Sport on Terrestrial Telly

[Imurg]

I'm a massive golf fan, and will pay for the opportunity to watch it. But I became a golf fan from watching it for free on the Beeb when I was a kid. If it had been unavailable for me to watch back then I may not have gotten into the game and become the mad, forum posting, live tournament attending, up all hours watching the west coast swing, obsessive I am today.

As such I believe there is a place for both, terrestrial & pay options.

Personally I believe that the powers that be should make it such that the home nation for each Open should be able to watch for free on terrestrial telly in that country.

Even if they only do a similar thing to Sky yesterday, have the final day available on terrestrial.
They'd still get the die-hard fans who want to watch every second and pay for the privilege but ordinary people could still see the "business end" of it. Who knows, it might persuade a few to go full subscription...

 

[Crazyface]

This morning the BBC only had STILL pictures to show of England winning the CWC for the first EVER time. Just what am I paying my licence for?

 

[Tongo]

FTA TV is one problem but another that is often overlooked is the image that certain sports have in this country. No other country seems able to rival Britain in its prejudices and attitudes toward particular sports. Cricket and Golf are still seen as played by old fuddy-duddies and this perception is perpetuated in the media whilst the respective governing bodies do little to change those perceptions. Hockey still suffers from the ‘jolly Hockey sticks’ mantra, whilst Tennis’ image is all tied around the strawberries and cream image of Wimbledon and the gallant defeats of Tim Henman to the point where Andy Murray is still viewed with a great deal of suspicion. Change the image of these sports and terrestrial will follow. (Tennis being a curious exception despite its whiff of elitism in the UK) But taking the Sky shilling is the easier / quicker / more convenient option. Too many sports now either seek to emulate Football, normally with embarrassing results, or live in its shadow. Meanwhile Football dominates the media and everything else has to muscle in on the scraps with a perception that it’s the people’s game despite costing a fortune to watch at the highest level. How many are quite happy to shell out 50 quid plus for a ticket every other week but would baulk at paying half that for another sport?

On the other hand, look at how the image of Cycling changed after Bradley Wiggins won the TDF. Before it was a minority sport with only highlights of the TDF on TV and derided or scorned in some quarters as a European sport. Now its hugely popular and you cant go anywhere without encountering people in daft lycra gear whilst ITV4 will televise each stage live every day. The fact that Chris Froome has won the TDF four times, the Giro once and the Vuelta twice is completely lost behind the Mod / cool image of Wiggins. And its managed to survive an incredible number of drugs scandals. As Andre Agassi said in that Canon advert all those years ago: image is everything.

The one sport that does seem to buck the trend is Snooker. Still on FTA and now getting coverage from other terrestrial channels other than the beeb these days. Interestingly, they seem to have stuck to their guns regarding things like dress code and the sport being played in absolute silence, aside from the shot clock abomination, but as a sport it is growing in terms of tournaments and TV coverage.

 

[Tongo]

Sky have only been good for the Sports with which they've supported. The Open coverage on Sky is WAY better than it was on BBC and they've plowed money into the sport and into the event, English football has changed dramatically since '92 with our league becoming one of the strongest and most watched in the world, the standard of Cricket coverage has transformed and they've enabled a sport like Darts to go from a game played by old fat drunk men in pubs to a legit, exciting sport with a massive following. Kids are playing less sport now, but I don't believe sport being behind a paywall isn't the reason, Technology as a whole has changed and that is the reason.

Also, the reason no-one watched the Scottish wasn't because it was behind a paywall, even if it was on BBC2 yesterday it still would have been watched by a minuscule amount of people because there was so much other exciting and more popular sport going on.

Darts may have hidden its drinking culture behind the stage but the majority of those in attendance are still only interested in getting hammered and gurning at the TV cameras. I stopped going a while back as there was a sense of a fight likely to break out at any point. As a sport its participation numbers seem to have dwindled despite more people ‘watching.’ And that’s watching in the loosest sense of the word. Cricket is in danger of doing the same, creating an audience only interested in sixes and indulging to excess.

 

[Slab]

If it’s about making sport content available to the masses and growth within that sport & given that terrestrial won’t pay the market amount for broadcast rights then perhaps (as a possible compromise) when the rights are sold each sports governing body stipulate a point re making delayed broadcast/highlights available via terrestrial tv

i.e its in the contract that a terrestrial channel (not necessarily the bbc) get a highlights show made available (for a cost) say 24/48 hours after the event with an extended highlights/full show available after 7 days

The primary broadcaster gets their live audience/subscriptions while the terrestrial channel gets some very recent/relevant content much cheaper while the sports body gets their sport out to the masses

 

[Deleted member 21258]

What is strange, is that BBC had highlights of the irish Open for all 4 days and the last two days of the Scottish Open, and I didn't see it mentioned on the Golf page on their website. (also do not think it was on the TV ?)

