Sky - The Open = Death of Grass Roots Golf in UK

mr_goo

With today's disastrous announcement that the sporting carve up merchants at Sky have nabbed the live rights to the open from 2017. And despite the R&A claiming that this will enable them to support grass roots golf for the long term. Nothing could be further from the truth. Golf is a declining sport in the UK and some of this coincides with Skys' monopoly of golf coverage. Years ago the BBC would have shown the PGA, English Open, Scottish Open, The Open, The US Masters, The World Matchplay.. After today there is nothing but Saturday and Sunday night US Masters. And I wouldn't mind betting that will go by 2017.
As a teenager I was a keen golfer. One thing that got me and my mates excited and chomping at the bit to get down the practice range was watching live golf. It is inspiring to any youngster that loves the sport. So by removing about 80% of the live viewing public from the Open the R&A have denied an aspiring Rory Mac/Tiger Woods etc etc,,, from watching live golf and drawing inspiration.

What next? The All England Club and Wimbledon.

finchy

I wouldn't worry about a decision like this losing too many teenage fans. I'm sure they all know how to use Internet streaming.

tangled_metal

Well I know how you feel. I like to follow England rugby union team in the 6 nations. Unfortunately I've only got the highlights on BBC at odd hours such that I often miss them. It truly annoys me since I understand every other nation in the 6 nations get to watch their nation's side play on terrestrial, free to view tv channel. In England you often end up watching the other teams play. For example when England might be playing Ireland for the last game of the competition when both are up for grand slam England fans in England watch Wales coming in third or wherever. In Ireland they show the match.

Pay per view IMHO should never happen for a national sporting team game. It must be live on a main channel. I can see how the major golf tournaments should be in the same boat, free and on the BBC.

awavey

oh god does this mean there will be more stockbrokers in Surrey taking up cycling instead :shock:

not being a fan of either egg chasing games (rugby or golf) losing both to the nether reaches of pay tv doesnt really fuss me that much.

but heres an idea rather than the terrestrial tv companies moaning about losing rights, which sometimes seem to be more about how many free passes they can wangle for corporate shindigs (the amount of people that turn up to Wimbledon on behalf of the BBC is downright ludicrous) why dont they go discover some new sports to show on tv instead, maybe even show some cycling for a change, and all the other sports that rarely get proper airtime, you could even package them up in a sort of highlights show on Saturday, I dont know maybe call the thing Grandstand or World of Sport, rather than have 3 men sitting in a studio reading out football results for 2hrs!!!

mamba80

its called the free market/forces whatever and plenty on here support that, so you cant really complain.

tangled_metal

You can complain if you want to. Freedom of speech.

I just wonder if there was not even footie highlights on free TV, not even world cup, whether that's acceptable? No England or three lions or indeed any football at all. Would not happen. It's the difference between sports, there's a clear pecking order and I'd prefer it changed.

mr_goo

The point is even the Government has stated that certain sporting events are called the 'Crown Jewels' and should always be free to air on terrestrial TV. Yes there is a free market. But for an increasing number of the UK population just affording a TV licence is becoming very expensive.

vimfuego

Watch it in the pub then?

capt_slog

Mr Goo wrote:

What next? The All England Club and Wimbledon.

Bring it on.

mamba80

Mr Goo wrote:

The point is even the Government has stated that certain sporting events are called the 'Crown Jewels' and should always be free to air on terrestrial TV. Yes there is a free market. But for an increasing number of the UK population just affording a TV licence is becoming very expensive.

there are plenty of things that many of the uk 's population cant afford... like heating and food.

We live for the free market and my point is that just as we cant/dont intervene in energy pricing or say the price of milk, its then a bit rich to moan on about pay to view sport.

Of course in a perfect world I d be able to see pro cycling and ALL the F1 races (for free) but I cant, this government has capped the increases in licence fee so bbc cant afford to pay for the viewing rights (and neither can itv) of so called top sports, so they in turn sell to Sky etc.... perfect free market.

tangled_metal

Free market is not everywhere, if it is good for one section of public life then why not all the rest where it is not applied? If we really believed in the free market then let's privatise the NHS!!!!

<Runs for cover!!>

mr_goo

mamba80 wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

The point is even the Government has stated that certain sporting events are called the 'Crown Jewels' and should always be free to air on terrestrial TV. Yes there is a free market. But for an increasing number of the UK population just affording a TV licence is becoming very expensive.

there are plenty of things that many of the uk 's population cant afford... like heating and food.

We live for the free market and my point is that just as we cant/dont intervene in energy pricing or say the price of milk, its then a bit rich to moan on about pay to view sport.

