HC
Really do not agree with centralising the contracts at all - the beauty of rugby broadcasting over the last few years has been the breadth of coverage. ITV coming into the Six Nations coverage actually helped liven up what had become a rather stale BBC production, and recently C4 have done a great job with their live coverage of Ireland and Wales - and rugby coverage across all channels is better for having more broadcasters.
Lumping it all together actually makes it unattractive certainly for FTA broadcasters, but also for the pay-TV landscape too.
Depends though. If they get out of the 'tribal' FTA/Pay tv mindset, then some form of alliance for the rights could be worked out.
BBC/ITV & Sky or BT launch a tri-bid for the rights. BBC/ITV keep the 6 National FTA exclusive live, with highlights of the internationals. Pay TV get the autumn internationals live with the FTA having access to highlights of the internationals.
Or with the new 'strategic partnership' that Channel 4 and Sky now have, the 6 Nations could head to Channel 4 showing every game live - as there are no clashes with kick-offs anymore, and Sky getting everything else, and if there is a clash (of low audience interest) dump it on Channel 4, who would lap up a bit of live sport every now and then.
Really do not agree with centralising the contracts at all - the beauty of rugby broadcasting over the last few years has been the breadth of coverage. ITV coming into the Six Nations coverage actually helped liven up what had become a rather stale BBC production, and recently C4 have done a great job with their live coverage of Ireland and Wales - and rugby coverage across all channels is better for having more broadcasters.
Lumping it all together actually makes it unattractive certainly for FTA broadcasters, but also for the pay-TV landscape too.
Depends though. If they get out of the 'tribal' FTA/Pay tv mindset, then some form of alliance for the rights could be worked out.
BBC/ITV & Sky or BT launch a tri-bid for the rights. BBC/ITV keep the 6 National FTA exclusive live, with highlights of the internationals. Pay TV get the autumn internationals live with the FTA having access to highlights of the internationals.
Or with the new 'strategic partnership' that Channel 4 and Sky now have, the 6 Nations could head to Channel 4 showing every game live - as there are no clashes with kick-offs anymore, and Sky getting everything else, and if there is a clash (of low audience interest) dump it on Channel 4, who would lap up a bit of live sport every now and then.
BR
The problem is though the Six Nations are the drawcard and I don't think either Sky or BT would want to head up a bid and hand over the majority of the drawcard. That sort of deal would sadly likely result in at best one game per round live on FTA. In terms of other games if ITV were involved in a bid they'd almost certainly favour England internationals over the other home nations.
I just think lumping them together causes serious competition concerns - UEFA did it with the friendlies in football which pretty much locked out the prospect of the home nation friendlies other than England covered by that deal being FTA, and also meant random European friendlies which were picked up on an ad-hoc basis by various broadcasters all became centralised on Sky and at the mercy of whether they wanted to cover them or not.
I just think lumping them together causes serious competition concerns - UEFA did it with the friendlies in football which pretty much locked out the prospect of the home nation friendlies other than England covered by that deal being FTA, and also meant random European friendlies which were picked up on an ad-hoc basis by various broadcasters all became centralised on Sky and at the mercy of whether they wanted to cover them or not.
TL
toby lerone 2016
I believe the home nations are insisting on free to air coverage for the 6 nations but this CVC deal for me has made that less likely but I hope I am wrong as I hope it stays on Free to Air. Rugby is not a national game outside of Wales therefore has to stay in the public mindset and some sports are now clamoring for free to air, look at Cricket and the Heineken Cup. Rugby has always had that apart from the years the England matches were on Sky.
ET
Ah yes. The good old days of random friendlies on Channel 5, BBC Scotland, BBC Northern Ireland, Eurosport, ESPN etc. The international friendly deal Sky made was probably actually to their detriment - yes, they have screened many big friendlies not involving home nations teams (such as Germany v Argentina in October last year), as well as the reliable ratings for the home nations ones, but they also have to screen a lot of utter nonsense to fulfil the contract - I seem to remember them showing an early afternoon match between Azerbaijan and Lithuania, which surely must cost more to actually screen than the revenue they get back via ratings.
