nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Threat to Six Nations free to air viewing.

slowburner

A report in today's Telegraph.

http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/sixnations/11375761/Six-Nations-considers-exit-from-free-to-air-television.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Badabing

BT will go all out to retain their rugby premiership in England in a couple of years and this year to get more football rights so i doubt they will go with all guns blazing for the 6 nations. Unless they do a tie up with BBC again like with the fa cup.

bilston

Badabing wrote: »

BT will go all out to retain their rugby premiership in England in a couple of years and this year to get more football rights so i doubt they will go with all guns blazing for the 6 nations. Unless they do a tie up with BBC again like with the fa cup.

If BT retain the AP and win more football rights that will just free up more cash and create more willpower for Sky to go after the 6Ns. There is talk that they are close to securing the British Open Golf which would be a coup. I'd say the 6Ns would be something else they would love to get their hands on.

Rather Sky than BT mind.

Edit - I see today the BBC has retained Premier League highlights until 2019 in a 3 year deal worth just over £200m. They may have to come up with something similar if they are to retain the 6Ns.

irishbucsfan

Premier League highlights would be worth a lot more than 6 Nations I'd guess, but could be wrong.

George Hook

No FTA deal is what is/has killed rugby union in AUS, don't repeat their mistake.

The Lost Sheep

George Hook wrote: »

No FTA deal is what is/has killed rugby union in AUS, don't repeat their mistake.

Part of the reason but a lot more than that. Expanding game outside traditional areas hasn't happened too much in Oz...

icdg

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Premier League highlights would be worth a lot more than 6 Nations I'd guess, but could be wrong.

£160m was what was reported in 2011 for the 2014-2017 contract period (four seasons). A year later, it paid £180m for the Premier League highlights for the 2013-16 contract period (three seasons). So yes your talking about 50% more per season and the football rights are only highlights whereas the Six Nations is for live rights. (There are only 15 matches in the Six Nations though, whereas the Premier League has 380 matches over 38 weeks).

The reality is that if RTÉ lose the Six Nations that would be their rugby coverage finished. I'm not sure if they'd keep a team in place for the three autumn internationals and would probably be content to let them go to Sky. If any sporting event is worthy of protection its the Six Nations - every game is sold out reasonably in advance and its a national sporting event. That said, the mere fact of an event being on the free to air list means sporting organisations will inevitably be negotiating with one arm tied behind their back because they cannot threaten a free to air broadcaster with the possibility of being outbid by Sky.

bilston

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Premier League highlights would be worth a lot more than 6 Nations I'd guess, but could be wrong.

Yeah the current EPL highlights deal with the BBC (2014-2016) £180m for 3 years (£60m a year)

Current Six Nations deal with the BBC (2014-2017) £160m for 4 years (£40m a year)

Still given the "come and get us" plea by Feehan you'd have to think Sky and BT will be pretty aggressive in their pursuit on the 6Ns so that alone could drive the price above and beyond what the Beeb will pay.

bilston

icdg wrote: »

£160m was what was reported in 2011 for the 2014-2017 contract period (four seasons). A year later, it paid £180m for the Premier League highlights for the 2013-16 contract period (three seasons). So yes your talking about 50% more per season and the football rights are only highlights whereas the Six Nations is for live rights. (There are only 15 matches in the Six Nations though, whereas the Premier League has 380 matches over 38 weeks).

You could argue there are 45 Six Nations matches each season if you include the Womens and U20s. Small fry obviously in comparison to the real deal but a satellite Broadcaster could afford those competitions some in depth coverage in a way RTE (and they do a decent job here) and the BBC can't.

Digifriendly

CatFromHue wrote: »

The AI's are not shown FTA in the North.

Not strictly true as RTE via Freeview here in NI was 'in the clear' and not geo-blocked for Ireland's AI's.

On another note BBC have just retained Premier League highlights.

Winters

Sky have now acquired the rights to the British Open golf from BBC. I sign of things to come for the 6 Nations?

George Hook

Winters wrote: »

Sky have now acquired the rights to the British Open golf from BBC. I sign of things to come for the 6 Nations?

