You can't copyright a TV programme name, just as you can't copyright a song title.
Technically you cannot copyright the name of a TV Programme as it is not a singular creative item or body of work. However a TV Programme name is a brand and a brand can be registered as a trademark.
'Match of the Day' and 'MOTD' are registered trademarks, although I don't know if they are trademarked by the BBC or by BBC Worldwide.
If the rights go to ITV, It can kill off interest in the Premier League which is a good thing
Would it kill off interest in the Premier league though? The Premier League is a worldwide product and brand nowadays so unfortunately just because if highlights were to move to ITV (and i hope they don't) wouldn't mean anything in the bigger picture. The money they get from domestic highlights is tiny in comparison to what it gets from Sky/BT for live domestic rights and other broadcasters around the globe for foreign TV rights.
ITV is not a natural choice for highlights packages. For live football it is OK, as you get exactly what you get on every other channel - 2 x 45 minutes of uninterrupted football.
For highlights though, they'll be wanting to pop at least 5/6 ad breaks in a 2 hour programme - which will be highly irritating. They HAVE to stay on the BBC. I think the lack of commerciality (of course) on the BBC brings a lot more gravitas to certain events, whereas on ITV I feel that, being surrounded by commercials actually would dillute the commericial proposition of the BPL itself.
As an aside, I don't mind ITV's live coverage at all - and in many aspects the punditry is more concise than anything I have seen the BBC (and sometimes Sky) do. They have limited time to get their points across, and Lee Dixon in particular is one example of a person who can pick out 6/7 key action points, and, with graphical enhancements, he manages to explain succinctly where it is going wrong/right for a particular team, all within a two minute sequence.
Compare this with MNF where Neville and Carragher mess about on a screen during half time and only manage to get through a couple of clips because they're constantly battling with fast forwarding, slowing down clips etc.
Presenter wise, I have always defended Chiles for his everyman approach to football - however I must admit that recently his ad-libbing is getting nauseous and he even repeats his words quite a lot so much so it is noticeable. That said, I don't think it warrants the crap he gets on Twitter - still don't understand why the ribbing of Gemma Collins on I'm a Celeb was deemed NOT OK, and the constant barrages aimed at Chiles week in week out ARE OK...!
Anyhow... MOTD needs to stay on the BBC. Live football... don't particularly care.
Remember some people in government want to scrap the license fee so the BBC may have adverts during MOTD soon
Hello stv viewer, abolishing the tv licence fee need not mean adverts during MOTD.
It could mean the BBC being funded out of taxation revenue.
In Australia the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is funded from taxation.
Hello stv viewer, abolishing the tv licence fee need not mean adverts during MOTD.
It could mean the BBC being funded out of taxation revenue.
In Australia the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is funded from taxation.
Yeah, and look at the effect the huge cuts made to its budget in the last week have been received by the Aussie folk.
If the LF was scrapped, commercials or subscription would be its only route as a tax like ABC Australia has would go down like a lead balloon.
Hello stv viewer, abolishing the tv licence fee need not mean adverts during MOTD.
It could mean the BBC being funded out of taxation revenue.
In Australia the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is funded from taxation.
And you only have to look at what the Australian government is doing to the ABC which is modelled closely along the lines of the BBC
In a two hour slot they would have to have 7 breaks: It is OfCom that decides the nnumber of breaks though, not the channels.
As a maximum. They could of course have none. But that would be silly.
Talks of a 2 hour show is surely too long for anyone to put up with. The quandary anyone other than BBC will have is people will switch off during the ads, particularly if the only games remaining are the two nil nils at the end.
As much as we kid ourselves that it's great Leicester v Sunderland was treated the same as Arsenal v Man Utd, full OBs, full edits and commentary on all is a luxury not a necessity and I wouldn't be surprised if we returned to the older 3 highlight edits and a round up of the rest if highlights left the BBC.
In a two hour slot they would have to have 7 breaks: It is OfCom that decides the nnumber of breaks though, not the channels.
No it isn't.
The channels are limited to minutes of ads, which is 12 per hour and its up to the broadcasters to decide how many breaks to use that in.
During ITV's F1 coverage, they had 6 breaks per hour of 2 minutes.
As a maximum. They could of course have none. But that would be silly.
Talks of a 2 hour show is surely too long for anyone to put up with. The quandary anyone other than BBC will have is people will switch off during the ads, particularly if the only games remaining are the two nil nils at the end.
As much as we kid ourselves that it's great Leicester v Sunderland was treated the same as Arsenal v Man Utd, full OBs, full edits and commentary on all is a luxury not a necessity and I wouldn't be surprised if we returned to the older 3 highlight edits and a round up of the rest if highlights left the BBC.
It is great, and means I get to see the main action of my team (I saw Leicester mentioned see :kitty:) and while I agree with you in the main, Leicester-Sunderland isn't really of that much interest in the grand scheme of things. It did only receive 7 minutes 40 seconds of coverage from introduction to end of "analysis." Of course as a supporter of a smaller PL team I'm far more protective of the coverage that there already is, but I think it's pertinent.
