Sport, sport, sport, sport and more sport, something I don't understand... Options

[nantha]

Obviously we are all supposed to love sport. On the telly we get Football Euro 2012 (obviously), every other football competition, cricket from Edgbaston (if it ever stops raining), snooker, the French Open, Wimbledon, Rugby World Cup, the Masters, the Derby, the Grand National, the Olympics (standard and winter and para), and so on. Every year it's more or less the same, and every year non-sport TV programs have to make way for the sport which will always take priority.
Now here's the bit I don't understand: why don't they have one or two freeview sports channels and put all the sport that's shown on terrestrial telly on these. That way all those who like watching endless football, etc can do so while the rest of us can continue to enjoy the programs we are used to without disruption. The new sports channels can still be owned by the same companies that presumably make money out of it at the moment, which shouldn't mean lack of income with the added bonus that their non-sports addict viewers will continue to watch BBC1 or 2 or ITV1 or whatever because their programs haven't been lost.
Why is this not possible? Why is this a bad idea?

[MOOO]

Because some sports have to be shown network television i.e BBC 1/2, ITV and Channel 4. I think it's actually the 'law'..

This covers most of the competitions you mention and why Sky will never be allowed to show any major world cup rugby or football or the Olympics.

Also all Wales rugby Union matches have to be on one of these channels as its the national sport and around 75% of the country watches Wales matches

[Boy1der]

I still have to watch most surf comps online and rarely get to watch on my HD TV since they don't air.
Sucks.

[blake2108]

It's a month or two every other year. Sport rakes in a hell of a lot of viewers to the main 5 channels when they're on which is obviously important for said channels. There's no real way of avoiding it now.

Think all the big 5 channels have on demand services now anyway so fewer people are missing out totally.

[deegee178]

Because some sports have to be shown network television i.e BBC 1/2, ITV and Channel 4. I think it's actually the 'law'..

There is a list of events (here) that must be shown on free to air channels either in their entirety or with substantial highlights.

It's a month or two every other year. Sport rakes in a hell of a lot of viewers to the main 5 channels when they're on which is obviously important for said channels. There's no real way of avoiding it now.

Think all the big 5 channels have on demand services now anyway so fewer people are missing out totally.

I think that's a naive view. Sport may bring in high viewing figures for the event itself but this doesn't generate continued viewing i.e. people will watch the event then go and do something else where as with normal programming there is a reasonable chance they will watch multiple consecutive programmes which is just as important. That's why both the BBC and ITV build "event" viewing around X Factor, SCD etc. By constantly switching programmes around the schedule you are more likely to lose viewers as they can't find the programme - yes some will go to iPlayer etc but not everybody wants to sit in front of their PC or laptop etc to watch telly. Until such time that people can easily watch programmes online via their tv (and by easily I mean non computer literate folk like my parents effectively see no difference between "tv" and web) then this problem will exist - thankfully as we all know it's now only a matter of time!

As this has been a problem for such a long time, I was always surprised that the BBC did not create their own sport channel but they have said that the time has gone for hem to do this - I think it would probably be too expensive and with the ongoing convergence of traditional tv and web then it will soon become a moot point anyway.

For the Olympics this year the BBC are broadcasting literally every single event/session - that's over 2,500 hours worth of sport but some of this will be web only.

[nantha]

There is a list of events (here) that must be shown on free to air channels either in their entirety or with substantial highlights.

Yes, you missed my point where I said: <<Now here's the bit I don't understand: why don't they have one or two freeview sports channels and put all the sport that's shown on terrestrial telly on these.>>

[KernowKid]

Wouldn't wotk, General Entertainment includes sport. Carriage arrangements would be a nightmare too.

Viewers who neglect the sporting calendar and try and complain about disruption to 'normal schedules' are naive, in the least. Normality includes coverage of major sporting events in the calendar, not the perceived reverse.

This post has been edited by KernowKid: Jun 9 2012, 17:07

[Mister R]

There is a list of events (here) that must be shown on free to air channels either in their entirety or with substantial highlights.

Yes, you missed my point where I said: <<Now here's the bit I don't understand: why don't they have one or two freeview sports channels and put all the sport that's shown on terrestrial telly on these.>>

Firstly the 'solution' isn't as simple as you seem to think it is.

