Broadcasting rights go out to tender

[Rupert Prince]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

This sort of thinking is all kinds of wrong and is a massive problem in the sport. 

The BBC is not our PR agency. It is not the BBC's job to "promote" RL. It has a job to report RL in context of public interest, but it does not have any obligation to "promote it" in any way, shape or form. 

If the BBC (or Sky or any other broadcaster for that matter) isn't paying enough attention to RL, then the fault and the responsibility for addressing that lies squarely with Super League, the RFL and/or the clubs. They're the ones who should be adding value to the product and creating the demand for RL.

If there was more demand for RL content, broadcasters would respond to that demand and the value of RL content would increase as a result. 

Again, I'm not disputing that the BBC could afford to pay big bucks for RL content. I'm saying that they couldn't editorially, commercially or politically justify doing so. 

It's not the job of the BBC to promote a Dublin based crass comedian, not to mention all the other crass comedians between here and Timbuktoo... But they do. And they do it to the detriment of RL (and possibly other programmes and  sports but that is not my remit).

They happily waste all that money on these dim dramas, crass comedians and numbskull newscasters.   The remit of the BBC is to inform, educate and entertain.  In my view it totally fails.  But that is not the point, it does not matter if you and others disagree with me (for what it's worth I belive it publishes its own propaganda and is intent on brainwashing the public).  No...The point is the BBC wastes loads of money and it could afford to pay RL more. And I make this point because somewhere up thread someone suggested the BBC was scrapped for cash.  Its not.  

 

I have alluded elsewhere that the RL/SL should promote itself more.  But sadly I have to say to some that this means promoting it's flagship product... Superleague and do this means expansion and inevitably consolidation and no relegation.  This is another matter however.  The point here is the BBC has money, 5.5 billion I believe, and RL deserves it's fair share.

[gingerjon]

20 minutes ago, SL17 said:

It ended up being a joint venture. So much for being exclusive.

Why does it need to be exclusive?

[HawkMan]

BBC money is not THEIRS , it's OURS, the licence payers and tax payers. RL deserves to have spent on it an amount commensurate to the number of RL fans who are licence payers , if the majority of licence payers were RL fans then the situation would be different,  but they're not. In fact the majority of licence payers are probably not even sports fans, hence lots of other programmes.  There's a conceit in your argument that basically says,  put RL in front of the bl00dy people,  they'll love it, it's irresistible , billions for soccer....that's (sic) carp, RL deserves  billions. 

Here's an analogy; 

A teacher in a classroom has 50 pupils and has to decide which treat to take them to. Each pupil puts in 5p and gives a preference as to where they go,  museum,  fairground or zoo. 30 opt for fairground,  18 for zoo and 2 for museum. The teacher says " well I know it's not the most popular but the museum is fantastic and is in financial trouble,  so we're going there"

You get my drift....the teacher is the BBC, the pupils the licence payers and the museum is RL. Did the teacher act correctly?

[Rupert Prince]

26 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

BBC money is not THEIRS , it's OURS, the licence payers and tax payers. RL deserves to have spent on it an amount commensurate to the number of RL fans who are licence payers , if the majority of licence payers were RL fans then the situation would be different,  but they're not. In fact the majority of licence payers are probably not even sports fans, hence lots of other programmes.  There's a conceit in your argument that basically says,  put RL in front of the bl00dy people,  they'll love it, it's irresistible , billions for soccer....that's (sic) carp, RL deserves  billions. 

Much TV is wallpaper viewing.  But at least if people, usually the young, want to watch it on Netflix etc then they pay for the privilege.  Its the job of the BBC to inform, educate and entertain**.  Within that the RL has a part to play and it deserves a fair, I'd say a better price and be promoted more fairly.

And the BBC has enough money to do that.

 

** As an adjunct to that, I would suggest that it does that within it's own innate prejudice.  But that is not the issue here.

[whatmichaelsays]

54 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

It's not the job of the BBC to promote a Dublin based crass comedian, not to mention all the other crass comedians between here and Timbuktoo... But they do. And they do it to the detriment of RL (and possibly other programmes and  sports but that is not my remit).

