Sport on Terrestrial Telly

[Pin-seeker]

Just stream it 🤷‍♂️

 

[USER1999]

Just stream it 🤷‍♂️

I was watching the cricket semi legally on sky go, whilst my mate watched on a dodgy stream. His coverage was 30s ahead of mine. Go figure.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

Some may say that the TV money goes into "the sport", but cricket for example, has diminishing crowd numbers for the county 4 games that means the counties are struggling to stay afloat.

 

[USER1999]

Mind you, his picture was rubbish, and it froze a few times. We only watched the final 3 overs, and if that is streaming, you can keep it.

 

[Tongo]

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.

Yeah, i think its outrageous what they pay for just highlights. Many will say that the numbers watching MOTD will justify the expense but at what point does the rising cost become untenable?

 

[Tongo]

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.

It was on everyday but, as i said, i think it was only highlights rather than all afternoon as it is now. The image of Wiggins has also been a massive factor in the change of attitude. Now the sport is seen as cool.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

It was on everyday but, as i said, i think it was only highlights rather than all afternoon as it is now. The image of Wiggins has also been a massive factor in the change of attitude. Now the sport is seen as cool.

Eurosport has covered the TDF fully far longer than ITV/C4, who for many years only bothered with highlights of mainly the finish.

 

[Slime]

So hands up Paywall fans, who would continue to pay their money to Sky and Co if terrestrial had all sports available but produced to an inferior standard?

Nope.

 

[Tongo]

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

Tennis is a weird curio in this country. Essentially a niche sport that gets a massive leg up because of Wimbledon and the beeb's love of Wimbledon's desire to wallow in their Cath Kidston, 1950's utopia. But outside of Wimbledon its a minority sport.

ITV4 cover Roland Garros and there's some coverage of the Aussie Open and the odd Davis Cup match but the whole thing just has a whiff of elitism and snobbery.

 

[Tongo]

Eurosport has covered the TDF fully far longer than ITV/C4, who for many years only bothered with highlights of mainly the finish.

Eurosport's not exactly FTA TV though is it.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

Eurosport's not exactly FTA TV though is it.

No, but they have always covered the TDF, long before Sky was a glint in the eye of Murdoch.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Yeah, i think its outrageous what they pay for just highlights. Many will say that the numbers watching MOTD will justify the expense but at what point does the rising cost become untenable?

Unfortunately that’s what the Prem League charge and it does give non Sky viewers at least some sort of Prem football , no doubt the price will go up and I expect that ITV will win the rights again at some point and then everyone will point fingers at the BBC for not caring etc etc but it’s the Prem League that determine the price and for years we have all expected the bubble to burst but it just seems to keep going and going.

 

[Tongo]

No, but they have always covered the TDF, long before Sky was a glint in the eye of Murdoch.

Indeed, i remember watching loads in the mid 90's when many guffawed at the sport.

 

[patricks148]

No, but they have always covered the TDF, long before Sky was a glint in the eye of Murdoch.

yep prior to the mid 90 the only indoor track we had was the cut down 6 day track at Calshot, apart from that there was the two outdoor at Medowbank and Leicester then a few concrete things dotted about. Once we got the money for Manchester then the sports started to take off as the SC threw money at Cycling.

 

[TheDiablo]

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

Sky were doing that at the time, playing the long game knowing that these crown jewels would be up for auction, and by that time they've got the infrastructure already in place and through football the subscriber base too.

The European Tour in particular would be in dire straits without the Sky money - take away the Open and Sky lose a lot of interest in golf.

Sky's money hugely boosts the coffers of the ECB which in turn massively subsidises the county game. Without Sky having the top events and paying top dollar the county game would look very different today - probably down to 8/10 teams already.

There would be no pro netball in the UK without Sky. The national team wouldn't be potential world champions if they weren't full time.

Without the pinnacle events, Sky's model doesn't stack up in the long term. Take these away or dual broadcast them and a lot of sports would go bankrupt very quickly as Sky would simply show football.

This is without the fact that terrestrial show little to no interest in sports broadcasting these days anyway.

 

[GB72]

Unfortunately that’s what the Prem League charge and it does give non Sky viewers at least some sort of Prem football , no doubt the price will go up and I expect that ITV will win the rights again at some point and then everyone will point fingers at the BBC for not caring etc etc but it’s the Prem League that determine the price and for years we have all expected the bubble to burst but it just seems to keep going and going.

I am sure there are cheap highlights packages for county cricket, rugby and any number of sports. Perhaps if the BBC showed some commitment to covering other sports then there may be more of a case for them to get more rights.

The cynic in me sees existing sports fans who begrudge paying for sky calling for a move to free to air under a banner of 'think of the children'.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

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

The bit about your pipe dream.
What do you mean ' "should" always be available-' Would you pass laws or something?
How the hell is your demand going to be financed, and by whom?
Are you going to make us all pay three times more than the present licence fee, ?
Or pass a law making a sport tax for us all to pay ?

The mind boggles. "Should" indeed.!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The bit about your pipe dream.
What do you mean ' "should" always be available-' Would you pass laws or something?
How the hell is your demand going to be financed, and by whom?
Are you going to make us all pay three times more than the present licence fee, ?
Or pass a law making a sport tax for us all to pay ?

The mind boggles. "Should" indeed.!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofcom_Code_on_Sports_and_Other_Listed_and_Designated_Events

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00802/SN00802.pdf

I guess you haven’t heard of the Ofcom protected sporting events then

Most of the events I mentioned are already protected just like The Open used to be

 

[Hacker Khan]

Eurosport has covered the TDF fully far longer than ITV/C4, who for many years only bothered with highlights of mainly the finish.

As someone who grew up religiously watching Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwin on C4 TDF highlights I think it is very difficult for anyone other than a dedicated sports channel to show such a long event live. ITV get away with it as they now have 4 channels to fill but, certainly in the days C4 covered it that was it, so they are not going to dedicate the best part of a whole days scheduling for 3 weeks to show it live.

 

[Papas1982]

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

Whether the sport has gotten better is a fair question.

Has the enjoyment for fans increased. Certainly.

If sky didn't cover golf we would get to watch 4 tournaments a year. Now we can watch 100.

The BBC is a business as sky is. They make a call on the financial viability of an event. I'll be honest, I didn't look over the weekend. But we're England's netball games on main chanells like the footy or hidden on red button/BBC 4 because its not gonna get em any viewing figures.

This weekend should be celebrated for how good it was and if anything. Sky should be praised to letting c4 show it.

If it was a stonking game between NZ and Australia nobody would have called for free coverage. You can't expect a governing body to sell it cheap because 80% if the time the viewing figures woukdnt be as high (no home team, no viewers?)!

In regards to viewing figures truly increasing participation. I played tennis every day almost during the summer from about the age of 10 to 18.

We avoided the courts during Wimbledon. It's like new year gym members.2 weeks later and the courts are empty again.