Does anybody know when was the last FA Cup match Manchester United played that was not shown live on TV?

Also, can anybody envisage a set of circumstances which would lead to a tie of theirs not being shown live?

I would be surprised if it occurs in the next ten years.

You know something? Liverpool have been shown more times since the last time that happened (v Exeter in the third round in 2005).

The fact that Manchester United have been consecutive is what gets the headlines and people frothing at the mouth.

But if you're going to be sarcastic about TV channels chasing ratings - and let's face it, there have been a few other rightsholders in that time who have also shown Manchester United and Liverpool every conceivable opportunity - then at least get the facts straight.

Do you know what else? The more people go on about it the more the the TV companies will do it. It's perfect advertising without paying a penny after all.

Even allowing for it being one of the most uninspiring FA Cup draws that I have ever seen, they are some of the most woeful choices of unappealing matches that I have seen for a third round weekend.

Preston V Arsenal looks good and I am pleased to see the Leeds tie on and I will give that a watch. Man City West Ham does not stand out as much as other seasons, but it is understandable why that is on.

But as spectacles, the other three matches offer next to nothing. In reverse, one or two my have done but other than having a big club likely win a drab 2-0 with their second string, I cannot see too many tuning in.

There were some reasonable looking ties. Norwich V Southampton, Bolton V Palace, even Everton V Leicester.

For a Saturday morning match Millwall V Bournemouth could have been a really exciting tie, but unfortunately it doesn't involve Man Utd.

I didn't give any facts. I asked a question, not having any idea of the answer and 11 years of consecutive live games does seem odd, when there have been some right dross in that time.

Your stat as a general one, means nothing. If a side, such as Man Utd did with Leeds, gets knocked out in the third round then plenty of sides would have a chance of being shown live more times. Have Liverpool had 11 consecutive years?

In fairness, for this draw the Liverpool choice is every bit as unappealing a the Man Utd one. The ratings argument I don't entirely buy either.

Would Everton V Leicester say, have had much less viewers than either the Liverpool or Man Utd matches will achieve?

So if the TV companies had missed (say) one Manchester United game in (say) 2011 your post wouldn't have been made? It's the consecutiveness that you're objecting to despite another team being shown more times - and they have only been missed a couple of times.

Your question was answered quite recently in this thread; the rest of your post shows up the reason for the query.

Of course Manchester United (or Liverpool) will get more viewers than just about most other combination of teams.

To suggest otherwise is plainly silly. And for as long as it gets people like yourself making sarcastic posts they will continue to show Manchester United every chance they get.

As I said, we are talking about a number of TV companies over the past decade, not just BT/BBC. In that respect the consecutiveness is very much a misnomer. First picks alternate with the TV companies. Manchester United as a first pick (and even as a second pick) have been passed many times.

The consecutiveness is interesting, only as say in Liverpool or Arsenal's case, somebody has at least once or twice made a decision that a handful of other matches are more worthy of live screening.

Are there any links available for any viewing figures of past individual matches? Ideally FA Cup, but league matches would be interesting.

Likewise, will the audience figure for the four BT matches be made available following the completion of the round? It would be interesting to see how the Liverpool and Man Utd matches would tally with the Leeds or Arsenal games. I can't be the only fan who will probably only watch the Cambridge V Leeds tie out of the three (not inc Arsenal) although partly because when it is being played.

I genuinely don't know this, so to make up two ties, broadly speaking how would the viewing figures for say:

Liverpool or Man Utd at home to Reading compare to those for say a Newcastle V Everton or Nottingham Forest V West Ham match? Applied to either BBC or BT Sport. What percentage more do Liverpool/Man Utd command?

In this section you'll find detailed viewing figures if you look

If the draw had been

Liverpool v Everton
Newcastle v Sunderland
Millwall v Chelsea
Tottenham v Arsenal
AFC Wimbledon v MK Dons
Sheffield utd v Wednesday

Or any other 6 ties of similar quality then Man U wouldn't have been picked.

Seems wholly unnecessary to have Chelsea and Middlesbrough playing on the Sunday when they're not being televised.

Manchester United get shown because lots of people will watch in the hope that they will get beat, and also their own fans will watch them hoping that they win, not many other clubs bring that sort of mass appeal.

And the chances of that happening is next to zero. Also bear in mind that there are much less ties in Round 4 and 5. All ties are televised from QF on of course.

A broadcaster is simply not going to pass on the chance to show Manchester United (or Liverpool) without good reason. Apart from the BBC they also advertisers to answer to


Precisely the point I've been making, albeit differently. The hatred drives people to watch and because those that hate Manchester United feel the need to tell the world it drives broadcasters to want to show them.

Don't forget that 76,000 people turn up at Old Trafford every week, whatever the weather and whatever the opposition.

Is it down to other teams near them playing on Saturday at home?

BBC picking Spurs Reserves v Villa is an odd one as they usually like to waffle on about potential shocks/magic of the cup etc..

Others I can understand as BT chase the ratings even if they aren't that appealing to a neutral!

Just hope the West Ham fans can manage to behave themselves live on national TV..

I think it's inevitable that Man Utd (and Liverpool) will get picked most of the time. The only time I thought TV (ITV in this case) made a mistake was in R4 in 2013. Here's what TV picked:

Crystal Palace or Stoke v Man City (ITV)
Man Utd or West Ham v Fulham or Blackpool (ESPN)
Brentford or Southend v Chelsea (ESPN)
Leeds or Birmingham v Tottenham (ESPN)
Oldahm v Liverpool (ITV)

This was actually quite a good draw for TV with plenty of choice. But I'd have gone for Brighton v Arsenal rather than the Man Utd game. Man Utd weren't even guaranteed to be in the fourth round and Arsenal were away. But hey, I got to go to a game at 15:00 on a Saturday afternoon.

