Media coverage

[Janik]

That's nothing. Imagine taking it!

[Janik]

Here's a still of the moment Wilson grabbed it.



That is what I want to see from a goalkeeper making the best save ever in the World Cup. Laying full out, airborne, touching a shot that had surely beaten her away with her fingertips. It must have happened in the past. These players are capable of doing it, I'm sure.

[Patrick Thistle]

Having just seen the South Africa highlights I can see why people rave about mundane saves in other games.

[San Bernardhinault]

I know I'm repeating myself, but Fox's obsession with the US team is getting very wearing. I do not need to see a countdown clock to the next US game any time the US team is mentioned. I don't need to know it's exactly 2 days, 22 hours and 33 minutes until the US play a game that doesn't really matter much.

[ursus arctos]

Other broadcasts are available

[Hot Pepsi]

The countdown clock doesn’t even make sense if you assume the USA team is the only team that matters. Fans are, in 2019, familiar with how to read a schedule.

[Nesta]

Nnadozie's save from le Sommer's header, not long after the goal, really did look an out of the ordinary save, but didn't really get much comment.

[Nesta]

And indeed, it might be a save that gets them through. Worthy of it if so.

[Janik]

Have FIFA decided to focus the attention away from the fact that it's women running around and kicking balls and also to ensure significant media coverage by telling the officials to make it as controversial and unfair as they possibly can? I mean, people at work have to be talking about this tomorrow, don't they?

Anyway, my anecdotal observations from the night - a bloke at the Squash sneaking glances of the BBC's stream of the England game on his phone at every chance he had (me: "Ah, England are winning. Who scored?" him "White" no 'Ellen' involved). The bar afterwards initially showing Italy-Poland from the Men's U21s (WTF?) but changing channel to England-Japan when I asked and a number of people turning their chairs around to watch the screens who had clearly been ignoring them previously. It's happening. Slowly but surely, the change is occurring (the effect in France is turbo-charged by all accounts).

[ursus arctos]

(the effect in France is turbo-charged by all accounts).

Among the travelling fans, yes, but the reports that I am getting from my friends on the ground is that you wouldn't necessarily know that there was a tournament on in Paris or Nice. That was true to a certain extent in New York in 1994 (in part because the matches were across the river), but it would still be nice to see more engagement.

That said, the television ratings are breaking all records for women (though not approaching those for a men's WC).

[San Bernardhinault]

I think it was Janik who made the point earlier that it's ridiculous at the moment to compare it to the global hegemon behemoth that is men's football. The better comparison is with non-men's-football major sporting events. Rugby or cricket world cups, or golf majors, or tennis majors, or that sort of thing. And, from my admittedly very limited experience, it seems to be standing that comparison OK.

[Janik]

No, I don't think I made that point exactly, at least not deliberately. I did mention the difference in commercial revenue the two tournaments generate as a distinct fly in the ointment in the equal pay debate. Which is driven by the overall higher interest levels in the Men's competition compared to the Women's. OK, maybe obliquely I referenced that after all.

The Cricket authorities in Britain have certainly taken notice. They were expecting their event to be comfortably the biggest thing around this summer, and that would generate public interest and momentum that could be used to sell the game and drive up playing numbers, particularly amongst kids (a 'legacy' to use the buzzword). If it hasn't exactly been like that for various reasons, the weather, the interminable tournament structure and the lack of live terrestrial TV coverage being major parts, it's also been because they find themselves with unexpected competition for back page space (taking 'back page space' both straight and as a metaphor for overall engagement). Which is a limited commodity. As was noted in many places, the England-Scotland match on the first weekend was watched by nearly 10 times as many people England Men's cricket games. Hence the recent suggestions that the Cricket Final may be broadcast live on a free-to-air channel after all. (caveat to that - the last Women's World Cup Final wasn't on free-to-air. And that created a substantial buzz, rather bigger than the Men's tournament is making so far. The impact of that may have skewed the ICC's thinking, or it may be that it's the tournament structure that is the real problem here).

There is a tinge of sadness in that, I think. Football was already the hegemon through the Men's game, but that did leave a gap every other summer for other sports to take their turn in the spotlight. If the Women's version of Football is going to outstrip those other sports because, after all, it's Football then those other interests are in a bleak place. Which may work for them, if it makes them take tough decisions to tell Sky et al for all the money they have pumped in, their platform is exclusionary and enforces privilege on account of it's cost and therefore giving the sport exclusively to them is a cancer killing the game. And don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out.


None of that is Women's Football's problem, of course. For social equity reasons, we need them to catch up with Men's Football. And the chances of that happening by a combined levelling up of the Women's game and levelling down of the Men's is unlikely. The Women are not going to draw interest away from Men's Football, what they can hope for is to suck it away from other sports (which happen to be mostly male ones, because, well, 2% online coverage etc.). That is precisely what appears to be happening.

