While race fans in Britain and up in arms about the idea of having to pay for Formula 1 coverage, the deal that has been struck might not have been his doing. Just two weeks ago Ecclestone told The Daily Telegraph’s Christian Sylt that: “it isn’t possible that F1 could go on to pay-TV. We wouldn’t want to do that” and yet a few days later BBC TV and Sky Sports have announced that they have combined forces to win the lives rights to the sport between 2012 and 2018.
The partnership will include “all races, qualifying and practice sessions being shown live on Sky Sports across TV, online and mobile and tablet devices, while half the races and qualifying sessions will remain live on BBC TV, online and mobile including key races such at the British Grand Prix, Monaco Grand Prix and the final race of the season”. This odd situation means that Sky has effectively taken over the rights, but the BBC will transmit its coverage at the same time… a very odd state of affairs. There will continue to be “extensive BBC highlights on TV, online and mobile, of all races and qualifying sessions that BBC is not covering live”, plus “build up coverage of each Grand Prix on BBC News, Sky Sports News and Sky News”.
Sky Sports has said that it will not run advertising during its broadcasts, but will have them in the pre and post-race shows. Fans who purchase the Sky Sports package and pay for it on a monthly basis will not have to pay any extra.
Fans are blaming Bernie Ecclestone for the deal but it may be that the idea comes from the BBC which had a contract to fulfil until the end of 2013. With Ecclestone suggesting that it would cost money to terminate the deal early the BBC bean-counters may have concluded that the best option was to shift the deal across to Sky, while keeping coverage for itself in order to keep a level of the prestige that F1 brings to a broadcaster. The BBC was keen to continue because of the high viewing figures but because of the need for financial cutbacks the coverage had to be axed. This way it is a win-win for everyone as Sky gets a foot-in-the-door, the BBC keeps its name associated with the sport and some of the viewers, while Ecclestone maintains a high level profile in the UK and the opportunity to show the teams that the sport can perhaps move to pay-TV in the future, without losing too many fans and sponsors.
may be win-win situaiton for them, but not for fans who don’t want to pay for Sky and already paying licence fee.
If the sport goes to Sky, F1 is certainly losing me as a fan. I could bare adverts at ITV, but I am definitely NOT paying for Sky TV.
Complete travesty. I’m an aero student looking to get in F1; I learned much from the Free Practice Sessions and watch religiously every weekend. I already spend money on races, merch, season reviews and technical analysis books. What more do they want? £32/month is a weeks worth of food, and I simply can’t afford it.
Thank god the BBC have managed to save BBC4 with this move though; a channel famous for showing nothing of interest except repeats of documentaries and Top Gear re-runs. Oh wait, that’s what Dave shows…
Goodbye, Formula One…
How does this affect the Australian viewers who watch OneHD (who in turn use the BBC coverage)?
Currently, Sky’s online content is a subscription only service. Is that going to change for this. I think not. As I read it, each broadcaster will make their coverage available online, so 50% of the season will be unavailable except by subscription. It’ll be interesting to see the teams view on this.
Potentially, but based on the reaction on the internet, viewing figures could drop like a stone as F1 fans aren’t prepared to pay, which will mean the sponsors are less willing to pay, which forces the poorer teams (Virgin, HRT, Sauber, Williams) out, which leaves a small grid which pushes viewing figures down, which attracts fewer fans and the cycle continues.
Football survived because people can actually go to see it in the flesh, while sports like cricket and rugby don’t have enough money going around for the switch to pay TV to make a huge difference.
This is a mistake, and everyone except the BBC, Sky and Bernie knows it!
Surely for the consumer this is an even worse deal than a 100% Sky deal? This means people who don’t currently have Sky Sports will need to spend an extra £15-£30/month (and that’s before they even get HD) to get the coverage of the 10 races not on BBC – which is terrible value, particularly if you happen to loathe football like I do. If there were a deal where you could pay by the race (and thus avoid funding football, rugby league and other such things) then it might make a little more sense, but this is just a total rip off. There’s not a chance I’ll be paying this next year, which means I either go ‘underground’ and hunt down a stream while listening to 5 Live or just miss the race.
If there were a proper Apple TV style sub model where I didn’t have to prop up other parts of Sky and could just purchase the events I wanted I would give it a go, but this is just awful.
Its not going to work, end of. All those comparing the situation with Football need to get their heads checked. F1 fans and Football fans can not in any way be compared. What will happen is simple and unavoidable, viewing figures WILL drop which in turn will cause sponsors to reconsider their position in the sport. If teams will in effect have less coming in whats going to start happening to teams…. again!? Yep, teams like Sauber and Williams are screwed bigtime, two or three years down the line do not be surprised if the top teams clear off and set-up their own FIA approved race series on free-to-view TV.
Make that three no votes. No way I’m paying to watch Sky TV. BBC will lose the majority of the new viewers it has attracted too I imagine
How can we remain fans if we only see half the season? Ridiculous idea, and one that’ll see me losing interest. No way will I pay for sky
Win win for everyone but the fans.
Bernie (or whoever) has simply slapped a tax on all F1 fans in the UK. Cheers Bernie!
Who will commentate? That is probably the most important question. Will the BBC lease out its highly experienced team for the coverage or will Sky throw in someone they found not good enough to commentate on golf?
Bludd,
I guess that they will get around to that at some point.
I know of 2 colleagues at work (small office with 10 people) that do watch F1 but don’t have Sky – and will not get Sky Sports (£50/month) just to watch 1 or 2 F1 races per month.
Not sure how viewing figures will turn out but I cant see it being anywhere near the current level – plus the fractured nature of the BBC coverage is likely to reduce interest (is it on the beeb this week or not kind of thing). But hey, this is just the UK, who cares, right Bernie?
If it’s live online with sky, will that service be free to non subscribers?
Disaster if not
So the BBC are willing to sell out to Sky to stop the chance of another Freeview chanel getting the chance to pick up the coverage. I wonder who is really benefitting financially here as it appears the BBC is still going to pay a lot for half the coverage
“This way it is a win-win for everyone”
except the fans… but hey, what do we matter?
I think a lot of the uproar is perhaps to do with the fact that this annoucement has come completely out of the blue. It’s the shock as much as anything.
Personally, it costs more than a years sky subs to attend just 1 race as a fan (especially if there’s more than 1 of you – travel, accomodation, race tickets, food etc) and I’ve happily spent that money several times in the past. So it’s not that I couldn’t afford to pay for it, it’s that I refuse to pay Sky/Murdoch for it.
Sounds like a v bad negotiation on BBC’s part, especially as FOTA teams insist on terrestrial coverage as far as i’m aware. i.e. BBC should have pushed for better agreement with Ecclestone. Who wants to watch half the races?
Epic Fail.
I guess we’ll find out how valuable F1 really is as a commodity. I think most people will simply accept that they cannot see all the races on the BBC, and find something else to do with their Sunday afternoons.
Following a sport like F1 is at best a habit, something to look forward to and take an interest in. It’s not like football where you make a strong emotional investment in your favourite team that encourages you to seek coverage of it.
I would definitely miss not being able to see all the races, breaking a 17 year habit, but at the end of the day, there are other things, and the money spent on Sky Sports just isn’t justified.
Joe…..”This way it is a win-win for everyone as Sky gets a foot-in-the-door, the BBC keeps its name associated with the sport and some of the viewers”
No, its not a win-win. I will only be able to watch half of the races and some highlights. I could not in any way justify the £600 it would cost to get a dish and subscribe to a Sports channel just for F1….the missus would divorce me!
So I like many others, if you read the postings, will miss out big time in what will be a lose-lose situation. I have been watching since the late ’60′s and this last couple of years has been the best I can remember. To go back to limited viewing is something I will have to accept i suppose but it will be like going back in time.
It’s an ugly compromise and will lead to a massive fall in F1′s popularity in the UK. Unlike football which is deeply embedded in our culture (love it or hate it), F1 has nowhere near the traction. People will just stop following it.
I’ve never had SKY and even though I’ve watched & loved F1 for 30 years I won’t & can’t spend that kinda money just for a handful of races. I see that Martin Whitmarsh is looking at the fine print on the Concorde Agreement and asking questions. This may not be a done deal yet!
