When it comes to racing C4 has a much stronger reputation than the BBC of late stunty - it's 25 years of hard work paying off for them, and frankly the writing was on the wall for the BBC when they cut down to just 13 days of racing a few years ago. It's good to see that the station that it there covering the sport week in week out is getting the glory of the big events.
BTW, does C4 have Cheltenhem and Glorious Goodwood exclusively, or are they also shown on either At the Races or Racing UK. Similarly with the events C4 is taking from the BBC - are they currently exclusive to the BBC or is coveraged shared?
It may be 25 years of hard work - it may be a bit more; 27 or 28 - but as J A "Aussie Jim" McGrath pointed out in his piece in the Telegragh link, they threatened to pull out unless they received help from the horse racing Levy Board.
All the races are shown on Racing UK and At the Races - in the case of Ascot and Doncaster - as well as on terrestrial television. RUK and ATR take the on-course commentary, whilst for the races televised currently by BBC and C4, J A McGrath and Simon Holt would be the commentators respectively.
I'd also say the last ITV FA Cup and England deal was also somewhat of a disaster for the Beeb, as it has brought about the end of live football on BBC Sport.
The BBC Still broadcast 3 Carling cup and 10 Championship fixtures per season (although this is the last season of that deal of course.)
ITV's biggest loss was probably the Formula One going to the BBC in 2009.
ITV didn't "lose" the F1. They cancelled the contract/enforced an opt-out.
It wasn't controversial in a sense it went from the BBC to Sky or anything like that but it was in but I meant that WDC and Sky getting in bed together cemented the split in darts as the WDC players still played in the 1993 BDO World Darts Championships.
Yes, it's true they did play at the Lakeside in 1993, but the atmosphere was absolutely poisonous by that stage and the writing was on the wall. Sky saved the professional players from the grip of Olly Croft, and for that they deserve credit.
The most controversial by a long way was the England and Wales Cricket Board selling the whole sport to Sky in 2006.
Let's not forget that there is now NO FTA live coverage of the sport at all. All other major sports have at least some free, live coverage, cricket has none (apart from IPL cricket on ITV4, which falls outside the ECB's remit).
There's also been not a single ball of county cricket shown on free-to-air television, either in live or highlights form, since 2005.
The Sky/F1 deal is quite a way behind that, IMO.
The 1992 BSkyB Premier League football deal was probably the sports rights deal that had the biggest impact on one sport.
Biggest hit to BBC Sport: losing cricket to Channel 4 and the horse racing deal just announced.
I'd also say the last ITV FA Cup and England deal was also somewhat of a disaster for the Beeb, as it has brought about the end of live football on BBC Sport.
ITV's biggest loss was probably the Formula One going to the BBC in 2009.
I don't know whether the ECB even split their packages for bidding or whether it's just one Sky sized package on the table, but putting Twenty20 County Cricket into a package attractive to FTA broadcasters (so whether it might be the whole thing on ITV4 or a match per round shared with Sky) could do wonders for the county game.
It's an old argument we've all gone through time and time again but whatever the disadvantage to England from having no live FTA coverage, they're at least double for county cricket.
And flipping the theme of this topic around for a minute I would say that losing Match of the Day back in 2001 was actually one of the best things that happened for the BBC. They got back into regular live football winning the FA Cup rights from ITV (and doubling the number of games, adding a third in 2004), and bought the England home games (and many away games) back to terrestrial TV - where they've remained ever since.
It may be 25 years of hard work - it may be a bit more; 27 or 28 - but as J A "Aussie Jim" McGrath pointed out in his piece in the Telegragh link, they threatened to pull out unless they received help from the horse racing Levy Board.
They threatened to pull out - but struck deals with the racing authorities and various sponsors to stop it happening when they could easily have walked away.
Yes, it's true they did play at the Lakeside in 1993, but the atmosphere was absolutely poisonous by that stage and the writing was on the wall. Sky saved the professional players from the grip of Olly Croft, and for that they deserve credit.