They happily waste all that money on these dim dramas, crass comedians and numbskull newscasters.   The remit of the BBC is to inform, educate and entertain.  In my view it totally fails.  But that is not the point, it does not matter if you and others disagree with me (for what it's worth I belive it publishes its own propaganda and is intent on brainwashing the public).  No...The point is the BBC wastes loads of money and it could afford to pay RL more. And I make this point because somewhere up thread someone suggested the BBC was scrapped for cash.  Its not.  

 

I have alluded elsewhere that the RL/SL should promote itself more.  But sadly I have to say to some that this means promoting it's flagship product... Superleague and do this means expansion and inevitably consolidation and no relegation.  This is another matter however.  The point here is the BBC has money, 5.5 billion I believe, and RL deserves it's fair share.

OK, we get it. You don't like Graham Norton. But a lot of people do and to suggest that what they pay Graham Norton is somehow "to the detriment" of RL is a complete strawman. 

The entire point of the BBC's remit is that it has to appeal to a broad church and that inevitably means that it will produce programming that people don't care for. Personally, I would rather a state broadcaster didn't produce any religious programming as I don't believe adults should have imaginary friends, but that is purely my view and I respect that such programming is important to some people - I don't try to argue that money spent on Songs of Praise is money that should be spent on RL. 

The sort of programmes that you argue are "wastes of money" are some of the BBC's most successful content. They're not going to scrap that in order to show SL fixtures that less than 5,000 people feel compelled to pay to watch. 

[Rupert Prince]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

OK, we get it. You don't like Graham Norton. But a lot of people do and to suggest that what they pay Graham Norton is somehow "to the detriment" of RL is a complete strawman. 

The entire point of the BBC's remit is that it has to appeal to a broad church and that inevitably means that it will produce programming that people don't care for. Personally, I would rather a state broadcaster didn't produce any religious programming as I don't believe adults should have imaginary friends, but that is purely my view and I respect that such programming is important to some people - I don't try to argue that money spent on Songs of Praise is money that should be spent on RL. 

The sort of programmes that you argue are "wastes of money" are some of the BBC's most successful content. They're not going to scrap that in order to show SL fixtures that less than 5,000 people feel compelled to pay to watch. 

No...

They dont have to pay 3 million to Graham Norton (and they don't have to cheat to pretend they don't pay 3 million, but thats anther story). And the BBC pay (and pay under the counter) for a lot of Graham Nortons.  All they have to say to people like Norton is that they won't pay them as much. Say that they are not going to pay as much for all the dim dramas etc that they put out.  Why? Because they are not worth more. They cant afford it.

That is the point.  They shouldn't have to. They have enough money to spread it out so that RL and a lot of other RL like sports could, and should, and deserve to, have a better crack of the whip.

And the BBCs own constitution, if the BBC followed it properly (instead of going it's own self serving way) should ensure that groups like the RL did get a fair deal. Why should RL be told they cant be paid more when other quite undiserving groups do?

[RigbyLuger]

Graham Norton is the wrong target. He's a personality, some people like his shows, and watch for him. Gary Lineker gets £1.75m to host Match of the Day, and people aren't watching for him, they're watching for the action.

We are treated better than other sports, but we could get better treatment. Super League Show shown first not in HD in 2020 and not nationwide? That's just a nonsense.

 

[whatmichaelsays]

8 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

No...

They dont have to pay 3 million to Graham Norton (and they don't have to cheat to pretend they don't pay 3 million, but thats anther story). And the BBC pay (and pay under the counter) for a lot of Graham Nortons.  All they have to say to people like Norton is that they won't pay them as much. Say that they are not going to pay as much for all the dim dramas etc that they put out.  Why? Because they are not worth more. They cant afford it.

That is the point.  They shouldn't have to. They have enough money to spread it out so that RL and a lot of other RL like sports could, and should, and deserve to, have a better crack of the whip.

And the BBCs own constitution, if the BBC followed it properly (instead of going it's own self serving way) should ensure that groups like the RL did get a fair deal. Why should RL be told they cant be paid more when other quite undiserving groups do?

And who decides whether RL gets a "fair deal"? Or which groups are "undeserving"? Chippy RL supporters? 

Look at it objectively and it's hard to argue that RL gets that raw of a deal from the BBC. The levels of interest in RL are on a part with many sports and competitions that get far less levels of coverage than we do. Again, pointing to what the BBC pays certain celebrities really is a strawman argument - those have no material impact on whether increased investment and programming dedicated to RL (or any other subject) is justified. 