Why pay for something, that is uploaded to iplayer and unless you search on that term/event, you don't know about it and would not watch it . Surely it hardly got any views

Over and above that, I think all the UK held majors(tennis, golf, football finals, cricket, Olympics etc), should be held on free to view(I appreciate some of those are protected by law already)

 

[Tongo]

What is strange, is that BBC had highlights of the irish Open for all 4 days and the last two days of the Scottish Open, and I didn't see it mentioned on the Golf page on their website. (also do not think it was on the TV ?)

Why pay for something, that is uploaded to iplayer and unless you search on that term/event, you don't know about it and would not watch it . Surely it hardly got any views

Over and above that, I think all the UK held majors(tennis, golf, football finals, cricket, Olympics etc), should be held on free to view(I appreciate some of those are protected by law already)

I watched the highlights of the Irish Open and they were very good with decent commentary and analysis.

 

[fundy]

Darts may have hidden its drinking culture behind the stage but the majority of those in attendance are still only interested in getting hammered and gurning at the TV cameras. I stopped going a while back as there was a sense of a fight likely to break out at any point. As a sport its participation numbers seem to have dwindled despite more people ‘watching.’ And that’s watching in the loosest sense of the word. Cricket is in danger of doing the same, creating an audience only interested in sixes and indulging to excess.

Interestingly theres plenty of rumours about that drinking will actually be limited at the Hundred games as it will be a family attraction! i'll believe it when i see it though!

 

[MegaSteve]

I would suggest Sky allowing CWC coverage on a terrestrial channel was more to do with knocking the Beebs Wimbledon viewing figures than an act of largesse...

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I would suggest Sky allowing CWC coverage on a terrestrial channel was more to do with knocking the Beebs Wimbledon viewing figures than an act of largesse...

Good teaser as well. 'Look how good the cricket is. Want more? Subscribe to Sky'.

 

[GB72]

The whole debate about whether sporting events should be on ‘free to air’ TV is an interesting one.

First point to make is that terrestrial TV only seem interested in the crown jewels, the big events and the finals (unless it’s related to Premier League Football then they will take everything they can get). You have to assume that any TV deal made with a satellite broadcaster costs the broadcaster more if there is to be exclusivity. As such, taking away The Open or the cricket world cup final is going to reduce the amount that they are willing to pay. As these are the matches that attract the most viewers and ad revenue, you can assume that the amount that the broadcaster pays will be considerably reduced if the coverage is not exclusive. Are the BBC or any other channel going to make up for that fall in revenue.

I am also not sure who negotiates the deal in certain circumstances. Take yesterday for example. If the rights issue addressed by the ICC or the England and Wales Cricket Board in relation to England matches. I would guess it is the ICC as the event organiser but not sure. If that is the case, then any arguments are a Moot point as the national governing bodies would have no control as to who the rights went to.

You then have the less headline grabbing events. Do you think that Sky would show as much of the European Tour if it was not putting together a golf package propped up by coverage of the majors. Would you see county cricket etc covered if there was not a deal in place to cover England Cricket. If Sky made it clear that their coverage of a number of sports would end if they do not have exclusive rights to the big events, would the BBC pick up the rights to ‘help spread the game’.

You also have the sports themselves that are funded in a large part by these TV deals. Rugby clubs would struggle without TV money and I suspect many other sporting clubs would do the same. Would you rather go back to when clubs had to cut their cloth based on minimal income and for sports to move backwards in their development so as you can see the odd big event on BBC or other free to air channels. Part of the England cricket success is based around central contracts and I would ask how these are to be paid for without the funding that Sky puts into the game.

This comes up every time that there is a classic sports event. People decry the fact that all such events should be on free TV. No they shouldn’t. If the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 etc want to show such events, get the cheque book out and bid with everyone else. Reckon the BBC could have got the rights to the whole cricket world cup, the Open and a few other events for what they pay each year for the football highlights package. Ditch Match of the Day and buy in the big events if they are deemed so important. The public would not lose out, another free to air channel would snap up the football highlights package.

 

[Tongo]

The whole debate about whether sporting events should be on ‘free to air’ TV is an interesting one.

First point to make is that terrestrial TV only seem interested in the crown jewels, the big events and the finals (unless it’s related to Premier League Football then they will take everything they can get). You have to assume that any TV deal made with a satellite broadcaster costs the broadcaster more if there is to be exclusivity. As such, taking away The Open or the cricket world cup final is going to reduce the amount that they are willing to pay. As these are the matches that attract the most viewers and ad revenue, you can assume that the amount that the broadcaster pays will be considerably reduced if the coverage is not exclusive. Are the BBC or any other channel going to make up for that fall in revenue.

