Quote: TrinityIHC "My kneejerk reaction to this was very negative. But I've had a good think about it and I reckon that all in all, it's a positive move by the RFL.
1) BBC reported offered next to nothing for it, by accepting this we devalue the sport further. Similar to the Stobart deal - poor.
2) More and more TV is going online these days, if the RFL want to dip the toe in the water - when would be a better time to do a test?
3) If we are going down the road of "give it to the BBC and spread the gospel" - No floating fan is watching sport at 10am in the morning, let alone die hard fans. On top of that , England vs Samoa is likely to be quite one sided and I dont see it being a great tool for converting the unbelievers tbh.
I reckon we should all just chip in the £3.50, back the RFL so they can show to other providers we have got some clout. Maybe this could be the first step on the road to breaking free of Sky's shackles?'"
Next to nothing plus 1-2million audience is worth far more than next to nothing and an audience of 10-20k.
As for more and more tv going on-line the one area that isn't happening as much is sport because it doesn't offer the same advantages as scripted tv to online broadcasters.
PPV just doesn't work for sports outside of boxing/mma. It didn't when then FA tried it, It didn't when the premier league tried it. It won't when we try it. Sport, especially live sport, lends itself to tv viewership. It's an event that lends itself to s large screen, has to be watched at a set time and can't be 'binge watched'.
The RFL would be far better looking at joining forces with the NRL and selling their Rugby League channel as a subscription via all platforms, Sky, BT, freeview, and on-line all over the world.