Why wasn't the womens Rugby World cup on terrestial TV?
Boxfresh
Posts: 2,764 Forum Member
✭✭✭
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.
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.
0
Comments
End of thread.
The 100mtr sprint, for example, took 10 seconds followed by 30 minutes chat & replays etc.
Its only because they win that all of a sudden, people feel a sense of entitlement that should get it free and not have to pay to see it.....
Really?
I had been dipping in and out of the Euro Athletics, but I watched it on Europsort rather than the Beeb.
The BBC usually stick one of the 6 nations games on the red button if it happens to be played at a ground they already have cameras in. Sky will air usually one of them - the rest don't even get any coverage at all. If the BBC wanted to pick the other games up they could simply by paying for the cost of the coverage. I can't see their attitude being any different when it comes to the world cup.
The England women's team have been strong for as long as I can remember, and the rugby is very entertaining, it's a shame it doesn't get a wider audience. The French games were picking up 1.5 Million viewers in France, and yes France were hosting it - but we hosted the last one and the BBC didn't cover that either.
Add the fact that Ireland put in a great performance, and Wales were at least in the mix and you'd think it's the kind of thing the Beeb really should be promoting. If nothing else just to annoy the Scots.
Sky have at least given this and the previous world cup decent coverage and if the BBC had it, I doubt they would have been able to devote the air time. I'm greatful to sky for giving me a good couple of weeks entertainment.
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.
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. The Rugby World Cup final could have been a much bigger event. This world cup could have been a huge game changing event for the profile of Women's Rugby, if only one of the terrestial channels had broadcast it.
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.
England were one of the favorites for the tournament. It was fairly unlikely that they would tank and go out in embarrassing fashion.
And it's not about a sense of entitlement for viewers. It's about thinking what such wider coverage could have done for the careers of these women champions. Emily Scarlett could have been the female equivalent to Jonny Wilkinson in terms of endorsements and profile after such a huge victory. But with so few people having the opportunity to watch it, it's unlikely someone like her will get the recognition that victory deserves.
I do agree that its a shame it wasn't covered on FTA TV, sky could have put the final on (wait for it, Claxon's ready), pick TV
As regards the BBC, a certain R Murdoch and his conservative party friends have ensured that there funding has been cut so stop blaming them for not covering everything.
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?
It's very doubtful that even had it been on terrestrial TV that any of the players would have got the same publicity as Wilkinson. Again though why is it the BBCs job to promote sports or "stars"?
Any evidence he has asked for it to be cut? Or is this just conspiracy?
Perhaps you should ask the BBC why they don't show the women's 6 Nations on BBC 1 or BBC 2.
It's stuck away on the red button after the men's match.
Sky spend quite a bit televising womens sport. Do you think the BBC would bother to show womens test cricket from Australia or New Zealand live for example?
BBC Wales will show highlights of the Wales Women in the 6N on their roundup programme 'Scrum V' on a Sunday.
Of course ITV did show it up until 2002, but Sky got the rights after that.
Or something like that.....
Let me put it another way, the amount ITV had to pay wasn't worth the perceived benefit to them.
Agreed no real proof, but its on the record that the conservative leadership had a considerable number of meetings with him & his senior board members before and after the election. Pre 2010 there had been lots of noise from The Murdoch empire (particular his son james), about how the BBC needed to be cut down considerably. Then surprise surprise up pops jeremy hunt to announce a 6 year licience fee freeze. While the lib dems lay down and let the conservatives " tickle their tummy". I am sure if minutes exist of the meetings between the murdoch group and The conservatives then we could see what was actually said.
Or potentially it could be because other areas of the government were facing cutbacks, why should the BBC be any different?
The BBC just wasted 100 million on a failed IT project. Not to mention the millions it pays useless managers.
The BBC gets nearly 4 billion a year or about $6 billion dollars. NASA's budget is only around $15 billion.
What on earth does the BBC spend all that money on?