I am also not sure who negotiates the deal in certain circumstances. Take yesterday for example. If the rights issue addressed by the ICC or the England and Wales Cricket Board in relation to England matches. I would guess it is the ICC as the event organiser but not sure. If that is the case, then any arguments are a Moot point as the national governing bodies would have no control as to who the rights went to.

You then have the less headline grabbing events. Do you think that Sky would show as much of the European Tour if it was not putting together a golf package propped up by coverage of the majors. Would you see county cricket etc covered if there was not a deal in place to cover England Cricket. If Sky made it clear that their coverage of a number of sports would end if they do not have exclusive rights to the big events, would the BBC pick up the rights to ‘help spread the game’.

You also have the sports themselves that are funded in a large part by these TV deals. Rugby clubs would struggle without TV money and I suspect many other sporting clubs would do the same. Would you rather go back to when clubs had to cut their cloth based on minimal income and for sports to move backwards in their development so as you can see the odd big event on BBC or other free to air channels. Part of the England cricket success is based around central contracts and I would ask how these are to be paid for without the funding that Sky puts into the game.

This comes up every time that there is a classic sports event. People decry the fact that all such events should be on free TV. No they shouldn’t. If the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 etc want to show such events, get the cheque book out and bid with everyone else. Reckon the BBC could have got the rights to the whole cricket world cup, the Open and a few other events for what they pay each year for the football highlights package. Ditch Match of the Day and buy in the big events if they are deemed so important. The public would not lose out, another free to air channel would snap up the football highlights package.

Tis a good point but the English cricket scene has arguably been bloated by the money from Sky exclusivity in comparison to most other countries. Which is why there are so many players willing to ditch international cricket for Kolpak deals. Central contracts were put in place whilst international cricket was still on Channel 4 so they aren't just the preserve of Sky money. Plus the number of staff in the ECB and backroom staff surrounding the England team has mushroomed greatly over the last decade. Tom Harrison receiving a 100k pay rise on top of his already 600k salary demonstrates how the extra cash has increased the general levels of pay in English cricket.

 

[Hobbit]

I stuck out but migrated to Sky when they got the cricket. That, like the other sports its hoovered up, are private enterprises. The Beeb can't compete. Even its football coverage is small and bitty compared to Sky, BT et al.

Whatever idealism might suggest, its naive to think it will change. And from a mercenary perspective, should it? Do you want the best footballers in the Premier League? Do you want multiple shots and graphics for cricket and golf shots?

To be honest, unless the Beeb can produce the technical quality and comprehensive coverage, inc multiple shots/angles, coverage is with the providers it should be with.

 

[GB72]

Tis a good point but the English cricket scene has arguably been bloated by the money from Sky exclusivity in comparison to most other countries. Which is why there are so many players willing to ditch international cricket for Kolpak deals. Central contracts were put in place whilst international cricket was still on Channel 4 so they aren't just the preserve of Sky money. Plus the number of staff in the ECB and backroom staff surrounding the England team has mushroomed greatly over the last decade. Tom Harrison receiving a 100k pay rise on top of his already 600k salary demonstrates how the extra cash has increased the general levels of pay in English cricket.

Tis also a fair point. I suppose that cricket, like a number of other sports (to a certain extent including my sport, rugby) is only of interest to the general viewing public at an international level. As such, that needs to fund the game at other levels as well as itself. With that in mind, if you want to be the best, you need to secure as much funding as possible from that. If you wake Sky out of the equation for all of the crown jewel events by making is compulsory to be on free to air then the money is going to keep going down as the bidding is limited by taking out the party with the deepest pockets.

As I mentioned, if the BBC wanted coverage of the Crocket World Cup, or many other non football events, they could pay for it many times over with the amount they spend on Match of the Day but, apparently, that hour of TV on a Saturday night is more important that showing a broad spectrum of world class sporting events.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

This morning the BBC only had STILL pictures to show of England winning the CWC for the first EVER time. Just what am I paying my licence for?

Was this on the BBC News?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

At the end of the day the sport governing bodies will always go for who gives them the most money , imo it has zero to do with “growing the game” and giving the viewers a better viewing platform

Every time a “protected” event has their status changed Sky arrive offer more money get the event

Have they actually ever “improved” the sports they get

Is football “better” now than before , richer yes , but is the Prem really better than what the old football league used to be ?

Is cricket better ? Again it’s richer for some but a lot of stuff was already happening before Sky took the home tests for example

Golf - the sport isn’t better , Sky paid £15mil for the Open - that money isn’t going to filter anyway beyond the R&A , the event isn’t better now , money isn’t being “poured” into the game

F1 ? No different , tennis ?

Has any sport actually got better since Sky bought the rights - some prefer the Sky bells and whistles , some prefer the old school - that’s all about opinions.

