[Sean_A]

I guess it was inevitable.  No question to me the Open fan takes a beating with this one.  Losing no commercial coverage is a huge loss.  Looking on the bright side, I guess I will have a lot more time on my hands during Open week.  I will miss it at first, but over time I won't, just like I don't miss watching weekly golf like I used to.  Times change, but there is no way I am getting Sky...its crazy expensive and airs a bunch of shit just like anybody else. 

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Unbelievable. If ever the R&A were interested in growing the game in the UK this decision shows it certainly is no longer the case. Its a disgrace

John I think you'll find the R&A is a global organisation and the UK only forms a moderate proportion of their work.

Paul - what are the BBC golf viewing figures in Brazil, Angola & Portugal?

Mahrk,

I think you that the UK forms the biggest part of their support and they would not be able to do anything like the same amount of work without it. Where would the R&A be without UK golfers?  Most UK golfers really appreciate the extensive coverage of The Open which has been openly available yet the R&A seem to feel it is okay to stick two fingers up at them all. However, this is nothing new as the R&A have shown very little interest in UK golfers in recent years.

Jon

[Dane Hawker]

You guys think that is bad. In New Zealand we have lost the PGA Tour, LPGA and European Tour to an online internet only service. Just as Lydia Ko has a chance to becoming number 1 in the world.

We have substandard internet with low data caps. It was on a pay channel but most people had it. Golf viewership in our county will drop to 1 percent.

[Bob_Huntley]

rian
Its "a price of everything and the value of Nothing " decision.

First time I've heard that expression and absolutely hits the nail on the head.

Brian,

It has been around since 1880 when Oscar Wilde used it in his play 'Vera'.

Bob

[Mark Bourgeois]

But any answer must answer another question first - how does an organization turn down tens of millions of additional dollars/pounds to its annual operating budget? How does senior management at the USGA and the R&A explain to their various constituencies that it has declined vast sums of money for broadcast rights, however badly those broadcast rights might be handled? I don't have a good answer to that question either.

Bob  

Bob, generally speaking, yours is an easy question to address. These are nonprofits because they answer to a mission no for-profit entity would take on. In these particular cases, the governing bodies very likely did not decline "vast" sums of money as I'm sure the #2 bidders offered sums in a close-by zip code, at least on an annual or all-things-considered basis.

The R&A and USGA broadcast decisions have their own logics, it seems. Sky at least has a track record for broadcast golf, but the penalty exacted will be smaller reach. The USGA's decision keeps their national opens on terrestrial broadcasts but going with an untested partner especially for such a long term is a risky decision to put it charitably. In the end, both decisions perhaps come down to a utilitarian argument along the lines of, let's put our crown jewels down on our partners' Pass line and hope our partners roll hot dice. Meanwhile let's take this pile of money and--

To me, both networks decisions remind me that The Masters remains the world's greatest sporting event. The love and respect shown by the club to viewers and patrons alike grows more anachronistic by the year across the entire world of sports.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Do we know for sure that the BBC actually want to continue covering the Open? The corporation seems to have virtually withdrawn completely from live sports coverage and I imagine that setting up to cover one golf tournament per year has got crazy expensive.

Under the current contract the BBC pay £7m per year. The new Sky deal is £10m. The small difference leads me to suspect that the Beeb wasn't even putting in an offer for after 2016.

I can just imagine that there might well be a lefty anti-golf sentiment within the higher echelons of the organisation.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jan/31/sky-sports-open-rights-bbc

[Ed Tilley]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/801645.html

Shortsighted in the extreme. Cricket took the plunge in 2005 and numbers are falling. This is despite the fact that the money the ECB received from Sky compared to terrestrial was way higher than the £3m differential here. The Open, and the Masters, are the shop window for golf in the UK. The Masters has no obligation to further participation in the UK, but the R&A certainly should have.

I have Sky, and the coverage of sport is much better - e.g. Why would you watch the Champions League final on ITV when you can watch on Sky. However, that is not really the point here.

[Thomas Dai]

Won't be long before the par-3's during The Open resemble the 16th at the TPC Scottsdale Stadium Course during the Phoenix Open (sic)!
atb

[Scott Macpherson]

It seems to me that there is a broader moral issue here about whether the BBC have a duty to supply the UK residents who pay there TV Licence fee with The Open Championship, and then a business discussion about the costs of doing it. I don't know any of the figures being discussed in regards to the costs, but IF the BBC have to pay the R&A £7m in a broadcast fee, the BBC will probably have significant other costs to factor into their overall broadcast costs (e.g. wages and accommodation for on-Air talent, camera people, drivers etc) power costs, transportation, loss of advertising revenue (from not screening other programmes) etc etc. The total costs may have been just too high for the BBC to stomach – they have had a bit of a rough ride in the last few years.

