Why doesn't RL do this?

The argument has always been that the BBC don't want to show a RL game every weekend.

But the recent football Championship deal allows the BBC to show just 10 games over the course of a season.

I think the RFL should look at selling such a package to the BBC. Maybe include an international, and the Challenge Cup regular rounds.

This would mean that Sky would keep its dominance over the game, all its Friday night games, but the sport's main competition would get some coverage on terrestrial television.

Sounds good but it's the people running the game thats the problem.

If by "the people running the game" you mean Sky TV then I'd agree, if you mean the RFL then I wouldn't.

When selling the rights to the game the package is put together to suit the buyer, not the seller, and given that there is a scarcity of TV distributors to market to I would imagine that there would be a conversation towards Sky on the lines of "what would be the best solution for you ?".

Any other suggestion of splitting rights would only work if Sky and the BBC paid the same rates pro-rata for the number of games they show - given that exclusivity is the prize element in the package then the chances of the overall income reducing dramatically are very good.

Yep, for any other sport than football, exclusivity is key to get the most money.

The BBC do such a great job on the Challenge Cup and with Super League Show scheduling it really shows a big commitment.

And paying to show 10 Football League games a season really is just lip service to show how great the portfolio of rights they have is. Utterly pointless.

Sky show 2 games a weekend and have the rights to the GF and also have B&A each week.

BBC have the rights to the CC and show 1 game a week on a Sunday afternoon at the same time as the SLS which will be live from said game. All other weeks the SLS will be as it is now.

Sorted.

Sell a package of Bank Holiday games.

For Example
Good Friday: Wigan/Saints
Easter Monday: Leeds/Bradford
Spring Bank: Hull/KR

People say this but I've seen no evidence of it.

At the moment, we have one exclusive package and, as you say, it is designed to suit Sky's needs. Sky know that they are the only bidders for such a package, as they are the only broadcaster that could show that many games, including that many on a Friday night.

If, however, we had three packages, with one 'hardcore package' designed for Sky, one smaller package designed to spark a bidding war between Sky and say ESPN (with Sky eventual winners), and an even smaller package designed for the BBC, we'd actually have an auction.

When football was made to split up the rights to games, there were loads of people predicting a smaller TV deal. It didn't work out like that...

Or, Sky could just turn around and say "Nah, sod it. You need us more than we need you".

You idea also makes one major assumption; that the BBC are interested in screening live Super League every week.

There is a big difference in cost and commitment between showing a 30-45min highlights package in selected BBC regions to screening live Super League nationally every weekend.

Not if Sky had the pick of the rest of the games + 2 games on these weekends still.

There may be some negotiation over Sky losing the derbies but these could be replaced with some of the other barnstorming games - Warrington/Saints, Cas/Wakie.

The added bonus is that BBC get major fixtures on days people are at home and thus RL gets a greater exposure.

If Sky had one package and ESPN another then you would be paying for two satellite subscriptions to see the same number of games.

Also Sky and ESPN are currently working together whilst bidding for Scottish football rather than competing against each other

Exactly like the package the BBC currently has, but with the right to one live game rather than the highlights round they have now and refuse to show nationally?

Except they wouldn't.

People seem to assume that Sky show rugby league as a favour to the sport. That's an absolute nonsense. Sky screen and build up Rugby League because it makes good business sense to do so, it sells subscriptions and brings in the viewers. It's especially good for the pubs to have something to show on a Friday night.

Also, my whole idea is based on the BBC showing about 10 games a season, for which they clearly wouldn't need to commit to showing one game every week, and for which they could use their already existing RL coverage infrastructure.

Just make showing it nationally as a part of the deal!

The problem is that the Beeb haven't even shown any interest in showing highlights nationally … there's no evidence at all that they'd be interested in showing 10 live games (regionally or nationally).

How do you know? I'm not saying that Sky show RL "as a favour" but at the same time, I'm pretty sure that the RFL isn't in a position to hold its biggest investor to ransom. The Scottish FA / SPL found that out to their cost.

If Sky aren't happy with the terms of the deal, they won't bother with it.



Sky build up RL absolutely, they want the viewers. Is it a major "selling point" for Sky? I'm not so sure. For the vast majority of Sky Sports subscribers, RL is probably further down their list of priorities. I doubt that Sky would "bust a gut" to retain RL like they would Premier League football.



But it is still based on a massive assumption that the Beeb want to invest in live, national RL and at present, there is no evidence that they are. At present, the BBC's coverage relates to the broadcasting of the Challenge Cup from round four (with the final being a protected event) and buying a highlights package from a production agency in Manchester (IIRC) to show regionally. There's a massive jump from that to showing regular national RL and keeping within its public service remit.

And, IMO, it would drive prices down. At present, we have one principle bidder for the rights. Your idea means removing the exclusivity selling point, offering less to your existing principle bidder and offering a token amount to another bidder that has a vastly reduced budget. I can't see how that will result in anything other than reduced income.