[whatmichaelsays]

1 minute ago, RigbyLuger said:

Graham Norton is the wrong target. He's a personality, some people like his shows, and watch for him. Gary Lineker gets £1.75m to host Match of the Day, and people aren't watching for him, they're watching for the action.

We are treated better than other sports, but we could get better treatment. Super League Show shown first not in HD in 2020 and not nationwide? That's just a nonsense.

 

But isn't that up to Super League to stimulate demand for The Super League show outside of the heartlands? 

Stamping our feet and writing disgruntled letters to Points of View is the wrong way to go about changing things. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, whatmichaelsays said:

And who decides whether RL gets a "fair deal"? Or which groups are "undeserving"? Chippy RL supporters? 

Look at it objectively and it's hard to argue that RL gets that raw of a deal from the BBC. The levels of interest in RL are on a part with many sports and competitions that get far less levels of coverage than we do. Again, pointing to what the BBC pays certain celebrities really is a strawman argument - those have no material impact on whether increased investment and programming dedicated to RL (or any other subject) is justified. 

Where I would be critical of the BBC is that they often appear to begrudgingly show the RL that they have. Pretty much like they have throughout history (2nd half of games only and cutting short for football scores etc.) - they have stopped that silliness, but have the modern day equivalents with the way they treat the SL Show as an example.Other examples are poor scheduling for key World Cup games, some involving England that quite simply wouldn't have happened for other sports and absolutely showed some of their bias against RL.

We have seen that when the BBC want to get behind sports events (as they have with things like RU, Women's Sport, NFL etc. then they can drive these events forward, and they deliver bigger figures due to the amount of promotion, scheduling etc. that they just don't do for RL in the main.

It appears to me at least that we get a certain amount of respect from the BBC, we clearly have some fans there as we get some consistent coverage and the quality of presentation is very good (although some of this is coincidental as the old crew of Lynham, Ryder et al retired and were replaced with modern presenters like Balding and Chapman) - but I think there is an underlying attitude that leads them to just show the games and little else.  There is no going above the bare minimum of what they do have, which is not thee case for other sports and comps.

[HawkMan]

Typical BBC 1 schedule,  if some on here got their way.

5.15 Pointless Rugby League. 

Contestants test their RL knowledge for prizes. Today's prize,  a season ticket to Hunslet RLFC

6.OO News

6.30 RL Antique Roadshow

The team of Phil Clarke and John Wells visit Dewsbury to see what RL memorabilia can be unearthed. 

7.30 The RL One Show.

Terry and Baz host another topical magazine edition of the popular show, today looking at fashion and food. What to wear at RL games, and what is the best food to eat while watching the nation's favourite sport.

8.00 The Salforders.

Soap continues with those heartwarming Salford folk.at the AJ Bell who have come up with another plan to increase attendances. Meanwhile rival gang ," the Nevilles" at Salford FC plan a counter strike.  Top drama.

8.30 Strictly Rugby League 

Semi final of dance competition,  this week Leigh vs Featherstone. Players and their wives take to the floor.

Judges Brian Carney, John Kear, and Dave Woods.

9.00 The Toronto Empire.

Comedy as Chris Barrie plays Gordon Brittas formerly a leisure centre manager,  now managing Toronto Wolfpack, trying to establish themselves in Super League.  Will the 10th attempt succeed or will mayhem ensue

9.30 The New Generation Game.

Eorl Crabtree hosts couples playing RL themed games. What will be on the Prize Conveyor Belt tonight? Leeds Rhinos shirt, cuddly Brian Carney toy..

10.00 News

10.35 - 10.40 Five minute slot for football results of the last week,  in case anyone cares. 

10.45 World Cup Qualifying Match

On the red button for those who care, England vs Germany World Cup football semi final from Brazil .

On the main channel Rugby League World Cup qualifier 

Pitcairn Islands vs Tuvulu. 

 

[whatmichaelsays]

46 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Where I would be critical of the BBC is that they often appear to begrudgingly show the RL that they have. Pretty much like they have throughout history (2nd half of games only and cutting short for football scores etc.) - they have stopped that silliness, but have the modern day equivalents with the way they treat the SL Show as an example.Other examples are poor scheduling for key World Cup games, some involving England that quite simply wouldn't have happened for other sports and absolutely showed some of their bias against RL.