If the BBC think they are going to retain the high audience levels, by showing highlights and half the races live they have another thing coming!
It is clear that F1 has reached financial maturity and has effectively priced itself out of the current market. (Bernie has a large degree of responsibility for this in continually asking for more from both circuits and media channels) The result is that he has made it so expensive that we are loosing race tracks from the series every year and in many of the remainder the rest of the year’s activities goes to paying for their one F1 race per year, thus we are increasingly relying on sovereign sponsored circuits. If the huge pay tv revenue is the only way to pay Bernie’s demands then he restricts the market in his last ditch grasp at the money.
Still we shan’t have to watch Bahrain next year, since many of us will finish our interest at the end of this season. F1 killed off by greed!
It’s not the end of the world, believe me. Here in Canada F1 has not been available except on cable/satelite for 20 years or so. In the US, apart from about 4 races a year shown with a 6 hr delay on (Murdoch’s) Fox, all races are on SPEED cable.
Suck it up and pay for it, in the scheme of things it will be chump change and I’m sure that most on this board are quite used and happy walking into a pub and tip a couple of pints down their throats at 3 quid or whatever a pop.
Admit it, you’ve been spoilt all these years. Remember F1 is of minority interest to BBC viewers, why should the taxpayer subsidise Bernie’s outrageous prices for your pleasure?
This may not have been orchestrated by Bernie, but if he goes along with it its just as bad as if he did.
I am definitely gutted at this, losing the ability to watch half of my favourite sport in live HD is a knife through the heart. Formula 1 is clearly a business, and business goes where the money is.
Given the BBCs coverage has raked in so many more viewers over the last couple of years, to reach 10 year highs, its a shame that concessions couldnt be made to keep it that way. Surely high viewing figures (which will bring sponsorship dollars) are more important to a sport than trying to squeeze every cent that a broadcaster can possibly afford to have broadcasting rights?
In the end, Bernie has a lot to say in everything that goes on in F1, its a shame he doesnt seem to consider the passion of the fans when doing his deals. The weight of the outcome is on his shoulders, and he’ll wear whatever comes of it – fame or blood.
David Morgan-Kirby wrote: “Suck it up and pay for it, in the scheme of things it will be chump change and I’m sure that most on this board are quite used and happy walking into a pub and tip a couple of pints down their throats at 3 quid or whatever a pop.”
Speak for yourself! Buy into SKY Sports to watch F1 or take a foreign holiday – that’s the kinda “chump change” we’re talking about
Win Win for BBC and Sky yes but ultimately bad for the sport in the UK. It’ll just confuse the casual viewer who watches as many races as they can.
The major fans will no doubt just get Sky (as I’ve had to do in the US with Speed for years) but it’s becoming a bit irrelivant with the ability to watch online becoming more viable. Who knows, maybe Bernie will do a deal with Apple and get it live on Apple TV or Roku and get it live on there.
I’ve always wanted to pay JUST for F1 and not for the whole Speed package.
Derek Warwick doesn’t feel much ‘Win-Win with this deal… He fears it could mean that Silverstone will get less people coming to Silverstone for the British GP due to the reduced interest in the sport as it moves in part to SKY. This will mean they cannot afford to run the race and we will lose the British GP.
His quote: “If we lose viewers we’re going to lose the excitement that we’ve got following our two great drivers, Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button. That may mean we could end up having a lesser crowd, which will make the cost of running the grand prix impossible to pay for.”
I know you don’t live in the UK anymore but surely you must have an understanding of the level of contempt any thinking Brit has for Murdoch & Co. From the hacking of a murdered child’s phone to the dis-information service that is Fox News. I love my F1 but not as much as I detest News Int and their shocking ethics. I point blank refuse to put a single penny into Murdoch’s coffers.
2nd post – Given that a load of sad people (me very much included) are prepared to spend a lot of time following F1 – but aren’t prepared to consider this new deal – I think Bernie has dropped a very big one here.
Please rethink this Bernie or else……………..
David Morgan-Kirby you are wrong… F1 on the BBC gets similar viewing figures as most of the Prime time shows on the BBC at the moment. With each race this year getting increased viewing figures on previous years. Interest was growing month by month; this will not be the case with this terrible deal!
Well, I for one will simply stream it online like I did for the Le Mans. Costs me nothing, Sky get nothing, I get to watch the races.
In this day and age, I guess lots of people will be doing this, legal or not. Either that or I won’t watch at all. I’m not paying to watch sky tv, and I’m not watching half a season. EIther way, Sky won’t get anything from me and thousands like me.
Its the practice sessions on iplayer i’ll miss watching, I really enjoy the technical insight you get from these. I guess i’ll have to just have the radio coverage and any highlights that pop up along with reading about updates on scarbsf1 blog.
The only friends I know with Sky Sports are passionate football fans who aren’t at all interested in F1. Those of us (we’re all mid 20s) watching the F1 don’t watch much other sport so don’t want or can really afford the Sky package for this deal.
The big problem here was that the BBC have done a stunning job, if it’d gone straight from the ITV coverage people may not have been quite so bothered and there would have been far fewer people watching anyway!
Is the license fee also frozen until 2016? Maybe the BBC will get a bit more money available again then but I doubt it
.
I could possibly be convinced to pay a small amount per weekend for online viewing but not for any subscription basis.
Joe,
As regards in-race advert breaks, Sky have chosen their words with care – they’ve stated only that it will not happen during the 2012 season, nothing about 2013 onwards…
This deal is only really a win for Bernie – he gets to sell F1 to Murdoch but can point to the BBC as his get-out clause for not violating the FtA requirement of the Concorde Agreement.
If Sky think they’re going to keep the audience levels at anything like those the BBC currently achieves, I suspect they’re in for a nasty shock.
If the entire race were made available FtA after the fact, this would be a tolerable compromise for those not available FtA live… but this apparently is not to be.
So, tilting at windmills though I may be, I intend to regard all the Sky-only races as “non-Championship”… who do you fancy for the FIA BBC F1 WDC next year?
YS
aside from how many viewers this would lose F1, a key question is: how will F1 attract any new viewers. I’m sure quite a few have stumbled onto F1 on a lazy sunday afternoon and got hooked. How is anyone going to stumble on a subscription based service?
I assume Bernie must have rubber stamped this deal too as I can’t imagine the BBC can just sublet half of their coverage under the current deal into next year?
There is also the extension now to 2016.
Joe:
Isn’t there something in the concorde agreement that states that F1 should be broadcast on free to air tv whenever possible?… how did they manage to get around this and how could such a deal be struck without the participation of Mr. E. or the teams for that matter, it would seem that their sponsors might have something to say about potentially loosing a large chunk of viewers in one of the major markets of F1. It could possibly even trigger exit clauses in their contracts leaving the teams with gaps in their budget en the middle of a season.
Would like to point out to David Morgan-Kirby that technically it is not a tax. If I have to subsidise the very small minority who watch BBC4, BBC Alba S4C et al they can subsidise the only thing I watch On the BBC.
Paying £600 per year for 10 races is definitely a non starter even if I had the money as I am sure most people will feel. When something that was “free” now has a big fee attached to it we are entitled to feel aggrieved and no I don’t chuck pints of beer @ £3 per pop down my throat either.
As a matter of principle will not be renewing Vodafone contract in 6 months time, won’t be buying any more Boss “product”, buying an HP or Dell computer and definitely cut down on the Red Bull !
As a matter of principle will not be renewing my Vodafone contract
Guess
I won’t be spending hundreds to get a Sky Sports subcription just to watch a few races (I have no interest in football). I could get a sub though my Virgin Media box, but I cannot justify such an expense just to watch ten races What is worse is that not being able to follow half the races means I’m just as likely to give up on the half that the BBC are showing.
It would be like watching a series where I miss every second episode – I’ll have some idea of what is going on, but I’ll be missing big chunks of the story to the extent that I’ll just give up on the whole thing and go and find some other hobby to spend my time on.
David Morgan-Kirby, I’ll point a couple things out:
On more then 1 occasion, a Formula 1 race has had almost 50% of the viewing figures. That’s HALF the country watching the BBC. Top Gear’s popular and the Champion’s League final is a big event but neither enjoys such huge viewing figures.
