Of course 1 thing you say is worth highlighting - as far as I'm aware all this is just a gentleman's agreement. If England made the semi-finals then potentially the other broadcaster could just decide to show the game anyway!
Indeed, and it begs the question of why the BBC are so happy to abide by this agreement every time as they always beat ITV massively when they go head-to-head - so what's to stop them showing every England match (or indeed every match) regardless of whether ITV show them safe in the knowledge that they'd beat them again?
I know there's the argument that it'll deprive non-football fans of alternative viewing but they could get round that by sticking the extra matches behind the red button.
But obviously this would be dangerous in terms of affecting relations between the two!
True, but why would the BBC necessarily need to keep good relations with ITV anyway?
Indeed, and it begs the question of why the BBC are so happy to abide by this agreement every time as they always beat ITV massively when they go head-to-head - so what's to stop them showing every England match (or indeed every match) regardless of whether ITV show them safe in the knowledge that they'd beat them again?
I know there's the argument that it'll deprive non-football fans of alternative viewing but they could get round that by sticking the extra matches behind the red button.
True, but why would the BBC necessarily need to keep good relations with ITV anyway?
That could break up the gentlemen's agreement and force the channels to bid against each other instead of together for a future tournament
As ITV could have deeper pockets (or at least less accountable pockets), the BBC could then face the prospect of no involvement at all in a tournament.
According to this page, the games v Argentina and Nigeria were on the BBC, and both channels had the Denmark game.
According to the same page, the QF against Portugal in 2006 was simulcast as well.
No, the QF in 2006 definitely wasn't simulcast, it was on the BBC only. Clive Tydesley is always the only ITV commentator on a live competitive England match, but Jon Champion commentated on the highlights of that match for ITV.
Indeed, and it begs the question of why the BBC are so happy to abide by this agreement every time as they always beat ITV massively when they go head-to-head - so what's to stop them showing every England match (or indeed every match) regardless of whether ITV show them safe in the knowledge that they'd beat them again?
I know there's the argument that it'll deprive non-football fans of alternative viewing but they could get round that by sticking the extra matches behind the red button.
True, but why would the BBC necessarily need to keep good relations with ITV anyway?
I don't think the BBC would particularly have any desire to show 64 matches over the same summer, especially considering they're meant to be putting on tv for everyone. And if they did that then in the future ITV might make the decision to just bid for the whole tournament themselves which would mean BBC would completely lose out! Given they get a good deal anyway and more viewers for the final, why risk it I guess?
So here's an updated list of past World Cup's, with the amended details for 2002: -
1998 ITV: 1 England group game / 1 last 16 game live
BBC: 2 England group games live
* The last 16 game was Argentina v England which drew a bumper tv audience for ITV. Afterwards the BBC vowed never to allow such a situation to occur again.
2002:
ITV: 1 group game / 1 last 16 game / 1 QF live
BBC: 2 group games / 1 last 16 game / 1 QF live *
* Both the second round match (Denmark v England) and the QF (Brazil v England) were simulcast on the BBC & ITV. To date, I'm pretty sure this was the last time it was done for an England match. It stemmed from the BBC's determination not to lose out on bumper ratings for an England knock-out game like they did four years earlier in 1998.
2006:
ITV: 2 group games live
BBC: 1 group game / 1 last 16 game / 1 Quarter Final live
2010:
ITV: 2 group games live
BBC: 1 group game / 1 last 16 game live
That could break up the gentlemen's agreement and force the channels to bid against each other instead of together for a future tournament
As ITV could have deeper pockets (or at least less accountable pockets), the BBC could then face the prospect of no involvement at all in a tournament.
I don't think the BBC would particularly have any desire to show 64 matches over the same summer, especially considering they're meant to be putting on tv for everyone. And if they did that then in the future ITV might make the decision to just bid for the whole tournament themselves which would mean BBC would completely lose out! Given they get a good deal anyway and more viewers for the final, why risk it I guess?
Fair points, I forgot that the rights were bought in partnership.
It just seemed to me that the BBC's ratings superiority gave them a dominant position in these sorts of negotiations that they didn't seem to be taking advantage of.
As I've said before given the BBC have never lost exclusive coverage of an England knockout stage match since 1998 I'm a bit surprised they agreed to this deal of rotating 1st picks.
The other option would be deciding first pick for each tournament on the toss of a coin... and there's a chance that way that the BBC wouldn't get any first picks.
At least on this system they get first pick on two tournaments out of four.
Of course 1 thing you say is worth highlighting - as far as I'm aware all this is just a gentleman's agreement. If England made the semi-finals then potentially the other broadcaster could just decide to show the game anyway! But obviously this would be dangerous in terms of affecting relations between the two!
