AN
That had come to mind for me, and that's the most likely outcome. There is still something to play for - in fact, a lot to play for - as England will want to avoid the tougher route in the knockout stages. But I don't know how much that would register for the casual viewer.
Ideally, the first game and a knockout game would have been preferable. But given the mentality in England had switched pre-tournament from "England expects" to "England expects nothing", I can't blame ITV for thinking the third game may have been a safer option. If England are playing badly, then it becomes a nail-biter and must-watch. If England are doing well, the country will be engaged and they're guaranteed two games (given the second round game is also included).
I also wonder if that 20 million figure would have translated to the same had it been on ITV. Not because of the quality of any of the BBC coverage, but simply for the placement on the TV remote control and the amount of publicity the BBC's various outlets would have been giving the game in the build-up to kick-off.
Going by the previous comments in this thread, it does seem the BBC has the upper hand in negotiations. If games are simulcast then the BBC will demolish ITV by default, and they'll both know that.
I doubt ITV would have deliberately gone for the 3rd game
Probably that the BBC went with the 1st game, and then the 3rd One is better than the 2nd one
Andrew
Founding member
Of course if England beat Panama and Belgium beat Tunisia, England and Belgium will already have qualified come ITV's group game next week.
That had come to mind for me, and that's the most likely outcome. There is still something to play for - in fact, a lot to play for - as England will want to avoid the tougher route in the knockout stages. But I don't know how much that would register for the casual viewer.
Ideally, the first game and a knockout game would have been preferable. But given the mentality in England had switched pre-tournament from "England expects" to "England expects nothing", I can't blame ITV for thinking the third game may have been a safer option. If England are playing badly, then it becomes a nail-biter and must-watch. If England are doing well, the country will be engaged and they're guaranteed two games (given the second round game is also included).
I also wonder if that 20 million figure would have translated to the same had it been on ITV. Not because of the quality of any of the BBC coverage, but simply for the placement on the TV remote control and the amount of publicity the BBC's various outlets would have been giving the game in the build-up to kick-off.
Going by the previous comments in this thread, it does seem the BBC has the upper hand in negotiations. If games are simulcast then the BBC will demolish ITV by default, and they'll both know that.
I doubt ITV would have deliberately gone for the 3rd game
Probably that the BBC went with the 1st game, and then the 3rd One is better than the 2nd one
SW
Yes, that is pretty much exactly right. I don't think the 2002 bit is quite right, mind. In Des Lynam's autobiography he says that in 1998 he wrote a letter, on behalf of the whole of BBC Sport, to the controllers to say that they wanted the Beeb to say that they'd show all the England matches and that ITV could show them all as well if they wanted to. He said the Beeb could easily say that the ratings and audience reaction illustrated that the public wanted it. But they said they wouldn't do that because ITV would go blubbing to the papers. He also says that the Beeb were completely thrown by ITV getting England vs Argentina and vowed from then on to be smarter in their picks, but when they did that, "they were working against me, not with me".
Euro 2000 is the tournament when both channels were really aggressive, Brian Barwick had gone to ITV and obviously they'd just signed Des and they were really aggressive in their picks and, as you say, they even simulcast England vs Germany in the group stage. I remember Barwick in the press launch talking up all their picks and poo-pooing the Beeb's choices ("we've got France vs Holland, they've got Norway vs Slovenia") which is not really in the spirit of the thing. France vs Holland was a complete dead rubber in the end. And then they simulcast all the knockout games for both England and Ireland in 2002 (Des: "Watch it with us - we'll throw in the tea breaks!"). It wasn't such a big issue there as they were all out of primetime. In the end they got very poor ratings - I think it was the Beeb's biggest ever margin of victory over ITV - and clearly they decided after that it was no longer worth the bother and they'd be better off concentrating on their exclusive matches.
They would have simulcast the semi-final in 2006 had England been in it, it was announced at the time. But they weren't, so they didn't.
I don't think so. The highest rated match in the last three World Cups has been an England match on ITV. It's also definitely been the case in four of the last five, and I think it might actually be all of the last five, because I think England vs Sweden in 2002 got the highest individual rating. ITV can, and do, get enormous ratings in the World Cup.
It's likely to be a repeat of 2006 when England played Sweden in the last group game, both having won their previous two and already qualified and the only issue being who played who in the second round. And it was the highest rated match of the tournament.
Used to work a bit like that - the two two sit down and argue it out, meaning negotiations took ages. The BBC would tend to gamble on England reaching the knock out stages and ITV would want the guaranteed advertising revenue of the England group games. Before the 90s it would often be the case that each would have an England (or home nation) game exclusively and then simulcast the rest. Other games would be split. In 1998 the BBC gambled on England making the Quarter Finals, so ITV ended up with the ratings blockbuster against Argentina in the second round. (For Euro 2000 they couldn't agree how to split the England games, so they showed one each exclusively, simulcast the game against Germany and would have done the same with any knockout games.) For 2002 the BBC - as Steve Williams said recently here or in the 'other place - were desperate (having lost the Premier League highlights rights) to prove they were still a big player in football and - allegedly - threatened to just show everything. In the end ITV got England v Sweden on a Sunday morning and the BBC the two weekday games (including the Argentina game) with the second round and knock out games being simulcast.
Yes, that is pretty much exactly right. I don't think the 2002 bit is quite right, mind. In Des Lynam's autobiography he says that in 1998 he wrote a letter, on behalf of the whole of BBC Sport, to the controllers to say that they wanted the Beeb to say that they'd show all the England matches and that ITV could show them all as well if they wanted to. He said the Beeb could easily say that the ratings and audience reaction illustrated that the public wanted it. But they said they wouldn't do that because ITV would go blubbing to the papers. He also says that the Beeb were completely thrown by ITV getting England vs Argentina and vowed from then on to be smarter in their picks, but when they did that, "they were working against me, not with me".
