BBC Surrenders half F1 rights to SKY

Well, this is no different from the Champions League where ITV have the first leg of a match and Sky have the second leg, and indeed with the new deal ITV also lose Wednesday highlights so, as was the case from 2003 to 2009, there's no terrestrial highlights at all. There's no contest between that and an F1 race being shown as-live, which Ecclestone has apparently said, presumably just an hour or so after it finished. Given the number of people who record the races it doesn't seem that bad a deal.

What this does prove is that the suggestion from the ECB that if Sky didn't have all cricket excusively they wouldn't show it at all is completely ridiculous. Why can't they do a deal like this for test matches?

As has been said the idea that not sending people on site will save money is a non-starter. You only have to look at the athletics on BBC3 now where all the coverage is from the world feed with world feed commentators, but they've sent Jonathan Edwards and Colin Jackson to the stadium, with one camera, which is way more cost-effective than having to book a studio and run the studio, and they're able to do interviews as well, which saves the expense of sending over a reporter in addition to the cost of paying Edwards and Jackson if they were in London. Similarly if you've got Humphrey and Jordan at a Grand Prix, it's far cheaper to get them to jabber on for an hour than limit them to jabbering for half an hour and finding another programme to fill the gap.

When the coverage goes to Sky, will there be any different cameras/feeds used, or will it be the same FOM feed that the BBC have?

Perhaps I should have used the word superflous, but yes, I take your points.

It was ITV that actually raised the bar, as far as pre and post race coverage is concerned, but IMHO they received little credit because everyone was fixated over the ad breaks !!

Yes, Bernie does indeed have a say about the total package of coverage, but the Beeb have to do a decent PR job with their audience, to help them understand why cuts are being made. Many will look at what they perceive as expensively assembled presentation, and wonder why that's not been the first to go, rather than every other race vanishing from FTA TV.

As with many things these days, it's all about what you're seen to do, and how you do it, the BBC have done themselves no favours here, because they've failed to explain the costs involved.

This blog, does nothing to explain the financial metrics:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/sporteditors/2011/07/f1_coverage_to_be_shared_betwe.html

Every broadcaster gets the same feed of the race, you don't get each one filming the race seperately

Like the BBC they'll have their own cameras at each race for the actual presentation of the race - i.e. the bits before and after

Now almost 1800... not seen this many replies to a BBC blog in a long while!

A very interesting deal, but not a particularly bad one for the BBC, cost wise.

They'll get to pick the ten biggest races of the season and maximise audience for the lowest cost possible, no need to fly everyone out to China for an early morning race which gets a pretty small amount of viewers considering the cost.

Here they can cherry pick the first and last races, Britain, Monaco, a few of the popular European races and then the prime-time races like Canada and Brazil.

However, it does mean that they're likely to have a much weaker team, as has been said, they won't want to pay Martin Brundle's pretty large wages for him to just cover 10 races (although contracts may have already been signed for next season). Jake Humphrey seems likely to stick with the BBC but everyone else could move in the same wholesale way they did from ITV to BBC. Although it would be interesting to see if they use Humphrey on the MotoGP coverage to use that to fill the gap.

The costs here are not for the coverage, but for the rights themselves. Saying get rid of the forum is all well and good but once the crew, cameras and staff are there, and the satellite time is already paid for, the costs of running an extra hour on the end of the race is minuscule.

It was discussed up the thread about the BBC having an opt-out at the end of this season but I believe that it was hugely unfavourable with the penalty for breaking the rights deal almost as much as paying for the rights themselves. I guess it just shows the change in the TV sports rights landscape we've had in the past few years.

That is the last time I get in to a sport. The last I tried, Cricket, was awarded to Sky just a few days after I got into it.

I suspect Sky will be able to make it pay, but there's sod all chance of me spending £15 or whatever per month for just F1.

Although that will depend on the specific terms of the contract - I'm sure Sky have not negotiated a deal that involves the BBC showing all the choice races. They'll want some of the big races for themselves. I wouldn't be under the illusion that the BBC will just get away with not showing the early morning races. And the last race of the season isn't necessarily a great pick - the Drivers Championship is more often than not decided before the last race.

Not too sure the BBC will be overly fussed in showing an entire Grand Prix delayed in prime time. Certainly not on BBC One. I wonder if there is any leverage to show one full showing behind the Red Button, and just a highlights package on BBC One/Two.

Certainly an interesting deal. I'm not a big fan of 'sharing' coverage between channels, but IMO there's a lot to be said for one broadcaster being able to follow an entire season rather than dipping in and out of events. With the highlights shows, this deal allows the BBC to tell the story of the entire season. Not ideal if you're an F1 fan, but surely having at least some of the sport on a free-to-air channel is better than none it all - which was a distinct possibility.

In terms of presentation, I'd be very surprised if Jake Humphrey left the BBC. As well as the Olympics, he's now established himself as a regular Sports Personality of the Year host. And if he's doing ten Grand Prix a year, plus highlights of the rest, he'll still have more airtime than many other BBC Sport presenters currently do.

As for Brundle, well, if he went to Sky it would be a huge loss.

With the exception of speedway, I can't think of any other motorsport which Sky cover live. So they may well build a presentation team from scratch, rather than re-deploying from within its own ranks, as the BBC did with Humphrey.

I can think of at least one very well known, well respected presenter who may well be on the look out for more work at the moment. And he's a veteran presenter of Formula One. And he's perfectly capable of dipping into other sports as well . . . Mr Rider, perhaps?

That is exactly why it's a good move for Sky Sports though - it doesn't really make sense to go for sports to please existing subscribers - it's all about bringing new money in. It's another thing in television where they are more concerned with the people not watching rather than the people watcxhing.

It'll be interesting too to see whether Sky can pull viewers away from the BBC, or whether there is a significant dip in ratings when the BBC has rights. And also an interesting point about the value of rights for other sports, notably cricket. I certainly agree if Sky had all tests and a FTA broadcaster had the Ashes, if only simulcast, the ECB wouldn't be out of pocket.


I never really got why ITV opted for the standard breaks - so a 3-4 minute gap every break. Wouldn't something similar to how C4 (and I assume Sky) did the cricket with more frequent breaks, but shorter.

You make an interesting point about whether the BBC can pick what they want, it should also be interesting to see how far in advance they must pick, at the start of the season or a set time (say a month) before the GP. Of course from a BBC point of view, showing ten races but missing the title decider would be disastrous.



I really can't see a full race re-run of the Sky exclusive races as it would take a lot of that exclusivity away.



I'm not sure Sky would go for someone like him, they prefer to bring their own presenters through the ranks, although this is a special case. A problem with Steve Rider would be that he's a bit old hat, especially when compared to Jake Humphrey.

This is spot on, prior to ITV there was no build-up, and very little post race coverage, and qualifying was infrequent.
ITV started off the standard of coverage we see today but get little credit for that.

Surely we aren't now going to have two sets of F1 presentation / commentators - surely there will be some pooling of resources. Will the BBC still send a whole crew on location for the races where there are highlights only ?

I can see some of the high profile BBC names, ie. Martin Brundle jumping to Sky - which is now the more attractive package.

Cricket you can predict and plan when to take a few adverts - end of overs, somebody's been bowled/caught are the two most obvious examples.

With F1 being a running event constant for on average 90 mins a time and normally something going on at every opportunity, no real breakaway opportunity, the cars aren't going to stop just because a broadcaster is showing John Cleese struggling to get out of a sleeping bag. Pick a moment and hope for the best.