Yes. If the BBC were to break the agreement, ITV would just outbid them for future tournaments leaving the BBC with no coverage at all.
Fair points, I forgot that the rights were bought in partnership.
It just seemed to me that the BBC's ratings superiority gave them a dominant position in these sorts of negotiations that they didn't seem to be taking advantage of.
Ratings are irrelevant in the negotiations between the broadcasters. They split the cost equally, so they need to split the games equally too.
The other option would be deciding first pick for each tournament on the toss of a coin... and there's a chance that way that the BBC wouldn't get any first picks.
At least on this system they get first pick on two tournaments out of four.
.
How has it been done for previous World Cups? Wasn't it just negotiaton/bargaining rather than simply choosing picks in order? In which case that seemed to be a system that suited the BBC more for whatever reason (though I'm sure it suited ITV too often - but I'd have thought ITV would be more eager to introduce this system. Unless it's something which has been dictated somewhere else?)
I think since 1998 there's not been a chance of the BBC not being able to show an England knockout game live regardless of how far England went (even if non-exclusive - though that wouldn't bother them too much because they'd win comfortably anyway). This system means they almost certainly will be risking not showing them should England progres (unless ITV got all 3 group matches which I can't see happening!)
With BT and Sky's new presenting strategies it occurred to me that at times we might see 4 out of 5 consecutive days of top football being presented from studios rather than stadiums (both Saturday Premier League matches, Monday Night Football & the early Champions League rounds- indeed Super Sunday will now feel unique in coming from the stadium!)
With this in mind, I wonder if ITV might look to jazz their studio up a bit next summer which at least might help to justify remaining in London - perhaps with touch screens or the like? I doubt it - particularly if they're looking to appeal to more casual viewers - but maybe their coverage won't feel as awkward (in terms of being in a UK studio) than one would initially expect.
With BT and Sky's new presenting strategies it occurred to me that at times we might see 4 out of 5 consecutive days of top football being presented from studios rather than stadiums (both Saturday Premier League matches, Monday Night Football & the early Champions League rounds- indeed Super Sunday will now feel unique in coming from the stadium!)
With this in mind, I wonder if ITV might look to jazz their studio up a bit next summer which at least might help to justify remaining in London - perhaps with touch screens or the like? I doubt it - particularly if they're looking to appeal to more casual viewers - but maybe their coverage won't feel as awkward (in terms of being in a UK studio) than one would initially expect.
I never actually saw it myself but I believe ITV used touchscreens in their early coverage of the 2011 Rugby World Cup when they were based in London
I think time constraints make it difficult though - on Sky and BT pundits have (or will have time) to use that sort of technology and do some in depth stuff, whereas on ITV they have less time, due to shorter post-match, or ad breaks.
I never actually saw it myself but I believe ITV used touchscreens in their early coverage of the 2011 Rugby World Cup when they were based in London
I think time constraints make it difficult though - on Sky and BT pundits have (or will have time) to use that sort of technology and do some in depth stuff, whereas on ITV they have less time, due to shorter post-match, or ad breaks.
Not just in the early stages. Touchscreens were also used for the games presented from NZ.
An Itv World Cup 2014 promotional video confirms that Itv will have first pick of England matches if they qualify, meaning that they will have 2 group games and England's first knockout game if they get through to that stage. The video also confirms Itv will have one extra game than the BBC and the studio will overlook the Copacabana: http://www.itvmedia.co.uk/2014-fifa-world-cup-sponsorship
I like the BBC's football coverage, and I hope that they don't make the mistake that they made during France 98 when ITV had exclusive coverage of Argentina v England.
I seem to remember in Italia 90 that ITV where going to show coverage of England's 1st game in the knockout stage, but the BBC ended up showing it as well.
I still don't understand why rights to these tournaments are shared.
To be the Exclusive FTA broadcaster of the complete tournament and to know as a viewer what to expect would be a hell of a lot better than moving programmes and ripping up schedules on the main channels.
I'd even prefer Channel 4 or 5 getting the full rights to ALL games.
I still don't understand why rights to these tournaments are shared.
To be the Exclusive FTA broadcaster of the complete tournament and to know as a viewer what to expect would be a hell of a lot better than moving programmes and ripping up schedules on the main channels.
I'd even prefer Channel 4 or 5 getting the full rights to ALL games.
I'd better not say Pick TV though! ..... lol.