Euro 2000 is the tournament when both channels were really aggressive, Brian Barwick had gone to ITV and obviously they'd just signed Des and they were really aggressive in their picks and, as you say, they even simulcast England vs Germany in the group stage. I remember Barwick in the press launch talking up all their picks and poo-pooing the Beeb's choices ("we've got France vs Holland, they've got Norway vs Slovenia") which is not really in the spirit of the thing. France vs Holland was a complete dead rubber in the end. And then they simulcast all the knockout games for both England and Ireland in 2002 (Des: "Watch it with us - we'll throw in the tea breaks!"). It wasn't such a big issue there as they were all out of primetime. In the end they got very poor ratings - I think it was the Beeb's biggest ever margin of victory over ITV - and clearly they decided after that it was no longer worth the bother and they'd be better off concentrating on their exclusive matches.
They would have simulcast the semi-final in 2006 had England been in it, it was announced at the time. But they weren't, so they didn't.
That had come to mind for me, and that's the most likely outcome. There is still something to play for - in fact, a lot to play for - as England will want to avoid the tougher route in the knockout stages. But I don't know how much that would register for the casual viewer.
I also wonder if that 20 million figure would have translated to the same had it been on ITV. Not because of the quality of any of the BBC coverage, but simply for the placement on the TV remote control and the amount of publicity the BBC's various outlets would have been giving the game in the build-up to kick-off.
I also wonder if that 20 million figure would have translated to the same had it been on ITV. Not because of the quality of any of the BBC coverage, but simply for the placement on the TV remote control and the amount of publicity the BBC's various outlets would have been giving the game in the build-up to kick-off.
I don't think so. The highest rated match in the last three World Cups has been an England match on ITV. It's also definitely been the case in four of the last five, and I think it might actually be all of the last five, because I think England vs Sweden in 2002 got the highest individual rating. ITV can, and do, get enormous ratings in the World Cup.
It's likely to be a repeat of 2006 when England played Sweden in the last group game, both having won their previous two and already qualified and the only issue being who played who in the second round. And it was the highest rated match of the tournament.
SW
I don't understand that. In many tournaments the third match has been absolutely crucial. I know it had nothing riding on it in the last World Cup but that was a freak occurrence. In 2010, 2002, 1998 and 1990, plus Euro 92, 2000, 2004 and 2012, it has been very important indeed. In this tournament it's also against the biggest team in the group by miles.
I doubt ITV would have deliberately gone for the 3rd game
Probably that the BBC went with the 1st game, and then the 3rd One is better than the 2nd one
Probably that the BBC went with the 1st game, and then the 3rd One is better than the 2nd one
I don't understand that. In many tournaments the third match has been absolutely crucial. I know it had nothing riding on it in the last World Cup but that was a freak occurrence. In 2010, 2002, 1998 and 1990, plus Euro 92, 2000, 2004 and 2012, it has been very important indeed. In this tournament it's also against the biggest team in the group by miles.
BM
BM11
In the event that England do only draw or lose against Panama it would increase the ratings for the Match v Belgium slightly as they would be a risk of England being eliminated and that would generate even more press coverage. ITV will know by Sunday 3pm if that is the case (which also includes a slight risk that if Tunisia beat Belgium on Saturday then England could go out with six points).
BM
BM11
Of course if England beat Panama and Belgium beat Tunisia, England and Belgium will already have qualified come ITV's group game next week.
That had come to mind for me, and that's the most likely outcome. There is still something to play for - in fact, a lot to play for - as England will want to avoid the tougher route in the knockout stages. But I don't know how much that would register for the casual viewer.
Ideally, the first game and a knockout game would have been preferable. But given the mentality in England had switched pre-tournament from "England expects" to "England expects nothing", I can't blame ITV for thinking the third game may have been a safer option. If England are playing badly, then it becomes a nail-biter and must-watch. If England are doing well, the country will be engaged and they're guaranteed two games (given the second round game is also included).
I also wonder if that 20 million figure would have translated to the same had it been on ITV. Not because of the quality of any of the BBC coverage, but simply for the placement on the TV remote control and the amount of publicity the BBC's various outlets would have been giving the game in the build-up to kick-off.
Going by the previous comments in this thread, it does seem the BBC has the upper hand in negotiations. If games are simulcast then the BBC will demolish ITV by default, and they'll both know that.
It would register more if the Round of 16 potential matches included a possibility of a Big team. But none of the possible four are in that category - and the Quarter final is a more distant thought.
JM
JamesM0984
This is true but then we got turned over by Iceland two years ago... 😂
Group H looks easy on paper regardless of who finishes where. The likely path seems to be we get to the quarter finals and inevitably lose to Brazil or Germany on penalties...
Group H looks easy on paper regardless of who finishes where. The likely path seems to be we get to the quarter finals and inevitably lose to Brazil or Germany on penalties...
PC
I wouldn't ever rule out England losing or drawing to Panama, as unlikely as it seems. However, the likelihood of England losing to Panama and Tunisia was incredibly low.
On paper, it looks like an England exit in either the second round or the quarters. However, if England got Germany then they look somewhat vulnerable this year. If there was ever a time to get them ...
On paper, it looks like an England exit in either the second round or the quarters. However, if England got Germany then they look somewhat vulnerable this year. If there was ever a time to get them ...