Anyway, about the Six Nations debacle. While I don't think the tournament itself, nor the autumn internationals should be, I do feel the women's and U20's tournaments should. If they were centralised, every match could be shown on one channel - as opposed to now where Sky, S4C, BBC Alba, BBC Wales and RTE all screen individual matches, in addition to YouTube platforms and the BBC red button. They need to be seen more on terrestrial TV - and a move to someone like Channel 4 would be perfect, especially the women's competition.
The problem is though the Six Nations are the drawcard and I don't think either Sky or BT would want to head up a bid and hand over the majority of the drawcard. That sort of deal would sadly likely result in at best one game per round live on FTA. In terms of other games if ITV were involved in a bid they'd almost certainly favour England internationals over the other home nations.
I just think lumping them together causes serious competition concerns - UEFA did it with the friendlies in football which pretty much locked out the prospect of the home nation friendlies other than England covered by that deal being FTA, and also meant random European friendlies which were picked up on an ad-hoc basis by various broadcasters all became centralised on Sky and at the mercy of whether they wanted to cover them or not.
I just think lumping them together causes serious competition concerns - UEFA did it with the friendlies in football which pretty much locked out the prospect of the home nation friendlies other than England covered by that deal being FTA, and also meant random European friendlies which were picked up on an ad-hoc basis by various broadcasters all became centralised on Sky and at the mercy of whether they wanted to cover them or not.
Ah yes. The good old days of random friendlies on Channel 5, BBC Scotland, BBC Northern Ireland, Eurosport, ESPN etc. The international friendly deal Sky made was probably actually to their detriment - yes, they have screened many big friendlies not involving home nations teams (such as Germany v Argentina in October last year), as well as the reliable ratings for the home nations ones, but they also have to screen a lot of utter nonsense to fulfil the contract - I seem to remember them showing an early afternoon match between Azerbaijan and Lithuania, which surely must cost more to actually screen than the revenue they get back via ratings.
Anyway, about the Six Nations debacle. While I don't think the tournament itself, nor the autumn internationals should be, I do feel the women's and U20's tournaments should. If they were centralised, every match could be shown on one channel - as opposed to now where Sky, S4C, BBC Alba, BBC Wales and RTE all screen individual matches, in addition to YouTube platforms and the BBC red button. They need to be seen more on terrestrial TV - and a move to someone like Channel 4 would be perfect, especially the women's competition.
Last edited by ethanh05 on 9 February 2020 3:24pm
JO
The value of matches like that probably aren’t even taken into consideration when it comes to calculating the overall value of the rights. Which will surely be based on presence of home nation games and to a smaller extent the other big football nations involved. Production costs which would be minimal with only having to provide off tube commentary (if not taking a world feed one) and they’d be transmitting something in the slot it’s taken up regardless. It’s live football which is good for those who will watch any live football, pubs that like showing live sport when they can and there is also a significant Eastern European population in this country who may be interested. But the overall point is any costs relating to less significant matches are small compared to what they would see as the overall value in having that package. So to say it’s to detriment of Sky having to show these matches is not understanding how a broadcaster would calculate rights costs. It’s like saying the Six Nations is not worth bidding for because you’ve got to show France vs Italy once a year, so you miss out on all matches involving England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.
The international friendly deal Sky made was probably actually to their detriment - yes, they have screened many big friendlies not involving home nations teams (such as Germany v Argentina in October last year), as well as the reliable ratings for the home nations ones, but they also have to screen a lot of utter nonsense to fulfil the contract - I seem to remember them showing an early afternoon match between Azerbaijan and Lithuania, which surely must cost more to actually screen than the revenue they get back via ratings.
The value of matches like that probably aren’t even taken into consideration when it comes to calculating the overall value of the rights. Which will surely be based on presence of home nation games and to a smaller extent the other big football nations involved. Production costs which would be minimal with only having to provide off tube commentary (if not taking a world feed one) and they’d be transmitting something in the slot it’s taken up regardless. It’s live football which is good for those who will watch any live football, pubs that like showing live sport when they can and there is also a significant Eastern European population in this country who may be interested. But the overall point is any costs relating to less significant matches are small compared to what they would see as the overall value in having that package. So to say it’s to detriment of Sky having to show these matches is not understanding how a broadcaster would calculate rights costs. It’s like saying the Six Nations is not worth bidding for because you’ve got to show France vs Italy once a year, so you miss out on all matches involving England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.