I guess because neither BBC or ITV wants to spend a whole month showing 64 live matches across it - yes the World Cup is a big event and the top matches get strong ratings but I'm sure they wouldn't want to have the likes of Denmark v South Korea every afternoon or whatever. They have their own regular programmes which they'll want on - out of the FTA broadcasters it's probably only ITV who'd currently have the chance to get the whole thing exclusive, and I doubt they'd want to take Coronation Street and Emmerdale off the air for the best part of 4 weeks. And I guess why pay full price when you can share it with another broadcaster and still get a decent return in terms of ad revenue/ratings/choice of matches, etc.
And I think the viewers do know what to expect from how the schedules are worked out. It also has the benefit that you get to watch two different sets of coverage which can keep it varied (and any FTA broadcaster probably doesn't have the on-screen talent to adequately cover 64 live matches in that space of time) and means if you're a fan of a certain programme you can still expect to see it whilst the World Cup is on - if only one FTA broadcaster had it next year then their primetime schedule would basically be completely ripped up for a few weeks in a row whereas this way if you like a show it will probably still be on at least once, even if it's reduced showings etc.
Well I'm sure both broadcasters will be relieved England are there!
ITV might also be pleased England are seeded - obviously depends on the draw/time slots but it seems likely ITV might take England's game against the top seed. The downside is this might make it more likely England are eliminated early.
Presumably the likes of Portugal and France (if they qualify) won't be seeded either so there could be some decent group games.
Well I'm sure both broadcasters will be relieved England are there!
ITV might also be pleased England are seeded - obviously depends on the draw/time slots but it seems likely ITV might take England's game against the top seed. The downside is this might make it more likely England are eliminated early.
Presumably the likes of Portugal and France (if they qualify) won't be seeded either so there could be some decent group games.
I'd also bet on ITV showing the 2am match!
Neither France nor Portugal will be seeded should they qualify
Nor will this current Belgium side. That means, either of those could meet Brazil in the opening match of the tournament.
I have heard that both stations are frantically trying to secure Sir Alex Ferguson as a pundit for the tournament?
I hope the BBC can get Sir Alex Ferguson for the World Cup, but i suspect ITV will get him appearing on their channels as they probably have more money to pay him to appear.
Ian.
I hope the BBC can get Sir Alex Ferguson for the World Cup, but i suspect ITV will get him appearing on their channels as they probably have more money to pay him to appear.
Ian.
Id also suspect that as he had a good relationship with ITV and only just sorted things with the BBC, that he will opt for ITV, plus money too/
Id be very surprised if he was part of BBC's coverage.
Comments
Indeed, and it begs the question of why the BBC are so happy to abide by this agreement every time as they always beat ITV massively when they go head-to-head - so what's to stop them showing every England match (or indeed every match) regardless of whether ITV show them safe in the knowledge that they'd beat them again?
I know there's the argument that it'll deprive non-football fans of alternative viewing but they could get round that by sticking the extra matches behind the red button.
True, but why would the BBC necessarily need to keep good relations with ITV anyway?
As ITV could have deeper pockets (or at least less accountable pockets), the BBC could then face the prospect of no involvement at all in a tournament.
No, the QF in 2006 definitely wasn't simulcast, it was on the BBC only. Clive Tydesley is always the only ITV commentator on a live competitive England match, but Jon Champion commentated on the highlights of that match for ITV.
I don't think the BBC would particularly have any desire to show 64 matches over the same summer, especially considering they're meant to be putting on tv for everyone. And if they did that then in the future ITV might make the decision to just bid for the whole tournament themselves which would mean BBC would completely lose out! Given they get a good deal anyway and more viewers for the final, why risk it I guess?
1998
ITV: 1 England group game / 1 last 16 game live
BBC: 2 England group games live
* The last 16 game was Argentina v England which drew a bumper tv audience for ITV. Afterwards the BBC vowed never to allow such a situation to occur again.
2002:
ITV: 1 group game / 1 last 16 game / 1 QF live
BBC: 2 group games / 1 last 16 game / 1 QF live *
* Both the second round match (Denmark v England) and the QF (Brazil v England) were simulcast on the BBC & ITV. To date, I'm pretty sure this was the last time it was done for an England match. It stemmed from the BBC's determination not to lose out on bumper ratings for an England knock-out game like they did four years earlier in 1998.
2006:
ITV: 2 group games live
BBC: 1 group game / 1 last 16 game / 1 Quarter Final live
2010:
ITV: 2 group games live
BBC: 1 group game / 1 last 16 game live
Fair points, I forgot that the rights were bought in partnership.
It just seemed to me that the BBC's ratings superiority gave them a dominant position in these sorts of negotiations that they didn't seem to be taking advantage of.