Yes and no. Hopefully they've run out of money haha.

But more likely...

The current television rights contract isn't up until the end of 2017. Also due in 2017 at some point is a review of the events designated as 'major importance to society' - things like the world cup that protect them as free to view events.

At the moment the 6N is only protected with 'deferred coverage' but if we gather up the power of the people and lobby to get it's status raised to 'live coverage' - then perhaps it can remain free.

I wanted to start a petition - no one seemed interested.

CatFromHue

Probably because the online petitions do nothing.

efb

Remember when sky had England's 6N home matches rights Urgh

George Hook

CatFromHue wrote: »

Probably because the online petitions do nothing.

I don't know about the republic, but the UK gov has their own petition site - I assumed you guys had something similar?

Nevertheless, doing nothing is always the worst possible thing anyone can do in these situations.

Zuffer

I may have imagined this, but did not the IRFU come out strongly against putting the 6N into the full protected category, a couple of years back?

One thing that no one has mentioned is that Sky coming in with extra money would not force the IRFU to go with the higher bid. The IRFU can always choose to accept a lower RTE bid for the good of the game.

If Sky were to make a higher bid, then IRFU would then have to weigh up the trade-off between the extra money from Sky and the extra viewers and publicity that you get from being free to air.

themont85

If anyone would be pushing this, it would likely be the 3 Celtic Nations and Italians imo. We're the unions wholly supporting our professional game and the French/English clubs are running away financially.

Although what Feehan is saying is exactly what I would expect him to, he isn't going to rule anything out. Given that the the IRFU just went with RTÉ/Sky, the signs are that 1) the IRFU aren't fully willing to sell to Pay TV and/or 2) RTÉ/FTA are willing to bid close to pay tv rates to secure international rugby.

Don't forget ITV either. FA Cup and Champions League rights are lost, they are broadcasting this year's world Cup and the likely increase in interest in the sport will have them very much in the game.

I expect the Unions are in for a massive pay day regardless, hopefully the BBC will still be in the picture. They pay a lot as is and BBC exposure is worth a lot more than any other FTA coverage. The key for the Six Nations is to be a competition that the BBC can justifiably pay good money for - the politics of the BBC demand it. At the moment with their 4 constituent countries all involved annually is just that.

total former

Zuffer wrote: »

I may have imagined this, but did not the IRFU come out strongly against putting the 6N into the full protected category, a couple of years back?

It was the Heineken Cup, but yes, they were vehemently against it.

Eamonn Ryan (then minister for communications) proposed it in the latter days of the FF-Green coalition, and pretty much all the major sporting organisations came out strongly against any additions to the list. It never went anywhere in the end.

Feehan is saying the only thing he can possibly say. If he says "we're committed to FTA coverage and won't consider any pay TV offers", then the FTA broadcasters know they can low-ball him when the bidding comes around; a BBC - ITV bidding war is very different to a BBC - ITV - Sky - BT bidding war. Even if they decide they are going to stay FTA, they need to keep the pay TV guys interested to jack up the price paid by BBC.

themont85

The Final should have been listed. The Final of the European Competition should be on FTA frankly, it is the stupidity and lack of spine by competition organisers that it isn't.

efb

Money rules

total former

themont85 wrote: »

The Final should have been listed. The Final of the European Competition should be on FTA frankly, it is the stupidity and lack of spine by competition organisers that it isn't.

Why would the competition organisers want to reduce the money they get from TV companies by making it FTA?

themont85

For one match? It's called backbone. A final, whilst drawing in a decent audience, isn't the be all and end all of the value of those rights. When 90% of the competition is on pay tv, it makes very little substantive difference to the churn of subscribers for premium sport. The problem is of course that Sky Sports were allowed by the UK government to have unfettered control over a platform, premium channels and ad revenue and they went to maximise every element of that - thus demanding finals remained exclusive for the ad revenue.

The UK and Ireland sporting bodies allowed Sky Sports to have far too much say for 20 years. Market power being key - compare it to the US, Australia or France and there isn't a discussion. In those countries it is the dog that wags the tail.