Of course in a perfect world I d be able to see pro cycling and ALL the F1 races (for free) but I cant, this government has capped the increases in licence fee so bbc cant afford to pay for the viewing rights (and neither can itv) of so called top sports, so they in turn sell to Sky etc.... perfect free market.

A cogent argument Sir. However I think much finger pointing in this instance needs to be done at the R&A. Peter Alliss was quite distraught yesterday, claiming that the BBC might aswell give up and pack their bags where sports coverage is concerned. And he pointed out that the R&A were only following in the steps of the USGA who had signed up with Fox last year.

markhewitt1978

It's the reality of the situation, lets face it sports including cycle racing are leisure pasttimes so if you want to watch it you should pay for it.

mamba80

Mr Goo wrote:

A cogent argument Sir. However I think much finger pointing in this instance needs to be done at the R&A. Peter Alliss was quite distraught yesterday, claiming that the BBC might aswell give up and pack their bags where sports coverage is concerned. And he pointed out that the R&A were only following in the steps of the USGA who had signed up with Fox last year.

you ve got that in one!
Sports like golf, rugby etc sell to the highest bidder and then complain when there isn't enough "new blood" coming into the sport.
Numbers participating in sport in this country are falling and hardly surprising, local clubs face grant cuts, schools don't have enough time for PE (assuming they actually have a sports field in the first place) council leisure centres/swimming pools becoming unaffordable or closing and school sporting partnerships being disbanded.

Meanwhile private schools and private leisure centres can charge what they like and have enviable sporting facilities.
the move to pay to view is just a manifestation of this, leaving the masses with little or nothing.

We need an anti austerity party!!!!!

laurentian

Tangled Metal wrote:

Well I know how you feel. I like to follow England rugby union team in the 6 nations. Unfortunately I've only got the highlights on BBC at odd hours such that I often miss them. It truly annoys me since I understand every other nation in the 6 nations get to watch their nation's side play on terrestrial, free to view tv channel. In England you often end up watching the other teams play. For example when England might be playing Ireland for the last game of the competition when both are up for grand slam England fans in England watch Wales coming in third or wherever. In Ireland they show the match.

Pay per view IMHO should never happen for a national sporting team game. It must be live on a main channel. I can see how the major golf tournaments should be in the same boat, free and on the BBC.

Every Six Nations game is being shown (and has for some time been shown) live on good old terrestrial BBC - check the schedules. As I play Rugby on Saturdays, I always used to have to "tape" the England match to watch in the evening and try to avoid hearing the score beforehand. Although I am a big fan of Rugby kicking off at 2.30 on a Saturday, the scheduling to show all the games live means that I will only miss one England game - the rest kicking off in the evening or on Sunday. Previously only the 6 Nations game likely to be most watched in the region of broadcast was shown, you could see a game from the John Player Cup if Grandstand were showing it and the odd tour game in the Autumn when tours happened every three years or so.

I like to watch sport on TV as much as the next man but there is an awful lot of rubbish spoken with regard to Sky and it "taking sport off of terrestrial TV". Before Sky came along, the only football on TV was the FA Cup Final, Match of the Day and the European Cup final if a British team were in it. As soon as they bought (created) the Premier League they promoted football like never before and there is, without a shadow of a doubt, more live football on terrestrial TV as a consequence.

Same with Rugby. Sky buy the TV rights to the Premiership and the interest was generated to the point that we can now see every Six Nations game live , highlights of the weekends Premiership action and "Spring" and "Autumn" International Series that simply didn't take place before Sky came along.

lostboysaint

There's a fundamental disconnection here that the OP isn't seeing for some reason. You can't hate Sky for simply doing what it does and bidding (and winning) a competitive tender. That has absolutely no impact on grass roots sport at all. What has a monumental impact on grass roots sport is the failure of the individual sports governing bodies ensuring that the additional revenue generated by these enormous TV deals actually makes its way back into the grass roots. Football is the best example. The PL have the largest TV deal in the world - recently signed - and yet their contribution to the FA and the grass roots of the sport is at an all time low. Basically all they've done is used the cash to line their own pockets (clubs, players, agents, even the media themselves to some extent) rather than creating a sustainable line of development from youth onwards. They claim that they do it by insisting that the clubs have academies, but who does that benefit? Let's be honest it's not even benefiting England (although it could be argued that there's a selection problem there as well!) let alone grass roots youth and adult football.