Launching an all-new channel is an expensive process and would require the space to be available on an arguably already over burdened system. More over for a sports channel you'd ideally want an HD option to be available which would complicate matters even further. In theory I suppose one of the existing digital channels could be retooled into a sports channel (ITV4 to ITV Sports for example) and that would eliminate part of that problem but others exist.

Sports contracts are expensive. Particularly the more high profile contracts and 'relegating' them to a digital channel isn't a particularly cost effect way of handling. By a wide margin individual digital channels still go largely unwatched compared to the kind of inbuilt audiences available to the main terrestrial broadcasters. ITV for example can put football on ITV1 and be assured a relatively decent audience but aired on ITV4 the audience would be significantly smaller. That means advertisers and sponsors are paying less and ultimately ITV is making less from the contracts.

Equally a pressing issue is that there isn't enough content to fill a sports channel.

Sure for events like the Olympics you could easily fill the schedule of a dedicate sports channel but that only takes place every two years (winter and summer Olympics) so its hardly the most sustainable model. If you look at the sports licenses for each of the main broadcasters in the UK they simply do not have enough content to fill a dedicated sports channel. Particularly not when a not exactly small proportion of their content is highlights and not the actual events themselves.

In addition to that when you remove the sports content from the main channels you have to find new content to fill the holes left in that schedule. 'ITV Sport' for example would leave a giant hole on Tuesday nights for ITV for large portions of the year because they wouldn't have football there. That would mean ITV1 have to invest more money in new content for that night whilst still paying for the football rights. The BBC will have factored the Olympics coverage into their 2012 scheduling and programming budget for BBC1 – move that to a sports channel and suddenly BBC1 is scrambling to fill two weeks.

Here's the more interesting question – why should sports be moved to a dedicate Freeview channel?

Between them the major broadcasters have a whole range of digital platforms so why, during events like the Olympics and World Cup, move the 'normal' schedule to these digital platforms? In theory there's nothing to stop ITV from airing Coronation Street in exactly the same timeslot during the Euros but just on ITV2.

[deegee178]

There is a flip side to the original question - that question being why should non sport fans have to suffer disruption to their tv schedule. The flip side is why should sport fans be expected to either pay more for subscription channels or make do with highlights on the terrestrial channels? It would be interesting to see what would happen if ITV decided to move Corrie to a subscription channel but provided a FOC 15 minute recap on ITV1 - I suspect (or I know) there'd be a huge uproar etc but this is exactly the scenario many sports fans face!

[Mister R]

That's not exactly the scenario that many sports fans face at all.

FTA broadcasters aren't shifting sports content to premium channels in the hopes of extorting some more money out of fans. The governing bodies of these sports are opting to sell live (if not exclusive) rights to Sky because ultimately Sky is willing to pay more than the FTA broadcasters can afford. The governing bodies then decide to make even more money by peddling highlights shows to the FTA broadcasters. Your issue here isn't with the broadcasters but the governing bodies of the sports.

People that bemoan the lack of live premier league football on FTA channels for example need to moan to The FA and not to ITV or the BBC. They've allowed FTA broadcasters to be completely priced out of the market chasing mega-bucks deals with premium broadcasters and the irony is that I suspect that's greatly diminishing the popularity of the sport in the grand scheme of things. The same can be said to F1 fans by focusing your rage on BBC1 for 'letting' the rights go to Sky you're missing the much greater picture that its the governing body that sells to Sky at a ridiculously inflated price that should be the focus of your rage.

[deegee178]

^ I wasn't blaming the broadcasters (I know who is to blame) but was merely pointing out the inconsistency of approach at a high level for sports fans vs soap fans. The point still stands.

As for the F1 thing, I may be wrong but I thought it was the BBC who approached Sky about having a joint bid for the rights as a way for the BBC to shed some cost. As I understood it they had the full rights until the end of this season but decided to give them up early to take on a different approach to cut cost.

I agree with you that the FA are diminishing the popularity of football - as far as I'm concerned the sheer greed of everybody concerned has put the game on a path to ruin and I suspect the point of no return is dangerously close. If the sport does collapse then it will, in time, recover but my concern would be the impact on other sports where tv money is vital and they've used it responsibly - how they would survive when it runs out is anyone's guess!

