Quote: SmokeyTA "Weren’t IMG paid to sell them rather than IMG buying and then selling them on.'"
My understanding is the television rights were sold to IMG. IMG then set up cameras, sound, edit, graphics, big screen for video referee etc.
IMG then sell all the images to BBC and Premier Sports, and you'll see a tiny watermark in the top or bottom corner of the screen like in the 2008 World Cup, and many other major sporting events like the Premier League, Rugby World Cup, Olympics, Cricket World Cup etc.
Quote: SmokeyTA "Does it worry anyone that Sky weren't interested? Hopefully it doesn't indicate their interest in League is not what it once was.'"
Yes. I do wonder how much of an impact this will have on the Sky-Rugby League relationship. However until recent years Sky always had international rights included in their Super League deal. The latest domestic broadcast deal was Super League rights only, so in the past Sky were essentially getting international tournaments for free.
Now that has gone, Sky want value for money. They can't be seen to be throwing money at the so-called minor games like USA v Cook Islands and Ireland v Fiji, when in terms of ratings, which affects advertising, they will get a very small figure (because even RL supporters are skeptical about the international game and won't watch it!)
From my understanding of reading the trade press and seeing journalist's Tweets on social media, Sky were never offered a big game in the tournament. It was all given to the BBC.
Yes, its important England get as much exposure on free-to-air TV as possible, but this deal negates a lot of what the RLWC2013 organisers and the RFL wanted - to generate nationwide interest in the tournament for the future of the game all over the country. How? By alienating new and current fans alike from watching the majority of matches. BBC are only showing six of the 28 matches, remember! The rest is only on Premier Sports.
In my opinion Wales, Scotland and Ireland will be feeling very hard done to. They have tried to build up their involvement in the tournament, and for the future of the game in those countries. Many new people taking an interest in whats on their doorstep may turn up on the day in Neath, Cardiff or Bristol, but if they like what they see and want more, as someone above me says, are they going to shell out £10.99 a month for a fixed term to watch the rest of the tournament? No. Which makes it more likely new fans going to those games will see our World Cup as a one time thing and never go or get involved in the sport again.
A solution? BBC and Sky could have shared key matches, like they did in the Four Nations at Wembley two years ago, and give each broadcaster one exclusive England game v either Ireland or Fiji. BBC then get first pick of the quarter finals and semi finals, with both sharing the final like in 2000.
That would have given Sky an incentive to broadcast the remainder of the matches that the BBC weren't interested in, therefore making the entire tournament more accessible in pubs, and to those millions that already subscribe to Sky Sports packages.
If money coming in from the broadcast deal wasn't a big factor, then reducing the price so both BBC and Sky could share games should have been considered.
However on the other side of the coin, and I realise I may be turning back on myself here, if the TV deal was sold onto IMG for them to negotiate with broadcasters, then IMG would have only sold it on for profit and the highest bidder whatever the cost to the good of the game overall.