OK I am probably underestimating the politics in Darts with the BDO and PDC, maybe that was a bad example.
Also with all Horse Racing going to Channel 4, is it true under the current contract that the only racing they pay for is the Cheltenham Festival and the rest is paid for by the racing authorities. And under the new contract from 2013 will Channel 4 be paying for the current BBC contract and Cheltenham and the rest will not be paid by them?
I'd say the ITV Digital/Football League deal, although it's the outcome and not the initial signing of the deal that's controversial.
Someone I know says that after they signed that deal, The Sun should have done a feature where they put the postcodes of every Football League club through the ITV Digital postcode checker to see how many could actually receive it at the time.
And flipping the theme of this topic around for a minute I would say that losing Match of the Day back in 2001 was actually one of the best things that happened for the BBC. They got back into regular live football winning the FA Cup rights from ITV (and doubling the number of games, adding a third in 2004), and bought the England home games (and many away games) back to terrestrial TV - where they've remained ever since.
That wasnt exactly how it happened, though, as the Beeb put in a bid for both MOTD and the FA contract for 2001, and were in a good position to get both, before the FA told ITV they'd lost and so they promptly put all the money they'd bid for that into a new massive bid for the Premier League.
Of course, as it turns out they got the better out of those because the highlights never worked on ITV and they had the England matches which really pull in huge audiences, helped by England being quite good at the time. It's amazing to think what appalling coverage of England there was on terrestrial telly at the end of the nineties, highlights on ITV at half eleven and that's it.
When the first regular live football contract was signed in 1983 (which also allowed shirt advertising on TV for the first time) there were many raised eyebrows at the prospect of Sunday games live on the box
The renegotiation in 1985 was even more controversial with Robert Maxwell's famous "mad, bad and sad" quote!
ITV securing the 1991 Rugby World Cup, at the time people were wondering how it would work. The first time a structured half time break came into the game IIRC. You could tell the game was gearing up for professionalisation
OK I am probably underestimating the politics in Darts with the BDO and PDC, maybe that was a bad example.
Also with all Horse Racing going to Channel 4, is it true under the current contract that the only racing they pay for is the Cheltenham Festival and the rest is paid for by the racing authorities. And under the new contract from 2013 will Channel 4 be paying for the current BBC contract and Cheltenham and the rest will not be paid by them?
The new contract sees the end of C4 being paid to broadcast the sport. Not sure how much they were paid and sponsors footed some of the bill but it basically means this deal is probably worth even more to racing than the £5m a year C4 are now paying when you take into the account the money racing is no longer paying C4.
Remember ITV's half hearted athletics coverage in the nineties which often featured poorly attended meetings in places like Gateshead, with some of the lanes empty, and Jim Rosenthal trying to whip up interest to little effect. ITV decided to throw in the towel as domestic athletics seemed to be dying on its feet.
Perhaps the oddest deal I can remember is the 5 Nations contract in the late nineties. Sky had the England home games, with highlights on ITV, France v Ireland was only shown on Sky and the BBC had the rest. This meant you could see the Calcutta Cup on FTA if it was in Scotland, but not the following year if it was in England.
Thankfully the Six Nations came back to the BBC but the legacy of that deal kind of continues as last year when Wales and I think Ireland played England in Cardiff and Dublin respectively they were shown on Sky as part of Sky's deal to cover England away rather than on the BBC under deals their respective deals for Wales and Ireland games.
Perhaps the oddest deal I can remember is the 5 Nations contract in the late nineties. Sky had the England home games, with highlights on ITV, France v Ireland was only shown on Sky and the BBC had the rest. This meant you could see the Calcutta Cup on FTA if it was in Scotland, but not the following year if it was in England.
It was actually France v England live on Sky, with highlights on ITV. The RFU deal with Sky - mentioned in the OP - resulted in matches at Twickenham having the "spoiler" kick-off time of 2.30pm, whereas other 5/6 Nations games kicked off at either 2pm, 3pm or 4pm.
