- you can watch every single event now, watch more golf than ever before. As you say BBC will continue with the events that have to be on terrestrial Telly because they know sky or BT can’t grab them.
 

GB72

Money List Winner
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
14,344
Location
Rutland
Visit site
If Dazn get the EFL media rights then I suspect it will be down to what other packages will be offered. Someone will pick up the highlights on terrestrial and prob ITV

And Golf has full representation unfortunately- you can watch every single event now, watch more golf than ever before. As you say BBC will continue with the events that have to be on terrestrial Telly because they know sky or BT can’t grab them.

From what I understand, they want the lot, over 1300 matches. Unless they subcontract, there will be no other packages. If everything is live, there is no need for highlights 'there is no audience for them'

Joknig aside, I think that highlights shows, including Match of the Day, hark back to a bygone era when there was little or no live league football, no internet, no youtube etc.

This is why I think that all major sporting events rights should come as a package, you want to show the big event, you have to dedicate an amount of time to promoting the game in general.
 

sunshine

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
4,923
Visit site
But, "Your licence fee still gets you what it always has done" is not true with regards to golf, The Open, The Masters, Ryder Cup used to have full live coverage on BBC.

Is that true though? I don't remember the BBC having the full live coverage that you can enjoy today. The Masters was only on in the evening, just the back nine. Now you can see every shot, plus the par 3 comp on Wednesday, the range too, there is so much more available.
 

sunshine

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
4,923
Visit site
That’s not really the point I’m making.

In 1990, the wage bill of Man United was £4.7 million
It is now £203 million.

Factor in inflation and that’s the equivalent wage bill in 1990 of £88 Million - 18 x more than it actually was. The players clearly aren’t 18 x better than they were back then, which supports the point that paying over the odds for Sky Sports hasn’t improved the performance levels pro rata.

It's hard to scientifically state the players are 18x better today. Maybe they are only 10x better. As Phil said, the players from 1990 wouldn't get anywhere near the players of today.

The greater rewards attract players from all over the world, the talent pool is much larger and much more competitive. Players are much more serious about being as good as they can be, with greater focus on nutrition and operating at peak performance levels. The standards are miles higher.
 

GB72

Money List Winner
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
14,344
Location
Rutland
Visit site
I am not sure that the quality of the football has much to do with it. The amount paid is so high because it is the largest driver of subscriber numbers. People sign subscription deals to watch football and so, the value of the TV rights should be compared to the commercial returns that it gives the broadcaster as opposed to the quality on the pitch. Now, transfer fees and wages are an almost unavoidable knock on. You know that you are working for or going to work for a company that is raking in serious money, you are going to want a healthy pay cheque and a share of it because, to you, they are making their money off your efforts (not sure that I agree, the biggest teams will sell subscriptions globally irrespective of who is on the pitch).

Sadly football is a product like anything you can buy and sell in a shop. If you sell something that people want, people will come to your shop and pay for it and if you produce that item, you can sell it for a premium price as you know it is going to make money for the shopkeeper who then sells it.

Less people want golf and so you pay less for it, the BBC think that only a small number of its viewers want golf and so they are not willing to pay for it.

Thing is, the BBC shot itself in the foot or was, at least, complacent. It was a shop that stocked everything or could get it in if it was not on the shelves. Problem is, it missed the tide turning and rather than take advantage of all of the broadcasting skill, knowledge and production values it had and double down on the base it already had, it let it all get away.
 

fundy

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
26,874
Location
Herts/Beds border
Visit site
From what I understand, they want the lot, over 1300 matches. Unless they subcontract, there will be no other packages. If everything is live, there is no need for highlights 'there is no audience for them'

Joknig aside, I think that highlights shows, including Match of the Day, hark back to a bygone era when there was little or no live league football, no internet, no youtube etc.

This is why I think that all major sporting events rights should come as a package, you want to show the big event, you have to dedicate an amount of time to promoting the game in general.


thats assuming they bid the most on all the packages and are allowed to win the bid on them all (which Im not sure is currently possible)

for what they are supposedly proposing the Premier League would be better off having their own channel(s) and selling direct to the customer, part of why they get so much is the way the packages are chopped up and that they get competing bids for the differing packages

wonder how much DAZN would be for its subscription if they did succeed in this (and how quickly sky sports would go under?)
 

pendodave

Tour Rookie
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
3,134
Visit site
Is that true though? I don't remember the BBC having the full live coverage that you can enjoy today. The Masters was only on in the evening, just the back nine. Now you can see every shot, plus the par 3 comp on Wednesday, the range too, there is so much more available.
This is a policy change by Augusta, not the broadcasters - I'm sure the BBC would have shown more if it could.
There's a whole chunk of people like my Dad who will never get sky, but liked to watch the highlights of this and the open on the BBC. More than is being somewhat glibely dismissed on a number of comments above I suspect.
 

GB72

Money List Winner
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
14,344
Location
Rutland
Visit site
thats assuming they bid the most on all the packages and are allowed to win the bid on them all (which Im not sure is currently possible)

for what they are supposedly proposing the Premier League would be better off having their own channel(s) and selling direct to the customer, part of why they get so much is the way the packages are chopped up and that they get competing bids for the differing packages

wonder how much DAZN would be for its subscription if they did succeed in this (and how quickly sky sports would go under?)

Think Dazn areonly bidding for ELF matches and so Sky would be safe as long as they have the premier league. If the Premier League did it all themselves, Sky would be stuffed.

Any idea when the vote is to allow coverage of 3.00 matches.
 