[nantha]

The flip side is why should sport fans be expected to either pay more for subscription channels or make do with highlights on the terrestrial channels? It would be interesting to see what would happen if ITV decided to move Corrie to a subscription channel but provided a FOC 15 minute recap on ITV1 - I suspect (or I know) there'd be a huge uproar etc but this is exactly the scenario many sports fans face!

Once again the point is missed - please look for the word 'freeview' in my original post. I am not suggesting that sport should all be moved to subscription, quite the opposite; I am asking why sport can't have it's own dedicated free-to-view channels, possibly run by BBC and ITV or through collaboration.

Firstly the 'solution' isn't as simple as you seem to think it is.

Launching an all-new channel is an expensive process and would require the space to be available on an arguably already over burdened system. More over for a sports channel you'd ideally want an HD option to be available which would complicate matters even further. In theory I suppose one of the existing digital channels could be retooled into a sports channel (ITV4 to ITV Sports for example) and that would eliminate part of that problem but others exist.

I don't think it's simple at all, I am merely asking a question not making a statement. I do take your point about sport channels having an HD option however - there's no doubt that sporting events in particular benefit from HD technology far more than - say (as others seem to use this as the example) Coronation St.

Here's the more interesting question – why should sports be moved to a dedicate Freeview channel?

Between them the major broadcasters have a whole range of digital platforms so why, during events like the Olympics and World Cup, move the 'normal' schedule to these digital platforms? In theory there's nothing to stop ITV from airing Coronation Street in exactly the same timeslot during the Euros but just on ITV2.

I would agree with you. If sports must be shown on BBC1/2 or ITV1 or Channel 4/5, then why not simply move the usual programs in their usual allotted time schedules, to the likes of ITV2 or 3 or BBC 3 or More4 or whatever? A very good question.
By the way, I'm not remotely interested in Corrie, Eastenders or any of the soaps, I'm merely asking the question. The assumptions are created 'out there'...

[KernowKid]

Don't buy this normal programming argument, every four years Normal Programming IS the Olympics, World Cup or Euros. Every year Wimbledon is held, that is normality. What people who argue otherwise are arguing is for abnormaility.

Mixed Genre has worked for years, and should do in the future as well.

Discrete free sporting channels on Freeview would NEVER cost in.

[deegee178]

The flip side is why should sport fans be expected to either pay more for subscription channels or make do with highlights on the terrestrial channels? It would be interesting to see what would happen if ITV decided to move Corrie to a subscription channel but provided a FOC 15 minute recap on ITV1 - I suspect (or I know) there'd be a huge uproar etc but this is exactly the scenario many sports fans face!

Once again the point is missed - please look for the word 'freeview' in my original post. I am not suggesting that sport should all be moved to subscription, quite the opposite; I am asking why sport can't have it's own dedicated free-to-view channels, possibly run by BBC and ITV or through collaboration.

I haven't missed the point but was simply making one of my own. I believe that KK and Mister R have answered your question so don't see the point in me simply repeating their points.

The way I see this thread now is that your original post has generated an interesting debate beyond the frame of the question you asked but from your responses you don't seem to agree the question has been answered - is this correct and if so what are you looking for?

[nantha]

Wouldn't wotk, General Entertainment includes sport. Carriage arrangements would be a nightmare too.

Viewers who neglect the sporting calendar and try and complain about disruption to 'normal schedules' are naive, in the least. Normality includes coverage of major sporting events in the calendar, not the perceived reverse.

It might be 'normal', but that doesn't mean it has to always be done like that, nor does it mean that anyone who dares to suggest otherwise is naive. Maybe the naivety lies in the blanket statement that it wouldn't work.

I haven't missed the point but was simply making one of my own. I believe that KK and Mister R have answered your question so don't see the point in me simply repeating their points.

The way I see this thread now is that your original post has generated an interesting debate beyond the frame of the question you asked but from your responses you don't seem to agree the question has been answered - is this correct and if so what are you looking for?

Mister R has made some really interesting points that have encouraged the debate, and that's great, however I don't think KK answered the question in the slightest but merely suggested that to pose such a question is 'naive in the least'. On the other hand, maybe that's why there are no free-to-air sports channels: because it's not 'normal'.

[duxk]

One thing I did wonder when one of the reasons the BBC gave for not being able to cover test cricket was lack of channels, they've got BBC3 and 4 sitting there unused until 7pm every night, now the digital switch over is almost complete I don't see why these two channels can't be used to boost the channels available

[Mister R]

As for the F1 thing, I may be wrong but I thought it was the BBC who approached Sky about having a joint bid for the rights as a way for the BBC to shed some cost. As I understood it they had the full rights until the end of this season but decided to give them up early to take on a different approach to cut cost.