And unlike you, I don’t think we should happily lay down and let them walk all over us. If anything, we need to point out the fact their short term ‘win-win’ situation will turn into a nightmare very quickly, seeing as most people will not subscribe to Sky for only 1 thing.
Just a shame really, not only the result but they had to announce it on a race weekend, detracting from what we’re all talking about – watching action on the track. There’s nothing happening for the next 3 weeks, surely this could have been announced diring the break.
Whether or not Martin Whitmarsh can find something in smallprint it will not change the BBC’s descision, except to maybe to remove all coverage.
I think we had a hint of this a little while ago, with Williams singing a slightly different tune about their acceptance of PPV. Acceptance of PPV to the teams is likely to be inversely realted to the team size.
I think it is a sad day for us Brits; the cost of taking Sky for just this really is prohibitive when looked at per race.
Regarding the BBC’s cost savings, one article I read quoted/estimated an £8m saving which is what, 20% or the yearly expenditure. Are there likely to be penalites or losses in revenue through not providing coverage to other stations? How much of a cost saving this will really represent over the 6 years or the deal will be interesting to know.
The reactions of the BBC presenters has also been interesting. Brundle stating his dissapointment, while Jake Humphrey has put a braver face on it, but I guess he has to as he’ll be the face of London 2012.
Not sure there will be too much more to unfold on this story, but certainly lots more comments from UK fans.
To be honest, this is probably a good move overall.
Sky will do an exceptional job of broadcasting F1. BBC’s coverage turned into a bit of an ego trip for the main presenters and commentators. Remember the Silverstone coverage when the first 15mins was Jake, David and Eddie riding a tandem bicycle just so they could massage their own ego’s.
Martin Brundle is a fantastic commentator, but he also thinks he is a fantastic commentator. He views himself as one of the reasons people tune in.
I do feel sorry for people that do not have sky sports and would have to pay a small fortune to watch F1, but the days of free things are over.
If you want to follow F1 in depth, you need to get your wallets out. Just like if you want to follow most other sports. You can’t expect people who have no interest in F1 to fund it with their licence fee.
People should get real. F1 is a sport that requires huge sums of money, and to expect the BBC to spend such a large amount of their budget on F1 is immoral.
“Win Win for everyone”, unless you are fan of course!
Well, that’s F1 well and truly porked.
F1 brings in according to the BBC 10m uk viewer/race. Hardly a minority.
It’s not even like football where you could watch it down the pub – with race times all hours it’s a non starter.
The problem with comparing to other countries is that the uk has a (IMO) large free to air digital tv network which really negates a majority of the requirements for a satellite dish. As such instead of paying for a set of channels that you could watch at other times you end up with a fugly dish, crap customer service, fragile set top boxes and even if it does work a duplicate of a majority of channels you get free. So 30 quid/month to watch say 4 hours racing every month is poor.
The better solution would have been for the bbc’s iplayer to be extended with a pay per view option. I don’t mind a couple quid here and there when I want to watch it but not a locked in contract.
Well I don’t blame Bernie, at least not completely.
I blame Murdoch and his pocketful of politicians who have been knocking away at the BBC for a decades to clear the way for his second rate television and news organisation so they can’t afford to provide any more than basic services.
Unfortunately, I doubt it will seriously affect the popularity of F1 in the UK. The casual fan will watch the highlights and most committed fans will cough up and the rest are too few to worry about.
David Morgan-Kirby – The last race had over 47% of the UK Tv audience at the time it was shown. I would suggest that is more than minority interest.
It’s the worst possible scenario for me. It goes against my principles to give money to Sky, who’ve steadily deprived viewers of their favourite programmes in order to suck them into expensive contracts, which then fund future purchases. It’s a vicious cycle and I won’t be a part of it.
I wish there’d been a different pay-per-view option. I don’t mind paying for it, I just won’t pay up to £50 a month to an evil corporation like Sky simply to watch a sport that we know is also pretty corrupt.
It’s time for me to break away, before I start to feel I need a shower every time I hear the words Formula One.
Bernie on Sky in May 2011:
“Very recently they wanted to do something in Germany, in the UK and in Italy, where they are, but we couldn’t do it. Sky is doing an incredible job but if you look at their audience they are nowhere. With these figures it would be almost impossible for teams to find sponsors. That would be suicidal.”
Can’t say I’m that happy even though I do have Sky Sports. I might be appeased though if more money is provided to ALL the teams (and the cost restrictions continue to be applied to keep costs at the top under control) as that would genuinely benefit the sport helping the smaller teams be more competitive.
Can’t see how the BBC can provide 50% coverage though, it would be better if they just covered only the races (no qualifying or practice coverage) throughout the season or if that wasn’t possible an extended highlights show at a decent time (e.g. BBC 2 between 8 and 10.30/11) not when everyone has gone to bed! I think constantly changing coverage will just get confusing.
Great shame as the current BBC coverage has been uttely fantastic, and as many have said the BBC are wasting a lot of money on crap like virtually everything on BBC 3 and poor me too reality shows. Unfortunatley the corporation is loosing alot of the unique programming that it is there to provide!
@ David Morgan-Kirby
While I completely respect your opinion, there is a difference between those of us in the UK and everybody else: we already pay a TV subscription fee (BBC Licence fee) and expect to get quality programming, including an amount of top level sports coverage, as part of that.
If all of us here were already paying a cable/satellite subscription because that was the only way to get TV, and F1 was added to that subscription (for extra cost or not), then I’m sure only a few of us would be complaining. But to suddenly ask many of us to pay £600 per year that we would otherwise not need to spend makes this a big deal.
The BBC bean counters will likely be pleased. Match of the Day gets around 3.5m viewers for Premiership highlights at 10pm, compared with 1m paying to watch the matches live on Sky – although those figures are inflated by pubs paying to screen matches live to draw trade, which won’t happen with F1.
By that measure the Beeb will still get around 2-3 million tuning in for highlights and big numbers for their live races – although nowhere near what they get at present, one would suspect.
Looking at the BARB figures for Sky Sports offerings, those outside the big Premiership football matches or for International cricket/rugby fixtures with a major home team, they seem to struggle to reach 200,000. As richardcwilliam said, that’s the most that F1 can hope for.
Adam Parr and others are about to get a mighty reality check if they think that the ‘prestige’ or whatever else they ascribe to F1 is going to convince Joe Public to pay for it. They won’t. Those who already pay for Sky Sports do so to watch the football, golf, boxing and other mainstream sports and aren’t interested in F1. Those who don’t have Sky Sports will just watch whatever the BBC puts in the schedules to replace it.
Lose/Lose situation.
Football is Britain’s national sport. F1 is not.
Pubs show football on the big screens to get the punters in who spend their money on booze and shout at the tv screen.
Pubs do not show F1 because the fanbase is not as large as football and requires more than a tv screen to follow (i.e. live timing, twitter feeds etc.)
The idea ofa casual F1 fan is a myth (as much a myth as F1 paying attention to the wants of their fans – If I hear them say they cant just meet the needs of hardcore fans one more time I’ll scream!).
Its simply not a fair or economical model for the fans. Sky have confirmed that there will not be a pay-per-race subscription…so I have to pay £400-odd for a full season when half of it is being shown on another channel for free…
Adam Parr’s reaction has scared me the most as he is clearly looking forward to hearing the financial figures involved. If it lines Williams’ pockets for the sake of a couple of million british viewers then I think he;’ll accept it as will all the other team bosses.
The F1 bubble just gets thicker and thicker, distancing themselves from their core fanbase. 17 years I’ve followed F1 and this is the first time I’ve felt it necessary to start weaning myself off the sport. I refuse to pay and commit to a 12 month Sky subscription for the next 6 years, and I don’t see the point in watching half a season on the BBC.
I only hope the F1 fans find their voice and make it known that we are not here to fund F1′s extravagence. F1′s expensive yes, but its also a global sport with 100+million viewers. Reduce F1′s costs and provide a more cost-friendly (and MODERN value-added) service to the F1 fan.
I live across the Pond so I suppose my perception of this deal is a little different. We pay “subscription” as you folks like to call it for the races and get 4 free to air races a year. Those freebies are tape delayed and the subscription pays the Murdoch Media Empire.. Yes I know you lot enjoy paying the Crown for your Government Issue TV along with a whole host of other trappings.