 I don't suspect this was an easy decision for the BBC or the R&A, but I suspect SKY will think this is great for their business.

[Marty Bonnar]

I like to think the BBC is kind of like the NHS. Something I'm very proud of and only too happy to pay for as I feel their contribution to British life is vital. They're both so intertwined with our national psyche that it would be very odd if we ever lost either.
However, sport is now so money led that it's been obvious for many years that Auntie Beeb would never be able to keep up with bidding for any popular event where the organisers could auction the coverage to the highest bidder. So be it. I'm bored with Peter Alliss' schtick anyway. Paying an annual licence fee equivalent to a couple of months Sky subscription can simply never compete.
The Beeb can now concentrate on the stuff it does well. Great science programmes, brilliant period dramas, worthy social commentary. They still need to rationalise their radio, internet, international news reporting and so on. There's even been chat about abolishing the licence fee. We live in interesting times...

F.

[Brian_Ewen]

BBC went into negotiations thinking they would get the same deal as they got with The Masters, a highlights and live weekend coverage package.

This time Sky refused to play.

[David_Tepper]

Who broadcasts the Wimbledon tennis in the UK these days?

[Tim_Cronin]

Who broadcasts the Wimbledon tennis in the UK these days?

BBC. There's an interesting law in the UK that mandates over-the-air live TV of certain sports events, including the men's and women's final at Wimbledon. But the BBC has rights to the entire fortnight through 2017. The Open Championship used to be on that mandated coverage list, but was removed some years back.

[BHoover]

I spent a summer at Oxford back in 2003, and remember how great the BBC coverage of The Open was with no commercials.

As long as BBC continues to show Top Gear, I won't complain.

[Mike_Clayton]

I'm not sure if the BBC do it but the radio broadcast of The Open is more interesting than the televised version. Of course no pictures is a huge minus but the commentary is miles better.

[Duncan Cheslett]

On the positive side at least the bar-take at golf clubs around the country will soar as members watch the Open there rather than at home!

[Duncan Cheslett]

BBC went into negotiations thinking they would get the same deal as they got with The Masters, a highlights and live weekend coverage package.

This time Sky refused to play.

So that's it. The BBC had no intention of continuing to cover the Open in the same way as they have until now. Instead they wanted to piggy-back on Sky's coverage like they do with their football highlights programmes.

The complexity and costs involved with putting a team together to televise one golf tournament a year is doubtless the problem . Sky meanwhile, do it every week somewhere in the world and so have the infrastructure readily available.

I guess it's long been inevitable but it is still a sad day.

[Brian_Ewen]

I'm not sure if the BBC do it but the radio broadcast of The Open is more interesting than the televised version.

Yes, they normally cover it on BBC Radio 5 Live, along with the other Majors.

[Brian_Ewen]

So that's it. The BBC had no intention of continuing to cover the Open in the same way as they have until now. Instead they wanted to piggy-back on Sky's coverage like they do with their football highlights programmes.

And Formula One.

[Brian_Ewen]

On the positive side at least the bar-take at golf clubs around the country will soar as members watch the Open there rather than at home!

Not a lot of clubs in my area, can afford Sky.

How much is it now for such Clubs & Pubs ?

Somewhere around £900 a month I think ?

[Mark Pearce]

Yes, the Sky package for clubs is very expensive.  Fine if you're a pub relying on live football to bring punters in but no good for most golf clubs.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Is that why the commentary on ours is always in Kazakhstani? 

[Ryan Coles]

On the positive side at least the bar-take at golf clubs around the country will soar as members watch the Open there rather than at home!

Not a lot of clubs in my area, can afford Sky.

How much is it now for such Clubs & Pubs ?

Somewhere around £900 a month I think ?

Claimed to be based on rateable value. Ours is half that which is still a lot of extra pints to sell for it to be self funding. Purely in financial terms it doesn't stack up for most golf clubs.

[Sam Krume]

This is such an unbelievable decision. To have the participantion numbers down year on year, I thought that the R&A's responsability was to grow the game. Now we have no golf on terrestrial tv in the UK. So I guess to be inspire the new generation by seeing a Rory or Tiger, you have be a subscriber to Mr Murdoch and i  certainly don't want to hear the incessant droning on of a certain Mark Roe. I don't want sky. Very poor decision Mr Dawson.

[Mark Chaplin]

Sam as I said before the R&A has global responsibility for the game outside USA & Mexico not just in Blighty. The opportunities to grow the game in South America and South East Asia are far greatly than in the UK. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()