Is it time for dedicated BBC & ITV Sports channels?

I begrudge airtime being given to the kind of people who are on things like TOWIE, Big Brother, Jeremy Kyle, Love Island, Take Me Out etc etc, far more than any* sports coverage.

(*with the possible exception of golf)

Steve Williams will know for sure but I believe in the pre satellite days listed events had to be available to both the BBC & ITV, that didn't mean both showed them but they had to have the option too. So when ITV felt like it / they could get it past the unions, they would cover the Olympics - as they did in 1968, 1972, 1980 and 1988. Now of course a 'qualifying channel' can buy exclusive coverage.


thegeek is correct about the FA Cup Final and every World Cup Final has been simulcast since 1966. I think the same goes for every European Championship final aside from 2008 when ITV decided it wasn't worth showing it against the Beeb. Before the 1990s most home nations games in World Cups would be simulcast as well, it was almost the reverse of now - for a number of tournaments each of the BBC and ITV would have one exclusive home nations game and any more would be shown by both, others (the final aside) would be shared as now.

How difficult would it be to find BBC 2?

I love watching the Olympics, but as I've said, I'd have no problem watching it on 2 and not even the Olympics is allowed to shorten the evening news so much that it's barely worth bothering.

*tennis

What you've got to consider is the ratings. BBC always beats ITV (with the possible exception of I think 74') due to the ad breaks and the fact that many people (myself NOT included) prefer the BBC's coverage. There's no point of simulcasting smaller games as it would be unfair on ITV.

Remember - the BBC is like Arsenal in 2003/04, it never loses.

For a lot of people it is difficult - switch an event from BBC 1 to BBC 2 and watch the audience drop, switch an event from BBC 2 to BBC 1 and most (well a far greater proportion) moves with it.


Its about profile - BBC 1 is the flagship channel, its where general audiences expect to find the biggest events that have widespread appeal. That profile and audience reach is one of the things that helps the BBC win sports rights against providers with deeper pockets but more limited audiences.

If the biggest events at the Olympics - as far as a general UK audience is concerned - happened to mean shortening or moving the news it would happen, infact it has- sometimes unscheduled when events are running late.

Almost - it was 1970 and generally attributed to the quality and entertainment value of their panel. They tried something similar in 1974 (minus Jimmy Hill, who'd swapped sides) and lost.

Are you saying, then, that you believe that no sports event should *ever* reduce the length of the main evening national and regional news bulletins on BBC1 - even if, for instance, the FA Cup Final goes to a penalty shootout that lasts for ages?

Although I disagree with the complaints raised in this thread, I did wonder how they got away with yesterday’s schedule and scheduled it like this in the first place . Not just reducing the Six to 8 mins, but then moving the Ten to 10:30 for no reason but EastEnders.

Normally if one bulletin is disrupted, the other would get more prominence such as maybe an extended regional news slot.

It was certainly a day to bury bad news, and I wonder how they would have reacted if it had been a busy news day.

Surely there will be a separate channel for all the funeral nonsense and such news?

.... there's also another element. cost of transmission of these extra channels. In addition the costs of producing the 'regular programming' not displaced has to be considered too. Daft idea all around.