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

icdg

That's correct, and we're still in the dark as to how they are going to do it (subletting to a FTA broadcaster, broadcasting FTV on satellite (available to anyone with a valid Sky UK viewing card), streaming to UK restricted IPs etc.

Worth noting that on the Irish crown jewels list there is more football than all the other sports put together. Every Republic of Ireland competitive football international is protected along with the opening matches, semi finals, and finals of the UEFA Euros and FIFA World Cup, irrespective of whether the Republic of Ireland is qualified or not! The only rugby on the "A" list is Ireland's games at the RWC, while contrary to popular opinion, the only GAA protected is the Gaelic football and hurling All-Ireland Finals.

themont85

The protected lists really are done on the fly. Those Republic of Ireland games were protected after Sky came in post 2002.

Little logic to them.

icdg

themont85 wrote: »

The protected lists really are done on the fly. Those Republic of Ireland games were protected after Sky came in post 2002.

Little logic to them.

Absolutely - it was a complete reaction to Sky's purchase of Republic of Ireland exclusive rights. There really is no reason why football should enjoy this extraordinary protection over and above all other sports.

themont85

I wish genuine thought went into these things and a genuine look was given at balancing market power, commercial realities and access. There's no way that many games should be protected for football. I do think sports authorities have to be saved from themselves sometimes (the R&A have lost their mind going solely down the pay tv route), balance is key. Pay TV should exist for people who genuinely want to watch a sport and pay a premium subscription. It shouldn't be for gobbling up large audiences and ad revenue for finals, it is a different model which Sky were allowed along with premium fees from customers.

I have an issue with entire competitions like the Euros and World Cup being protected in the UK, whilst not one club rugby game is on FTA television.

That said a big part of the issue in the UK has always been the BBC. A major player but non commercial and with restrictions on what they could show. ITV had no competition in the commercial space for years that they could plod along and make millions. Sky were relentless and saw a chance to grab both ad revenue and to take over premium tv, with sports taking centre stage. Compare the commercialisation of sport in the US and Australia on FTA vs Britain from the 1960s, the UK were miles behind.

jcon1913

LorMal wrote: »

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.

Spot on.

My 2 kids play rugby with a local club. One of the senior team from years ago went on to play for Munster, hes a real hero to all the kids. All this coverage on sky has already distanced the game from the grassroots.

Theres no way watching a bunch of overpaid professional playing soccer gets the heart pumping when compared to watching 2 amatuer teams playing their socks off for pride in the club jersey.

I have seen more live Leinster matches in the RDS / Lansdowne than ive seen on tv because i refuse to buy in this sky BS.

I refuse to get a sky subscription on the basis of all the above.

themont85

jcon1913 wrote: »

Spot on.

My 2 kids play rugby with a local club. One of the senior team from years ago went on to play for Munster, hes a real hero to all the kids. All this coverage on sky has already distanced the game from the grassroots.

Theres no way watching a bunch of overpaid professional playing soccer gets the heart pumping when compared to watching 2 amatuer teams playing their socks off for pride in the club jersey.

I have seen more live Leinster matches in the RDS / Lansdowne than ive seen on tv because i refuse to buy in this sky BS.

I refuse to get a sky subscription on the basis of all the above.

Well you must have missed all the Pro12 games from the RDS on FTA in the last few seasons.:rolleyes:

You don't have an entitlement to watch all games FTA. I agree that there should be some form of FTA for the European Cup - the final - and that should be provided for. Hopefully at least with BT and Sky Sports both bidding hard for exclusivity next time the authorities will use this leverage to secure FTA coverage of the final and there's no need for it to be added to any list. It's common sense.

jcon1913

themont85 wrote: »

Well you must have missed all the Pro12 games from the RDS on FTA in the last few seasons.:rolleyes:

You don't have an entitlement to watch all games FTA. I agree that there should be some form of FTA for the European Cup - the final - and that should be provided for. Hopefully at least with BT and Sky Sports both bidding hard for exclusivity next time the authorities will use this leverage to secure FTA coverage of the final and there's no need for it to be added to any list. It's common sense.

Yeah watched my share of Pro12 - my Irish is improving all the time :pac::pac::pac:

I agree that I have no right to FTA - sports on TV is entertainment. The point is that if rugby goes the same professional route as soccer then sometime in the future we will have 30 lads playing for 2 ''clubs'' that have no connection whatsoever to the area / city / province they are playing for. That would be sad IMHO, but probably inevitable.

