As i copy paste this from a popular website i have only thing in mind. Why do we pay to watch sports. Because SKY is strangling the market. Remember the days when channel 4 used to show test cricket?
Heres what they say:
"
As we gear up for another national dose of Andy Murray this afternoon – following his 12.6 million audience Wimbledon thriller on Monday – it feels as if there is an obvious lesson for the BBC to take from this year's tennis. Namely that it has missed a huge opportunity to pioneer a dedicated free-to-air sports channel.
Launching a sports channel would give the BBC the space and freedom to show matches in full without having to shunt other programmes around the schedules. For two weeks of every year – and of course for the Olympics – the BBC is willing to clear away all regular programmes, from EastEnders to Panorama, to make sure that matches such as Murray's battle earlier this week are given free rein. But the handing backwards and forwards between BBC1 and BBC2 during Wimbledon seems old fashioned and increasingly out of kilter – by 2012 and digital switchover it may well look antique.
In addition to reducing the disruption to the main channels' schedules, a dedicated network would also allow the BBC to increase its sports coverage. One of the reasons the corporation does not evince any interest in Test match cricket, for example, leaving it all to Sky Sports, is that it does not have the airtime on any of its current channels to dedicate to full live coverage of the five-day version of the game. With a new channel, it would. And now that 90% of homes have digital television, the argument for such a channel is growing ever stronger.
Beyond the issue of sport, the corporation's current digital channel lineup has long looked hopelessly out of date, lacking strong themes and arguably a focus on advertising-free programming that viewers really want to watch. Why, for instance, does CBBC close at 7 pm, just when 10-year-olds are gearing up to watch? And equally, why do BBC3 and BBC4 start at 7pm? BBC3 in particular is supposed to be geared to younger people, who are available in droves during the afternoons. Why not make BBC4 into a simple proposition: an arts and documentary channel?
The BBC's digital channels are, in part, the offspring of an outdated early Freeview regime, circa 2002-2003, when spectrum shortage was at the forefront of everyone's minds and the corporation was scared of provoking the wrath of rivals. The situation has since changed – and a sports channel would not, by the way, mean the BBC would have to tread on Sky's toes by competing for live Premier League football. There are plenty of other sports to go for.
But currently the corporation is doing itself no favours: it neither fulfils the needs of licence-fee payers who want to watch more sport, and for longer, nor those who would rather they didn't have to chase EastEnders round the schedules. There is an obvious solution to both problems."
We should all get to watch free sport. People in Pakistan and India still watch cricket for free!
Plus think of all the other sports that they could include in there..like shin kicking or cheese rolling or pudding eating or a gypsy violin playing contest or a teenage mother beauty contest or jobless people "running" out to get some work. kind of like the Olymphics but with fat people. whilst wearing vests and baseball caps. Even using rich arabian princes as target practice.
That last one might have been a joke!
No comments:
Post a Comment