Well if that's the case then only ITV, C4 and C5 should be able to show it as the BBC is NOT a free to air channel as they Force people to pay for their services.
Qualifying broadcasters are those whose channels are available without payment to at least 95% of the UK population.
You are required by law to hold a Licence if you wish to watch live television
that applies equally to all PayTV services, all FTA & FTV services and all PSB services whether 'ITV, C4 and C5' or the BBC -
the 'without payment' in the OFCOM code refers to optional payments beyond those required by law;
the source ruling / legislation refers to 'access without further (financial) consideration'.
I believe the current BBC contract runs up to and includes the 2017 championships in any case.
And by that point the BBC will have a new licence fee settlement.
My gut feeling is that the BBC has reached it's low point as regards to sports rights and will slowly build it's portfolio back up in the medium term. There isn't much more they can feasibly jettison.
The Wimbledon organisers are less commercially minded, not obsessed by advertising and err on the side of tradition, hence they are probably happy with the BBC's coverage even if Sky offered twice as much money.
Actually Wimbledon are incredibly commercially minded and put up what the BBC pay from (the press has said) ~£25 million to ~£40 million at the last renewal. They also rather brutally replaced NBC - their long term US "partners" - with very little notice last time as well.
If the price keeps going up at the current rate in future renewals it is doubtful if the BBC could continue to afford the price rises!
With BT and Sky in direct competition for each other for premium sporting events, I cannot see how the BBC can afford to compete against these two - especially as the competition is likely to drive up the prices events can be sold for. Also I cannot see the general public accepting a huge hike in licence fees to pay for sporting events, especially those that appear elitist.
I bet both Sky and BT are exploring ways of getting Wimbledon under their umbrella which would be a major coup for them. If they suddenly offer the LTA a shed load of cash - several times what the BBC currently pay - then the LTA will almost certainly take a serious look at switching broadcaster. I remember seeing some BBC commentator adamant there was no way the Rider cup would ever go behind a paywall, what with all the tradition etc.
As for Wimbledon finals having to be FTA - what is stopping the likes of Sky showing the finals on one of their FTA channels? FTA does not necessarily mean BBC or ITV does it?
Actually Wimbledon are incredibly commercially minded and put up what the BBC pay from (the press has said) ~£25 million to ~£40 million at the last renewal. They also rather brutally replaced NBC - their long term US "partners" - with very little notice last time as well.
If the price keeps going up at the current rate in future renewals it is doubtful if the BBC could continue to afford the price rises!
I am sure the $'s were good, but I think the fact that ESPN were able guaranteed to show it all live rather than tape delay that NBC likes to do was stated as a big factor in going with ESPN.
As for Wimbledon finals having to be FTA - what is stopping the likes of Sky showing the finals on one of their FTA channels? FTA does not necessarily mean BBC or ITV does it?
Perhaps FTA is the wrong expression, 'universally available',
which simply meant 20 years ago, on one of the four terrestrial TV channels.
Today you need to assume universally available means
one of the FTA channels carried on one of the two SD PSB Freeview muxes.
If it was on Sky we'd probably have access to all the courts but in glorious SD, the BBC can't do this because they don't have enough red button channels.
Can you imagine the outcry if Wimbledon wasn't FTA? Hell, even moving to ITV/Channel 4/Channel 5/UKTV would be crazy.
Of course, Sky could make one of their sports channels FTA (in HD) for events such as this if they really wanted to get the right. Not sure if that'd be commercially viable though.
I sincerely hope that is never the case and I hope that the whole tournament (not just the final) is put on the listed sports schedule so that Wimbledon can only ever appear on a free to air channels.
The Wimbledon Committee isn't as swayed by money as other big sporting events. ESPN were given the contract over NBC because ESPN guaranteed showing live tennis. NBC had the rights but would delay until the Today show finished. And then they would usually show Serena/Andy Roddick on delay when live tennis was going on.
Being live, and being available to as many people as possible, is more important to Wimbledon than money. Only way I can see it going to Sky/BT is if BBC dramatically reduce what they're willing to pay for it.
With BT and Sky in direct competition for each other for premium sporting events, I cannot see how the BBC can afford to compete against these two - especially as the competition is likely to drive up the prices events can be sold for. Also I cannot see the general public accepting a huge hike in licence fees to pay for sporting events, especially those that appear elitist.
I bet both Sky and BT are exploring ways of getting Wimbledon under their umbrella which would be a major coup for them. If they suddenly offer the LTA a shed load of cash - several times what the BBC currently pay - then the LTA will almost certainly take a serious look at switching broadcaster. I remember seeing some BBC commentator adamant there was no way the Rider cup would ever go behind a paywall, what with all the tradition etc.
As for Wimbledon finals having to be FTA - what is stopping the likes of Sky showing the finals on one of their FTA channels? FTA does not necessarily mean BBC or ITV does it?