NL
Don't know if anyone's seen or posted this but there's an interesting story from the Daily Mail:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-7982247/Six-Nations-consider-eight-team-league-South-Africa-bid-join-prestigious-competition.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-7982247/Six-Nations-consider-eight-team-league-South-Africa-bid-join-prestigious-competition.html
ET
The value of matches like that probably aren’t even taken into consideration when it comes to calculating the overall value of the rights. Which will surely be based on presence of home nation games and to a smaller extent the other big football nations involved. Production costs which would be minimal with only having to provide off tube commentary (if not taking a world feed one) and they’d be transmitting something in the slot it’s taken up regardless. It’s live football which is good for those who will watch any live football, pubs that like showing live sport when they can and there is also a significant Eastern European population in this country who may be interested. But the overall point is any costs relating to less significant matches are small compared to what they would see as the overall value in having that package. So to say it’s to detriment of Sky having to show these matches is not understanding how a broadcaster would calculate rights costs. It’s like saying the Six Nations is not worth bidding for because you’ve got to show France vs Italy once a year, so you miss out on all matches involving England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.
That is a very valid point actually.
I wonder what the actual cost for someone like, say, Channel 5, to show a Wales, Scotland etc. friendly one-off. I can't imagine it would be anything for a Germany, Spain, France etc. friendly. It would be an effective ratings boost for them especially? Why don't they do that more often?
The international friendly deal Sky made was probably actually to their detriment - yes, they have screened many big friendlies not involving home nations teams (such as Germany v Argentina in October last year), as well as the reliable ratings for the home nations ones, but they also have to screen a lot of utter nonsense to fulfil the contract - I seem to remember them showing an early afternoon match between Azerbaijan and Lithuania, which surely must cost more to actually screen than the revenue they get back via ratings.
The value of matches like that probably aren’t even taken into consideration when it comes to calculating the overall value of the rights. Which will surely be based on presence of home nation games and to a smaller extent the other big football nations involved. Production costs which would be minimal with only having to provide off tube commentary (if not taking a world feed one) and they’d be transmitting something in the slot it’s taken up regardless. It’s live football which is good for those who will watch any live football, pubs that like showing live sport when they can and there is also a significant Eastern European population in this country who may be interested. But the overall point is any costs relating to less significant matches are small compared to what they would see as the overall value in having that package. So to say it’s to detriment of Sky having to show these matches is not understanding how a broadcaster would calculate rights costs. It’s like saying the Six Nations is not worth bidding for because you’ve got to show France vs Italy once a year, so you miss out on all matches involving England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.
That is a very valid point actually.
I wonder what the actual cost for someone like, say, Channel 5, to show a Wales, Scotland etc. friendly one-off. I can't imagine it would be anything for a Germany, Spain, France etc. friendly. It would be an effective ratings boost for them especially? Why don't they do that more often?
ET
I'm pretty sure Sky would be willing to sub-licence certain games involving the big European teams.
Apart from England all live rights for all home nations outside of major championships are with Sky Sports.
I'm pretty sure Sky would be willing to sub-licence certain games involving the big European teams.
JO
I'm pretty sure Sky would be willing to sub-licence certain games involving the big European teams.
I’m sure they would have a price and broadcasters would have to calculate whether that’s worth their while. There also isn’t much of a history of Sky doing so, apart from F1 which I think is part of the contract Sky have and the Cricket World Cup which was due to being something of national importance, political pressure and a good way to advertise Ashes coverage.
Apart from England all live rights for all home nations outside of major championships are with Sky Sports.
I'm pretty sure Sky would be willing to sub-licence certain games involving the big European teams.
I’m sure they would have a price and broadcasters would have to calculate whether that’s worth their while. There also isn’t much of a history of Sky doing so, apart from F1 which I think is part of the contract Sky have and the Cricket World Cup which was due to being something of national importance, political pressure and a good way to advertise Ashes coverage.