We have seen that when the BBC want to get behind sports events (as they have with things like RU, Women's Sport, NFL etc. then they can drive these events forward, and they deliver bigger figures due to the amount of promotion, scheduling etc. that they just don't do for RL in the main.

It appears to me at least that we get a certain amount of respect from the BBC, we clearly have some fans there as we get some consistent coverage and the quality of presentation is very good (although some of this is coincidental as the old crew of Lynham, Ryder et al retired and were replaced with modern presenters like Balding and Chapman) - but I think there is an underlying attitude that leads them to just show the games and little else.  There is no going above the bare minimum of what they do have, which is not thee case for other sports and comps.

You'd have to give some examples of the world cup scheduling because none particuarly come to mind. And in any case, arguing that such scheduling is due to a bias, rather than the much more benign explaination of "something else was preferred in that timeslot" is a bit of a leap. 

I'd absolutely agree with you on the days of Ryder, Lynham, Inverdale et al, and the BBC coverage has come on leaps and bounds since. In many respects, they've set a bar that Sky is failing to meet.  

But I do still argue that if RL thinks that it deserves more coverage and attention, the onus is on the sport to earn it - to create a demand for RL that the BBC (and other media) would be foolish not to cater to and to create relevant stories that the media can't ignore. Neither the NFL nor women's football have earned their coverage out of favour from the BBC, but because they've gone out there are earned it. It's the same with commercial partnerships - sponsors like Barclays and Vitality recognise a value in women's sport that they don't see in RL. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, whatmichaelsays said:

You'd have to give some examples of the world cup scheduling because none particuarly come to mind. And in any case, arguing that such scheduling is due to a bias, rather than the much more benign explaination of "something else was preferred in that timeslot" is a bit of a leap. 

I'd absolutely agree with you on the days of Ryder, Lynham, Inverdale et al, and the BBC coverage has come on leaps and bounds since. In many respects, they've set a bar that Sky is failing to meet.  

But I do still argue that if RL thinks that it deserves more coverage and attention, the onus is on the sport to earn it - to create a demand for RL that the BBC (and other media) would be foolish not to cater to and to create relevant stories that the media can't ignore. Neither the NFL nor women's football have earned their coverage out of favour from the BBC, but because they've gone out there are earned it. It's the same with commercial partnerships - sponsors like Barclays and Vitality recognise a value in women's sport that they don't see in RL. 

A specific example is England's World Cup Quarter Final at 4.30am being shoved on BBC2 rather than One, meaning that early risers sticking the telly on would often miss this coverage. Other, earlier England games were also relegated to BBC2. A full on supportive broadcasting partner would be able to find a slot in their prime channel during these hours - the BBC chose not to. 

The problem with your last para is it is basically a ready-made excuse for the BBC and lets them off the hook. It ignores my point that the BBC have publicly stated that they want to make tournaments successful - as they absolutely should want to drive their viewing figures. They actively put RL in poorer slots, we can't grow the viewers in the same way as other sports when we get those slots.  

I am a big supporter of Women's sport and delighted to see some of the coverage that they have, but it is just wrong to say that they went out and earned their coverage. This is another perfect example of the broadcasters helping grow the sports in question. These sports grew with supportive media partners. including the BBC, when your sport is shoved onto BBC2 at 4.30am or only shown nationally on Tuesday lunchtime then you have to question some of the actions of your partner.

I am not absolving RL of responsibility for some of this, but I think there are more than enough examples of the BBC treating us as no more than cheap filler and them being happy for us to remin in that place so they don't end up driving up value.

[whatmichaelsays]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

A specific example is England's World Cup Quarter Final at 4.30am being shoved on BBC2 rather than One, meaning that early risers sticking the telly on would often miss this coverage. Other, earlier England games were also relegated to BBC2. A full on supportive broadcasting partner would be able to find a slot in their prime channel during these hours - the BBC chose not to. 

The problem with your last para is it is basically a ready-made excuse for the BBC and lets them off the hook. It ignores my point that the BBC have publicly stated that they want to make tournaments successful - as they absolutely should want to drive their viewing figures. They actively put RL in poorer slots, we can't grow the viewers in the same way as other sports when we get those slots.  

