• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Broadcasting
Why wasn't the womens Rugby World cup on terrestial TV?
<<
<
1 of 3
>>
>
Boxfresh
17-08-2014
England's women are the world champions, having beat Canada. An amazing accomplishment. But this was an event that should have been screened free-to-air for the entire nation on BBC or ITV, not just those who have Sky Sports.

A real shame, as this could have been a watershed moment for womens Rugby and womens sport in general, if the whole country were able to watch them win. They deserved the type of attention and accolades usually reserved for the men. As it stands, I imagine it'll be mostly forgotten by next week.
CLL Dodge
18-08-2014
Sky offered more money than anyone else, and probably did better coverage than a free-to-air broadcaster could.
Ginger Daddy
18-08-2014
Because no terrestrial broadcaster bid for it.

End of thread.
Bannsider
18-08-2014
The BBC is committed to fighting obesity?
ftakeith
18-08-2014
it was on irish tv, TG4
Charenton
18-08-2014
The BBC had been preoccupied all week with presenters talking for ever about what viewers had just seen for themselves in the European Athletics Championships.

The 100mtr sprint, for example, took 10 seconds followed by 30 minutes chat & replays etc.
popeye13
18-08-2014
Yet had England tanked and gone out in 'embarrassing' fashion, not one thread would have been created askin why no FTA coverage.
Its only because they win that all of a sudden, people feel a sense of entitlement that should get it free and not have to pay to see it.....
renard gris
18-08-2014
Originally Posted by Boxfresh:
“But this was an event that should have been screened free-to-air for the entire nation on BBC or ITV, not just those who have Sky Sports.”

Really?
renard gris
18-08-2014
Originally Posted by Charenton:
“The BBC had been preoccupied all week with presenters talking for ever about what viewers had just seen for themselves in the European Athletics Championships.

The 100mtr sprint, for example, took 10 seconds followed by 30 minutes chat & replays etc.”

I had been dipping in and out of the Euro Athletics, but I watched it on Europsort rather than the Beeb.
platelet
18-08-2014
I don't think it's a case of not bidding enough for it - it's not giving a damn about it.

The BBC usually stick one of the 6 nations games on the red button if it happens to be played at a ground they already have cameras in. Sky will air usually one of them - the rest don't even get any coverage at all. If the BBC wanted to pick the other games up they could simply by paying for the cost of the coverage. I can't see their attitude being any different when it comes to the world cup.

The England women's team have been strong for as long as I can remember, and the rugby is very entertaining, it's a shame it doesn't get a wider audience. The French games were picking up 1.5 Million viewers in France, and yes France were hosting it - but we hosted the last one and the BBC didn't cover that either.

Add the fact that Ireland put in a great performance, and Wales were at least in the mix and you'd think it's the kind of thing the Beeb really should be promoting. If nothing else just to annoy the Scots.

Sky have at least given this and the previous world cup decent coverage and if the BBC had it, I doubt they would have been able to devote the air time. I'm greatful to sky for giving me a good couple of weeks entertainment.
Jack1
18-08-2014
Women's Rugby is hardly a massive draw no surprise ITV didn't buy it, as for the BBC Athletics were on which should take priority IMO.
Boxfresh
18-08-2014
Originally Posted by Jack1:
“Women's Rugby is hardly a massive draw no surprise ITV didn't buy it, as for the BBC Athletics were on which should take priority IMO.”

i'm sorry, but when you've got a winning team in an international sport, and it gets enough publicity, that's enough for people to start taking interest, even it's something they normally wouldn't watch.

Remember when the nation got obssessed with watching a bunch of Womens Curlers at the Winter Olympics a few years ago. Nobody cares about curling (let alone womens curling), yet people tuned in because we were winning in a big international event. The Rugby World Cup final could have been a much bigger event. This world cup could have been a huge game changing event for the profile of Women's Rugby, if only one of the terrestial channels had broadcast it.

Rugby has far more casual appeal than Curling. As the post above yours said, England's Women has had a strong Rugby team for a long time. It should have been anticipated that they could possibly win the World Cup, and therefore it should have been an event that terrestial channels took interest in It should be an event being promoted by the BBC or ITV.
Boxfresh
18-08-2014
Originally Posted by popeye13:
“Yet had England tanked and gone out in 'embarrassing' fashion, not one thread would have been created askin why no FTA coverage.
Its only because they win that all of a sudden, people feel a sense of entitlement that should get it free and not have to pay to see it.....”

England were one of the favorites for the tournament. It was fairly unlikely that they would tank and go out in embarrassing fashion.

And it's not about a sense of entitlement for viewers. It's about thinking what such wider coverage could have done for the careers of these women champions. Emily Scarlett could have been the female equivalent to Jonny Wilkinson in terms of endorsements and profile after such a huge victory. But with so few people having the opportunity to watch it, it's unlikely someone like her will get the recognition that victory deserves.
adman50
18-08-2014
As stated previously the Europeon Atheltics Champs, where we had a winning team, are a far more important sporting event than the the women's rugby world cup.
I do agree that its a shame it wasn't covered on FTA TV, sky could have put the final on (wait for it, Claxon's ready), pick TV .
As regards the BBC, a certain R Murdoch and his conservative party friends have ensured that there funding has been cut so stop blaming them for not covering everything.
Ian Cleverly
18-08-2014
FWIW, S4C had highlights of Wales' games.
Jack1
18-08-2014
Originally Posted by Boxfresh:
“i'm sorry, but when you've got a winning team in an international sport, and it gets enough publicity, that's enough for people to start taking interest, even it's something they normally wouldn't watch.

