Yes but the point I'm making is that Cricket in England would be in the state it is now even if it was still on FTA. It would still be as popular as it is. The problem isn't that people aren't being exposed to the sport but that there are a sizeable amount of people who just don't enjoy it/haven't got the time to watch. The purpose of the comparison with football is to show that being locked behind paid subscriptions is not a significant enough factor to contribute to the perceived decline in interest. If it was then similarly low viewership figures would be apparent in premier league games as in international cricket. That these figures are continuously high reveals to me that there are people who have the opportunity to watch Cricket, as in they have the sky subscription but choose not to. It's a completely different issue than one which a move to FTA would ultimately solve.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Sky showing final free to air
- Thread starter flibbertyjibber
- Start date
honestbharani
Well-known member
Sounds like they will have to figure out some other way then. Here in India, Star which is very much pay TV has a FTA channel or two in its kitty and if something like this happens, they can simply show it on that channel as well. Plus they use it to advertise all their pay TV content.
zorax
likes this
Why is his point that EPL viewership has remained good despite going on Pay TV not valid support for his assertion?
honestbharani
Well-known member
To be fair, you have to check how much cricket viewership declined back when it was first put behind the pay wall if you wanna do the comparison with football. I do not follow football so I have no idea from when it has been behind the paywall but I assume it moved a lot more recently than cricket.
morgieb
Well-known member
The Premier League has never been FTA, actually. It's just that the situation is a lot different, their World Cup for example is still very much a FTA experience.
honestbharani
Well-known member
Oh okie.. sorry, didn't know that. I suppose a fairer comparison would be with cricket in India when every Indian LO game is shown live on Terrestial (not just FTA) channels. But not the tests. And I dont think they even show highlights of the test matches on Terrestial or FTA channels.
morgieb
Well-known member
Ha, the situation is literally the opposite in Australia (since last year anyway). Tests are live on FTA but ODI's/T20's are locked to subscription TV. We do get the BBL on FTA but a lot of the better timeslots are exclusively on subscription TV for some odd reason.
cpr
Well-known member
Comparing it to football is mad, yes its behind a paywall now, but remember the CL only went behind one 2-3 years ago, and even the Prem, which has been behind it since 92, has so much FTA coverage in MOTD, football focus, making the nightly news etc, that it's coverage in highlight packages alone exceeds crickets total coverage.
Howe_zat
Well-known member
The culture is just completely different. Football is omnipresent, all other sports are niche. Most football fans are not sports fans.
So much cricket correspondence in this country is moaning about it not being free to air and it always just strikes me as hopelessly needy and childish. Most people don't like cricket. It's not on free to air because no one gives a ****.
Why do people need the thing they're into to be more popular than it is?
So much cricket correspondence in this country is moaning about it not being free to air and it always just strikes me as hopelessly needy and childish. Most people don't like cricket. It's not on free to air because no one gives a ****.
Why do people need the thing they're into to be more popular than it is?
Last edited:
Bijed
Well-known member
The timing of cricket going behind a paywall ended up being pretty bad, though. Loads of people got really into the 2005 Ashes and although I imagine interest in the sport would have mostly dropped off that peak anyway, I'm pretty certain a decent number of people would have maintained a more permanent interest if it hadn't immediately disappeared off FTA
zorax
likes this
the concern is that it's decreasing in popularity over the years, and if that keeps happening we're going to start having less of it. Not just less cricket to watch, but less opportunities to play and fewer people to talk to about it. Which is quite sad tbh. Imagine growing up spending all your time playing and watching a sport you love, but then as you get older it becomes harder to follow or take part in, all because everyone around you seems to have lost interest, and as a result the sport is forced to go commercial and gets hidden from public view as a result.
We're already losing out on great 5-match Test Series in exchange more commercial and easily sold formats. The IPL already shuts down cricket for 2 months a year. And if you're a fan living outside of traditional markets, your access to the game - be it watching or playing - is so limited, you may as well switch to a different sport.
Cricket's still very healthy, but for all the talk of being the '2nd most popular sport in the world', it's really just popular in the subcontinent, and everywhere else it is well behind sports like football, tennis, basketball, and arguably even rugby. Perhaps it's behind boxing and MMA as well. And maybe more sports I can't remember off the top of my head.
That's why we all want it to be more popular. Just to safeguard it's future, and thus our happiness.