When the first regular live football contract was signed in 1983 (which also allowed shirt advertising on TV for the first time) there were many raised eyebrows at the prospect of Sunday games live on the box
That 1983 rights negotiation was very interesting; I've read some articles on the Guardian Digital Archive from that time and perhaps more extraordinary than the impasse over shirt advertising, live games and, of course, money was the fact that a CCTV video company nearly trumped the broadcasters with a bid to show matches solely on their projector screens in pubs and clubs.
Actually, I've just had a look and found the articles again:
March 25th 1983
A little known video firm shocked the major television companies last night by making an £8 million offer for the exclusive rights to screen Football League matches over the next two seasons. The offer, which is bound to put pressure on the BBC and ITV to reconsider the recent £5.3 million package rejected by the League, was made to the TV sub-comittee and will be discussed by the League management committee next week.
The finance for the video deal has been put up by Telejector Video Communication Systems Ltd, who plan to show edited versions of matches on 5,000 screens in pubs, clubs, hospitals, and schools throughout England and Wales next season. Around 2,500 Telejector screens - measuring three feet by four - have already been distributed on a five-year lease system at a cost of £40 per week.
The League is thought to be favourably disposed to the proposal which would reduce the number of viewers to around one million and in theory increase the potential number of supporters actually attending matches. A single programme lasting up to 50 minutes would be screened every Monday night and would include the edited highlights of four matches, though regional scheduling might reduce the number of games to two in certain areas.
However, it remains to be seen whether the major First Division clubs agree with Jack Dunnett, the League President, who said yesterday: "Telejector is an important new medium which may well prove beneficial to the best interests of the game". The question of how often the most popular clubs such as Liverpool and Manchester United would appear on the programme could prove contentious in view of the company's wish to have cameras at so many matches.
The other side of the equation is the huge financial bait which is likely to tempt the majority of League chairmen who must cope with declining gates and falling revenue from advertisers and sponsors. "The more successful we are the greater the benefit to football," claimed Jeffrey Bonas, the chairman of London and Liverpool Trust which is Telejector's parent company.
A spokeman for Telejector said the League would retain the rights for foreign distribution of the video screenings. Both the Milk Cup and FA Cup finals would be excluded from the deal while internationals and European club matches would also be up for separate negotiation. Live coverage of matches would also be a possibility for the future as the Telejector equipment is capable of receiving cable for satellite transmissions.
The League may additionally warm to the idea of cutting violent crowd behaviour out of video screenings which is part of the proposed package.
A BBC spokeman said last night: "Our discussions with the Football League are still progressing. We cannot say more until we have looked at Telejector's offer." The League have promised a definite reply to the £8 million offer by the end of April.
What happened next is that the League tacitly accepted Telejector's £8 million offer but used that as a bargaining chip to get the BBC and ITV to cough up more than £5.3m and relax their stance on shirt advertising, which they initially would not countenance at all.
In the end, Telejector withdrew their offer - partly because club chairmen became lukewarm to the idea and partly because leading clubs made noises about signing their own TV deal - and the League signed a deal with the BBC and ITV for £2.6m a year, but more importantly permitting shirt advertising.
It was actually France v England live on Sky, with highlights on ITV. The RFU deal with Sky - mentioned in the OP - resulted in matches at Twickenham having the "spoiler" kick-off time of 2.30pm, whereas other 5/6 Nations games kicked off at either 2pm, 3pm or 4pm.
It was a strange set up and the ITV highlights show was amateurish, but this is the only time since 1988, when the Olympics was shown on BBC One, ITV and Channel 4, when three broadcasters shared the rights for a major sports contract. The Five/ Six Nations going back to a single broadcaster makes far more sense.
Another odd contract that appeared in the seventies was when the BBC seemed to share Derby coverage with ITV in alternate years. Does anyone know the reasoning behind this and did viewers traditionally switch to BBC One just before the big race?