In England currently there is no FTA live club rugby. This is a farcical situation, even Bruce Craig noted it recently. Sporting bodies themselves should ensure this. It is an terrible idea to restrict your audience completely.

LorMal

total former wrote: »

Why would the competition organisers want to reduce the money they get from TV companies by making it FTA?

Because money should not be the number one priority. Society has been totally hoodwinked over the last 10-15 years by Sky and their ilk. Sport was all free to air before Murdoch got his sweaty palms on it.
Who 'owns' any sport? Why should any group of corporate executives determine the public's right to watch players representing their countries playing any sport?
If the Rugby nations sell their souls like the soccer idiots did, bad luck to them They will be facing crippling wages bills in a few years time and we will eventually be left with a small faction of big clubs with 'stars' from all over the world with little or no connection to the locality of their clubs.
It has made soccer a total bore fest. It will ruin rugby too.

themont85

There's been more soccer available than rugby since Murdoch arrived. Yes the Premier League is restricted, but large chunks of the FA Cup, Champions League and international football have been available FTA. In fact the CL is a prime example of a sporting body taking some power - they have ensured that games must be available on FTA from country to country and still have fetched big prices.

In France the Top 14 final is on FTA and it is getting a big increase in rights fees.

Minjor

themont85 wrote: »

There's been more soccer available than rugby since Murdoch arrived. Yes the Premier League is restricted, but large chunks of the FA Cup, Champions League and international football have been available FTA. In fact the CL is a prime example of a sporting body taking some power - they have ensured that games must be available on FTA from country to country and still have fetched big prices.

In France the Top 14 final is on FTA and it is getting a big increase in rights fees.

Evidently no longer as there will be no Champions League on FTA in Britain from next season onwards.

icdg

Or France aside from the final, which is protected there. UEFA appear to have given up the ghost on that one eventually.

Effectively if you're not on the crown jewels list your not protected. This weeks events regarding the Open and closer to home the GAA's sale of rights to Sky Sports show there is now no sporting body which is unwilling to deal with pay-TV.

LorMal

themont85 wrote: »

There's been more soccer available than rugby since Murdoch arrived. Yes the Premier League is restricted, but large chunks of the FA Cup, Champions League and international football have been available FTA. In fact the CL is a prime example of a sporting body taking some power - they have ensured that games must be available on FTA from country to country and still have fetched big prices.

In France the Top 14 final is on FTA and it is getting a big increase in rights fees.

I am not sure you are right there. In days of yore, when I were a lad, there was no subscription channels.
We had plenty of soccer on telly. And the best thing was that everyone was watching the same stuff - so there was a sense of special occasion when a big European or FA Cup match was on.
If the 6 nations goes to Sky or BT or whoever other greedy bastards, then the sense of a national event will be gone forever.

bilston

Minjor wrote: »

Evidently no longer as there will be no Champions League on FTA in Britain from next season onwards.

Technically there will still be FTA CL coverage next season in the UK as BT will show one game per round for free on their sports channel.

themont85

Minjor wrote: »

Evidently no longer as there will be no Champions League on FTA in Britain from next season onwards.

Except there will be

themont85

LorMal wrote: »

I am not sure you are right there. In days of yore, when I were a lad, there was no subscription channels.
We had plenty of soccer on telly. And the best thing was that everyone was watching the same stuff - so there was a sense of special occasion when a big European or FA Cup match was on.
If the 6 nations goes to Sky or BT or whoever other greedy bastards, then the sense of a national event will be gone forever.

No you didn't have as much, ITV showed First Division games, that's all that was lost.

The rest is all misty eyed nonsense, talk to a child about the Champions League in the last 20 years and they're likely just as enthused as when it was just the European Cup.

There has been lot's of live FTA soccer on the tv. Because the Premier League was sold off exclusively people go on about that.

Compared to cricket, it's gotten away with it.

Minjor

bilston wrote: »

Technically there will still be FTA CL coverage next season in the UK as BT will show one game per round for free on their sports channel.

Where have they said that? I've only seen in their statements they will show at least one match for each British team per season.