Is it time for dedicated BBC & ITV Sports channels?

The BBC and other PSB channels are mixed genre channels, and that includes sport, the reduction in rights has led to significant reduction in that. What we have currently is fine. As for separate channels there isn't the bandwidth on Freeview for such things.

There is no disruption at all to the regular schedules.

The World Cup, Euros and Olympics have had their place in the schedules since at least the 60s, Wimbledon since the 30s and even the relatively young Rugby World Cup has had a regular place in the ITV schedules for nearly 30 years. Just because they're not weekly or daily doesn't mean they're any less deserving of a place in the schedules than any other content.

Heck, rather than getting all sports to two channels why not provide dozens of channels offering general non-sport related entertainment and news for free rather than limiting people to just BBC1 and ITV.

I can’t disagree with anything above I’m aftaid. Sorry buddy.

Bit harsh to jump on you though for the question. We can revisit these things every so often.

I'm not the slightest bit interested in any sport. If I had to choose to watch one sport, on pain of death, football would be very near the bottom of my preference-order list of potential options.

Despite this, I have no problem with the scheduling disruption caused by World Cups, Olympics, Wimbledon etc.

I actually kind of enjoy the novelty of, say, seeing Pointless prefaced by a BBC Two ident. Or the main evening BBC Points West starting before the main evening ITV News West Country. Or being amused by a 12noon news bulletin being billed as the "BBC News at One". I derive my own enjoyment from the scheduling changes, just as sports fans get their joy from the actual sport.

I can't begrudge sports fans "their thing", when many of the disrupted shows are things that air about a billion episodes per year. Such shows being temporarily dropped, or moved to a different channel and/or time is not the end of the world for me. No matter how much I like those shows.

EDIT: As others have pointed out, this kind of scheduling disruption for things like World Cups has been going on for decades. So, in a sense, it is "regular" scheduling (just not in a week-by-week sense). Different sporting events happen either annually, or once every X years. And usually at about the same time of year, each time that they roll round. I already know roughly what kind of scheduling to expect when this year's Wimbledon happens in July. Or during the Summer Olympics & Paralympics in 2020. So it's never an unexpected situation. Neither, sadly, is the predictable moaning by people who will apparently spontaneously combust if there is one fewer episode of Pointless per year.

Can someone please genuinely and sensibly explain to me the logic of both ITV and BBC simulcasting the final at exactly the same time? What's the difference between watching it on BBC or ITV?
It doesn't happen for any other sporting event.

What's the difference between watching football on BBC 1 or next door on BBC 2?
Why can't we still have the full 6 - 7pm hour of national and regional news on BBC 1 with the matches starting at 7pm and Lineker chatting with his mates on BBC 2?

Apart from if a British interest player is playing at Wimbledon, no other sports events reduce the main evening national and regional news bulletins to less than 10 mins each. Not even London 2012 did that.

Well... If only one of those two channels showed it, it'd be ratings suicide for the other!

The commentaries will be different. As will the pre-match, half-time, and post-match punditry. A given viewer may well have a preference of whose commentators/pundits they favour.

It's no different to the BBC/ITV duplication of Harry & Meghan's wedding.

I'm sure that Queen Elizabeth II's funeral (not for a long time yet, mam!) will be similarly duplicated.

Member for two years - how have you not learnt?

Both the BBC and ITV have the rights. They can actually simulcast every match if they wanted to but agree not to.


A bit of TV history answers many questions here - historically all major sporting events were simulcast, even when only three channels.

I agree the BBC have messed up with the news here and some nights scheduled it in 15-20 minute slots when it could have a more acceptable 45 minutes. The expectations of match broadcasts have changed quite significantly in the last few years though and as such the product, which is more than the match itself, now takes a slot closer to 3 hours than 2. Similarly there are alternative sources for BBC News too, hence it not being as secure in the schedule as perhaps it once was, whilst the BBC have long prioritised the Ten over the Six anyway.

It did for the FA Cup final, between 1955 and 1988. I think I'm right in saying that the World Cup final has been simulcast on BBC One and ITV since 1966.

Even if you don't like football, you can't deny that a lot of people like watching it. Why make it hard for them to do what they enjoy?

This might have been a valid point years ago, but in this "digital age" you speak of, we've all got at least two news channels.