F1 from BBC to ITV in 1997
FA Cup & England to ITV/Setanta in 2008
World Athletics Championships from BBC to Channel 4 in 2011 & 2013 (The coverage was so bad the BBC won the rights to the 2015 & 2017 championships)
The most controversial in recent times were the original BSkyB deal for the Premier League and Sky getting all the rights to live cricket.
The loss of the Grand National to Channel 4 isn't that bigger deal and remember until 2001 the Derby was on Channel 4 so really apart from the Grand national and Royal Ascot, they're just getitng rights back that they previously had.
Talking of cricket and I see the dictator of cricket Giles Clarke has been re-elected unapposed as chairman of the ECB.
I guess the Sky money though must drip feed down to the counties as it's the only explanation I can think of as to why they aren't breaking away from the ECB and negotiating their own rights deals as I definately think they could get more exposure than they do under their current contract if the rights weren't bundled in with Englands 17 tests, 56 T20 and 903 one day internationals each summer - even if Sky themselves won the contract.
P.S. Not seen any news bulletins today but has the C4 racing deal made the main bulletins, or is it just us folk browsing the forums and media websites that know about it.
The biggest I can recall was the ITV grabbing of all football rights in the 1970's.
The Football league negotiating team's integrity was called into question, Jimmy Hill, chairman of Fulham at the time said he had voted against the deal and got others to back him.
Don't forget one season there was no coverage for the first few games at all ( '80's I think)
Biggest controversy money-wise was Fox grabbing the NFL rights in 1993 in USA.
Murdoch bid over $1.1 billion, and CBS lost out after bidding about $300 million.
Wisely Murdoch then poached most of the CBS commentators and production team.
This was entirely based on his success with Sky and the Premier league.
I do agree about the ECB and Cricket rights.
I don't watch cricket - but would love to - but I am not subscribing to watch other sports I have no interest in.
If Sky offered to let me watch just the cricket matches for a flat fee I would do that.
P.S. Not seen any news bulletins today but has the C4 racing deal made the main bulletins, or is it just us folk browsing the forums and media websites that know about it.
It was not mentioned at all on the BBC1 10pm News.
However there was a report on the BBC News Channel during the sports news section at approx 10.40pm. This was a proper report lasting say approx 3 minutes by a reporter standing on the course at Aintree.
I imagine the same report was shown several times during the day on the BBC News Channel though I wasn't watching at any other time during the day so can't confirm for certain.
Did BBC not lose rights to Football League highlights back some time in the 1980's and MOTD went into cold storage except for FA cup coverage for a few seasons? Also ITV had PL highlights rights for a few seasons not that long ago before they returned to BBC.
It was a strange set up and the ITV highlights show was amateurish, but this is the only time since 1988, when the Olympics was shown on BBC One, ITV and Channel 4, when three broadcasters shared the rights for a major sports contract. The Five/ Six Nations going back to a single broadcaster makes far more sense.
The late-90s FA Cup contract was similar to this, with Sky and ITV sharing live match coverage, but with the BBC having highlights rights, meaning that 2009 was actually the first time that the BBC didn't show any coverage of the final.
The late-90s FA Cup contract was similar to this, with Sky and ITV sharing live match coverage, but with the BBC having highlights rights, meaning that 2009 was actually the first time that the BBC didn't show any coverage of the final.
Yes I remember this, ITV & Sky showed the FA Cup from 1997-2001 and ITV had live matches and BBC had highlights, I had a DVD of the best of the FA Cup or something like that and John Motson was commentating on the 2001 Final which I remember watching Live on ITV. The FA Cup & England internationals then returned live to the BBC in 2001 and Premier League highlights went the other way to ITV.
Did BBC not lose rights to Football League highlights back some time in the 1980's and MOTD went into cold storage except for FA cup coverage for a few seasons? Also ITV had PL highlights rights for a few seasons not that long ago before they returned to BBC.