The problem is not with the deal, it's with the R&A to ensure that the money that this deal has generated is channeled back into the game and not siphoned off to the usual elite.

finchy

laurentian wrote:

Before Sky came along, the only football on TV was the FA Cup Final, Match of the Day and the European Cup final if a British team were in it. As soon as they bought (created) the Premier League they promoted football like never before and there is, without a shadow of a doubt, more live football on terrestrial TV as a consequence.

I used to regularly watch whatever Division 1 match was shown on Sunday. Then there was the Italian football and rugby league available on terrestrial TV. There is more live sport available on TV these days, without a doubt, but it's not as if there was nothing on before Sky.

mrushton

That would be Peter Alliss the commentator who may now have to seek employment elsewhere? Sky bid x amount compared to the BBC bidding y. As a business the golf people had to take it - like the LTA they aren't really interested in new blood, leave that to Johnny Foreigner with their academies and sunshine. The BBC can cover cycling events - it seems to work for ITV4

laurentian

johnfinch wrote:

laurentian wrote:

Before Sky came along, the only football on TV was the FA Cup Final, Match of the Day and the European Cup final if a British team were in it. As soon as they bought (created) the Premier League they promoted football like never before and there is, without a shadow of a doubt, more live football on terrestrial TV as a consequence.

I used to regularly watch whatever Division 1 match was shown on Sunday. Then there was the Italian football and rugby league available on terrestrial TV. There is more live sport available on TV these days, without a doubt, but it's not as if there was nothing on before Sky.

Absolutely didn't say there was nothing - just, like you, that there's more now. Am I right in thinking that both the live Division 1 Sunday and Live Italian football came largely as a consequence of the success of England in Italia 90 (and Paul Gascoigne going to play there) I think that Italia 90 was probably responsible for the formation of the Premier League and Sky coverage.

markhewitt1978

lostboysaint wrote:

There's a fundamental disconnection here that the OP isn't seeing for some reason. You can't hate Sky for simply doing what it does and bidding (and winning) a competitive tender. That has absolutely no impact on grass roots sport at all. What has a monumental impact on grass roots sport is the failure of the individual sports governing bodies ensuring that the additional revenue generated by these enormous TV deals actually makes its way back into the grass roots.

Applause! Yes; the big money that Sky is paying has to go somewhere? The question is where does it go? If it's not into the 'grass-roots' then questions need to be asked about that, not where the TV coverage ends up.

lostboysaint

markhewitt1978 wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

There's a fundamental disconnection here that the OP isn't seeing for some reason. You can't hate Sky for simply doing what it does and bidding (and winning) a competitive tender. That has absolutely no impact on grass roots sport at all. What has a monumental impact on grass roots sport is the failure of the individual sports governing bodies ensuring that the additional revenue generated by these enormous TV deals actually makes its way back into the grass roots.

Applause! Yes; the big money that Sky is paying has to go somewhere? The question is where does it go? If it's not into the 'grass-roots' then questions need to be asked about that, not where the TV coverage ends up.

Unfortunately I am used to seeing it NOT invested in grass roots as I have spent years as a youth football coach watching the regional FA holding out the begging bowl to a PL that isn't interested in serving anyone except it's own masters (the PL clubs). As I said, record TV deal and yet they've actually reduced the amount they contribute to the Football Foundation and other grass roots initiative - so where's it going.

What golfers need to do, if they really give a fuck, is to try and create a voice that the R&A can't ignore and demand that some of the money is reinvested. However, as the TV deal is so big it forms the biggest stakeholder interest in the R&A now, it's unlikely that any kind of "club" or "grassroots" voice will be heard.

mamba80

lostboysaint wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

There's a fundamental disconnection here that the OP isn't seeing for some reason. You can't hate Sky for simply doing what it does and bidding (and winning) a competitive tender. That has absolutely no impact on grass roots sport at all. What has a monumental impact on grass roots sport is the failure of the individual sports governing bodies ensuring that the additional revenue generated by these enormous TV deals actually makes its way back into the grass roots.

Applause! Yes; the big money that Sky is paying has to go somewhere? The question is where does it go? If it's not into the 'grass-roots' then questions need to be asked about that, not where the TV coverage ends up.