GB72

Money List Winner
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
14,344
Location
Rutland
Visit site
This is a policy change by Augusta, not the broadcasters - I'm sure the BBC would have shown more if it could.
There's a whole chunk of people like my Dad who will never get sky, but liked to watch the highlights of this and the open on the BBC. More than is being somewhat glibely dismissed on a number of comments above I suspect.

I would love it to be on BBC. I would be happy for them to ditch other sports and keep a highlights package of the majors. To be honest, I get bored watching a full day of golf, even more so if it is not the final round, and so I prefer a highlights package at the end fo the day.

Ideal for me, 3.5 days of highlights and live coverage of the last 2-3 hours.
 

fundy

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
26,874
Location
Herts/Beds border
Visit site
Think Dazn areonly bidding for ELF matches and so Sky would be safe as long as they have the premier league. If the Premier League did it all themselves, Sky would be stuffed.

Any idea when the vote is to allow coverage of 3.00 matches.

Ah didnt realise you meant EFL not EPL (too many anacronyms!)

Assume it will be done in the close season, also expect it will fail but we'll see


I expect the premier league have looked at doing there own tv many times over the years just never made the leap and may be too late to dop so now
 

GB72

Money List Winner
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
14,344
Location
Rutland
Visit site
Ah didnt realise you meant EFL not EPL (too many anacronyms!)

Assume it will be done in the close season, also expect it will fail but we'll see


I expect the premier league have looked at doing there own tv many times over the years just never made the leap and may be too late to dop so now

Suspect they will hold out until the payments stall or drop and then they will go it alone.

Think hte EFL clubs are largely in favour of it, sell all of their matches including 3.00 kick offs to one one provider for £300 million I think. Then again, relatively new broadcaster, big deal on the table, sounds like Santanta all over again.
 

Voyager EMH

Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
4,951
Location
Leicestershire
Visit site
Is that true though? I don't remember the BBC having the full live coverage that you can enjoy today. The Masters was only on in the evening, just the back nine. Now you can see every shot, plus the par 3 comp on Wednesday, the range too, there is so much more available.
I remember watching The Open on BBC from 7:30am on Thursday. I fairly recent memory for me.

I remember when there were two B+W channels and on a Saturday afternoon and at a given time there might be a horse race on one channel and 10-pin bowling on the other.
I remember Player, Palmer and Nicklaus getting together to create a series of tv programmes and games called The Big Three to promote more interest in golf on telly around the world.
I remember the B+W tv pictures from the surface of the moon on the first landing there.
I remember my dad renting our first colour telly in 1970 to see the world cup.
53 years ago we had entered a fantastic age of television the likes of which my parents had never thought they would live to see.
Should there ever come to be a manned landing on Mars, I wonder what the tv rights would be worth in today's terms.
In 1969 you bought or rented a telly and paid the licence fee. If Mohammed Ali's fights were shown you saw them
Why do we pay so much to see the pictures from a camera that is pointed at stuff happening?
Because the whole thing has been driven by, "How much money can we make from this?"
Stuff going on in the world used to be considered as public information. The tv consumer was very well served indeed. All the latest technology and programmes were available.
Technology has increased and what is available to view is absolutely tremendous in comparison - doesn't really compare - the difference is so huge.
But it is extremely expensive to the consumer in terms of the product received, and wasteful over supply in many cases.
We can't go back and we can't change what we have right now. I am not, not, not, saying that could be done.
It will change somehow and at some time, of that I am sure, just can't tell right now what it will be. I hope it will be better than what is is right now, though.

Please pardon me for my musings.
 
D

Deleted member 31467

Guest
when you make a statement that there has been no improvement of the service to the consumer you are going to be challenged on that statement especially when it’s pretty clear to everyone that going from being able to watch a handful of golf events on Telly to being able to watch near enough every single one is a clear improvement

Whether you think it’s value for money or not is a different question and everyone will answer differently

We went from watching Telly on 4 channels with limited choice and 90% of sports not being broadcast to having 20 plus dedicated sports channels broadcasting 100s of events every week - that is a clear statistically improvement of the media service we have right now .

And you have a choice on if you want to watch it or not and you only have that choice because of Sky
All correct apart from the very last highlighted bit. I use an IPTV service on my laptop and there are literally hundreds of sports broadcasters across the world now. If there is a major sports event on you can probably find it somewhere on the internet these days.
 
D

Deleted member 31467

Guest
The mainstream terrestrial channels now only seem interested in crap reality shows and turning idiotic nobodies into millionaire 'celebs'.
 

Backsticks

Assistant Pro
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,579
Visit site
The mainstream terrestrial channels now only seem interested in crap reality shows and turning idiotic nobodies into millionaire 'celebs'.
Its cheap to make. There is only so much they can earn from advertising.
People will pay more for better entertainment : Premiership, golf, high level TV drama series, etc. So the networks can charge the viewer directly for that, short circuiting the sponsors. Nobody on earth would pay a subscription so that they dont miss Love Island or The Chase or Corrie. People only end up watching those because it is put in front of them for free.
 

Liverpoolphil

Grand Slam Winner
Joined
Jan 23, 2012
Messages
44,772
Location
Leighton Buzzard
Visit site
All correct apart from the very last highlighted bit. I use an IPTV service on my laptop and there are literally hundreds of sports broadcasters across the world now. If there is a major sports event on you can probably find it somewhere on the internet these days.
You can’t really include iptv or any similar because it will be illegal to stream within the UK
 
Top