I'm in two minds certainly, it's great all the games will be covered but how likely is it pubs/public places are going to have a premiersports subscription? By having a lesser known broadcaster it's doubtful many games will be shown in public places giving an already niche market to what is a niche sport.

Could Brian Barwick possibly have an influence on the BBC buying the rights???

Eddie and Stevo are going to have to be pretty imaginative to find ways to not mention this before the end of the season.

I have Virgin Media - which is bad news as far as Premier Sports go

Lol this is a joke post right?

You seriously don't believe that sky were outbid from the BBC and now the BBC is paying top money for rugby league coverage. If it was straight up bidding war we will know sky would blow the BBC put of the water. Lets not pretend this is any different.

The RFL probably decided that they wanted all the big games on FTA TV even if it meant taking less money. Sky then probably either told the RFL they were not interested in any deal that does not cover the big matches or they wanted the rights dirt cheap.

But hey if you wanna live in this fantasy world that has the BBC as some big time player in the sports TV broadcasting world then go ahead..

Just to point out, the TV rights were sold to IMG. It's up to them who they sell them onto and for what price.

No Eddie and Stevo

Weren’t IMG paid to sell them rather than IMG buying and then selling them on.

But hardly anyone has access to Premier Sports.

It's a daft move IMO unless Premier have paid big, big money, as the only people watching the games will be people who are already RL fans.

Having said that, it's great news that the BBC are involved for the foreseeable.

There's obviously going to be no reports or previews on sky sports news either. Sky don't want to know about sports they don't show. They barely touched F1 before they won the rights to live broadcasts

One game a week on the BBC and the rest shoved away on Premier Sports with it's 7 subscribers. No doubt BBC's highlights programme will be at 01:15 on a Monday morning on the red button too.

If games are too easy to watch on the sofa, fewer fans attend games...

Isn't it possible that sky may have gave the RFL no choice but to go to premier. Considering how sky passed in the 4 nations last year I think they made it clear they only want deals that involve the big international matches.

They could have said they were not interested in the minor games so the RFL were left with premier sports. The chances of premier paying big money for this are very slim..

It all depends how much money they have got for the coverage. If it's nothing, then it's not that great a deal. League, whilst it might get okay viewing figures on the BBC, is never going to be one of those sports that gets mass media support so the tournament will never gain the traction and hype it needs to in order to leave a positive legacy.

I think at this stage holding a tournament that doesn't have completely embarrassing attendances (Doubt we'll achieve that) and doesn't bankrupt the RFL is probably the best they can hope for.

Exactly, if every game was on freeview people would be hyperventilating about empty stadiums. Can't win!

Well as one of those seven subscribers I'm highly delighted.

Well done to all involved getting some quality matches back on the BBC.

Does it worry anyone that Sky weren't interested? Hopefully it doesn't indicate their interest in League is not what it once was.

Its not a bad move, although its a shame some of the other group game won't be on Sky but at least they'll be showing highlights on the beeb.

Good news about the 4Ns as well.

Plus we'll have Dave Woods, Balding, Millward and Noble instead of Eddie and Stevo, although I hope they keep Ray French away from the comentary box.

I'm convinced Sky will have wanted the deal. Too bad...

How do you know they weren't?

Do you honestly believe it will make that much difference? For example when Scotland are playing do you think spectators who don't normally watch league who may think 'ooh I quite fancy seeing how scotland get on' after finding out it's not available to watch without paying a subscription, will suddenly decide to attend the match?

Sky will always be interested in super league. Its a good product for them!

Last years 4 Nations showed that they are not interested in the smaller international games though.

I wonder if BT vision showed any interest or was premier the only option after BBC got the big games package.

Personally im really happy. If any non RL fans were going to watch a match to see what its like it would be England they would want to watch. England on BBC rest on premier sports.

Premier sports btw i see as great value. £9.99 a month all the NRL, SoO and world cup.

Cant knock it as a RL fan.

I'm sure BT were in the run-in. It was rumoured at one point they were favourires for the rights.

Having all the England games live on Free to Air was the absolute key in any deal for RLWC 2013.

The rest is just window dressing.

If folk want to watch the minor nations then they'll do so, whether it's on Sky, BBC or Premier. No channel is going to pick up massive viewer numbers for Scotland v Tonga or France v Samoa, hence no bidder is likely to have offered a sizeable amount of money for the rights to them.

My understanding is the television rights were sold to IMG. IMG then set up cameras, sound, edit, graphics, big screen for video referee etc.

IMG then sell all the images to BBC and Premier Sports, and you'll see a tiny watermark in the top or bottom corner of the screen like in the 2008 World Cup, and many other major sporting events like the Premier League, Rugby World Cup, Olympics, Cricket World Cup etc.



Yes. I do wonder how much of an impact this will have on the Sky-Rugby League relationship. However until recent years Sky always had international rights included in their Super League deal. The latest domestic broadcast deal was Super League rights only, so in the past Sky were essentially getting international tournaments for free.

Now that has gone, Sky want value for money. They can't be seen to be throwing money at the so-called minor games like USA v Cook Islands and Ireland v Fiji, when in terms of ratings, which affects advertising, they will get a very small figure (because even RL supporters are skeptical about the international game and won't watch it!)

From my understanding of reading the trade press and seeing journalist's Tweets on social media, Sky were never offered a big game in the tournament. It was all given to the BBC.

Yes, its important England get as much exposure on free-to-air TV as possible, but this deal negates a lot of what the RLWC2013 organisers and the RFL wanted - to generate nationwide interest in the tournament for the future of the game all over the country. How? By alienating new and current fans alike from watching the majority of matches. BBC are only showing six of the 28 matches, remember! The rest is only on Premier Sports.

In my opinion Wales, Scotland and Ireland will be feeling very hard done to. They have tried to build up their involvement in the tournament, and for the future of the game in those countries. Many new people taking an interest in whats on their doorstep may turn up on the day in Neath, Cardiff or Bristol, but if they like what they see and want more, as someone above me says, are they going to shell out £10.99 a month for a fixed term to watch the rest of the tournament? No. Which makes it more likely new fans going to those games will see our World Cup as a one time thing and never go or get involved in the sport again.

A solution? BBC and Sky could have shared key matches, like they did in the Four Nations at Wembley two years ago, and give each broadcaster one exclusive England game v either Ireland or Fiji. BBC then get first pick of the quarter finals and semi finals, with both sharing the final like in 2000.

That would have given Sky an incentive to broadcast the remainder of the matches that the BBC weren't interested in, therefore making the entire tournament more accessible in pubs, and to those millions that already subscribe to Sky Sports packages.

If money coming in from the broadcast deal wasn't a big factor, then reducing the price so both BBC and Sky could share games should have been considered.

However on the other side of the coin, and I realise I may be turning back on myself here, if the TV deal was sold onto IMG for them to negotiate with broadcasters, then IMG would have only sold it on for profit and the highest bidder whatever the cost to the good of the game overall.