I am a big supporter of Women's sport and delighted to see some of the coverage that they have, but it is just wrong to say that they went out and earned their coverage. This is another perfect example of the broadcasters helping grow the sports in question. These sports grew with supportive media partners. including the BBC, when your sport is shoved onto BBC2 at 4.30am or only shown nationally on Tuesday lunchtime then you have to question some of the actions of your partner.

I am not absolving RL of responsibility for some of this, but I think there are more than enough examples of the BBC treating us as no more than cheap filler and them being happy for us to remin in that place so they don't end up driving up value.

Is being on BBC2 really that big of a deal in a multi-channel environment? Maybe this is a generational thing, but I just don't think that sort of thing makes any material difference. Some of the BBC's best-watched programmes have routinely been on BBC2 (Top Gear for example) and Six Nations games have reguarly been on BBC2. I think it's clutching at straws to suggest the viewing figures would have been that much better RL was shown one-button away.

The time itself is a side-effect of playing tournaments on the other side of the world and, I suspect, the Australian broadcasters have a big influence on the kick-off time. I'm not sure you can pin the blame on the BBC for that one. 

I don't think that my last para does let the BBC off the hook and I would counter that arguing that it does actually lets Super League and the clubs off the hook. If RL wants more attention, it needs to be harder to ignore - blaming the BBC is blaming the wrong people. 

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I am a big supporter of Women's sport and delighted to see some of the coverage that they have, but it is just wrong to say that they went out and earned their coverage. This is another perfect example of the broadcasters helping grow the sports in question. 

11.7m watched England go out to the USA in last year's women's football World Cup. It would be beyond surprising if any rugby league match in this country ever drew that many.

And still, I think it's the case that the BBC only show cups live on the main channel and league matches are either on the red button or in highlights packages. Which, by an amazing coincidence, is exactly what I think they will end up doing for rugby league.

[Dave T]

Just now, whatmichaelsays said:

Is being on BBC2 really that big of a deal in a multi-channel environment? Maybe this is a generational thing, but I just don't think that sort of thing makes any material difference. Some of the BBC's best-watched programmes have routinely been on BBC2 (Top Gear for example) and I think it's clutching at straws to suggest the viewing figures would have been that much better RL was shown one-button away.

The time itself is a side-effect of playing tournaments on the other side of the world and, I suspect, the Australian broadcasters have a big influence on the kick-off time. I'm not sure you can pin the blame on the BBC for that one. 

I don't think that my last para does let the BBC off the hook and I would counter that arguing that it does actually lets Super League and the clubs off the hook. If RL wants more attention, it needs to be harder to ignore - blaming the BBC is blaming the wrong people. 

This gets claimed a lot. The evidence is there in black and white that channel selection absolutely affects ratings. I'm surprised by your response on that one.

[whatmichaelsays]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This gets claimed a lot. The evidence is there in black and white that channel selection absolutely affects ratings. I'm surprised by your response on that one.

Is it there in black and white? Other sports, including the ones you argue get preferential treatment from the BBC, have been broadcast on BBC2 - does it cause the same sort of chagrin that it seems to cause RL fans? 

Just to pick up the point about women's sport as well, why do you think that the BBC is "growing" women's football? Because it's cheap content? To appear "woke"? Could it not be because the WSL have worked out what broadcasters and sponsors are looking for, adapted the sport to meet those needs and worked hard at building the relationships between those partners? 

If think arguing that women's football (or the NFL) is growing in the UK simply because the BBC is "doing them a favour" is doing a massive disservice to the very hard work that is going on in those respective organisations. 

BBC Sport is now located within a 2 hour drive of 10 of the 11 Super League clubs. How many of the media / PR managers at those clubs do you think have invited the BBC Sport execs out for a lunch and a bit of a schmooze? I'm guessing not that many. 

[Dave T]

Just now, gingerjon said:

11.7m watched England go out to the USA in last year's women's football World Cup. It would be beyond surprising if any rugby league match in this country ever drew that many.

And still, I think it's the case that the BBC only show cups live on the main channel and league matches are either on the red button or in highlights packages. Which, by an amazing coincidence, is exactly what I think they will end up doing for rugby league.