Police decision
It is not un necessary

Chelsea QPR and Brentford all at home

As for Middlesbrough, I think it is the fact they are playing Sheffield Wednesday who will bring a large following
and both Hull and Sunderland are also at home

I can sort of understand Chelsea, but Middlesbrough? They are in a different police force to Sunderland!

United argument is getting a bit repetitive. As much as I despise them, there have very rarely been more deserving ties that are not shown when United have been picked (of course this is a matter of opinion).

Also - surely a tie should be shown based on the no of people that want to watch it? Guarantee more people will watch a United game than Cambridge v Leeds. Should the TV companies serve the minority (traditional football purists) over the majority (fans of big clubs who want to see their team play)?

Well its an interesting question.

But come 3rd round day both the BBC and BT will be going on about "the magic of the cup," "David v Goliath" etc. What they mean is that upsets can happen, yet they are not showing matches which showcase the magic of the cup at all.

It is of course up to the BBC and BT to show what they like, afterall they did pay for the rights. And most of the Manchester United matches that have been shown, probably were worthy of being shown (although I don't think this one is, and no I have not gone through a complete list of fixtures.)

Manchester United always get mentioned, but Tottenham v Aston Villa, and Liverpool v Newport or Plymouth are also choices where you would expect the Premier League side to easily win (especially in the case of Liverpool.)

I can understand the points made in this thread by people complaining about Manchester United being on TV again.

I suppose ultimately the FA are the ones selling the rights, and they are the ones ultimately responsible. Maybe the FA should have a match per round that they pick themselves.

Only if they apply it to everyone else. Liverpool always get picked and look at their third round tie this time round, as you've highlighted. At least there is the Jaap Stam factor with the match at Old Trafford.

The whole consecutive thing is such a misnomer. If it was a single TV company picking MUFC every time, fair enough. But every company that has had the rights have picked Manchester United, and not always as a first pick. Can they be blamed for chasing ratings? Can they be blamed for thinking we may not get another chance to show Manchester United (or Liverpool) this year because they may get knocked out...

The consecutive thing is also becoming a big thing - people being led by tabloid newspapers otherwise they wouldn't even be aware of it. Again, Liverpool not highlighted despite not being picked only a couple of times in the same timeframe - and actually being picked more often anyway.

But the fact that Liverpool have been picked more times is due to their more successful record in the competition, so your not making much of a point there.

It's a perfectly valid point.

If the criticism is that Manchester United are on too much then it, of course, equally applies to Liverpool.

The point is that people's obsession with Manchester United means they decide to overlook that there is another team who get picked as often.

"Consecutive" is just the latest tabloid-fuelled stick being used to have a go at the TV companies, who have viewers, advertisers and shareholders to answer too (delete as applicable).

99.9% of people moaning about "consecutive" wouldn't have been aware of it until the latest article on it.

I'm going to stand up for wolvesdavid here. What we need is a comprehensive list of the games chosen for TV. We can only really compare round by round. Obviously, the further you get in the competition the more likely you are to be shown. So to say Liverpool have been shown more often than Man Utd misses the point if Liverpool have played more games.

So what we need to know is, what proportion of R3, R4 and R5 games have been shown for each of the big teams? I'm not volunteering to do this!

Whether Liverpool have played more often or not is irrelevant, I used it is a reference to show that they are actually on as, often, and indeed more than Manchester United.

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy at play. Liverpool get picked every round by the TV companies too - which is the relevant point - where's the faux outrage for them?

Let's get this straight. I am not complaining that Liverpool are shown so often, I understand precisely why it happens.

What uninspiring choices I can understand BT chasing ratings and going with the big clubs over better ties, but the BBC has no excuse as they don't have to chase ratings to get advertisers or subscribers.

They can show all the matches, on Match of the Day. You wouldn't be able to guarantee upsets unless all matches are shown live. Chelsea vs Bradford and Man City vs Middlesbrough two seasons ago were big upsets, and not shown live. If Chelsea vs Bradford can be an upset, why not Man U vs Reading?


The FA think every match in the FA Cup is brilliant and worth picking, because it's the FA Cup.

I don't understand the logic of those saying that the BBC should ignore big teams. Shouldn't they pick the games that they think the most people will watch? Isn't that the point of sport on FTA, namely that it's stuff that lots of people want to see. I have no issue with them opting for West Ham v Man City. It's an attractive tie, it will get good ratings and will open the weekend well. Spurs v Villa is a weird one, but if BT have opted for Arsenal and Liverpool with Picks 2 and 3 then maybe BBC thought better of picking a dreary looking Man United game and instead went with a game that they thought would get more interest. Again, no issue with that.

As for the romance of the Cup, you find that some of the biggest shocks happen away from the live cameras, and the lack of the live cameras helps those things happen. When you float under the radar and you aren't picked, maybe the attitude is that the game isn't seen by neutrals as a potential shock. The bigger team relaxes, the smaller team gets a chip on their shoulders about being snubbed and stuff happens. Stick the game on live TV, and the narrative changes, and usually the smaller team can't live with the hype whilst the bigger club sees the potential danger and ups its game. So, it's not always a bad thing that games like that aren't picked.