Depends on the sport and how they view their "global strategy"
Tennis would want as much coverage as possible.
Someone who played Club Tennis I knew, said you couldn't get a court at Basingstoke for the whole month after Wimbledon with new people "having a go".
Formula One like to have a FTA broadcaster to raise the profile.
Just look what has happened to American football in the UK, were loads of amateur clubs in the '80's and early '90's when it was on channel 4 - now pretty much nothing - no interest.
Only IPL cricket is on FTA and so the Sky money ironically probably goes to keep struggling clubs going with fewer members as kids are not interested as it not on free TV.
Whereas if it was on free TV during the summer, more kids would want to play, so more subs so more money for grass roots clubs.
The Premier league insists that highlights must on FTA.
Rugby League has a highlights programme on BBC1 - locally in some areas only, and Superleague matches are covered live by BBC local radio
As has been previously posted, it depends on the ambitions of the sports Governing body - or short sightedness.
Some are prepared to strike a balance for the overall benefit of the sport, but some are just short-sighted and greedy
and kids all have Wii's PS3's and Xboxes, that 'keep' them indoors and away from sport
Qualifying broadcasters are those whose channels are available without payment to at least 95% of the UK population.
During the BSkyB land-grab for ECB cricket, OFCOM ruled that although Channel Five at the time was little more than 75% population coverage by UHF,
it was indeed a 'qualifying broadcaster' as its service was available potentially to more than 95% population via satellite and cable.
[Keep Cricket Free campaigners questioned this ruling re the highlights package which Channel Five won.]
As the DTT Com muxes cover less than 95% population, then on that precedent OFCOM would surely rule that BSkyB was not a 'qualifying broadcaster'
unless the service they chose to use for the relay of the Wimbledon Finals was unencrypted on DSAT.
Wimbledon is a Category A event which must have live coverage made available to free-to-air channels. So it won't be exclusively on pay Sports channels, but it can be shown on there if they share live coverage with a Free-To-Air channel.
Only finals weekend needs to be live on FTA. Not the whole lot.
Sky have not thought about using Pick TV or Challenge just yet being used for FTA rights. In technical terms they can.
If they put it on Pick TV on finals weekend after putting it on subscription the rest of the event they would meet the rules.
Sky have not thought about using Pick TV or Challenge just yet being used for FTA rights.
Perhaps they have? Maybe one of the reasons that Pick TV and Challenge have now gone FTA and along with Sky News are now on the Freesat EPG, more than meeting the 95% requirement.
Only finals weekend needs to be live on FTA. Not the whole lot.
Sky have not thought about using Pick TV or Challenge just yet being used for FTA rights. In technical terms they can.
If they put it on Pick TV on finals weekend after putting it on subscription the rest of the event they would meet the rules.
But finals week is the part that gets the big audiences so what subscription channels would like to show exclusively. Who is going to take out a new subscription or pay-to-view for two unknowns playing in the early rounds?
Perhaps they have? Maybe one of the reasons that Pick TV and Challenge have now gone FTA and along with Sky News are now on the Freesat EPG, more than meeting the 95% requirement.
Your link is pointless; perhaps you meant this one. [edit: either I'm having a very bad Monday morning or you have edited your post!]
Are saying that OFCOM would rule Pick TV a 'qualifying broadcaster'
As the DTT Com muxes cover less than 95% population, then on that precedent OFCOM would surely rule that BSkyB was not a 'qualifying broadcaster'
unless the service they chose to use for the relay of the Wimbledon Finals was unencrypted on DSAT.
as BSkyB have already taken sufficient action?
[This would seem to be considerable about-face by BSkyB, given the statement to DCMS Elect Committee some years ago about
encrypting Sky News on DTT to 'demonstrate te advantages of taking a PayTV package (os some such, can't be bothered to look it up)]
{Don't know if I'd have the energy these days to join Keep Tennis Free!}
But finals week is the part that gets the big audiences so what subscription channels would like to show exclusively. Who is going to take out a new subscription or pay-to-view for two unknowns playing in the early rounds?
Exactly, i no many people, who only watch the second week, as they feel thats when the Tournament starts, i personally watch it all as love tennis.
Would sky getting either Queens or Eastbourne be more realistic than Wimbledon its self
But finals week is the part that gets the big audiences so what subscription channels would like to show exclusively. Who is going to take out a new subscription or pay-to-view for two unknowns playing in the early rounds?
But subscription channels CAN show everything EXCEPT two days - the final Saturday and Sunday. This includes a full 5 days of the second week - and, frequently, matches in the quarter and semi finals which are far better than the finals!
Plenty of people would pay for 11 out of 13 days play!
Would sky getting either Queens or Eastbourne be more realistic than Wimbledon its self
I think that the LTA like wide exposure for these in the build up to WImbledon. They are NOT exclusively FTA as Eurosport has (at least) Queens.