I agree, but I'd be stunned if anybody would claim that that any RLWC ever has received the level of coverage and promotion that the Women's Football World Cup received from the BBC last year, which is my point. We sometimes see a peak of a couple of million for RL internationals, but I refuse to believe that is our cap. If we were treated in the same way as some of these other comps and delivered 5 to 6 times fewer viewers then we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But we have never benefited from full on BBC support.

[Gooleboy]

1 hour ago, RigbyLuger said:

Graham Norton is the wrong target. He's a personality, some people like his shows, and watch for him. Gary Lineker gets £1.75m to host Match of the Day, and people aren't watching for him, they're watching for the action.

We are treated better than other sports, but we could get better treatment. Super League Show shown first not in HD in 2020 and not nationwide? That's just a nonsense.

 

Surely when SL has it's negotiations with the BBC, Mr Elstone should be asking why the SL Show doesn't get national coverage. The answer maybe that the BBC don't see the worth in doing so. Personally I think the BBC coverage of RL is good, remember, we are not a national sport.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Is it there in black and white? Other sports, including the ones you argue get preferential treatment from the BBC, have been broadcast on BBC2 - does it cause the same sort of chagrin that it seems to cause RL fans? 

If you could provide evidence of key England World Cup games being shoved on lesser channels, that would be evidence to your claim.

Nope, they benefit from mainstream coverage and promotion and prime scheduling.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Dave T said:

I agree, but I'd be stunned if anybody would claim that that any RLWC ever has received the level of coverage and promotion that the Women's Football World Cup received from the BBC last year, which is my point. We sometimes see a peak of a couple of million for RL internationals, but I refuse to believe that is our cap. If we were treated in the same way as some of these other comps and delivered 5 to 6 times fewer viewers then we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But we have never benefited from full on BBC support.

There was a huge, and I do mean, huge push for the 2000 RLWC. I remember there were dedicated programmes outside normal programming on both Sky and the BBC.

It's one of the reasons why it's abject failure was so damaging. It's not an excuse for 20 years later but that thing did burn us for such a long time.

I also, but this could be because I watch very little TV beyond sport in real time now, don't remember much out of the ordinary in terms of promotion for the women's World Cup in football. We're never getting 11.7m though. It outdrew the cricket World Cup final.

[whatmichaelsays]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

If you could provide evidence of key England World Cup games being shoved on lesser channels, that would be evidence to your claim.

Nope, they benefit from mainstream coverage and promotion and prime scheduling.

I don't have old copies of the Radio Times to hand, but Six Nations games have definately been shown on BBC2. The BBC doesn't have the rights to the RUWC, so they clearly don't give it preferential treatment you seem to think they do. 

But again, in the world as it is today, I really don't see being behind button 2 rather than button 1 as that much of a hardship - and certainly not one that couldn't be overcome. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

There was a huge, and I do mean, huge push for the 2000 RLWC. I remember there were dedicated programmes outside normal programming on both Sky and the BBC.

It's one of the reasons why it's abject failure was so damaging. It's not an excuse for 20 years later but that thing did burn us for such a long time.

I also, but this could be because I watch very little TV beyond sport in real time now, don't remember much out of the ordinary in terms of promotion for the women's World Cup in football. We're never getting 11.7m though. It outdrew the cricket World Cup final.

I agree on the 2000 World Cup - the level of ambition and lack of delivery really hurt us. But when I talk about coverage I'm not really just referring to live shows and highlights, the BBC utilise their own assets really well in pushing their preferred tournaments. 

[gingerjon]

Just now, whatmichaelsays said:

I don't have old copies of the Radio Times to hand, but Six Nations games have definately been shown on BBC2. 

I believe the most recent agreement - which doesn't give the BBC exclusive rights - does specify that all games have to be shown on BBC One?

I can find England Women in football on both BBC Two and BBC Four for qualifiers, friendlies and tournaments not the World Cup but I think Mr T is right that they are always on BBC One for the World Cup itself.

[whatmichaelsays]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

I believe the most recent agreement - which doesn't give the BBC exclusive rights - does specify that all games have to be shown on BBC One?

I can find England Women in football on both BBC Two and BBC Four for qualifiers, friendlies and tournaments not the World Cup but I think Mr T is right that they are always on BBC One for the World Cup itself.

ITV have the exclusive rights for the RUWC. 

Again, I just don't see how being on BBC2 is such a hardship.