Sky / BT / whatever will bring that day closer with their pay packages.

bilston

Minjor wrote: »

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.

Maybe that's what I had heard. Fair enough but there will still be some FTA CL football in the UK albeit less than before.

CatFromHue

jcon1913 wrote: »

The point is that if rugby goes the same professional route as soccer then sometime in the future we will have 30 lads playing for 2 ''clubs'' that have no connection whatsoever to the area / city / province they are playing for. That would be sad IMHO, but probably inevitable.

This is already happening to some degree in England and France

Guy:Incognito

I disagree with the whole thing of "protecting" sports. The organisations involved should be free to market and sell their product in the best way they see fit.

munchkin_utd

bilston wrote: »

Maybe that's what I had heard. Fair enough but there will still be some FTA CL football in the UK albeit less than before.

a LOT less actually.
Theres 21 weeks of matches (i.e. 21 weeks where theres a Tuesday/Wednesday of a game on)

The first 8 are the preliminary rounds so thats 13 match days that ITV show.
In the future they'll show one game from each british team, so incl Scotland thats a max of 5 games to be shown, but possibly only 3 or 4 if the english and scotish team in the qualification looses before the group stages.
So you could have 3 games shown and 10 not. And at that, you'd think that BT sport could specify the crappest of the fixtures involving British teams to be shown by the FTA channel.
The latter stages aren't listed as being of public interest by the UK government so it could be the case that a British team reaches the final and it's not shown on FTA TV.
So all in all "it is on FTA telly", but it may as well not be for all the use it will be.

themont85

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I disagree with the whole thing of "protecting" sports. The organisations involved should be free to market and sell their product in the best way they see fit.

And what of the Olympics Games, sports which take centre stage there often times do not have the commercial beef to sustain themselves. Governments step in. Should Government's fund Olympic athletes only for them not to be available for all to see?

jacothelad

RTE geo-blocked their signal to N.I. last night. I had to watch INVERTWAT.

bilston

jacothelad wrote: »

RTE geo-blocked their signal to N.I. last night. I had to watch INVERTWAT.

So relieved I am recording this afternoon's game on BBC 1 then. They don't usually geo-block stuff that is on BBC as well.

George Hook

jacothelad wrote: »

RTE geo-blocked their signal to N.I. last night. I had to watch INVERTWAT.

Was very annoyed last night when I tried to put it on RTE, couldn't understand why they blocked it when the BBC was showing it too.

Had to endure the English talk about England as if only one team was playing and then there's Brian Moore.. ugh.

themont85

On the bright side at least you didn't have to put up with Hook.

Digifriendly

jacothelad wrote: »

RTE geo-blocked their signal to N.I. last night. I had to watch INVERTWAT.

Geo-blocked on satellite yes but strangely enough not on Freeview.

George Hook

themont85 wrote: »

On the bright side at least you didn't have to put up with Hook.

While this is correct, I do like to see the the other guys in the studio laugh at him, argue with him and general make him look a fool. All he needs is a jester suit.

jacothelad

Digifriendly wrote: »

Geo-blocked on satellite yes but strangely enough not on Freeview.

I've never tuned in the Freeview facility on my t.v.s, can you access Freeview thru' a Sky satelite dish?

bilston

Missed it during the week but was Against The Head available in NI on Monday?

Tried watching it on RTE player but it wouldn't let me

George Hook

bilston wrote: »

Missed it during the week but was Against The Head available in NI on Monday?

Tried watching it on RTE player but it wouldn't let me

It was yes.

Actually the coverage for the Ireland game has started on RTE and so far I can view it on sky. I currently suspect it's maybe only the English games that are blocked?

OldRio

jacothelad wrote: »

I've never tuned in the Freeview facility on my t.v.s, can you access Freeview thru' a Sky satelite dish?

You need an aerial jaco

Digifriendly

OldRio wrote: »

You need an aerial jaco

Yes, Freeview is digital terrestrial television and to get RTE you need Freeview HD equipment.

total former

Good piece here
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/six-nations-broadcasting-battleground-bound-to-heat-up-1.2098664

[Deleted User]

Interesting piece about the impact of Pay TV on Irish Sport

Surprised I hadn't seen that before tbh, was drawn to my attention after reading this article about the 'disaster' (my term) that has been GAA to Pay-TV.

total former

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting piece about the impact of Pay TV on Irish Sport

Surprised I hadn't seen that before tbh, was drawn to my attention after reading this article about the 'disaster' (my term) that has been GAA to Pay-TV.

