BBC Home

Explore the BBC


user rating: 3 star

BBC now showing England highlights?

World Cup England
by super_stevie_f (U1634111) 10 October 2009
comment on the article

Some thoughts on the BBC showing highlights of Ukraine - England, and the whole internet PPV farce that happened.

1) Do the FA now wish that they stuck with Sky and BBC rather than sell to Setanta and ITV?

2) Will the FA have made more money from PPV than what ITV were offering, or did they reject ITV's bid because as it was much less than usual, it would have set a reduced price for future matches?

3) Is anyone upset that they paid to watch online, now in the knowledge that they could have watched highlights on terrestrial TV? I personally would be if I did.

EDIT - Ukraine FA actually sold the rights, error from me in the first place. But I'm still interested in how much they charged for none of the TV channels to show it, but for it to be worthwhile for the internet.

Latest 10 comments

Read members' comments or add your own
comment by kris (U1605104)

posted Oct 12, 2009

Why did people pay? The game was readily available for free on the internet through P2P streaming, just like all other England games are...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 12, 2009

The BBC were disgracefully forced to keep quiet about showing the highlights which obviously would have further decimated this shambles.

How on earth can this be claimed to be a success? It was an utter disaster (200k for a competitive England International) and the BBC are claiming that this counts as a success makes me smell a rat. The technology may have just about held up but that's about it.

When are Sports Governing Bodies start going to think about the supporters. Full England Internationals on Internet only, the Ashes on Sky. If they keep treating us like mugs then might suddenly find that we stop paying these rip-off fees and when their TV masters stop making money they'll soon jump as they'll have to start travelling Economy instead of 1st Class.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 12, 2009

"Do you realise that it was only a £5 if you brought it in advance if you brought it on the day it was £12 you can almost buy sky for a month then and could watch it in hd. "

yes I realise that thanks.
We Sky you have to have Sky installed and a contract etc.
This is alot more than a fiver.
As I only really want to watch England games , I can watch the England away games for about 20-30 quid on this model.
Sky over the qualifying period would be 100s.

As I said far prefer BBC to have it or ITV. But if not I prefer the internet to Sky as for me it offers more choice to pay for what you want to see and you do not have to sign up to an exclusive package for a load of games and tv you are not too fussed about.

Also I used to get to see a lot of games, England included, through the Setanta broadband package for 8 quid a month, which is much better value than Sky tv package.

Internet speeds are improving all the time, and people will be able to rig their tv up to their PC soon to get it on screen.

Id prefer to pay less to see the games I want to.

"Can someone please explain to me why ITV are showing the Belarus game live on Wednesday? If Ukraine game meant nothing how does this one?"

It's because the FA do not sell the rights to away games.
The Ukranians sell it for that game. That's why.
The FA can sell the home games.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 12, 2009

It was a failure!
Do they really expect us to accept that 0.8% of the population watching an England World Cup Qualification match is classified a success? How can the BBC get these things so wrong, who do they think they are kidding?
There are 51 Million people in England and 61 Million if you include the entire UK. For only 0.5 million to watch the game is just shocking! We were talking before about figures as low as 1 million watching the game as that was the limit to the number of subscriptions being sold, in fact we had less than half that. The figures arenít being released because they are so embarrassingly bad. It is also very cheeky including the figures of armed service personnel who got to watch for free. If they had to pay as well then viewing figures would just have been 0.3 million.
Never again!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 12, 2009

I imagine over time people will get more used to it. It was announced only a few days before so they did not get too long too market it, and people did not have time to get used to it, only time be annoyed with it which did not wear off in time for them to sign up.

As I said above I find over the long term it could be more inclusive than the pricey sky package where you would have to pay for a lot more besides the England game.

You talk about the viewing figures. I think you will find Sky has done a similar thing to previously mass watched sporting events like the Ryder Cup and World Darts Championships, test cricket and World Cup cricket with alas now only a fraction of people watching.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by JeffFew (U9446749)

posted Oct 12, 2009

Id like to see England on Beeb or ITV but if not then personally I'd prefer to be able to pay a fiver to whoever to watch it online than have to subscribe to the expensive Sky package to see it. I am not be interested in paying for the whole sky package yet only be interested in watching england games, im not interested in premier league games live on tv.

As mentioned previously, with Sky you always have the option of going to the public house to watch it, virtually every village in the country has at least one with sky sports. And please dont mention Odeon, unless you are a cityliver most people dont have an Odeon within reasonable distance.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 12, 2009

No. You've overreacted to this one off experience which was a last few days thing and now dismissed the whole concept and got on the bandwagon. You now think the future will be the same as this, and of course it will all be Odoen cinemas.

You think pubs are not capable of an internet connection and spending a fiver etc?

Connections will improve. This approach will allow people to watch the games they want to at home on their tv's which can be connected to their pc's or their pc will be their tv, and they will not have to pay Sky's monopoly for a bundle of games they do not want to see. The pubs will show it too.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 13, 2009

I plugged my laptop into my tv the picture was very good no buffering at all. Only complaints were twofold.

1. Having Sven on his own with the presenter was a bit dull (esp as there were no adverts before the game). It needs two pundits really though James Alexander is very good (beeb note!!)

2. I couldn't get rid of the bar at the bottom which had the play button etc. On iplayer or sky player through which i watched most of the Ashes on a 1 month contract (very flexible if over-priced a bit) you usually move the curser off screen to get the whole picture

Otherwise it was a good not ideal experience

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 13, 2009

i struggle to see how 250 thousand viewers is seen as a success.
as for the bbc they only got the highlights because we lost the game, thats why they didn't announce it til after the game lol

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 14, 2009

And I struggle to see why people write off a concept so easily. This was announced a few days before the match so was last minute rush that meant it was not marketed well.

add comment | complain about this comment

Comment on this article

Sorry, you can only contribute to 606 during opening hours. These are 0900-2300 UK time, seven days a week, but may vary to accommodate sporting events and UK public holidays.


Rate Breakdown

  • 5 42.86%
    3 votes
  • 4
    0 votes
  • 3 14.29%
    1 votes
  • 2
    0 votes
  • 1 42.86%
    3 votes

average rating:
3.00 from 7 votes