I just can’t help myself as a stereotypical rotten loud mouthed American to laugh at you lot. Stiff upper lip, shoulder up to the wheel and handle it mates. lol@ entitlements…..
The BBC and Sky got together to negotiate this deal after Adam Parr and other prominent FOTA members, stated at two of their ‘Fan Forums’ that Mr.E wasn’t maximising the TV revenue, and that new and more profitable ways to engage with the fans was needed.
Really wish people would stop calling the BBC ‘free coverage’. I have to pay £145 for this ‘free coverage’ and I can’t stop paying it unless I physically remove the TV from the house. F1 is the *only* thing I watch on TV, and Mr Murdoch won’t be getting any of my cash. It’s very sad, but I guess at the end of 2011, F1 & I will part company – and I’ve been watching ever since I can remember. I doubt very much that I’ll just watch only 50%.
Still, on the bright side, I’ll get my weekends back & no more stupid o’clock alarms for quali in far away places.
“without losing too many fans and sponsors”
You wish!
Speaking selfishly from Canada as one who already pays through the nose for TSNHD (for no other reason than F1) I just hope that the BBC are leasing Brundle and Coulthard to Sky as well and that there will be simulcast commentary between Sky and BBC for the joint races (the fact that they say there will be no adverts during the race itself might be a puff of smoke in that direction). The BBC’s costs will still be cut even if they’re paying for it — the price of transporting two skinny former racing drivers from race to race is presumably minimal compared to the machinery required to actually produce TV.
But I wonder why the commercial rights holder doesn’t just hire MB & DC himself, bung a world commentary feed into the audio/video feed, and sit back and hoover up money from Commonwealth broadcasters and/or people who would gladly pay FOM directly for a decent streamcast…
“This way it is a win-win for everyone”
Sorry Joe, but it really isn’t. It’s a win for the BBC, a win for Sky, a win for FOM, and a huge loss for the fans. We are now reduced to seeing only half the season – a delayed highlights reel is not a race – unless prepared to fork out an extortionate £600+ per year to watch the other half.
Disgraceful, simply disgraceful
Well at least I get the choice of whether I pay Sky any money , I have to pay the BBC or I get taken to court. My first home away from the folks, within two weeks I find myself prosecuted for having no license which was a simple oversight on my part. The result, a £500 fine. It could have been worse, all the single mothers in the court who they prosecuted with me were fined around £800. The BBC is a giant beast which wastes fortunes. I think it is a disgrace that I pay for BBC3 and the like. If they ran themselves efficiently like Sky do, they could afford to pay the rate for these rights and broadcast programmes which people obviously want. They didn’t even bid for the cricket last time round. Still they can pay the wit that is Gary Lineker a million a year. People will blame Sky but I blame the Beeb. They spunked a load of cash on the Winter Olympics when they sent more staff than the British team sent competitors. Sums them up really. Shame ITV could not get the rights, I always thought they did a good job.
Well it had to happen sooner or later….
I have steadfastly refused to purchase Sky previously, not because of the cost, but becasue 95% of what is shown is total crap !
Not being a huge football fan, I never had the need to subscribe, and the latest movies were in the local Blockbuster months before appearing on the digital channel….
Now though I have a conundrum…..do I pay or not. After sitting down and reflecting on it fora while….. I think……….Not !
At the moment due to family stuff, I tend to record the race using a non Sky plus box (BBC Vision) and watch it later that evening, having avoided the news etc…..In dull races the temptaton to press FF a bit is strong ! and great when the race is stopped…
I just have the feeling that a well put together highlights program from the Beeb just might be enough to get me though!
I wonder if the deal is worded so that the BBC highlights program cannot be on the same day as the race…..
Sad news about the loss of free coverage for all the race, but I will stick with the Beeb on this one……I fell in love with F1 due to a highlights program, I thik the alure is still strong enough.
Sorry Mr Murdoch, you will have to wait a little bit longer for my £40.
(about 8 years in fact )
Wow. Is the Sky (!) really falling in the UK? According to the responses here it is….
WIthout wishing to cause any offence at all, I truly can’t believe the “I’ll never watch it again”, or “I won’t pay” comments. If you’re fans of F1 (and you must be to be reading Joe’s blog) it would be insane not to pay to watch it. True, SOME people actually can’t afford it – and I commiserate with you, I’ve been there too – but I bet you know someone who can and will and you can watch it there.
Come on guys, this is NORMAL PRACTICE for many countries – my own included. I get no TV without paying for it – not even the news, I pay to subscribe to several F1 publications (both online and print) and wouldn’t miss a race on TV unless my life depended on it.
This reminds me of when I smoked back in my 20′s and all my friends used to say after just about every budget “I’m not paying that much for a packet of fags, I’m giving up smoking as soon as the price goes up.” Which was, as we all know, total bollocks – no-one ever stopped for that reason.
Suck it up.
Thats me finished with F1.
Fed up with the only interest being how much can Bernie pocket, the mickey mouse flappy wing, clone drivers and clone circuits in countries with no interest in F1.
Now you want me to pay to watch, No thanks.
Well, there goes the ratings. I think it is a shame and the fans and teams will suffer. How many people are going to pay? So Sky will have to charge more for its content when it gets ALL the races and, we all know what happens next.
BTW., the teams “wonder” why there is no interest in F1 in the US? Is the same reason, the only way to watch a race is via SPEED Channel which is in cable but not in the basic service but in the Premium Plus +$$+. So why pay for a sport that is not even played(?) in the US with no American drivers?
This thought leads me to the Concorde Agreement, if it is stated in BOLD LETTERS that it has to be in free over the air TV why here in the US is in cable in a premium service and why is the same in Mexico and other Latin American countries??? So, I guess that clause is only for the Continental European market and the UK is not in the Continent or Europe or what??? Can someone bring some light on this?
I feel your pain
MiamiJAG,
I doubt that the ratings will go anywhere much…
‘Stitch’
BBC 4 Does not show Top Gear – you are thinking of BBC 3. BBC 4 is arts coverage and what the BBc should be doing. What they should ditch is BBC 1 – which is just ITV without the ads.
“This way it is a win-win for everyone”
Everyone who only cares about the money. Certainly not win-win for the fans. Probably also a pretty big win for illegal streaming services which I am sure will become very popular.
Bit out of the blue this, so can we wait and see exactly how things will be please. I gave up going to GP’s in the 70′s as it all got a bit expensive for not a lot. A few years ago, my step-son and partner were going to go to Silverstone and didn’t because it was too expensive. God knows what they would think now! The whole show has got out of hand, money wise, and it will go the same way as football if Sky get total control. If the Beeb get the ‘right’ nine races then who cares.
A good chunk of the NASCAR season is shown only on TNT; i.e., exclusively available on paid cable TV. There’s no drop-off in popularity and it’s actually kind of nice to see different people broadcasting races over the course of a season. People need to get over it. There’s no god-given right to free F1 broadcasts. If there was a business case to be made for it, somebody would have made it by this point.
Not long ago it was widely rumoured the BBC was about to pull the plug on F1 completely. I wonder if this is a bit of bartering by Berni to keep them in. If only for the short term. ‘free’ sport is going out of fashion and I fully expect the Beeb to be gone long before the contract comes up for renegociation
I do sometimes ponder why F1 is held in such high esteme here and elsewhere as it has long since ‘jumped the shark’ in terms of being a sport…It’s business and as such someone has to pay and as the viewer it could be you!
Many many years ago a Sky boss commented on 5 Five “Watching sport amounts to 40% of leasure time yet only 15% of the spend: We aim to reduce that gap” and by that I assumed he didn’t want people to get off their fat arses and actually do something useful!
If sky get another 500,000 extra subscribers, that’s a cool £300m of extra revenue for them. How much will the teams get, enought to satisfy the Adam Parrs of this world I’m sure!
I’m sure more than one team will be breathing a sigh of relief: Williams, Renault, hrt.
Never mind the fanbase or even attracting new talent.
Seeing the strength of feeling in these comments, I’d like to draw your attention to this petition:
http://www.formula1onbbc.com
Cheers
Hi Joe,
There seems to be some confusion over what the BBC will offer – on the Autosport website (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93494) Martin Whitmarsh seems to be suggesting that the Beeb’s highlights package will actually be a re-run of the race. If this is true, and it is within a reasonable timescale after the live coverage, then it’s perhaps not such a bad deal.
