Originally Posted by GeorgeS:
“If the BBC want to go it alone they would need to pony up 100% of the cost and that would mean dropping something else - Wimbledon or 6 Nations probably. So the BBC do not hold all the cards. If they only want to pay 50% of the cost to the competition, they have to work with their partner on agreed terms.
I'd say that the current rights allocation in on its last legs and wont survive much longer. The quasi gentlemans agreement has survived to now because of restrictions on who can broadcast the tournament, the cost and the lack of a 2nd channel with adequate coverage in ITVs case.”
I don't think it would do either channel any favours to go it alone - it would wind up costing significantly more on a per-match basis. Budget cuts or not, I'd be very surprised if ITV simply said "We'll pay 100%" and the BBC just said, "Fine, have it. We can't afford it." Even if they had to raid the reserve piggy bank and tell the sports budget cap to go to hell, they'd at least compete.
To be honest, I think with the deal the two struck this time around, things have become slightly more bearable. There might have been a case to answer in the past about the BBC simply bullying ITV out of the best picks in the later stages by threatening more simulcasts. But that's not the case now. The picks system is scrupulously fair, and the disparity just demonstrates their different, and perfectly legitimate, priorities.
I don't think ITV would be suckered into prioritising Ireland matches again like they have this time. In retrospect (and with the benefit of hindsight) that was a real mis-step. But with first pick next time round, and the WC having an extra knockout phase, ITV should land either:
(a.) Every England group game exclusively.
(b.) Two England group games, plus a last 16, QF or SF first pick.
In both instances, it more than holds their own. And it's the BBC, whose strategy for the last 14 years has been to never miss an England knockout game, that concedes ground.