[derek500]

The BBC and ITV were set to join forces to battle a secret government decision that could have handed Sky the chance to air the 2018 World Cup.

It has emerged that the government guaranteed to football body Fifa that it was prepared to waive listed events regulations for the 2018 tournament as part of England’s failed bid to host the event.

Under current rules, the World Cup is on the Crown Jewels TV sports list, meaning that it can only be shown live on free-to-air television.

However, at the request of Fifa, England’s 2018 World Cup bid document contained a promise to allow pay-TV companies, such as BSkyB and Disney-owned ESPN, the chance to bid for rights.

Neither the BBC nor ITV - which traditionally share coverage of the World Cup - were aware of the guarantee at the time of England’s bid.

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/b...022270.article

[Ambassador]

And they accused FIFA of being corrupt.

All these tax breaks, merchandising fee waiving and control that would have been handed to FIFA doesn't make the bid look any better

[Sven945]

Originally Posted by Ambassador

And they accused FIFA of being corrupt.

All these tax breaks, merchandising fee waiving and control that would have been handed to FIFA doesn't make the bid look any better

I know it's no excuse, but if the bid didn't include the tax breaks then I don't think the bid would have got even as far as it did. Personally I'd say that's a reason to not bid for things, but that's just my view.

[slow motion]

"England’s 2018 World Cup bid document contained a promise to allow pay-TV companies, such as BSkyB and Disney-owned ESPN, the chance to bid for rights."

if this was in England’s 2018 World Cup bid document, does this mean the English FA and the "Three lions" (Cameron, Beckham and Prince William) knew about this?

[plastik2k9]

Originally Posted by Sven945

I know it's no excuse, but if the bid didn't include the tax breaks then I don't think the bid would have got even as far as it did. Personally I'd say that's a reason to not bid for things, but that's just my view.

Well the bid didn't get anywhere, it came dead last; only Australia in the 2022 bid received fewer votes. England's bid never attracted any interest whatsoever.

[Dancc]

Debatable whether or not it was worth bidding in the first place if it's conditional on the tournament being tucked away on pay TV, denying millions the chance to watch the biggest games.

What a joke FIFA is.

[Charnham]

so if the World Cup was to happen in London it would have been on Sky, that is totally backwards, Labour most be thanking there lucky stars England didnt win the World Cup, had this come out in that sitution they would have been even more unpopuloar than they are now.

[Tom123]

Wouldn't necessarily mean that "the tournament being tucked away on pay TV". Could mean that it would've been on BBC/ITV AND pay tv as is the case in several other countries

[stevvy1986]

Originally Posted by Sven945

I know it's no excuse, but if the bid didn't include the tax breaks then I don't think the bid would have got even as far as it did. Personally I'd say that's a reason to not bid for things, but that's just my view.

I believe a refusal to include tax breaks for players was 1 of the reasons it took so long for the Champions League final to come to England. Oh and FIFA should've said beforehand that they were going to give the 2018/2022 World Cups to countries where it's not been before and such like, rather than making numerous countries waste time, effort, and money, only to be told in so many words "we were never going to give it to you anyway".

[Dancc]

Originally Posted by Tom123

Wouldn't necessarily mean that "the tournament being tucked away on pay TV". Could mean that it would've been on BBC/ITV AND pay tv as is the case in several other countries

The crown jewels list is there for a reason. As much as Sky would like to dip their hands in as many jars as possible and tuck more and more behind the paywall there has to be a point where the line is drawn. They already have a near monopoly on Premier League coverage, which is the main attraction to football lovers in non-World Cup years.

And as much as some would like to make political capital out of this, let's not forget Labour's efforts to try and get the Ashes listed last year, blocked by the Conservatives.

[GeorgeS]

There is no reason in principle why only BBC1 or ITV should be able to show Saudi Arabia vs New Zealand.

I'd think IF a deal was only the table it would be similar to the RWC deal in Ireland where home matches, QF, SF and final must be available FTA but other tournament matches can be pay only.

[lbear]

Originally Posted by GeorgeS

There is no reason in principle why only BBC1 or ITV should be able to show Saudi Arabia vs New Zealand.

I'd think IF a deal was only the table it would be similar to the RWC deal in Ireland where home matches, QF, SF and final must be available FTA but other tournament matches can be pay only.