By the way, the comparison to football is completely ridiculous – football lends itself perfectly to a subscription or pay-per-view model as there tend to me several matches running concurrently making it almost impossible to satisfy total demand via a traditional broadcasting model. F1, by definition, is only one race at a time.
It does all seem a bit messy though…
SKY and Bernie Ecclestone KILLS F1 in the UK
So the BBC and Bernie Ecclestone has stuffed us and lost F1, what a disaster it means we will now not see most races only highlights, why has Bernie Ecclestone allowed this, does he not like the fans does he not think we are important? I dont have SKY and will NEVER have SKY, i dont watch any other sport so sky is of no use to me what options do i now have? Why would F1 do this to loyal fans, i cant believe how they would do this to us? why does Bernie want to KILL F1?
Bogget
Bogget,
How do ou know that Bernie did this?
I have been an F1 fan now for the best part of 45 years. In that time I have missed just a handful of races that have been broadcast. I am passionate about all forms of motorsport and have competed in many events, Hillclimbs, sprints and circuit racing. My son has inherited my passion to the extent that this month he obtained his Bsc (Hons) in Motorsport Engineering. He is focused on getting a job in F1.
Unfortunately passion does not pay bills! There is, for some of us at least, a recession going on. Add to that, many people like myself are self employed. The household budget is stretched to breaking point with increases in food, petrol, utilities etc.
Putting aside my feelings regarding Murdoch and his money grubbing empire, (Hopefully one day he will realise that he can’t eat money!) I simply cannot afford to pay to watch the sport I have been passionate about all my life.
This is not good for any F1 fan, despite the spin that the BBC are putting on this. Please, give us a little more respect. This is an insult to our intelligence.
Can anyone tell me why they think that watching half of the races could be a good idea? I fail to see also how watching highlights could satisfy a true F1 fan.
I vist your blog daily Joe. I also visit JAon F!, Adam Cooper,F1 zone,Planet F1, Pitpass(Sorry Joe!) F1 fanatic,Peter Windsor’s excellent site and many more. In fact my love of the sport found me working for Tyrrell and Williams in the 80′s. I think you probably get the picture.
This is a slap in the face to all those fans like me who have followed F1 and have kept it alive all these years. Millions of fans will now no longer be able to watch F1 on FTA. What was the point of all those Fan Forums? The fans have been ignored because some money grubbing B&$£*”D obviously feels he hasn’t got enough noughts on the end of his Billions.
I really feel betrayed. I am incandescent with rage! I have read on other forums of other people saying that they will no longer watch F1. People have said it many times before and I have always thought that it was perhaps an idle threat. I can honestly say that if this deal goes ahead, then I will not be watching, nor will I be visiting any Blogs or F1 sites, or buying any F1 related merchandise. F1 for me will be dead. RIP F1.
I have just tried to post on the BBC site. I think perhaps the site has been overwhelmed with posters. I tried unsuccessfully several times to register, so that I could post my views, to no avail. There are pages and pages awaiting moderation.
This is quite possibly the darkest day ever for F1 fans.
I think some people forget what it was like in the past.. I have been watching GPs since the 60′s The BBC used to only show a few and then only a short highlight show where the commentator was only watching a TV like you. This got me hooked on F1. As time when on it gradually got better and better. Then ITV took over. with commercials that seemed to be deliberately put at the most vital moments of the race. Did this reduce the fan base NO now it back on the BBC and continues growing. If Sky can do it as well as they do the Indy 500, The Race of Champions then whats the fuss about. As has been said before the Sky subscription pails when compared to watching just one GP live. If you are a true fan of F1 (and you must be reading this blog) then you will have to go with the change . This is not the first time and wont be the last change to the way we what the races . F1 was going before and will be going long after this fuss has blown over.
I seem to remember Sky trying this once before. Didn’t work then, hope it won’t work now.
From the majority of comments from the various blogs reporting this state of events, F1 is going to haemorrhage viewers by the bucket load.
Long may it teach those that have wrought this a valuable lesson.
I will not be watching. And if I’m not watching it I’m not sure if I’ll need a GP+ subscription in the future either. No need to torture myself is there?
Sorry Joe – really do love your work – but I won’t want to know about what I might be missing.
If you think I’m being short-sighted then please feel free to pass our collective displeasure on to the chaps from the BBC when you see them on the grid.
MattG,
They will read the comments no doubt
“Suck it up and pay for it, in the scheme of things it will be chump change and I’m sure that most on this board are quite used and happy walking into a pub and tip a couple of pints down their throats at 3 quid or whatever a pop.”
£60 per race? I wouldn’t pay that to see them live. And yes, I know I’d have to. That’s one reason I watch on TV.
“Admit it, you’ve been spoilt all these years. Remember F1 is of minority interest to BBC viewers, why should the taxpayer subsidise Bernie’s outrageous prices for your pleasure?”
Well, of course they shouldn’t. But this isn’t really about the BBC. (Although, as someone else pointed out, it has ganged up with Sky to deny any other FTA broadcaster the possibility of competing for the rights, perhaps more cheaply). As I said in the other thread, the sponsors subsidise the coverage. They pay for eyeballs. They won’t get them on Sky. And since it’s impossible to follow the whole season without unreasonable cost, they won’t get as many on FTA either. It’s clearly a worse deal for them. Overall, F1 will lose in the long run.
So I’m (almost) serious: I’d make it CC-BY-NC and let anyone who’s interested take the coverage for free. Let them compete on quality of commentary, etc., instead of how much they’re willing to pay up front. You might end up with a two-man basement operation out-doing the pros. Or not. But the important thing is people would be watching. Sponsors would be queueing round the block. F1 has a (very) wide fanbase, but it isn’t deep. As it’s about to find out.
Okay, so there may be practical, contractual, difficulties. FOM might look at different long-term effects and conclude that by diluting the brand it would make it harder to attract the sort of high-value sponsors it wants (which still seems short-sighted to me). But definitely stop charging so much. When an advertiser takes a spot on commercial TV, who pays who? Now, I’m not saying that it’s completely the wrong way round and that Bernie should be paying the broadcasters – obviously there’s value in F1 for them or they wouldn’t pony up the cash at all (although they now have to club together to do it) – but the balance is severely out of whack.
It’s not the end of the world, believe me. Here in Canada F1 has not been available except on cable/satelite for 20 years or so.
Having lived in both the UK and Canada I can say you are comparing apples to oranges. In Canada over 90% of people get TSN (the channel that show F1) and it often comes with the most basic cable packages. Those who don’t have the channel can phone up their provider and get it for a few dollars a month on top of their bill then stop it usually after one month then get it back for another month or so then drop it again as they wish throughout the year. In the UK only a minority has Sky Sports and to get you need extra equipment and, usually, a contract for a year or so.
Like the majority of viewers in the UK, I do not have any Sky subscription. Why would I, the only sport I am interested in is F1 and everything else worth watching is available in HD on FreeSat for free – It is a no brainier. So in order to watch a whole season of F1, I am going to have to find and extra £600! – That just is not going to happen, and I suspect the same is true in millions of households. What Bernie has forgotten is that everyone that currently has Sky Sports HD can already watch F1 in HD on the BBC, but less than half of those who currently watch F1 on the BBC have access to Sky Sports. You don’t have to be very good a maths to work out that the net viewing figures can only go down as a result of this deal. I think that maybe Bernie is getting a little too old if he really thinks this was a win win deal!
I suppose it’s better than no BBC at all and we’d be in a much worse position if a commercial broadcaster had exclusive rights. The BBC’s position is understandable given what’s been done to their budget.
FOM – It’s all about the money.
Is it a clever move ?
Whitmarsh says, ‘ I asked Ecclestone several times and he assured me that the BBC will be broadcasting every race IN FULL, not highlights, the full race, only it will be a delayed transmission.’
Can we believe him after all he said about ‘free-to-air is essential to F1′s interests ?
Having read something on the order of 89 comments or thereabouts, I still fail to understand why British viewers would stop watching F1 merely because some races are on satellite. Only four races are broadcast on terrestrial TV in the US; the remainder are on a pay network owned by….Rupert Murdoch.