Remember when the nation got obssessed with watching a bunch of Womens Curlers at the Winter Olympics a few years ago. Nobody cares about curling (let alone womens curling), yet people tuned in because we were winning in a big international event. The Rugby World Cup final could have been a much bigger event. This world cup could have been a huge game changing event for the profile of Women's Rugby, if only one of the terrestial channels had broadcast it.

Rugby has far more casual appeal than Curling. As the post above yours said, England's Women has had a strong Rugby team for a long time. It should have been anticipated that they could possibly win the World Cup, and therefore it should have been an event that terrestial channels took interest in It should be an event being promoted by the BBC or ITV.”

It's not job of the BBC to promote sports, that's down to the people who run it. So you think the BBC should decide their sports coverage on the basis that a British team might win?
Jack1
18-08-2014
Originally Posted by Boxfresh:
“And it's not about a sense of entitlement for viewers. It's about thinking what such wider coverage could have done for the careers of these women champions. Emily Scarlett could have been the female equivalent to Jonny Wilkinson in terms of endorsements and profile after such a huge victory. But with so few people having the opportunity to watch it, it's unlikely someone like her will get the recognition that victory deserves.”

It's very doubtful that even had it been on terrestrial TV that any of the players would have got the same publicity as Wilkinson. Again though why is it the BBCs job to promote sports or "stars"?
Jack1
18-08-2014
Originally Posted by adman50:
“As regards the BBC, a certain R Murdoch and his conservative party friends have ensured that there funding has been cut so stop blaming them for not covering everything.”

Any evidence he has asked for it to be cut? Or is this just conspiracy?
Rodney McKay
18-08-2014
Originally Posted by Boxfresh:
“England's women are the world champions, having beat Canada. An amazing accomplishment. But this was an event that should have been screened free-to-air for the entire nation on BBC or ITV, not just those who have Sky Sports.

A real shame, as this could have been a watershed moment for womens Rugby and womens sport in general, if the whole country were able to watch them win. They deserved the type of attention and accolades usually reserved for the men. As it stands, I imagine it'll be mostly forgotten by next week.”

Perhaps you should ask the BBC why they don't show the women's 6 Nations on BBC 1 or BBC 2.

It's stuck away on the red button after the men's match.

Sky spend quite a bit televising womens sport. Do you think the BBC would bother to show womens test cricket from Australia or New Zealand live for example?
Kiko H Fan
18-08-2014
Originally Posted by Rodney McKay:
“Perhaps you should ask the BBC why they don't show the women's 6 Nations on BBC 1 or BBC 2.

It's stuck away on the red button after the men's match.

Sky spend quite a bit televising womens sport. Do you think the BBC would bother to show womens test cricket from Australia or New Zealand live for example?”

BBC Wales will show highlights of the Wales Women in the 6N on their roundup programme 'Scrum V' on a Sunday.
ariusuk
18-08-2014
Originally Posted by Jack1:
“Women's Rugby is hardly a massive draw no surprise ITV didn't buy it, as for the BBC Athletics were on which should take priority IMO.”

Of course ITV did show it up until 2002, but Sky got the rights after that.
Kiko H Fan
18-08-2014
Considering the entire BBC is staffed and run by PC, lefty, hand wringing, do gooders, you'd have thought they'd have shown as part of their commitment to diversity and equality.

Or something like that.....
Jack1
18-08-2014
Originally Posted by ariusuk:
“Of course ITV did show it up until 2002, but Sky got the rights after that.”

Let me put it another way, the amount ITV had to pay wasn't worth the perceived benefit to them.
adman50
18-08-2014
Originally Posted by Jack1:
“Any evidence he has asked for it to be cut? Or is this just conspiracy?”

Agreed no real proof, but its on the record that the conservative leadership had a considerable number of meetings with him & his senior board members before and after the election. Pre 2010 there had been lots of noise from The Murdoch empire (particular his son james), about how the BBC needed to be cut down considerably. Then surprise surprise up pops jeremy hunt to announce a 6 year licience fee freeze. While the lib dems lay down and let the conservatives " tickle their tummy". I am sure if minutes exist of the meetings between the murdoch group and The conservatives then we could see what was actually said.
Jack1
18-08-2014
Originally Posted by adman50:
“Agreed no real proof, but its on the record that the conservative leadership had a considerable number of meetings with him & his senior board members before and after the election. Pre 2010 there had been lots of noise from The Murdoch empire (particular his son james), about how the BBC needed to be cut down considerably. Then surprise surprise up pops jeremy hunt to announce a 6 year licience fee freeze. While the lib dems lay down and let the conservatives " tickle their tummy". I am sure if minutes exist of the meetings between the murdoch group and The conservatives then we could see what was actually said.”

Or potentially it could be because other areas of the government were facing cutbacks, why should the BBC be any different?
<<
<
1 of 3
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map