The problem with that article on the GAA is that it's completely biased IMO, but more importantly, comparing viewing figures for games on RTE and Sky is pointless because it doesn't factor in people watching in pubs and clubs.

He quotes the example of Dublin v Monaghan which, he says, got an audience of 54,000. That is utter bollocks. I watched it in a pub full of people, none of whom were counted as having watched it, and I'm sure this was repeated in many pubs throughout Dublin, Monaghan and around the country.

It's the same with Andy McGeady's piece in the Times today, if he wants to believe that only half a million people watched England v Wales in 2002, let him off, but it's nonsense (good article otherwise though).

[Deleted User]

total former wrote: »

The problem with that article on the GAA is that it's completely biased IMO, but more importantly, comparing viewing figures for games on RTE and Sky is pointless because it doesn't factor in people watching in pubs and clubs.

He quotes the example of Dublin v Monaghan which, he says, got an audience of 54,000. That is utter bollocks. I watched it in a pub full of people, none of whom were counted as having watched it, and I'm sure this was repeated in many pubs throughout Dublin, Monaghan and around the country.

It's the same with Andy McGeady's piece in the Times today, if he wants to believe that only half a million people watched England v Wales in 2002, let him off, but it's nonsense (good article otherwise though).

But the y-o-y numbers are comparable, that's the point.

The viewing figures quoted in this section have been sourced from official television ratings agencies, broadcasters and Public Relations firms. The ratings in Ireland are produced by TAM Ireland (Television Audience Measurement Ireland Ltd), which oversees an audience measurement system for the whole of the television advertising industry. TAM Ireland is made up of the majority of commercial broadcasters operating in Ireland (RTÉ, TV3, TG4, Channel 4, BSKYB Ireland, UTV, Viacom and Setanta Ireland) and the main Irish media buying agencies. It commissions Nielsen TV Audience Measurement to carry out the actual measurement service. The ratings in the United Kingdom are produced by the Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board (BARB). BARB was set up in 1981 to provide the industry standard television audience measurement service for broadcasters and the advertising industry. It is owned by BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, BSkyB and the IPA (Institute of Practitioners in Advertising).

Massive Footnote issue! : Sky has not released the number of subscribers it has in Ireland with Sky Sports HD. and HD viewers are not included in his analysis.

In any case, it was the first article that I found more interesting/relevant than the second. His GAA article is massively biased, and he admits as much

I am a former employee of RTÉ where I worked as a reporter for Prime Time and I continue to do occasional work for RTÉ. I have also worked for the GAA, am currently under contract to complete a piece of work for the organization and am a lifelong, active member. As will also become clear I have a particular view on the GAA’s decision.

total former

Deleted User wrote: »

But the y-o-y numbers are comparable, that's the point.

I don't understand what you mean by this, I don't see any year-on-year figures, and I'm not sure how the extract you've quoted solves the issue of pub/club viewers not being counted.

Deleted User wrote:

Massive Footnote issue! : Sky has not released the number of subscribers it has in Ireland with Sky Sports HD. and HD viewers are not included in his analysis.

In any case, it was the first article that I found more interesting/relevant than the second. His GAA article is massively biased, and he admits as much

In a footnote. It renders the whole thing very shaky.

But his first article is dodgy too. You're a man who loves stats Emmet, let's look at two from this one: http://historyhub.ie/the-impact-of-pay-tv-on-sport

Going on the ratings for the change from 2006 to 2007, you're looking at a massive drop, e.g.

255,000 people watched the 2006 match (Leinster's HEC QF) on RTE, 47,000 watched on Sky in 2007.
The number of farmers who watched the matches fell from 19,000 on RTE in 2006 to just 1,000 on Sky in 2007.

So that's a drop of about 80% overall or 95% among farmers, based on ratings.

But skip down a bit; a Red C poll, which would take into account pub viewership, shows that the fall was a lot, lot less, that the decline was less than 50% for both. He doesn't make any attempt to reconcile these discrepancies. I dunno, it just seems he started with a position then looked for stats to back it up.