Unfortunately I am used to seeing it NOT invested in grass roots as I have spent years as a youth football coach watching the regional FA holding out the begging bowl to a PL that isn't interested in serving anyone except it's own masters (the PL clubs). As I said, record TV deal and yet they've actually reduced the amount they contribute to the Football Foundation and other grass roots initiative - so where's it going.

well, I live near Neil Warnock and in recent years he has boasted that he earns more in one year then I ll ever see in a life time, he has doubled the size of his house, with a team of builders working there continuously for 3 years, many more rooms plus indoor swimming pool, games room also another team working on his other Cornish residency for 2 years.... numerous buy to let local properties, houses for his family to retire with, kids in private school and has built a private golf course.

and he is a so so (ex) manager, what the feck do the top boys earn???

lostboysaint

It was a rhetorical question, especially as I'd already answered it in my original post, but yes - he's a great example of the gross over-rewarding of mediocrity.

craker

It's not a free market, the BBC has to justify the license fee to the government, the public etc; it must be very difficult to try to compete with the private sector especially when 50% of the population will actively avoid sport on TV.

Exposure to these sports begins at a young age - I remember afternoons where a test match was on BBC2 and even if I didn't watch it it meant I knew what cricket was and how to play it, so we did. Nowadays it has just disappeared from the schedules and I don't suppose my lot have any idea about cricket beyond the odd headline. Grass roots will die without any enthusiastic youngsters getting involved.

schlepcycling

laurentian wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

laurentian wrote:

Before Sky came along, the only football on TV was the FA Cup Final, Match of the Day and the European Cup final if a British team were in it. As soon as they bought (created) the Premier League they promoted football like never before and there is, without a shadow of a doubt, more live football on terrestrial TV as a consequence.

I used to regularly watch whatever Division 1 match was shown on Sunday. Then there was the Italian football and rugby league available on terrestrial TV. There is more live sport available on TV these days, without a doubt, but it's not as if there was nothing on before Sky.

Absolutely didn't say there was nothing - just, like you, that there's more now. Am I right in thinking that both the live Division 1 Sunday and Live Italian football came largely as a consequence of the success of England in Italia 90 (and Paul Gascoigne going to play there) I think that Italia 90 was probably responsible for the formation of the Premier League and Sky coverage.

ITV used to show live football on The Big Match from 1983 to 1992 when Sky won the rights to the new Premier League, so there was live league football on terrestrial TV long before Italia 90.

norvernrob

Why will it stop people playing golf? There is pretty much zero cycling on terrestrial TV yet the sport is more popular than ever and overtaking golf.

Sky TV isn't so bad, I thought the majority of households had it anyway. I never ever pay full price for it, every year I phone them and get a big discount on my package.

finchy

laurentian wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

laurentian wrote:

Before Sky came along, the only football on TV was the FA Cup Final, Match of the Day and the European Cup final if a British team were in it. As soon as they bought (created) the Premier League they promoted football like never before and there is, without a shadow of a doubt, more live football on terrestrial TV as a consequence.

I used to regularly watch whatever Division 1 match was shown on Sunday. Then there was the Italian football and rugby league available on terrestrial TV. There is more live sport available on TV these days, without a doubt, but it's not as if there was nothing on before Sky.

Absolutely didn't say there was nothing - just, like you, that there's more now. Am I right in thinking that both the live Division 1 Sunday and Live Italian football came largely as a consequence of the success of England in Italia 90 (and Paul Gascoigne going to play there) I think that Italia 90 was probably responsible for the formation of the Premier League and Sky coverage.

I didn't mean to imply that you were suggesting that. It's the impression you get from Sky that they invented football coverage. I just meant that there was more on TV before Sky than you were making out.

morstar

I don't think Sky can be held responsible for the death of grass roots sports but they definitely change the profile of sports. Imho this is often for the worse.
My example is boxing where Britain had a conveyor belt of household name boxers on the 80's. Everything went Sky or pay per view and the profile of boxing declined. I doubt the earnings of any individual world contender boxer have suffered but I'd argue ( from a position of ignorance admittedly) that collective earning power of British boxers has declined in relative terms as a result of reduced exposure through confinement to Sky.
That being said. This is against a backdrop of a major shifts in tv viewing behaviour so direct comparisons are impossible.

sarm34

Golf, Rugby and fishing 3 of the worst sports ever......if you call fishing a sport.... oh and golf whats that all about?

finchy

I'm not a fan of golf, but at a wedding last year, I was invited to join in on a driving range. It might not be the most exciting of sports, but it doesn't half take some skill to get the ball going where you want it to!

ballysmate

Don't give a shite who shows it, I won't be watching. Only surpassed by American Football in the boring stakes.
So what that Sky has bought the rights. R&A have a product so sell to the highest bidder.
If you had, I don't know, say a nice piece of artwork, and someone offered a fortune, I would not expect you to refuse the offer on the grounds that not everyone would be able to see it.
As I said R&A have a product and Sky want to buy. Simples.