Life goes on. I still watch races. I must thoroughly fail to apprehend the mentality of the UK TV viewer.
Ultimately the BBC is ‘owned’ by British license fee payers. As a direct result of this, I know (for certain) that they are pressured by British public opinion. The two questions are, is there enough public opinion to force a change and can this new deal even be altered?
As contracts in F1 seem to be incredibly flexible/breakable it remains to be seen if there is a sufficiently big opinion to change things. Although the BBC needs to make savings, at the end of the day, it also needs to largely satisfy the desires of those who pay for it – this balance is demonstrably adjustable.
I just get the feeling that Mr E has done some sums and recons, in the current climate, that he can get more for the teams from Sky than they will lose from reduced sponsorship deals that some teams appear to be struggling with even now.
If we knew what Sky and the BBC are going to pay to Mr E, that would provide some further clues.
To me this just shows how out of touch Bernie and CVC are. I think we are living the demise of F1 which is sad. I have been a string fan for nearly 40 years but this is the straw that broke my back.
Will hacking of pit to car radio broadcasts be part of Mr E’s brave new world ?
Joe, you honestly think the ratings will stay the same? Is that based on the idea that F1 fans will just moan and then buy the full Sky package, or that the BBC will retain the same fans with highlights programmes? I’m not being sarcastic – I’m genuinely asking why you don’t forsee a ratings drop?
I have no belief in people power and Sky has enough cash reserves and influx to tempt FOTA and everyone else into seeing the light even if ratings are whittled down to only a hardcore of viewers – but that’s still a more likely option to me than ratings holding steady long term.
Well, we’ll see in a year I guess. Though given the drop in viewing even for EPL, Cricket, Rugby etc I think I might win that bet (not that I think any of the UK fans like me moaning will change anything…)
Joe, beyond the obvious with this nightmare situation, I’m struggling a bit here, trying to understand why FOM actually need to earn income.
Obviously they are a business and therefore need and want to turn a profit, I get that, but FOM charge millions to the tracks for the privilege of holding a race. A percentage of which goes to the teams (Do you know how much, roughly? In my head it’s 50 percent or less, but I might be wrong) and the rest going to FOM I imagine, but for what? Does any of that money actually go back into the sport? What do they actually do?
I understand Bernie has done a good job in recent years with the sport negotiating rights etc.. ahem, but do they actually advertise the sport? The only advertising I see coming from them is the website, the rest it seems comes from TV, so TV pays for the privilege to advertise F1? Again I ask what do FOM actually need money for?
Maybe there’s a simple answer to this that I’m missing? (beyond them just being money grabbers, which is clearly how this is coming across to most F1 fans) If you can shed any light I’d appreciate it, It might help ease the pain…
Well, I already stump up a princely £8 a month for my Sky Sports 1-4 & ESPN subscription, so at least I’ll still be able to watch all the races – just that half of them will be on a 50″ Plasma and half on a 3″ iPod… not happy, but to be fair to the BBC they were on a loser either way – if they kept the rights the Murdoch press and the Mail & Express would be savaging them for wasting taxpayers money on a minority sport, and despite the events of the past weeks it’s still the tabloids that run the country in large part…
I’ve got an idea. Why doesn’t Bernie charge the BBC less money? Of course he would lose money directly from the contract but that would still be less than the money he would lose indirectly from loss of audience.
Unreal responce to that blog on the BBC site. Its already on 3100+, by far and away the most commented blog on that site i believe and im yet to see one positive post!!
Can’t understate how let down i feel.
First by the BBC, who i have always staunchly supported, for giving up the last two years of their exclusive contract. If they couldn’t afford it after the contract then fine, give it up and/or strike this deal, but to offload the last two years after committing to the fans for 5 years is appalling.
Secondly by Mr Ecclestone, while it shouldn’t surprise me, who has once again shafted the true fans of his cash cow again.
Thirdly i feel let down by Fota (what was all that nonsense at the Forums about then??) and idiots like Whitmarsh who try to justify this. It stinks, you know it stinks, you said it would stink in the past, so why not just say it stinks now?
And, sadly and probably unfairly, finally by the F1 bloggers, i have followed this blog avidly since i stumbled across it a couple of years ago. It is, by far and away, the best F1 blog on the net (that i have seen). Your opinions on practically everything have echoed my own thoughts on F1 matters, your insight is unrivaled and the intelligence that you exude in your writing makes every post worth the time to come here and read it. Yet you, like the rest of the bloggers are failing to post the costs of this change to the fans:
If you are one of the 1 million ish that carry sky sports you are fine.
If you are one of the 9 million ish that carry Sky (on any platform) and need to upgrade you are looking at between £20 and £35 a month (depending on your platform) for a minimum of 9 months of the year, so thats between £180 and £315 a year for 10 races. So between £18 and £31.50 a race
If you don’t have sky at all you are looking at an absolute minimum of £50 a month for sky plus the sports package, so for the nine month season thats £450, FOR 10 RACES!!! On some platforms that cost is dramatically increased and you are looking at £600 for 9 months and 10 races, so £60 a race or £40 an hour.
Thats a higher cost than most peoples hourly wage!!!
The majority of you don’t seem to have read Joe’s post, but I feel sure he must be right. This is a decision taken by the BBC – because they can’t afford the status quo, owing to the freezing of the licence fee and the absolute necessity of keeping BBC salaries high. Something has to give and this is one example out of many.
This seems to be one thing you can’t pin on Bernie. Although I can’t prove it, I assume that the freezing of the BBC licence fee was Murdoch’s price for supporting the Conservatives in the election, so you could say that he is the one who is at the bottom of it strategically.
Complaints complaints are you all really true F1 fans, think yourselves lucky to have what you have. You should try following F1 in Australia in the 70s waiting for a snippet on the Monday night news or the monthly magazine ( which I still keep) Even as the coverage in Australia got better it was still patchy with adds and many middle of the night races. Now living in China and living with mandarin commentators and add breaks thank god for the internet.
There is more to F1 than the UK audiences if you really love the racing just deal with it the world doesn’t revolve around BBC and UK fans,
Think why do all those multi national companies sponsor and advertise this series, just to get more business in the UK.
Take China 1.4 billion people , 350 million middle class very much brand aware the largest luxury goods market in the world. the second largest economy in the world and it is interested in F1. Where is the future growth for F1 and its partners not in the UK but worldwide.
Damo, that does look interesting. Perhaps it’s been misreported. Highlights – and I’ve always felt this way – are worse than useless, but deferred, “as live”, coverage wouldn’t be anything like as bad (although it would bugger up the live timing, which is half the fun these days).
Shocking news management, if it is the case, though. Unless the idea was to get the fans so angry that we’d feel grateful for what we’re going to get. I wouldn’t put that past Bernie, come to think of it…
Much as it might annoy me I sense the GB market just isn’t big enough to worry about.
We are such a small percentage of the global viewers that if all of us switch off next year the graph of total viewers will barely register a blip…
Like many others I won’t pay Sky a) on principle and b) what I have seen of their output doesn’t suit me – what they consider to be in-depth coverage I consider to be shouty b*ll*cks for airheads.
The quality of the product IS a massively important driver of my satisfaction, e.g. I pretty much stopped buying Autosport when Roebuck stepped down, and my interest in the sport continued un-diminished. I’m equally sure my interest is deep-rooted enough to survive not seeing it ‘live’ on TV 18 times a year.
Joe – there’s a sort of petition going over at PledgeBank – could you publicise it please?
http://www.pledgebank.com/rescuebbcf1
I’m delighted at this news. The BBC ore and post race coverage has gone downhill this season as per the tandem ride to Silverstone. Sky has a long history of innovation in it’s coverage of sport so hopefully there will be more analysis of the cars, drivers and circuits and less of Lewis Hamilton on a jet ski.
Martin Brundle will continue commentating on Sky and BBC and he is very good.
We’re too used to tv being “free” in the UK but the new world is that we have to start paying or it. We used to just get 5 channels for “free” now we have 905, they’ve got to be paid for somehow.
Nothing that concerns the developments of the past two decades is surprising in any way. To paraphrase somebody else: Sports is just too interesting a business to leave it to the sports-people.
