Options

Why wasn't the womens Rugby World cup on terrestial TV?

2

Comments

  • Options
    croftercrofter Posts: 2,976
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Charenton wrote: »
    The BBC had been preoccupied all week with presenters talking for ever about what viewers had just seen for themselves in the European Athletics Championships.

    The 100mtr sprint, for example, took 10 seconds followed by 30 minutes chat & replays etc.

    I would imagine the rest of Europe had the very same problem - except we maybe had something to talk about ...
  • Options
    degsyhufcdegsyhufc Posts: 59,251
    Forum Member
    Charenton wrote: »
    The BBC had been preoccupied all week with presenters talking for ever about what viewers had just seen for themselves in the European Athletics Championships.

    The 100mtr sprint, for example, took 10 seconds followed by 30 minutes chat & replays etc.
    :D
    and missed three field events in the background
  • Options
    degsyhufcdegsyhufc Posts: 59,251
    Forum Member
    Jack1 wrote: »
    It's not job of the BBC to promote sports, that's down to the people who run it. So you think the BBC should decide their sports coverage on the basis that a British team might win?
    No more FIFA world cups then? :D
  • Options
    adman50adman50 Posts: 444
    Forum Member
    Jack1 wrote: »
    Or potentially it could be because other areas of the government were facing cutbacks, why should the BBC be any different?

    BBC isn't a department of government, and as we all know not all dept were cut back especially after "Plan A" failed. We are now on unofficial plan B
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,718
    Forum Member
    adman50 wrote: »
    BBC isn't a department of government, and as we all know not all dept were cut back especially after "Plan A" failed. We are now on unofficial plan B

    Plan A and B, sorry what are they again?
  • Options
    abarthmanabarthman Posts: 8,501
    Forum Member
    Women play rugby?

    Bloody Hell. Whatever next?
  • Options
    channelsurferchannelsurfer Posts: 362
    Forum Member
    degsyhufc wrote: »
    :D
    and missed three field events in the background

    you mean there is field events in athletics? not according to the BBC who would rather chatter on about rubbish.:)
  • Options
    CELT1987CELT1987 Posts: 12,358
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Because Women's rugby is rubbish. Just like Women's football. No one is interested in it.
  • Options
    bluesdiamondbluesdiamond Posts: 11,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    In general despite overtures in The Olympics, women's sport is not a draw.
    Thankfully the BBC and Channel 4 have in Athletics and Swimming created household names in able bodied and disability sport.
    I am looking forward to Hannah Cockcroft at the IPC European events in Swansea this week, saw her at an IPC Grand Prix and she was at ease with the autograph hunters and a warm smile.
    However aside from Womens Football, Womens team sport Rugby, Netball and Cricket are on Sky. To be fair Sky having relationships with Rugby and cricket through the Men;s game are just extending relationships.
    The BBC do cover the Women's Open Golf and Women's Tennis matches at Wimbledon, but in both cases maybe are seen as of less interest to the Male events.
    Maybe Cycling has started to get better coverage all round, and the Women do get good coverage off the BBC.
    Now Triathlon, who remembers the British ladies who competed with the Brownlees?
  • Options
    plateletplatelet Posts: 26,386
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CELT1987 wrote: »
    Because Women's rugby is rubbish. Just like Women's football. No one is interested in it.

    but they show the Scottish Men's rugby so I don't think that's the reason.
  • Options
    Jason CJason C Posts: 31,336
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Boxfresh wrote: »
    i'm sorry, but when you've got a winning team in an international sport, and it gets enough publicity, that's enough for people to start taking interest, even it's something they normally wouldn't watch.

    No it isn't.
    Remember when the nation got obssessed with watching a bunch of Womens Curlers at the Winter Olympics a few years ago. Nobody cares about curling (let alone womens curling), yet people tuned in because we were winning in a big international event.

    That's something of a false comparison simply because the curling took place in the Olympics, which instantly elevates any sport, no matter how minor it is in itself, to a status beyond that of a World or European Championships or what have you.
    Rugby has far more casual appeal than Curling. As the post above yours said, England's Women has had a strong Rugby team for a long time. It should have been anticipated that they could possibly win the World Cup, and therefore it should have been an event that terrestial channels took interest in It should be an event being promoted by the BBC or ITV.