FTA highlights of football are definitely more popular and well put together than cricket, but my main point is that viewership of live premier league games, locked behind a paid subscription, still garner massive views. Subsequently what this shows is that there are many, many viewers who can watch the cricket if they like; enough so that the game would comfortably be the second biggest sport in the country. Hence, the problem isn't the move from FTA initiating a decline in interest since no one could actually watch the sport anymore, but that interest was always declining. The 2005 ashes was a freak series in terms of interest. There was always going to be a decline afterwards.
The concept that the move from FTA was some cataclysmic event in the history of the game in England, that firmly disrupted the popularity of the sport and cemented it into some continuous and inevitable decline just seems so bizarre to me, when the problem is with the sport itself. There was a reason it moved from FTA in the first place and that was because FTA channels didn't really want it.
Oh wow, hang in there bro. We will make cricket great again #mcga
It was only after we lost cricket on terrestrial telly in 2005 that I truly realized how important the game was to me . The internet was still in it's infancy locally really so DAB radio was an essential purchase for lots of British cricket fans .
To be totally fair , the BBC did loads on the digital platform for the true hardcore fans . Womens games , off season warmups in Dubai . The BBC promoted a whole batch of stuff we never had much access to before . Fast forward a load of years and every ball of every County game has radio commentary online . I think every homeground has fixed internet cameras . All that level of access was unthinkable in 2005 . We may have had some on the telly but that was about it . You read about scores in the newspaper .
Even today BBC radio are still kicking arse . ABC Test coverage , The Big Bash , IPL ...loads of cricket .
I don't honestly think that putting cricket behind a paywall was bad for interest . 900 000 UK people listened to the India-Pakistan game online the other day ...that's just the online audience ...and plenty of us still use Longwave and DAB ....and plenty using their PS4s and NowTV and umpteen dubious sites to bypass a Sky contract...plus the Sky audience .
It's only really in the 3G age that a British person can follow a team like they can a football team . If anything that Sky money has opened up the game .
Personally I would be happy with the current situation if they sorted out 'ondemand' access for British fans . The PayTV 'model' is looking a bit dated in the wireless age . I don't have Sky because I don't want a subscription with them but I would pay Sky good money for 'ondemand' games long after the result .
To be totally fair , the BBC did loads on the digital platform for the true hardcore fans . Womens games , off season warmups in Dubai . The BBC promoted a whole batch of stuff we never had much access to before . Fast forward a load of years and every ball of every County game has radio commentary online . I think every homeground has fixed internet cameras . All that level of access was unthinkable in 2005 . We may have had some on the telly but that was about it . You read about scores in the newspaper .
Even today BBC radio are still kicking arse . ABC Test coverage , The Big Bash , IPL ...loads of cricket .
I don't honestly think that putting cricket behind a paywall was bad for interest . 900 000 UK people listened to the India-Pakistan game online the other day ...that's just the online audience ...and plenty of us still use Longwave and DAB ....and plenty using their PS4s and NowTV and umpteen dubious sites to bypass a Sky contract...plus the Sky audience .
It's only really in the 3G age that a British person can follow a team like they can a football team . If anything that Sky money has opened up the game .
Personally I would be happy with the current situation if they sorted out 'ondemand' access for British fans . The PayTV 'model' is looking a bit dated in the wireless age . I don't have Sky because I don't want a subscription with them but I would pay Sky good money for 'ondemand' games long after the result .
Last edited:
cpr
Well-known member
On demand doesn't seem to have taken off for sport, beyond PPV events. But then why would I want to watch 100 overs of cricket when I can just watch an hour highlights package? Same really for football, unless it was a super amazing game or a massive event.
NowTV do offer day passes for sports, not really worth the price (usually about £8 a day) unless its something major like a final - and even then most TV providers tend to throw that free to air to entice customers to their service (ie BT sport with the CL/Europa finals)
NowTV do offer day passes for sports, not really worth the price (usually about £8 a day) unless its something major like a final - and even then most TV providers tend to throw that free to air to entice customers to their service (ie BT sport with the CL/Europa finals)
Arachnodouche
Well-known member
I was in the UK this June for ten days. Did not watch a game but did not hear a peep about the world cup either save the odd news blurb on TV. Nothing inside the pubs, no random billboards (if that's a thing in that august land), just the two shabby posters inside the subway. The vibe I got was of a novelty tournament which the public will get behind if Eng go the distance, like they would if Eng suddenly started playing and got good at ice hockey for example, only to promptly return to type afterwards.