Here in Oz every game is televised either on Fox sports or Ch9.

Why do Sky not show more SL games? Isn't SL the 2nd most watched sport on Sky?

I would have thought a Fri night game, a Saturday 6pm game and a Sunday afternoon game would have been possible, could also be a good reason to increase the TV deal and bring in another team.

Alternatively why not sell one game a week to a FTA channel and let Sky continue with its two games?

i agree with this.

the RFL should offer more games to Sky or the BBC to get more money.

more coverage of games helps the game to grow.

the trouble is the RFL signed over an exclusive deal with SKY for big bucks to bail the clubs and the game in general out, a deal incidently for which there were no rival bidders. They didn't sell individual matches but the whole league season so they haven't anything else to sell.

Also the choice of how many games are broadcast and which ones are totally up to sky as part of the deal. If they want to show a full round as they did with murrayfield magic they can, but they are more than happy with generally 2 games a week. They put more resources into premier league football obviously as the No1 spectactor sport in this country. Clearly your broadcasters in oz do the same for the No1 spectactor sport in your country.

difference is our N02 sport is also shown every game, as is our number 3 and number 4 sports!

I just don't understand why Sky do not want more SL airtime when it seems to be a popular choice for viewers? Likewise are Sky really paying a premium for exclusive content? Seems to me in relation to the RU deal they are not actually paying that much. It would be interesting to have gone to the open market with packaged deals ie Sky Friday and Saturday games and BBC/AN Other Sunday afternoon game. Are we underselling the game?

Several reasons.

1. Sky have a large portfolio of sports rights to schedule. In comparison to some of those sports, RL is pretty small fry.
2. Whilst RL does get an audience, the value to certain advertisers is less than it is for other sports.
3. Television does have an affect on game attendances. There would be some resistance by certain clubs to having every game televised.

Those are just three off the top of my (hungover) head.

I'm led to believe that advertising during SL games is one of the most expensive packages SKY offer with only soccer and European Cup RU costing more.

A system similar to that JB posts in this country could be beneficial to all super league clubs if sky would up the money. I read somewhere S.L. was the second most watched sport for club games in the country.

I'd say that test cricket will be up there ahead of RL and RU (across the board) is a massive advertising attraction for Sky.

An occasional sunday game would surley get a very good audience. Say if it were placed after the football like the WCC was and it got good viewing figures.

I think you are doing the RFL a grave dis-service. If memory serves, they comuissioned IMG to broker the TV deal. They went to a consultant who was no doubt on comission to secure the best deal for them.

Technically it is a harder game to cover and yer standard TV cameramen can't cope with speed and knowledge to cover the game properly.

Only the best can cover RL wheras all the other sports are so easy to cover and don't require a great deal of nounce

I think it all comes down to facial hair. We dont have enough facial hair in Super League.