I think the BBC did lose the football league by looking at TV-Ark and MOTD was rebranded Match of the Day: The Road to Wembley. Then the BBC won highlights rights for the Premier League from 1992-2001 then they went to ITV from 2001-2004 and they returned to BBC in 2004-present.
Comments
It may be 25 years of hard work - it may be a bit more; 27 or 28 - but as J A "Aussie Jim" McGrath pointed out in his piece in the Telegragh link, they threatened to pull out unless they received help from the horse racing Levy Board.
All the races are shown on Racing UK and At the Races - in the case of Ascot and Doncaster - as well as on terrestrial television. RUK and ATR take the on-course commentary, whilst for the races televised currently by BBC and C4, J A McGrath and Simon Holt would be the commentators respectively.
The BBC Still broadcast 3 Carling cup and 10 Championship fixtures per season (although this is the last season of that deal of course.)
ITV didn't "lose" the F1. They cancelled the contract/enforced an opt-out.
Yes, it's true they did play at the Lakeside in 1993, but the atmosphere was absolutely poisonous by that stage and the writing was on the wall. Sky saved the professional players from the grip of Olly Croft, and for that they deserve credit.
It's an old argument we've all gone through time and time again but whatever the disadvantage to England from having no live FTA coverage, they're at least double for county cricket.
And flipping the theme of this topic around for a minute I would say that losing Match of the Day back in 2001 was actually one of the best things that happened for the BBC. They got back into regular live football winning the FA Cup rights from ITV (and doubling the number of games, adding a third in 2004), and bought the England home games (and many away games) back to terrestrial TV - where they've remained ever since.
They threatened to pull out - but struck deals with the racing authorities and various sponsors to stop it happening when they could easily have walked away.
OK I am probably underestimating the politics in Darts with the BDO and PDC, maybe that was a bad example.
Also with all Horse Racing going to Channel 4, is it true under the current contract that the only racing they pay for is the Cheltenham Festival and the rest is paid for by the racing authorities. And under the new contract from 2013 will Channel 4 be paying for the current BBC contract and Cheltenham and the rest will not be paid by them?
I thought that was prompted by ITV itself to get more money to buy football rights though?
edit: sorry, just read post #28
Someone I know says that after they signed that deal, The Sun should have done a feature where they put the postcodes of every Football League club through the ITV Digital postcode checker to see how many could actually receive it at the time.
That wasnt exactly how it happened, though, as the Beeb put in a bid for both MOTD and the FA contract for 2001, and were in a good position to get both, before the FA told ITV they'd lost and so they promptly put all the money they'd bid for that into a new massive bid for the Premier League.
Of course, as it turns out they got the better out of those because the highlights never worked on ITV and they had the England matches which really pull in huge audiences, helped by England being quite good at the time. It's amazing to think what appalling coverage of England there was on terrestrial telly at the end of the nineties, highlights on ITV at half eleven and that's it.
The renegotiation in 1985 was even more controversial with Robert Maxwell's famous "mad, bad and sad" quote!
ITV securing the 1991 Rugby World Cup, at the time people were wondering how it would work. The first time a structured half time break came into the game IIRC. You could tell the game was gearing up for professionalisation
Perhaps the oddest deal I can remember is the 5 Nations contract in the late nineties. Sky had the England home games, with highlights on ITV, France v Ireland was only shown on Sky and the BBC had the rest. This meant you could see the Calcutta Cup on FTA if it was in Scotland, but not the following year if it was in England.
It was actually France v England live on Sky, with highlights on ITV. The RFU deal with Sky - mentioned in the OP - resulted in matches at Twickenham having the "spoiler" kick-off time of 2.30pm, whereas other 5/6 Nations games kicked off at either 2pm, 3pm or 4pm.
That 1983 rights negotiation was very interesting; I've read some articles on the Guardian Digital Archive from that time and perhaps more extraordinary than the impasse over shirt advertising, live games and, of course, money was the fact that a CCTV video company nearly trumped the broadcasters with a bid to show matches solely on their projector screens in pubs and clubs.
