I really don't know why people don't get that having big games exclusively on the BBC is better than having the whole thing exclusively on Sky Sports. It's so blooming obvious, yet some are so blind as to not see it!

Spot on. The lost exposure from not having the big games on the BBC far outweighs the benefits of having the lesser games on Sky.

On a positive note, the viewing figures on the BBC wont have gone unnoticed. Given that, plus the decent media coverage, good quality games and very good crowds, you have to say the sport is in a decent place to push forward, if those in charge work out how to keep the ball rolling.

I don't think anyone has said England on BBC has been a bad thing.......but being on Premier is akin to an almost complete media blackout! Sky, the home for sports fans in the UK have avoided mentioning it at every turn......



3 games so far have achieved about 7million at peak.......if you think this will attract a national sponsor to SL then you need to think again.
The UK media has, at best, given RL a slight increase in coverage and whilst the crowds are good for League, by comparison with other international football codes they are poor, the games have been exciting, but do not mistake that for quality and as such, RL fans will be more than satisfied with a successful tournament, but "pushing forward" is going to take a damn site more than a feel good factor that will disappear on December 1st if not the weekend before.

The real worry is that those at the RFL who have failed in their jobs for the last few years will in all probability manage to hang on for a few more years........to the detriment of the sport.

But there wasn't an option for Sky and the BBC to share like they have with Premier....given what was on the table, this was the best option.

where did I mention super league or sponsors? I said the sport was in a decent position to push forward, given the right leadership. Which it is.



The coverage has been a massive improvement. Don't be fooled by what you see from the other side of the world. The crowds have been above most expectations (yeah yeah 500k etc etc before you say it), and are way above many other sports in the UK. I didn't say it wouldn't take more than the "feel good factor". That's why I made the point about those in charge knowing how to keep the ball rolling.

1. BBC have the rights to the Challenge cup which attracts between 1.3 and 1.6 million.....the BBC exposure hasn't done much for RL in the UK, but you now think that 6 games 3 months before the start of the SL season is going to make a difference?
2. Do you think the current leadership are the right leadership? Make no mistake, Wood will cover himself in the glory of this RLWC...
3. Media Coverage has been slightly better than before. If you think it's any more than that, I suggest you buy every paper on Sunday and compare the coverage of England's defeat of France in a RLWC QF with the coverage given to "other sports".
4. December 1st and normal service will be resumed at the RFL. Clubs on the edge, a split in SL as to the way forward and the generation of commercial revenues and the search for a naming rights sponsor.....as you say,let's hope the right people are in the right jobs.

I don't get the point of comparing to "other sports". Does RU whip itself because it isn't as big as soccer in the UK? The aim should be continual improvement for RL.

The RFL have a great platform to generate new corporate and media interest in SL on the back of the RLWC. They will be judged, and judged harshly by the SL clubs who are just looking for an excuse to punt them, if they do not make the most of these opportunities.

Getting SL on FTA has to be a goal for the end of the Sky contract, that should be the number one priority for the RFL/SL clubs.

We have seen in Australia what happens to a code if it is relegated to just Pay TV with S15 ratings a joke and Aleague clubs continually on the brink.

International sport is a bigger draw than a domestic competition. We don't know how many of the people watching on the BBC were casual fans or curious non-fans. Ill hazard a guess that there are more casuals/curious watching this than watching a challenge cup game though.



No i dont think they are the right people. I'm not sure i ever said they were.




Im not interested in comparing with other sports. Im interested in comparing rugby league with rugby league. It was never about getting as much coverage as other football codes as you put it. That wasnt the aim. But suggesting that the media coverage hasnt been vastly improved, and the sports profile hasnt gone up as a result is simply a fallacy.



Ill worry about that at the time. For now im going to carry on enjoying a cracking tournament, at busy stadiums, with great friendly atmospheres, portraying everything thats great about the sport.

Thanks to Sky wanting exclusivity, we couldn't have one or the other. IMG have picked the best option available to them.

I said this elsewhere.....1 game a week on BBC3/ITV4/C5 would be what I would look for instead of extra cash......

Don't know if anyone mentioned but all the Premier Sports games have been available Virgin, we have the 'medium' TV package I think and Premier has been on there certainly since the WC started (I just never looked that much as we only just got it)
I'd say there are a lot lot more than the 10K sole subscribers watching the RLWC

Good point about it being free to air for virgin customers.. so yes alot more watching than just the 10k subscribers

Vossy said "p@€€y" today.