The BBC approached Sky for numerous reasons (budget issues would have been amongst them) not least of which was that Sky had made it clear they intended to bid for the F1 rights when they came up and Eccelstone making it fairly clear that he'd go where the money is. In truth the BBC managed to create a remarkably amazing deal that has kept F1 FTA for the near future.

I agree with you that the FA are diminishing the popularity of football - as far as I'm concerned the sheer greed of everybody concerned has put the game on a path to ruin and I suspect the point of no return is dangerously close. If the sport does collapse then it will, in time, recover but my concern would be the impact on other sports where tv money is vital and they've used it responsibly - how they would survive when it runs out is anyone's guess!

On this subject interesting to note that reportedly all bids for the up for renewal Premiership rights have been rejected this week because they were deemed to be 'too low'. The crazy thing is that Sky and ESPN will now likely make higher bids despite having absolutely no motivation to. The league can't and won't not sell the TV rights.

Don't buy this normal programming argument, every four years Normal Programming IS the Olympics, World Cup or Euros. Every year Wimbledon is held, that is normality. What people who argue otherwise are arguing is for abnormaility.

All well and good but slightly hung up on semantics. Whilst its fair to say that the current system of sports 'disrupting' the schedules is 'normal' that doesn't completely diminish the idea that sport could (in theory) all migrate to a specialised Freeview channel.

I would also point out that your argument isn't entirely fair. If you take a look at something like Wimbledon for example it can be hugely disruptive to the schedule. In part because live sport has a tendency to overrun but also because the BBC has an insane insistence on shoehorning Andy Murray (or whoever the British tennis hope is that year) onto the BBC1 schedule at all costs. This can see whole sections of the schedule disappear or shifted to BBC2. Didn't it even result in delays to the news last year? That these events happen every year or every two years or every four years doesn't mean that aren't disruptive to the schedule around it.

I suppose the question is more why should sports take prominence over everything else.

Mixed Genre has worked for years, and should do in the future as well.

I'm not convinced I agree with that (the future bit). I'm firmly in the camp that we're moving away from the mass audience mixed genre channels to more focused and tailored viewing. The explosion of multi-channel options and ultimately online viewing is going to make this near unavoidable. Whether or not BBC1 and ITV1 can maintain mass audience appeal over the long term is going to be interesting. I suspect BBC1 will probably be able to do so to some extent at least but I'm less convinced by ITV's prospects.

One thing I did wonder when one of the reasons the BBC gave for not being able to cover test cricket was lack of channels, they've got BBC3 and 4 sitting there unused until 7pm every night, now the digital switch over is almost complete I don't see why these two channels can't be used to boost the channels available

Cost. And demand.

Plus the BBC lost Test Cricket a while ago didn't they? It wasn't really an option to switch it to that 'dead space' and buying it back now would prove too expensive I suspect.

This post has been edited by Mister R: Jun 10 2012, 16:29

[deegee178]

One thing I did wonder when one of the reasons the BBC gave for not being able to cover test cricket was lack of channels, they've got BBC3 and 4 sitting there unused until 7pm every night, now the digital switch over is almost complete I don't see why these two channels can't be used to boost the channels available

Good idea except that the bandwidth is already used in the daytime to carry CBBC and CBeebies.

I suppose the question is more why should sports take prominence over everything else.

Fair question but they do run over (and therefore give prominence) to other live events, most recently being the Jubilee coverage. Now there is an interesting comparison as the BBC had extensive coverage at the detriment to normal scheduling so it's not just sports fans who get preference! And in some respects it was worse as they showed quite a lot on the News Channel and BBC One - that's just unnecessary now almost everybody has switched over to digital.

[nantha]

Okay, but why do they have to show the Euros final on both main channels (BBC1 and ITV1). Ridiculous.

This post has been edited by nantha: Jun 30 2012, 18:30

[YORKSHIRE GUY]

Now here's the bit I don't understand: why don't they have one or two freeview sports channels and put all the sport that's shown on terrestrial telly on these.

But a sportlover would say that you are aksing that question because you don't like sport.

And they might ask why not put all the programmes that you like on a Freeview channel.