Our views are distorted by treating F1 as a sport. We shouldn’t. If we treat it like a big multinational business, suddenly everything falls into place. The good old F1 fans have become cash-cows, just like the fans of all other sorts of events that have gone ‘commercial’. I wouldn’t blame the BBC (F1 TV rights shouldn’t be that expensive in the first place), nor is it just a greedy Bernie Ecclestone. That would be far too simple, and many people even have the delusion that with BE gone everything would be remedied.
No. And -surprisingly- all that money didn’t even improve the show. Fans of F1 should see themselves like those who like Apple or Starbucks: They could get something similar for a lot cheaper. But it doesn’t have the same brand-value.
Money has never been in F1 to improve the show. Money is in F1 to become more money.
Is it really a deal?
For a deal to work it needs to have an upside for all parties. This, in isolation, leaves some big players in the lerch in spite of the camp followers saying all will be well.
If it were part of a bigger deal, read Exor/News International, then it might make sense to those whose only interest is having control and making money.
But as I see it this the end of F1 for a wider audience and if I were any F1 team other than Ferrari I would be making some cotingency plans.
I’m an F1 fan of 30 years standing, and the Sky subscription money isn’t really a big issue for me (though as, motorsport aside, I’m not really a sports fan, it doesn’t appear very good value).
However, I won’t be signing up, for the simple reason that I refuse to give a penny to an organisation whose biggest shareholder is a man responsible for Fox News, the News of the World, the Sun and who has sought an unheathily close relationship with the politicians of my country.
I might be in a minority on this point, but I still think its bad long-term news for the sport. I might be perfectly well able to afford the sky subscriptions, but I was six years old when I first became interested in F1, and I expect that this is not unusual – as with anything – you need to get them when they are young. So it will only be kids whose parents are interested enough to subscribe who are likely to be bitten by the bug. Football has such a huge fanbase in the UK that it can survive in spite of this, but I worry that motorsport does not.
NB – contrast and compare: BBC licence fee £150 – and for that you get BBC1-4, the BBC news website and lots of radio stations. Whereas Sky are boasting that you can get their ‘complete sports package’ for ‘Under £40 a month”
On the other hand there is a great opertunity here.
F1 has done a good job at opening up motor sport to the masses and there is clearly a demand to see it on TV.
So why not the promoter of some other series getting thier act together and making an offering.
LMA/ALMS and WTCC springs to mind but I’m sure there are others. If The Bolt has done it someone else could do the same.
Phew, I was upset for a while about this news but there is always a way.. Perhaps a new dish (not the Sky type) pointing in the right direction with the right decoder will beam down the lovely FOM world feed with Radio 5 commentary from the radio. Now, where is that middle finger, time to let it linger.
Terrible news for Formula One. There’s so much money in the sport, and this really shows that all they care about is getting more money. I’ve been following the sport avidly since the days of Damon Hill and watch all but a couple of races every season. I certainly won’t be paying anything for the privilege however, and I’m sure the sport will lose a lot of supporters less devoted than myself. Having designed the new overtaking aids to increase popular support for the sport this move is very quickly going to undo all that hard work.
Great, it means they can dish out more salaries of £600k pa to such entertainment super stars as Chris Moyles who do 3 hrs work a day. At least Jonathan Ross isn’t sucking £18m out of them anymore.
I can’t actually see how the BBC model can survive, chances are everyone will pay for the on-demand content they want without having to subsudise (what they perceive to be) the other junk.
It seems to me that the drivers have their GPDA. The circuits now have a group as do the teams. Where is the ‘fans’ representative group? No one ever really listens to the great unwashed who turn up at races, buy the road cars and purchase the sponsors goods.
Isn’t it time we got together and created a pressure group?
Secondly, why does everyone call Ecclestone “Bernie” as if the man is a friend or has something in common with the rest of us? I find the man quite objectionable. Thirdly, after the Bahrain debacle, jumping into bed with Murdoch at the moment shows a singular failure to grasp the public mood. I suggest everyone email/contact every team owner (especially Martin Whitmarsh, Christian Horner and Stefano Domenicali) and express in no uncertain terms. I think the BBC coverage is excellent: I even find the pre-race silliness amusing…
I have a basic sky subscription but no way will i pay for the sports package, I have no interest in sport, just f1. f1 shouldn’t be compared with football, rugby or cricket as it’s only on once a fortnight for 9 months of the year. How many football fans would pay a subscription for a game every 2 weeks.
I really don’t expect many f1 fans will subscribe, it’s just not value for money.
speaking about value for money,
I see bernie’s daughter has just bought a new house ($90M), now correct me if I’m wrong but bernie should have paid income tax of about £40M, or does he stay out of the country?
Like many my intial reaction is, I will stop watching F1 for the obvious reasons, I do not want to pay GBP600 a year to RM.
Then somebody says the BBC will show the whole of all races. Who cares about time delay, I already do it myself for some races.
But then, how long will the BBC be allowed full access to F1?
If there is a change in the audience demographics then the sponsorship will change.
Seems to me its time for all of us to start looking for for the next F1.
It is a shame to see so many people outside the UK happier to have the UK’s coverage dragged down to what they get rather than wishing to see their own country’s being improved.
Regarding those who cannot understand why the fans wouldn’t pay up, you need to remember that unlike many countries we have ample high quality free to air TV (there’s a lot of dross too, but there’s still more decent stuff than anyone can realistically watch). It is part of Sky’s business plan to try and remove this barrier hence why they try and buy up any series or sport that has first proved to be popular on FTA channels. But the initial hurdle is still high and £600 for F1 is a very large hurdle indeed. That’s £600 (very nearly $1,000!) which could be spent elsewhere. And for many of us that £600 would only be for the ability to watch 10 races per year live since we already get to see everything else we require without paying it. In these hard times there just aren’t that many who can remotely justify £60 ($100) per race.
Those who don’t expect the viewing figures to fall dramatically would appear to be badly divorced from the reality of the UK market.
This win-win for everyone line that so many involved are coming out with is completely wrong and frankly quite insulting.
The fans who currently have a superb service and live coverage of the whole season will either lose half of their coverage or will lose financially by having to take out yet another subscription. We are losing, don’t try and disguise it any other way.
Unfortunately the BBC can and will ignore our compliants as unlike the real commercial world we cannot cancel our subscription when we are unhappy with the service.
I know I’m going to stir up a hornets nest here, but a lot of other countries have their F1 coverage on subsciption-channels. Calm down a bit people, it sounds like you are ready to start a war over having to watch it.
Here in Denmark it is on Viasat 3+ a subscription channel.
While there are add breaks now and then, the coverage is excellent.
Former danish F1 driver Nicolas Kiesa and former Le Mans winner John Nielsen comments, with Tom Kristensen more often than not in the pre- and post race studio. Peter Nygaard, who I know Joe knows, is also a contributor. They really do a stellar job.
They are only physically present at a couple of races but thats okay by me. It is expensive business shipping journalists and crew to all races, so I can understand the reasoning. Instead they share interviews etc. with the swedish and norwegian coverage.
Am I the only person that thinks Sky getting F1 is a positive thing? Sure, the mass-market sponsors will be unhappy as will the majority of fans who have become used to it being available on a FTA broadcast. However, what cannot be discounted is the quality of Sky’s premier sports broadcasts and what they’ve done to enhance the sports. Make no mistake, Sky *always* know what they’re doing and they’re not afraid to blow money to the viewer’s benefit.
As a long-term, hardened F1 fan, one of the most frustrating things I find about the BBC’s coverage is its perspective – they constantly want to recruit new viewers to justify the costs and do this by producing extended features and (what I consider) patronising commentary. ITV were also guilty of this to a lesser extent and I can’t think of the number of “How expensive is an F1 car” and “How does over-steer/under-steer work” feature shows I’ve sat through. Even more annoying are the news features that cover stuff mentioned on Joe’s blog 6 weeks beforehand. I’ve not even watched any of these features this season and instead just tune in at 1pm, partly for the above reasons but also because of the broadcasters.