Rather the reverse, Sky would only have been interested if they could have exclusive live broadcast rights to England matches, no point in outbidding BBC and ITV otherwise.

There would most likely have been arrangements for the England (and other home country teams') matches to be shown the following day or in "hightlight" form (like the test cricket) with possibly the likes of Saudi Arabia vs New Zealand being made available live.FTA but with large "pictures provided by Sky" banners.

[GeorgeS]

Originally Posted by lbear

Rather the reverse, Sky would only have been interested if they could have exclusive live broadcast rights to England matches, no point in outbidding BBC and ITV otherwise.

not necessarily. The wider tournament would still be attractive to Sky even with England games available simultaneously on Sky and BBC/ITV.

[Charnham]

This would also be bad in the long run, if your justifcation for the crown jewels is that its in the nations interest that, that sports event be Free to Air, then allowing it to be Pay one year, undermines that (for that sports even at least)

You cant say its ok for it to be Pay one year, but not the next, either it is or it isnt.

I cant think of a sports even more justfited for free to air coverage, than a London World Cup, other than the London 2012 Olympics, if this had happened the World Cup may never had been Free to Air again.

[Jack1]

I'm sure there were rumours before to allow Pay TV companies to bid for some of group games not considered important and not involving England etc.

[ftv]

This doesn't make sense - the TV rights are held by FIFA (actually through another company) just as the rights to the Olympics are held by the IoC. It doesn't matter whether or not Labour waives the FTA rule, it's for FIFA to decide.If the broadcasters don't like the conditions imposed by the rights-holder their solution is obvious.Are we now to discover Labour waived the FTA rights to the 2012 Olympics ?

[Charnham]

that is a fair point, there are going to be some games in the early rounds that will be of no interest to people in the UK, other than the fact its from London (which obviously does not apply to fututre World Cups)

IMO Games feature England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland as well as the final and semi finals should be protected free to air, but that is not what was being promised by Labour.

[Charnham]

Originally Posted by ftv

.Are we now to discover Labour waived the FTA rights to the 2012 Olympics ?

I wold hope the BBC know about this by now, im sure they have already spent some money on coverage of the games, as well as committing future money for it. (which could be spent elsewhere, 2012 in TV production terms is not that fair away) stuff will be comissioned now, that wont air until 2012.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Tom123

Wouldn't necessarily mean that "the tournament being tucked away on pay TV". Could mean that it would've been on BBC/ITV AND pay tv as is the case in several other countries

There's nothing stopping that happening at the minute.

[jeffersbnl]

Originally Posted by ftv

This doesn't make sense - the TV rights are held by FIFA (actually through another company) just as the rights to the Olympics are held by the IoC. It doesn't matter whether or not Labour waives the FTA rule, it's for FIFA to decide.If the broadcasters don't like the conditions imposed by the rights-holder their solution is obvious.Are we now to discover Labour waived the FTA rights to the 2012 Olympics ?

Government rules prevent the rights holders selling to pay TV companies.

As for 2012- the BBC secured the rights before the decision to award the games to London was made.

[Tassium]

The World Cup event is not just Englands matches, people who are not that keen on sport might not understand this. Actually there is no "might" about it!

But it is FIFA who are to blame here. You can understand why governments cave in to their amazing demands, football is a major social influence and FIFA are basically exploiting the situation for their own personal benefit.

[Flyer 10]

Well Im glad we didnt get it now.

I hate FIFA but I dont think this is their fault for once, its all down to Labour and bribes.

[Charnham]

Originally Posted by Tassium

The World Cup event is not just Englands matches, people who are not that keen on sport might not understand this. Actually there is no "might" about it!

I do kinda agree, however lets not pretend that its a not a decesion that may be taken at some point in the future.

[DejaVoodoo]

Personally, World Cups should be shown on FTA tv in full as is now. Pay tv already gets more than it's fair share of events. This should remain available for all.

[frost]

Originally Posted by DejaVoodoo

Personally, World Cups should be shown on FTA tv in full as is now. Pay tv already gets more than it's fair share of events. This should remain available for all.

I dont agree. It can go to who ever bids the most money. If you cant afford to pay for the package its on, then thats tough for you, but not a reason to stop it going there.