[Deleted User]

total former wrote: »

I don't understand what you mean by this, I don't see any year-on-year figures, and I'm not sure how the extract you've quoted solves the issue of pub/club viewers not being counted.

He's not collected and collated these numbers himself. They're official statistics for viewing figures.
That is, the 2013 figures also didn't control for more than one person behind every screen.

However, especially given the HD issue, I'd be taking these comparisons with a massive pinch of salt. I'd venture a a guess as to the real figure for both being significantly higher, but that the imbalance be sustained.

total former wrote: »

In a footnote. It renders the whole thing very shaky.

Worse tbh, but it is a blog and is personal. (re:GAA article)

total former wrote: »

But his first article is dodgy too. You're a man who loves stats Emmet, let's look at two from this one: http://historyhub.ie/the-impact-of-pay-tv-on-sport

Going on the ratings for the change from 2006 to 2007, you're looking at a massive drop, e.g.

So that's a drop of about 80% overall or 95% among farmers, based on ratings.

But skip down a bit; a Red C poll, which would take into account pub viewership, shows that the fall was a lot, lot less, that the decline was less than 50%. He doesn't make any attempt to reconcile these discrepancies. I dunno, it just seems he started with a position then looked for stats to back it up.

The Red C poll percentages aren't population percentages, they're samples from specific groups;

...less than half (46 per cent) of those who described themselves as “very interested” in rugby actually watched the Munster quarter-final match live in 2007 when it was exclusively on Sky Sports...

...only 28 per cent of people who described themselves as “fairly interested” in rugby watched the Munster Heineken Cup quarter-final live in 2007.....

They're not directly comparable numbers to "People of Ireland" which is what the other %s are (these include people who would declare themselves as being totally uninterested in rugby etc)

EDIT: sorry, I think you're meaning the disparity between the opening paragraph and the Red C graphs. The figures in the first paragraph (19k -> 1k) are from "AGB Nielsen Media Research, 31 March 2007 and 1 April 2006." whereas the graphs are from "Red C Research surveyed 1000 people with quotas set and data weighting to ensure the sample was randomly representative of the total Irish population 18+. Field work was conducted from 31 March to 4 April 2007."

And yes, they don't seem to tally in terms of numbers. TBH I'm not really bothered going in and taking the survey and research apart, (there'll doubtlessly be known issues with both) but I'm happy enough to note that they both agree that there is a downward movement.
--
In any case I wasn't prepared to defend the article to the nth, I was posting it more as an interesting piece with the history of "Pay Sports" and the developments in Ireland tbh.

It has always been a major challenge for sports organisations to decide how best to present their sports on television. The phenomenal growth of rugby in Ireland over the past decade is a tribute to rugby’s administrators and their capacity to extend rugby into areas where the game previously had no meaningful support. This is particularly true of Leinster. Striking the balance between using television to promote the game and using television money to pay its professional players is no straightforward matter

The article shows that people like us (interested in rugby) aren't really the ones that lose out when sport moves to pay-tv.

total former

Deleted User wrote: »

He's not collected and collated these numbers himself. They're official statistics for viewing figures.
That is, the 2013 figures also didn't control for more than one person behind every screen.

But that's TV3 in 2013 vs Sky Sports in 2014, so again, it doesn't solve the issue that people go to the pub to watch Sky Sports and aren't counted. And the ratings do take account of more than one person watching.

Deleted User wrote: »

The Red C poll percentages aren't population percentages, they're samples from specific groups;

OK, I missed that bit, apologies.

Deleted User wrote: »

The article shows that people like us (interested in rugby) aren't really the ones that lose out when sport moves to pay-tv.

Now we're getting into the nub of it.

The question is whether the likes of the IRFU should keep their crown jewels available FTA, and get less money for it, in the hope of driving up interest in the sport and so on, or bring pay-TV into the equation and maximise the revenue.

Realistically, it has to be the latter. Not so much for the GAA who aren't competing internationally, but in rugby, Ireland has to try to compete with the likes of France and England in a professional context, and they're having money rained down on them by Sky/BT/BeIn/Canal+, what can we do? Insist on maintaining our principles while we watch our rivals get further and further ahead? It's not realistic.

But the key point from McGeady's article in the Times today is Feehan's acknowledgement that the Irish rights are small potatoes when it comes to the 6N, that the decision will be based on what happens in the UK and we're reduced to just watching and waiting.