Actually, I've just had a look and found the articles again:
March 25th 1983
What happened next is that the League tacitly accepted Telejector's £8 million offer but used that as a bargaining chip to get the BBC and ITV to cough up more than £5.3m and relax their stance on shirt advertising, which they initially would not countenance at all.
In the end, Telejector withdrew their offer - partly because club chairmen became lukewarm to the idea and partly because leading clubs made noises about signing their own TV deal - and the League signed a deal with the BBC and ITV for £2.6m a year, but more importantly permitting shirt advertising.
It was a strange set up and the ITV highlights show was amateurish, but this is the only time since 1988, when the Olympics was shown on BBC One, ITV and Channel 4, when three broadcasters shared the rights for a major sports contract. The Five/ Six Nations going back to a single broadcaster makes far more sense.
Another odd contract that appeared in the seventies was when the BBC seemed to share Derby coverage with ITV in alternate years. Does anyone know the reasoning behind this and did viewers traditionally switch to BBC One just before the big race?
F1 from BBC to ITV in 1997
FA Cup & England to ITV/Setanta in 2008
World Athletics Championships from BBC to Channel 4 in 2011 & 2013 (The coverage was so bad the BBC won the rights to the 2015 & 2017 championships)
The loss of the Grand National to Channel 4 isn't that bigger deal and remember until 2001 the Derby was on Channel 4 so really apart from the Grand national and Royal Ascot, they're just getitng rights back that they previously had.
I guess the Sky money though must drip feed down to the counties as it's the only explanation I can think of as to why they aren't breaking away from the ECB and negotiating their own rights deals as I definately think they could get more exposure than they do under their current contract if the rights weren't bundled in with Englands 17 tests, 56 T20 and 903 one day internationals each summer - even if Sky themselves won the contract.
P.S. Not seen any news bulletins today but has the C4 racing deal made the main bulletins, or is it just us folk browsing the forums and media websites that know about it.
The Football league negotiating team's integrity was called into question, Jimmy Hill, chairman of Fulham at the time said he had voted against the deal and got others to back him.
Don't forget one season there was no coverage for the first few games at all ( '80's I think)
Biggest controversy money-wise was Fox grabbing the NFL rights in 1993 in USA.
Murdoch bid over $1.1 billion, and CBS lost out after bidding about $300 million.
Wisely Murdoch then poached most of the CBS commentators and production team.
This was entirely based on his success with Sky and the Premier league.
I do agree about the ECB and Cricket rights.
I don't watch cricket - but would love to - but I am not subscribing to watch other sports I have no interest in.
If Sky offered to let me watch just the cricket matches for a flat fee I would do that.
It was not mentioned at all on the BBC1 10pm News.
However there was a report on the BBC News Channel during the sports news section at approx 10.40pm. This was a proper report lasting say approx 3 minutes by a reporter standing on the course at Aintree.
I imagine the same report was shown several times during the day on the BBC News Channel though I wasn't watching at any other time during the day so can't confirm for certain.
BBC have been known to call it as jumping into bed with the devil.
I hadn't heard of this before: which World Cup are we talking about, and who were Wire TV?
The late-90s FA Cup contract was similar to this, with Sky and ITV sharing live match coverage, but with the BBC having highlights rights, meaning that 2009 was actually the first time that the BBC didn't show any coverage of the final.
Yes I remember this, ITV & Sky showed the FA Cup from 1997-2001 and ITV had live matches and BBC had highlights, I had a DVD of the best of the FA Cup or something like that and John Motson was commentating on the 2001 Final which I remember watching Live on ITV. The FA Cup & England internationals then returned live to the BBC in 2001 and Premier League highlights went the other way to ITV.
I think the BBC did lose the football league by looking at TV-Ark and MOTD was rebranded Match of the Day: The Road to Wembley. Then the BBC won highlights rights for the Premier League from 1992-2001 then they went to ITV from 2001-2004 and they returned to BBC in 2004-present.