Sky has made sport in the UK richer but imo it hasn’t improved the sport or the participation of sport - there are no doubt loads of reasons why sport participation isn’t great - but they don’t help ( and BT as well )

I know it’s only a pipe dream but for me the following events should always be available to free to air even if delayed

Wimbledon
Grand National
Olympics
Commonwealths
World Champs in all sports
The Open
British Grand Prix
Derby
FA Cup Final
World Cup
Euros
Home Test Series

All the “jewels in the crown” for sports in the UK - find a way to get as big an audience as possible

 

[GB72]

But if you cherry pick the big events and remove any exclusivity from Sky then you risk losing coverage of everything else that terrestrial TV does not want to show as there is less commercial incentive to show them.

If the BBC and other channels dropped their obsession with overpriced football packages they could show no end of other crown jewel events.

We are in a different age now, sportsmen command bigger wages, the days of ammateur sport posing as being professional are long gone and so sport needs financing. If terrestrial TV wants to show it then it needs to get out its cheque book.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

But if you cherry pick the big events and remove any exclusivity from Sky then you risk losing coverage of everything else that terrestrial TV does not want to show as there is less commercial incentive to show them.

If the BBC and other channels dropped their obsession with overpriced football packages they could show no end of other crown jewel events.

We are in a different age now, sportsmen command bigger wages, the days of ammateur sport posing as being professional are long gone and so sport needs financing. If terrestrial TV wants to show it then it needs to get out its cheque book.

Sky still showed all the other golf when the BBC had the Open

Same with the tests - Channel 5 had the home tests whilst Sky had the away test series

Why would Sky ditch all the other events ?

Yes sportsmen and women do want higher wages because they know that the governing bodies are getting more money - but that doesn’t affect sports like Golf - where it’s a prize money they go for.

The BBC go for things like MOTD because it’s something that has to be on FTA so they battle against ITV - same with FA Cup etc - Terrestrial telly don’t go against Sky , they can’t afford it. And that cheque book for the Terrestrial tellys is a lot tighter than Sky because of their ability to be able to broadcast on multiple or dedicated channels. BBC have 3 and look at how many complain when they have a day of tennis or Olympics etc they have to support every range of viewer

 

[patricks148]

FTA TV is one problem but another that is often overlooked is the image that certain sports have in this country. No other country seems able to rival Britain in its prejudices and attitudes toward particular sports. Cricket and Golf are still seen as played by old fuddy-duddies and this perception is perpetuated in the media whilst the respective governing bodies do little to change those perceptions. Hockey still suffers from the ‘jolly Hockey sticks’ mantra, whilst Tennis’ image is all tied around the strawberries and cream image of Wimbledon and the gallant defeats of Tim Henman to the point where Andy Murray is still viewed with a great deal of suspicion. Change the image of these sports and terrestrial will follow. (Tennis being a curious exception despite its whiff of elitism in the UK) But taking the Sky shilling is the easier / quicker / more convenient option. Too many sports now either seek to emulate Football, normally with embarrassing results, or live in its shadow. Meanwhile Football dominates the media and everything else has to muscle in on the scraps with a perception that it’s the people’s game despite costing a fortune to watch at the highest level. How many are quite happy to shell out 50 quid plus for a ticket every other week but would baulk at paying half that for another sport?

On the other hand, look at how the image of Cycling changed after Bradley Wiggins won the TDF. Before it was a minority sport with only highlights of the TDF on TV and derided or scorned in some quarters as a European sport. Now its hugely popular and you cant go anywhere without encountering people in daft lycra gear whilst ITV4 will televise each stage live every day. The fact that Chris Froome has won the TDF four times, the Giro once and the Vuelta twice is completely lost behind the Mod / cool image of Wiggins. And its managed to survive an incredible number of drugs scandals. As Andre Agassi said in that Canon advert all those years ago: image is everything.

The one sport that does seem to buck the trend is Snooker. Still on FTA and now getting coverage from other terrestrial channels other than the beeb these days. Interestingly, they seem to have stuck to their guns regarding things like dress code and the sport being played in absolute silence, aside from the shot clock abomination, but as a sport it is growing in terms of tournaments and TV coverage.

The TDF was on terrestrial TV every day back in the 80's and 90 on C4. That didn't see the sport boom until the Gov and Sky chucked loads of Money at it. If you were a serious Cycling fan then you had Sky and got Euro sport for Free and they showed every event.

 

[patricks148]

I love Cricket and that is the reason i have Sky, When the BBC had it, it was always 2nd fiddle to anything else the BBC saw fit to show instead, no one day games, no overseas tours and no domestic cricket apart from the odd final, C4 were the same after the initial interest wore off, they even missed the end of a few days play for Horse racing.

plus the ECB and the counties get valuable money for the game, which pays for the England set up.

Tennis has been free to air, i don't think that has seen i flood of interest in the game playing wise, not around here at least, in fact a few of the public courts have closed.


So no, cricket on Free to air