    Despite growing equality in sport in general, the fact remains that amongst the public at large, the women's equivalents of sports people generally regard as being played by men have extremely limited appeal; women's rugby falls into that category, and even if the England women's victory was shown on the BBC, the popularity of the sport would have not grown in any meaningful way.
  • Options
    adman50adman50 Posts: 444
    Forum Member
    Jack1 wrote: »
    Plan A and B, sorry what are they again?

    good point, I don't think George Osbourne really knows, but he started of as Mr total austerity (plan A), it didn't work so it was changed, but he didn't ever admitted it out load.
    Eg the house mortgage guarantee scheme etc . This is the unofficial plan B
  • Options
    JimothyDJimothyD Posts: 8,868
    Forum Member
    Because no one gives a frig about Women's Rugby.
  • Options
    ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    BBC Breakfast seem to do quite a lot on women's sports including rugby and cricket.TV companies are only really interested in sports with mass appeal and I'm afraid women's rugby does not fall into that category although, of course, it may change.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,718
    Forum Member
    adman50 wrote: »
    good point, I don't think George Osbourne really knows, but he started of as Mr total austerity (plan A), it didn't work so it was changed, but he didn't ever admitted it out load.
    Eg the house mortgage guarantee scheme etc . This is the unofficial plan B

    I don't know what country your talking about but the UK hasn't gone under "total austerity" at any point since 2010.
  • Options
    robotrobot Posts: 1,181
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jack1 wrote: »
    Or potentially it could be because other areas of the government were facing cutbacks, why should the BBC be any different?

    But at least it's good to see that the Murdoch clan didn't apply a 6-year freeze on BSkyB's charges to its customers.
  • Options
    Steve9214Steve9214 Posts: 8,406
    Forum Member
    CELT1987 wrote: »
    Because Women's rugby is rubbish. Just like Women's football. No one is interested in it.

    Maybe if they swapped shirts at the end it would get more viewers
    - IIRC there was a Smith & Jones sketch along these lines.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,718
    Forum Member
    robot wrote: »
    But at least it's good to see that the Murdoch clan didn't apply a 6-year freeze on BSkyB's charges to its customers.

    Sky is a private company, whereas the BBC is a public institution, can you not see the difference?
  • Options
    Tom_MullenTom_Mullen Posts: 893
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Boxfresh wrote: »
    England's women are the world champions, having beat Canada. An amazing accomplishment. But this was an event that should have been screened free-to-air for the entire nation on BBC or ITV, not just those who have Sky Sports.

    A real shame, as this could have been a watershed moment for womens Rugby and womens sport in general, if the whole country were able to watch them win. They deserved the type of attention and accolades usually reserved for the men. As it stands, I imagine it'll be mostly forgotten by next week.

    The terrestrial channels clearly weren't interested, they would have based their decision on the fact that the viewing figures probably wouldn't have been great. I agree though that due to it being on sky it hasn't had anywhere near the exposure it would have had but they were obviously the only interested broadcaster.
  • Options
    RichardcoulterRichardcoulter Posts: 30,369
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tom_Mullen wrote: »
    The terrestrial channels clearly weren't interested, they would have based their decision on the fact that the viewing figures probably wouldn't have been great. I agree though that due to it being on sky it hasn't had anywhere near the exposure it would have had but they were obviously the only interested broadcaster.

    And at least it got coverage of some sort for those interested in it.

    I don't know of any female rugby players, but amongst the female football players that I know, a fair few are lesbians. I'd have thought the % to be much higher in womens rugby as it gives masculine or competitive women an outlet.
  • Options
    RadioKnowerRadioKnower Posts: 2,272
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    And at least it got coverage of some sort for those interested in it.

    I don't know of any female rugby players, but amongst the female football players that I know, a fair few are lesbians. I'd have thought the % to be much higher in womens rugby as it gives masculine or competitive women an outlet.
    I don't know what the relevance of that is to anything relating to broadcasting.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,718
    Forum Member
    And at least it got coverage of some sort for those interested in it.

    I don't know of any female rugby players, but amongst the female football players that I know, a fair few are lesbians. I'd have thought the % to be much higher in womens rugby as it gives masculine or competitive women an outlet.

    What's people's sexual preference got to do with anything?
  • Options
    plateletplatelet Posts: 26,386
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't know of any female rugby players, but amongst the female football players that I know, a fair few are lesbians. I'd have thought the % to be much higher in womens rugby as it gives masculine or competitive women an outlet.

    Nurse! Nurse! He's out of bed again
  • Options
    Alex2606Alex2606 Posts: 2,682
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    platelet wrote: »
    Nurse! Nurse! He's out of bed again

    Just waiting for the 'I was hacked' defence
  • Options
    Howard_GilpinHoward_Gilpin Posts: 2,217
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    And at least it got coverage of some sort for those interested in it.

    I don't know of any female rugby players, but amongst the female football players that I know, a fair few are lesbians. I'd have thought the % to be much higher in womens rugby as it gives masculine or competitive women an outlet.

    Are you suggesting this is why neither BBC nor ITV covered the Women's RWC?
Sign In or Register to comment.