The other option would be deciding first pick for each tournament on the toss of a coin... and there's a chance that way that the BBC wouldn't get any first picks.
At least on this system they get first pick on two tournaments out of four.
Yes. If the BBC were to break the agreement, ITV would just outbid them for future tournaments leaving the BBC with no coverage at all.
Ratings are irrelevant in the negotiations between the broadcasters. They split the cost equally, so they need to split the games equally too.
How has it been done for previous World Cups? Wasn't it just negotiaton/bargaining rather than simply choosing picks in order? In which case that seemed to be a system that suited the BBC more for whatever reason (though I'm sure it suited ITV too often - but I'd have thought ITV would be more eager to introduce this system. Unless it's something which has been dictated somewhere else?)
I think since 1998 there's not been a chance of the BBC not being able to show an England knockout game live regardless of how far England went (even if non-exclusive - though that wouldn't bother them too much because they'd win comfortably anyway). This system means they almost certainly will be risking not showing them should England progres (unless ITV got all 3 group matches which I can't see happening!)
With this in mind, I wonder if ITV might look to jazz their studio up a bit next summer which at least might help to justify remaining in London - perhaps with touch screens or the like? I doubt it - particularly if they're looking to appeal to more casual viewers - but maybe their coverage won't feel as awkward (in terms of being in a UK studio) than one would initially expect.
I never actually saw it myself but I believe ITV used touchscreens in their early coverage of the 2011 Rugby World Cup when they were based in London
I think time constraints make it difficult though - on Sky and BT pundits have (or will have time) to use that sort of technology and do some in depth stuff, whereas on ITV they have less time, due to shorter post-match, or ad breaks.
Not just in the early stages. Touchscreens were also used for the games presented from NZ.
I like the BBC's football coverage, and I hope that they don't make the mistake that they made during France 98 when ITV had exclusive coverage of Argentina v England.
I seem to remember in Italia 90 that ITV where going to show coverage of England's 1st game in the knockout stage, but the BBC ended up showing it as well.
To be the Exclusive FTA broadcaster of the complete tournament and to know as a viewer what to expect would be a hell of a lot better than moving programmes and ripping up schedules on the main channels.
I'd even prefer Channel 4 or 5 getting the full rights to ALL games.
I'd better not say Pick TV though! ..... lol.
I guess because neither BBC or ITV wants to spend a whole month showing 64 live matches across it - yes the World Cup is a big event and the top matches get strong ratings but I'm sure they wouldn't want to have the likes of Denmark v South Korea every afternoon or whatever. They have their own regular programmes which they'll want on - out of the FTA broadcasters it's probably only ITV who'd currently have the chance to get the whole thing exclusive, and I doubt they'd want to take Coronation Street and Emmerdale off the air for the best part of 4 weeks. And I guess why pay full price when you can share it with another broadcaster and still get a decent return in terms of ad revenue/ratings/choice of matches, etc.
And I think the viewers do know what to expect from how the schedules are worked out. It also has the benefit that you get to watch two different sets of coverage which can keep it varied (and any FTA broadcaster probably doesn't have the on-screen talent to adequately cover 64 live matches in that space of time) and means if you're a fan of a certain programme you can still expect to see it whilst the World Cup is on - if only one FTA broadcaster had it next year then their primetime schedule would basically be completely ripped up for a few weeks in a row whereas this way if you like a show it will probably still be on at least once, even if it's reduced showings etc.
ITV might also be pleased England are seeded - obviously depends on the draw/time slots but it seems likely ITV might take England's game against the top seed. The downside is this might make it more likely England are eliminated early.
Presumably the likes of Portugal and France (if they qualify) won't be seeded either so there could be some decent group games.
I'd also bet on ITV showing the 2am match!
Neither France nor Portugal will be seeded should they qualify
England wont be either.
I know!
Nor will this current Belgium side. That means, either of those could meet Brazil in the opening match of the tournament.
I have heard that both stations are frantically trying to secure Sir Alex Ferguson as a pundit for the tournament?
I hope the BBC can get Sir Alex Ferguson for the World Cup, but i suspect ITV will get him appearing on their channels as they probably have more money to pay him to appear.
Ian.
Id also suspect that as he had a good relationship with ITV and only just sorted things with the BBC, that he will opt for ITV, plus money too/
Id be very surprised if he was part of BBC's coverage.
Regarding Sir Alex Ferguson - this was in the Mail some time ago.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2384198/Sir-Alex-Ferguson-demand-BBC-ITV-World-Cup-2014.html
Was posted on here but idea got rubbished by somebody.