[Patrick Thistle]

Anyone who thinks they can grow their sport and bring kids in by selling the rights of Sky deserve to fail imo.

[Hot Pepsi]

How expensive is Sky?

[Janik]

Various levels of package exist, including bulk discounts if you go to them for other things like phone contracts and broadband, but £44/month is a typical price for just TV that includes all sport, or £32/month for the general TV package with cricket as an add-on (Sky have recently rejigged their channels so people can now just buy Football or Cricket or Motorsport if they want). The cricket channel costs £10/month of that. However, to watch live coverage also requires a TV licence (even if you are watching only online) which is a further £12.56/month.

[Patrick Thistle]

Kids might not get a say in channel packages even if they are mad keen on sports.

[Hot Pepsi]

Cable in the US, which you have to have to see all the sports channels like ESPN, etc, is more than that, but not much more and it includes all the other cable stations. Not just sports.

Did Sky get the UK rights because they struck a bigger international deal?

[Patrick Thistle]

Sky routinely outbid all the free to air channels for everything.

[Janik]

It's a bit more than that - Sky will offer a much larger deal than others, but only for exclusive access to everything a sport does. Or at least everything that a particular organisation controls. They used to have that for Premier League Football until the EU ruled it was anti-competitive and insisted on at least one other channel having 1/6th of the games. However that ruling somehow doesn't apply to cricket.

The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) is responsible for both England teams and all domestic competitions and has sold everything they can find to Sky. I assume the World Cup was not tied in with that as that is under International Cricket Board control, but given the ECB's prominence for a home tournament and it's extremely close working relationship with Sky, the broadcaster was in a position of absolute strength to secure these rights as well. Given the amount of rights they hoover up, this is how Sky can have a dedicated Cricket channel.

The complete lock-down of the sport is Sky's business case. There is a stereotype that Cricket is watched by ABC1 types who find Football uncouth. Sky wanted to get more of this demographic to be subscribers, so they targeted Cricket (and Rugby Union for a while) as a means to get them. But doing so meant starving all other broadcasters of alternative offerings. That is what makes the possibility of the World Cup Final being on free-to-air interesting - if the biggest game of the season is available to those who haven't paid through the nose, the ones who have may feel short-changed.

[Sporting]

. That is what makes the possibility of the World Cup Final being on free-to-air interesting - if the biggest game of the season is available to those who haven't paid through the nose, the ones who have may feel short-changed.

Would they? If so, they would seem to me to be a bit mean.

[Fussbudget]

The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB)

That's pretty funny.

[Janik]

Indeed.

Would they? If so, they would seem to me to be a bit mean.

It's the same attitude that spends £50,000 pursuing £5,000 benefits frauds. But that also declines to spend £500,000 pursuing £5,000,000 in tax evasion.

[Hot Pepsi]

It's a bit more than that - Sky will offer a much larger deal than others, but only for exclusive access to everything a sport does. Or at least everything that a particular organisation controls. They used to have that for Premier League Football until the EU ruled it was anti-competitive and insisted on at least one other channel having 1/6th of the games. However that ruling somehow doesn't apply to cricket.

The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) is responsible for both England teams and all domestic competitions and has sold everything they can find to Sky. I assume the World Cup was not tied in with that as that is under International Cricket Board control, but given the ECB's prominence for a home tournament and it's extremely close working relationship with Sky, the broadcaster was in a position of absolute strength to secure these rights as well. Given the amount of rights they hoover up, this is how Sky can have a dedicated Cricket channel.

The complete lock-down of the sport is Sky's business case. There is a stereotype that Cricket is watched by ABC1 types who find Football uncouth. Sky wanted to get more of this demographic to be subscribers, so they targeted Cricket (and Rugby Union for a while) as a means to get them. But doing so meant starving all other broadcasters of alternative offerings. That is what makes the possibility of the World Cup Final being on free-to-air interesting - if the biggest game of the season is available to those who haven't paid through the nose, the ones who have may feel short-changed.

That is disappointing.

[Flynnie]

The last women’s WC final was on BBC4 wasn’t it? That’s free to air in my book.

The cricket WC is suffering in interest because it’s on Sky, end of. The 2015 Rugby World Cup blew away this year’s cricket WC in interest from the general public, and that’s due to ITV. Hell, they got 8 million for the final with no Home Nation in sight. They played the vast majority of games in Premier League stadiums, some well away from the rugby heartlands, and filled them up.

[Snake Plissken]

It's almost as if if you make sport accessible in this country, lots of people watch it. Wacky idea, I know.