Obviously most people want to keep Wimbledon on the BBC - and, up to now, the BBC have been prepared to pay "what it costs"! Last time they knew that they wanted Wimbledon and 6-Nations - other sports (like F1 for example) were cut to keep these.
The ONLY way that that BBC could lose Wimbledon is if the rapidly escalating cost got beyond them!
Comments
that applies equally to all PayTV services, all FTA & FTV services and all PSB services whether 'ITV, C4 and C5' or the BBC -
the 'without payment' in the OFCOM code refers to optional payments beyond those required by law;
the source ruling / legislation refers to 'access without further (financial) consideration'.
Clutching at straws...dear old aunty beeb eh ?
And by that point the BBC will have a new licence fee settlement.
My gut feeling is that the BBC has reached it's low point as regards to sports rights and will slowly build it's portfolio back up in the medium term. There isn't much more they can feasibly jettison.
If the price keeps going up at the current rate in future renewals it is doubtful if the BBC could continue to afford the price rises!
I bet both Sky and BT are exploring ways of getting Wimbledon under their umbrella which would be a major coup for them. If they suddenly offer the LTA a shed load of cash - several times what the BBC currently pay - then the LTA will almost certainly take a serious look at switching broadcaster. I remember seeing some BBC commentator adamant there was no way the Rider cup would ever go behind a paywall, what with all the tradition etc.
As for Wimbledon finals having to be FTA - what is stopping the likes of Sky showing the finals on one of their FTA channels? FTA does not necessarily mean BBC or ITV does it?
I am sure the $'s were good, but I think the fact that ESPN were able guaranteed to show it all live rather than tape delay that NBC likes to do was stated as a big factor in going with ESPN.
Perhaps FTA is the wrong expression, 'universally available',
which simply meant 20 years ago, on one of the four terrestrial TV channels.
Today you need to assume universally available means
one of the FTA channels carried on one of the two SD PSB Freeview muxes.
Maybe not live but they'll have highlights surely?
Its in their remit to cater for everyone....
Which part was wrong then?
Answer = None of it.
When Sky Sports took over that continued for one more year, 1991.
Of course, Sky could make one of their sports channels FTA (in HD) for events such as this if they really wanted to get the right. Not sure if that'd be commercially viable though.
I sincerely hope that is never the case and I hope that the whole tournament (not just the final) is put on the listed sports schedule so that Wimbledon can only ever appear on a free to air channels.
Being live, and being available to as many people as possible, is more important to Wimbledon than money. Only way I can see it going to Sky/BT is if BBC dramatically reduce what they're willing to pay for it.
And what "Sky-branded" FTA channels do BSkyB own?
and kids all have Wii's PS3's and Xboxes, that 'keep' them indoors and away from sport
Code on Sports and Other Listed and Designated Events
During the BSkyB land-grab for ECB cricket, OFCOM ruled that although Channel Five at the time was little more than 75% population coverage by UHF,
it was indeed a 'qualifying broadcaster' as its service was available potentially to more than 95% population via satellite and cable.
[Keep Cricket Free campaigners questioned this ruling re the highlights package which Channel Five won.]
As the DTT Com muxes cover less than 95% population, then on that precedent OFCOM would surely rule that BSkyB was not a 'qualifying broadcaster'
unless the service they chose to use for the relay of the Wimbledon Finals was unencrypted on DSAT.
Only finals weekend needs to be live on FTA. Not the whole lot.
Sky have not thought about using Pick TV or Challenge just yet being used for FTA rights. In technical terms they can.
If they put it on Pick TV on finals weekend after putting it on subscription the rest of the event they would meet the rules.
Perhaps they have? Maybe one of the reasons that Pick TV and Challenge have now gone FTA and along with Sky News are now on the Freesat EPG, more than meeting the 95% requirement.
But finals week is the part that gets the big audiences so what subscription channels would like to show exclusively. Who is going to take out a new subscription or pay-to-view for two unknowns playing in the early rounds?
Are saying that OFCOM would rule Pick TV a 'qualifying broadcaster' as BSkyB have already taken sufficient action?
[This would seem to be considerable about-face by BSkyB, given the statement to DCMS Elect Committee some years ago about
encrypting Sky News on DTT to 'demonstrate te advantages of taking a PayTV package (os some such, can't be bothered to look it up)]
{Don't know if I'd have the energy these days to join Keep Tennis Free!}
Exactly, i no many people, who only watch the second week, as they feel thats when the Tournament starts, i personally watch it all as love tennis.
Would sky getting either Queens or Eastbourne be more realistic than Wimbledon its self
Plenty of people would pay for 11 out of 13 days play!
Obviously most people want to keep Wimbledon on the BBC - and, up to now, the BBC have been prepared to pay "what it costs"! Last time they knew that they wanted Wimbledon and 6-Nations - other sports (like F1 for example) were cut to keep these.
The ONLY way that that BBC could lose Wimbledon is if the rapidly escalating cost got beyond them!