I just think, reiterating my point from the earlier post, it would be such a backwards step if we go back to three mains and a round up. Look what happens on Football First; every chance they get to show Utd, Chelsea, City, Liverpool, Arsenal, they take it, because they're the pulls, not that they're the actual "game of the day" but because it's a ratings winner. Just like The Permiership 11-13 years ago, it would just be Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool etc as the main games at every conceivable opportunity.
That, of course, could be countered by the fact that there is a World Feed OB unit at every game, so if Leicester-Sunderland was 7-7, it could become the first game in the running order over Man Utd-Stoke which was scheduled to be the highlight.
Here's a radical idea. ITV win the highlights and drop the punditry. That would free up match highlight time and they could squeeze in the adverts. Leave punditry for an extended B show on Sunday, when you can offer more insightful, more intriguing analysis after the pundits digest the footage in a lot more time.
There's a lot more scope for ITV now and if they did win the rights I would expect to treat them better and to get a lot more for their money. If they were spending upwards of £80-100m per season should ITV be expecting more than one Saturday show, a Sunday repeat and a Sunday show? It would be nice if they could utilise ITV4 to offer more highlights or extended coverage in some way or another (of course the terms of the contract depend on that).
If they did go back to the norm, then the Premier League produced Review Show that's currently on BT Sport would be a far more attractive offering.
I'm just highlighting the point that I think it is vital Match of the Day remains on BBC One in its current format as anywhere else would not receive the same treatment we currently are afforded. And this is coming from a staunch supporter of ITV's football coverage.
Here's a radical idea. ITV win the highlights and drop the punditry. That would free up match highlight time and they could squeeze in the adverts. Leave punditry for an extended B show on Sunday, when you can offer more insightful, more intriguing analysis after the pundits digest the footage in a lot more time.
The worst bit about punditry for me is, say, after a stunning 5-0 win for team X, it's back off to the lifeless studio - it all feels like a horrible come down. Even when I record MOTD, I fast forward through Shearer/Savage and Murphy.
Why not play the interviews straight after the final whistle (in a "BT Box") whilst maintaining the pictures of the on-pitch euphoria/disappointment - and then have 90 secs max brief analysis of the key points with the voices of Dixon, Hoodle etc - still with the real crowd noise in the background - without having to bring things down again by visiting a quiet studio. Then, straight on to the next...
The one thing though that has always been so frustrating so me is highlights packages on ITV where they put a break at half time - this for me is a no no.
Would really love a commercial broadcaster to revolutionalise the coverage a bit. I'm not talking intrusive like BT Sports Conference Coverage, but something just to mix it up. Even brief fan vox-pops after the game for a bit of raw emotion.
Using current music as well would also make the show a bit more lively instead of the usual tracks that seem to be used in the usual spots. If I had a quid for every time ITV played Geraldine from Glasgvegas over their opening segments of coverage I'd be typing this on a keyboard encrusted in diamonds.
Similarly, Clem's features that he does on FLS are quite insightful and you realise that there are lives and personalities that help run the football clubs, and it's "not just a business" - so the introduction of these would be quite nice too.
Comments
Technically you cannot copyright the name of a TV Programme as it is not a singular creative item or body of work. However a TV Programme name is a brand and a brand can be registered as a trademark.
'Match of the Day' and 'MOTD' are registered trademarks, although I don't know if they are trademarked by the BBC or by BBC Worldwide.
Would it kill off interest in the Premier league though? The Premier League is a worldwide product and brand nowadays so unfortunately just because if highlights were to move to ITV (and i hope they don't) wouldn't mean anything in the bigger picture. The money they get from domestic highlights is tiny in comparison to what it gets from Sky/BT for live domestic rights and other broadcasters around the globe for foreign TV rights.
For highlights though, they'll be wanting to pop at least 5/6 ad breaks in a 2 hour programme - which will be highly irritating. They HAVE to stay on the BBC. I think the lack of commerciality (of course) on the BBC brings a lot more gravitas to certain events, whereas on ITV I feel that, being surrounded by commercials actually would dillute the commericial proposition of the BPL itself.
As an aside, I don't mind ITV's live coverage at all - and in many aspects the punditry is more concise than anything I have seen the BBC (and sometimes Sky) do. They have limited time to get their points across, and Lee Dixon in particular is one example of a person who can pick out 6/7 key action points, and, with graphical enhancements, he manages to explain succinctly where it is going wrong/right for a particular team, all within a two minute sequence.
Compare this with MNF where Neville and Carragher mess about on a screen during half time and only manage to get through a couple of clips because they're constantly battling with fast forwarding, slowing down clips etc.
