It`s not easy to see the sports involved actually arguing too much to be honest. Yes the idea that their sport has been `dissed` might be one objection, but that would be counterbalanced by ruling bodies looking at the moolahs that could be earned by offering the sport to Sky, or whoever else might come along in the future. After all, each of the events on the list (including the ones on the `new` list) are `blue riband` events which draw big audiences and create a lot of interest so they all have a big value in the subscription/pay per view market.

Different agenda by different sports, say for instance ECB prefer the Ashes to be off the protected list because they can get more from Sky. The Rfl might prefer the CC to be on the list more for the games better coverage via Freeview than the money!

But not being on the list doesnt mean the RFL have to sell to the hightest bidder , so if they want to go with the widest range they can , and i think they will, its widey accepted that to have your sport 100% on pay per view is detrimental to the long term public interest

That's exactly the main point I think. Not being on the list means it can provoke a bidding war. That may well mean that the BBC (and potentially other free tv channels) will have to bid more than they currently do to try to rival Sky. Even if Sky bid loads, the RFL can still accept the BBC offer so that it stays on terrestrial, but therefore end up with more money out of them.

As long as it stays on terrestrial anyway, it may end up better that it's not on the list.

The party currently ahead in the polls is making noises about cutting back on the licence fee so it may well be that the next few years aren`t going to be the best time to sell rights to sporting events.