UK TV protected sporting events

[Mark]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12482371

FIFA and UEFA are challenging the UK government over their position that World and European Cup tournaments should always be shown on free-to-air television in the UK.

It possibly sets a dangerous precedent however the proposal is that games not involving the home nations be removed from the list, which I think is entirely reasonable as long as the final is kept on the list too. I mean is it really in the national interest that e.g. Slovakia vs Hungary is available on free to air TV?



Sports which have protected TV status:


Olympic Games[/*:m:bnu2rlqf]
Fifa World Cup finals tournament[/*:m:bnu2rlqf]
European Football Championship finals tournament[/*:m:bnu2rlqf]
FA Cup final[/*:m:bnu2rlqf]
Scottish FA Cup final (in Scotland)[/*:m:bnu2rlqf]
The Grand National[/*:m:bnu2rlqf]
The Derby[/*:m:bnu2rlqf]
Wimbledon tennis finals[/*:m:bnu2rlqf]
Rugby League Challenge Cup final[/*:m:bnu2rlqf]
Rugby World Cup final[/*:m:bnu2rlqf]

[Dave B]

Football is greedy, the governing bodies would rather take Murdoch's shilling than have their games broadcast to the widest possible audience.

There's a case slowly creaking its way through the European courts which could have a wide impact: the pub landlady who screened live Premiership games from a Greek broadcaster, and when Sky challenged her claimed it was restricting trade. Looks like the courts will side with her, and maybe just maybe viewers will be free to choose who they subscribe to.

Sky will be dominant - many say too dominant - in sports broadcasting for the near future, but there are encouraging signs they may not always get their own way.

[MrJan]

To me it's important, I love the World Cup (and the Euros) and tried to watch as many games as possible. I don't have any real reason to watch South Africa v France (or whoever), apart from the fact that I enjoy watching football and the WC is a fantastic event.

As you say it's a dangerous precedant to set, it could lead to more sports being pay to view and that helps no one but Murdoch and his slimy chums.

[Mark]

To me it's important, I love the World Cup (and the Euros) and tried to watch as many games as possible. I don't have any real reason to watch South Africa v France (or whoever), apart from the fact that I enjoy watching football and the WC is a fantastic event.


But I think e.g. South Africa vs France isn't really important to have as free to view on UK television. No doubt if you had to pay £12 (or whatever it is) to subscribe to Sky Sports for that month to see the extra matches not involving the home nations then you would do so.

Of course by the time of the next world cup (and European Championships) the whole of the UK will have gone digital, so if a match is on (say) ITV4 there's no excuse for saying people can't watch it as everyone will have that channel.

[MrJan]

But I think e.g. South Africa vs France isn't really important to have as free to view on UK television. No doubt if you had to pay £12 (or whatever it is) to subscribe to Sky Sports for that month to see the extra matches not involving the home nations then you would do so.

Of course by the time of the next world cup (and European Championships) the whole of the UK will have gone digital, so if a match is on (say) ITV4 there's no excuse for saying people can't watch it as everyone will have that channel.

No, I wouldn't pay a subscription to Murdoch, but being on Freeview would be fine with me (we've been fully digital in the SW for ages already). I actually think that pay to view telly is just wrong in the first place, especially when they then show adverts anyway.

If the fact that it doesn't involve home nations means it's unimportant then would there be no objections to Wimbledon coverage being dropped to Sky (or whoever) as soon as the British interests are knocked out? Or any olympic sport that we're not competing in, or have dropped out, too?

IMO the home nations thing isn't what's important, it's that it's a global tournement on a huge scale and deserves to be seen.

[AndyRAC]

It's quite an apt time to bring this subject up - the Cricket World Cup is upon us. But how many people actually know about it?
Despite winning the Ashes, the sport is almost invisible to Joe Public, add in dwindling attendences at county level. There is more to running a sport than getting loads of cash for TV rights. Short-sighted come to mind.

[Mark]

Indeed, I think that football is the only sport which has enough public interest that removing it from free TV wouldn't hurt it's appeal, indeed for most matches, this is what has already happened.

[Dave B]

It's quite an apt time to bring this subject up - the Cricket World Cup is upon us. But how many people actually know about it?
Despite winning the Ashes, the sport is almost invisible to Joe Public, add in dwindling attendences at county level. There is more to running a sport than getting loads of cash for TV rights. Short-sighted come to mind.

Indeed, and where Bernie's aways done well with F1 was the instance of FTA TV coverage, knowing that the sponsors will pay to get their logo in front of hundreds of millions of viewers.

I've no moral objection to a company turning a profit, but Sky are dangerously close to a monopoly on sports coverage. Setanta failed, ESPN is barely noticable in the UK, the BBC don't want to be seen throwing big money at buying rights when they're under financial pressure, and the other terrestrial broadcasters are struggling to buy rights as the advertising revenue has taken a hammering.

[Lousada]

Luckily the challenge was dismissed.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I literally watch every game of the European Championships and the World Cup so I'd be a bit annoyed if games were only on subscription.

I think the Ashes and certain Grand Prix races (Monaco, British, Italian etc) should also be protected.