Presenter wise, I have always defended Chiles for his everyman approach to football - however I must admit that recently his ad-libbing is getting nauseous and he even repeats his words quite a lot so much so it is noticeable. That said, I don't think it warrants the crap he gets on Twitter - still don't understand why the ribbing of Gemma Collins on I'm a Celeb was deemed NOT OK, and the constant barrages aimed at Chiles week in week out ARE OK...!
Anyhow... MOTD needs to stay on the BBC. Live football... don't particularly care.
Hello stv viewer, abolishing the tv licence fee need not mean adverts during MOTD.
It could mean the BBC being funded out of taxation revenue.
In Australia the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is funded from taxation.
Yeah, and look at the effect the huge cuts made to its budget in the last week have been received by the Aussie folk.
If the LF was scrapped, commercials or subscription would be its only route as a tax like ABC Australia has would go down like a lead balloon.
And you only have to look at what the Australian government is doing to the ABC which is modelled closely along the lines of the BBC
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/24/abc-news-division-axe-100-jobs-budget-slashed-top-tv-programs
In a two hour slot they would have to have 7 breaks: It is OfCom that decides the nnumber of breaks though, not the channels.
As a maximum. They could of course have none. But that would be silly.
Talks of a 2 hour show is surely too long for anyone to put up with. The quandary anyone other than BBC will have is people will switch off during the ads, particularly if the only games remaining are the two nil nils at the end.
As much as we kid ourselves that it's great Leicester v Sunderland was treated the same as Arsenal v Man Utd, full OBs, full edits and commentary on all is a luxury not a necessity and I wouldn't be surprised if we returned to the older 3 highlight edits and a round up of the rest if highlights left the BBC.
No it isn't.
The channels are limited to minutes of ads, which is 12 per hour and its up to the broadcasters to decide how many breaks to use that in.
During ITV's F1 coverage, they had 6 breaks per hour of 2 minutes.
It is great, and means I get to see the main action of my team (I saw Leicester mentioned see :kitty:) and while I agree with you in the main, Leicester-Sunderland isn't really of that much interest in the grand scheme of things. It did only receive 7 minutes 40 seconds of coverage from introduction to end of "analysis." Of course as a supporter of a smaller PL team I'm far more protective of the coverage that there already is, but I think it's pertinent.
I just think, reiterating my point from the earlier post, it would be such a backwards step if we go back to three mains and a round up. Look what happens on Football First; every chance they get to show Utd, Chelsea, City, Liverpool, Arsenal, they take it, because they're the pulls, not that they're the actual "game of the day" but because it's a ratings winner. Just like The Permiership 11-13 years ago, it would just be Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool etc as the main games at every conceivable opportunity.
That, of course, could be countered by the fact that there is a World Feed OB unit at every game, so if Leicester-Sunderland was 7-7, it could become the first game in the running order over Man Utd-Stoke which was scheduled to be the highlight.
Here's a radical idea. ITV win the highlights and drop the punditry. That would free up match highlight time and they could squeeze in the adverts. Leave punditry for an extended B show on Sunday, when you can offer more insightful, more intriguing analysis after the pundits digest the footage in a lot more time.
There's a lot more scope for ITV now and if they did win the rights I would expect to treat them better and to get a lot more for their money. If they were spending upwards of £80-100m per season should ITV be expecting more than one Saturday show, a Sunday repeat and a Sunday show? It would be nice if they could utilise ITV4 to offer more highlights or extended coverage in some way or another (of course the terms of the contract depend on that).
If they did go back to the norm, then the Premier League produced Review Show that's currently on BT Sport would be a far more attractive offering.
Man U
Liverpool
A N other
Yawn
Yawn
The worst bit about punditry for me is, say, after a stunning 5-0 win for team X, it's back off to the lifeless studio - it all feels like a horrible come down. Even when I record MOTD, I fast forward through Shearer/Savage and Murphy.
Why not play the interviews straight after the final whistle (in a "BT Box") whilst maintaining the pictures of the on-pitch euphoria/disappointment - and then have 90 secs max brief analysis of the key points with the voices of Dixon, Hoodle etc - still with the real crowd noise in the background - without having to bring things down again by visiting a quiet studio. Then, straight on to the next...
The one thing though that has always been so frustrating so me is highlights packages on ITV where they put a break at half time - this for me is a no no.
Would really love a commercial broadcaster to revolutionalise the coverage a bit. I'm not talking intrusive like BT Sports Conference Coverage, but something just to mix it up. Even brief fan vox-pops after the game for a bit of raw emotion.
Using current music as well would also make the show a bit more lively instead of the usual tracks that seem to be used in the usual spots. If I had a quid for every time ITV played Geraldine from Glasgvegas over their opening segments of coverage I'd be typing this on a keyboard encrusted in diamonds.
Similarly, Clem's features that he does on FLS are quite insightful and you realise that there are lives and personalities that help run the football clubs, and it's "not just a business" - so the introduction of these would be quite nice too.
Just a few ideas anyway.