Very big news indeed - the BBC has lost the rights to one of its flagship sporting events:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...hletics-rights

Also significant with the Olympics coming up for the BBC to lose these rights.

Good that it's still on one of the main channels though. Read elsewhere that IAAF were not happy that the BBC decided not to show the World Indoors earlier this year - I think this could be a case of BBC complacency setting in.

I think the current BBC coverage is far from perfect - I think there is often too much chatter at the expense of showing live action, especially the Field events. Colin Jackson must be one of the worst pundits in any sport, not helped when he is alongside the brilliant Michael Johnson. If Channel 4 improve things it might make BBC shake their coverage up too. They still have the rights to domestic meetings & Diamond League as well as the Olympics of course.

Good, the BBC can spend the money on something else, Channel 4 gets a valuable property, and the sport remains on FTA TV. Everybody wins.

True, although this is the same Channel 4 which not long ago claimed it wouldn't be able to make ends meet without a slice of the licence fee, and now (without it) they have found the cash to outbid the BBC for sports rights.

Again, very true. But maybe part of this is from the Big Brother dividend? And after all, we don't know the details of any settlement so maybe the clincher was the increase marketing (i.e. advertising/sponsorship/product placement) opportunities that C4 could offer.

How do you know that is the case? Cash may not have been the only factor.

This used to be a big event in the 1990s, when we had household names such as Linford Christie, Sally Gunnell, Roger Black, Jonathan Edwards, Colin Jackson etc, often with primetime coverage on BBC One.

In recent years, the event has seen interest subside, and has consequently been more or less confined to BBC Two.

Indeed, a lot of British Olympic success seems to happen away from track and field now.

I beg to disagree with this. These championships are still important in the Athletics calendar and of much higher quality than the Commonwealth games or even the European Championships. Does it make a big difference whether it's on BBC1 or BBC2? Notice that BBC's Ryder Cup Highlights are on BBC2. Only complaint I have about Channel 4 winning the rights will be the infernal advert breaks!

I would also add whether C4 will provide live coverage of the morning qualification rounds (which by definition are not likely to command high audiences) - this seems rather hazy from the press report which only mentions full evening coverage.

I think you are right to an extent but some of the ratings for this years Europeans on BBC2 were pretty decent. I think next year's champs won't be on primetime anyway as they are being held in Korea. The pay off for Channel 4 may come in 2013 if the British team have a successful Olympics as these are being held in Moscow so time difference is more amenable, although at 3 hours ahead it's not 100% ideal.

And before that athletics were a regular Friday night feature on ITV (8pm-9pm) and C4 (9pm to 10pm).

Just hope they emulate Eurosport and show the athletics and not the BBC's way of showing sport or should I say showing people talking about sport!!

I can't see C4 clearing their evening schedules to show 4 hours of Athletics. I'd imagine it might be shown on one of their other channels (More 4 or Film Four perhaps)

won't get the viewing figures if they hide it away there, unless they picked up the rights for absolutely nothing, in which case why did the bbc not bid? strange

I remember Channel 4 showing athletics in the late 1990s. It all ended in tears then, I and I can see this going the same way. They do have a habit of giving up on sports after being initially enthusiastic (such as with cricket).

Is this part of a strategy for 2012?

Channel Four are the host broadcaster for the Paralympics in London. Maybe taking on this event to get the team in place for what should in some ways set a bench mark for the UK coverage of the Paralympics.

Yes I remember that - their coverage then was woeful. It surely must be an improvement & it's only fair to give them a chance before criticising.

The Channel 4 coverage in the late 90s was for British domestic athletics. This new contract is in a very different league entirely.
Yes, their coverage of British domestic athletics in the late 1990s was woeful, but when they shared coverage with ITV in the years before that, they were pretty good (although I acknowledge this was effectively an ITV programme on Channel 4).
If Channel 4 are smart, they'll sign up Stuart Storey and Peter Matthews to lead their commentary team. Both are excellent commentators who aren't heard often enough these days.
The BBC, under Barbara Slater, is utterly obsessed with putting retired celebrity stars ahead of journalistic expertise. Such stars often aren't all that insightful, and quite a few don't know when to shut up and let the action do the talking.

So where exactly are Channel 4 getting the money from to outbid the BBC not just for the World Athletics Championships, but also the Paralympics as well?

As an earlier post mentioned, this is the same Channel 4 which claimed "it wouldn't be able to make ends meet without a slice of the licence fee" and has also pleaded poverty to the horse racing authorities and has got them to PAY Channel 4 to show over 80 days racing a year until the end of 2012, whereas the BBC has only 13 days racing which, IIRC, they paid the horse racing authorities something like £1.5 million a year.

The BBC's horse racing coverage consists of the Derby meeting, Royal Ascot, the Grand National meeting and the Ascot meeting in September, which I'm sure Channel 4 would be willing to pay £1.5 million a year for.

Channel 4, on the other hand, shows the Cheltenham Festival, action from several meetings every Saturday (not always of a particularly high or prestigious quality) and some midweek meetings (ditto, but not as often as in the 1980s and early 1990s). These meetings are not viable on a commercial basis alone. Hardly a fair comparison.

Totally agree. Stuart Storey would be an excellent choice.

I wonder who else they'll use. Would they use any of the BBC athletics commentators I wonder. Maybe they're under contract with the BBC. I am not sure.

In fairness I dont think they had much choice with SKY involved. But Channel 4 did revitalise the coverage and screened the greatest Test Series ever. Despite the massive amount of money SKY paid I dont think Cricket, or most sports, gain in all when the are exclusive to SKY. They can get forgotten by all but die hard supporters.

As for the WAC-the first ever in Helsinki in 1983 was an absolute triumph coming sandwiched between the boycotted Olympics of 1980 and 1984. Initially every four years its impact has been diluted by making it bi-annual and it and Athletics in general has rather been swallowed up by the massive amount of live sport that is available these days. I dont think moving to Channel 4 will necessarily make much difference but I guess it makes them a player again.

I am surprised because the big athletics championships have always been a BBC showpiece - look at how often an athlete wins Sports Personality of the Year.

This year Jessica Ennis is a clear 2nd in the betting for SPOTY after winning the European Champs.

I've always thought athletics more than any other sport is almost entirely dependent on a "casual audience" - ie it has a very low % of diehard fans. This is the reason it's the only supposedly major sport which Sky shows no interest in - few diehard fans means it won't drive subscriptions.

Moving to C4 will also give it a far lower profile which will not help the sport. If the Europeans had been on C4 Ennis would be far less known and have no chance of SPOTY.

But, the courses (and the bookies to a lesser extent - they have some very well presented TV 'stations' in shop and radio stations online) need the exposure on terrestrial TV to keep interest in horse racing alive when the BBC has cut back on the minor race meets to concentrate on the 'crown jewels.'

Maybe they're savvier negotiaters. Horse racing, other than the major events, is in trouble as a sport, it wouldn't exist but for the gambling, so they are doing it a favour by showing races. Perhaps the BBC could bear this in mind next time it thinks it's a brilliant idea to pay money to show the lottery results. Athletics is dying as well, other than Usain Bolt who out there is exciting to watch? And it's hard not to supsect some of them being on steroids or whatever anyway.

As next years event is in South Korea, most of the coverage will be in the early hours of the morning going by the Seoul Olympics in 1988.

So I don't think next year will be too much of a loss for the BBC.

They will be hit more by 2013 event in Moscow.