Jake Humphreys is a charismatic guy and I’m sure he’s done a good job recruiting new viewers but he’s not a passionate F1 follower. Eddie Jordan is an embarrassment, brightly coloured clothes are fine but his strange predictions and opinions just highlight how he’s not really right for the job. Brundle is great but really should have been kept as the ‘commenter’ rather than the ‘commentator’, I’ll be surprised if Sky don’t offer him a deal. Coulthard is quiet and uncomfortable, he’s just not a natural communicator. It’s clear from the coverage so far this season that they’re all a little embarrassed about the BBC’s decision.
Sky have done some impressive stuff with football but, almost to a greater extent, to cricket. Their programmes are meant to entertain fans, not recruit them and the production quality is terrific. It’s a completely different level to channel 4. Further to this though they’ve done something which no FTA broadcaster can do – they’ve re-glamorised the sport. By attaching a price tag to the live coverage, getting the best commentators and pouring money in left right and centre it’s made cricket exclusive and arguably more exciting to watch.
I think Sky will make F1 broadcasts into what the hardened fans really want with the right broadcasters, commentators and really detailed features. Now all I need to do is justify the cost to the Mrs…
Joe,
I have paid since I moved to Chile (2003) to watch F1 live, before that I was spoiled with the cable in the Netherlands (Dutch TV, BBC, German TV, Belgium TV etc all broadcasting at the same time the race). Now I have only Fox Sport, and I cannot complain about the quality and coverage. But yes, I do have to pay. Some public channels broadcasts it live more than 8 hours after the race with lousy commentary. That is something I would like to point out: Quality of commentary is worth paying for.
I would like to say to the folks in the UK that they should not complain that much: You were and are all lucky to have, still, such a high quality nearly free access to the F1 broadcasts. That will change sooner than later.
Joe, could you do a background story on the F1 broadcasts around the world (Pay vs Free TV) and how that affects the viewing figures? There is all kind of talk about that this deal will chase away fans but I do not believe that. Real fans will find a way to keep on following the races. Just dropping out of this sport as a fan just because now you might have to pay….., you can still watch it ‘for free’ on the BBC but not all the time live, well, not such a big sacrifice it you are willing to ditch it completely if you would have to pay for it.
Time for fans and sponsors around the world to vote with their feet, together. Say, for instance, sponsors already allocate 3bn a year for F1 purposes. That figure can be easily doubled by launching the F1 fans very own online-only 24/7 multilingual F1 HDTV mother&father of all channels available worldwide at, say, a flat 36 quid per year which should easily attract at least 50 million subscribers among the fans themselves. Add to the mix, say, 20 circuits each keeping 100% of gate receipts etc during venue (except perhaps trackside advertising which could cover teams transport, logistics, hotel expenses etc). Who would set the rules? The owners, of course, i. e. fans, sponsors, teams and cuircuits.
You think telling fans they need to pay an extra £500 is a “win-win”? Sky think this is a “fantastic day for fans”. Would you mind if I pop round to your place and charge you an extra £500 for your milk and then tell you it is a win-win and a fantastic day for milk drinkers?
This is simple extortion, Bernie has decided the fans wallets needed lightening, he has a monopoly and will milk it for his own pleasure.
Please Joe, I’d have expected you to have stood up for the fans on this.
Richard Leeds,
I simply understand the argument from both sides. I can see that the fans would complain, but they must also consider the possibility that their TV coverage exists only in a bubble that time has thus far passed by. All the sother sports are doing the same thing. There are simple commercial realities in life, whether we like it or not.
Well, the good news is that the BBC will still be providing radio comentary on 5 Live, so even if the race is not being televised live, I will follow it by radio instead. I’ve done this on several occasions when I’ve been travelling when the race is happening & it is an excellent way to keep up with how the races are going. Even if I’m watching the live BBC TV coverage, I usually mute the TV & listen to the radio commentary instead. Yes, it’s better with pictures, but for £600 extra a year? I’ll live without them, thanks.
Thinking ahead of the impact of what this have next year, I’m honestly quite disappointed with the lack of interest and support for the fans from everyone, including Joe.
Everyone other than the fans seem to act as if this is better for the sport. If they can’t convince me, an avid fan of the sport to convert over to Sky, those viewing figure projections cannot be sustainable.
What will kill the sport is ‘inconsistency’. Most people overlook at how important this is. You simply cannot expect to keep half of the viewers if you remove half of the race. Not even remotely close. Highlights & replays are for people who missed a race, not for people to watch as an alternative to live.
Most ‘casual fans’ watch F1 due to general interest generated by genuine fans and ease of accessibility. Think of how hard it would be for a casual viewer to tune in on one of the BBC’s coverage when most of the F1 fans around him/her lost interest in the sport?
In the end, it’s all about the money. I don’t blame Sky for going after a market they think they could make a ton of money on, however misguided and delusional. I don’t blame the BBC for wanting an exit strategy after a financial crisis caused by a sophomoric management team made up by people less qualified than the entire cast of the Apprentice. I don’t even blame Bernie for wanting every pence he ‘thinks’ his empire is worth.
But don’t blame me for walking away from a sport that disregards its fans like this.
Oh, and don’t blame the sponsors for walking away with us, either. No matter what happens, they will always be on our side.
This cannot be dressed up as a win-win for everyone. The suits might be clapping each others backs right now but the fans are fuming. I will not be giving my money to RM’s empire and I’m not interested in watching half a season either so here is another F1 fan who will not be able to follow F1 after this season. It seems like I will not be the only one judging by the comments posted here and friends. I don’t see how these people expect viewing figures to increase by charging people to watch. Sky might collect a few more viewers but the BBC will loose many more. very disappointed with the BBC. Feel very let down by the supposed public service.
Cris,
It is a win-win for everyone but the fans. But you have to ask the question: why is anything free? You pay to go to the cinema and if you see two movies in a month at West End prices, what does that cost you? You go to the Royal Ballet once in a month and how much will you pay? The problem is not that F1 is going to cost money, but rather that it has been free up to now. That cannot continue because the BBC cannot afford it. Better this than no coverage at all.
The “Death” – I mean Daily Star is destroyed now we see the media “Empire Strikes Back”. Will there be a return of the fans in a year or two when viewing figures plummet. or is free to view and F1 going to be finished in the UK.
To all non uk people – we in the uk do not get ANY free to air tv. We have to pay £145/year just to own a tv. Hell we have to pay even if we just have a pc, iPod or smartphone. ANYTHING that can show potentially show tv means you pay. Bet you don’t have that where you are? Buy a computer and have to pay annually for it…
Emc- would you like to elaborate which part of Bskyb you work for?
Sky? Innovation? More like ‘how can we screw customers for more cash’. I should know – I’ve consulted inside the organisation and know EXACTLY how it works.
The problem is bernie – 40m/year is crazy.
The BBC needs to recover this and not having advertising limits things. Top gear for example makes the beeb huge profits from reselling it worldwide. I bet the f1 agreement limits this just to the uk so no cash there.
I have no issues with the BBC coverage and find it entertaining. I’d rather pay the BBC a couple quid/race than sky.
SKY and Bernie Ecclestone KILLS F1 in the UK
So the BBC and Bernie Ecclestone has stuffed us and lost F1, what a disaster it means we will now not see most races only highlights in 2012, why has Bernie Ecclestone allowed this, does he not like the fans does he not think we are important? I dont have SKY and will NEVER have SKY, i dont watch any other sport so sky is of no use to me what options do i now have? Why would F1 do this to loyal fans, i cant believe how they would do this to us? why does Bernie want to KILL F1?
Write to the F1 sponsors tell them we will not be watching next year.
Bogget
Bogget,
And don’t forget to write all the other sports that are now on PayTV
I don’t care what they show F1 on. Bring back active technology. The argument that it stops driver involvement etc has got to be bollocks. The best drivers seem to love technology.
F1 is a waste of everybody’s time if it’s not F1. It’s F1, not F2.
Perhaps when F1 is the progressive, emission free, hi tech eco wonder powerhouse it is pretending to want to be (sort of) maybe the beancounters at the BBC would have coughed up the dough. In the public interest.
The aspirational status of F1 is it’s only relevant value to me. A floating country for wheeler dealers etc is not the point of F1 racing. That is why we are on this forum, we love F1 because it is supposed to be the best. Prototye racing is dragging itself kicking and screaming into progress…
Cars, for me, are an amazing expression of humankind. We have shaped our current world around them. So lets have them as clean as possible!!
If “uncle Bernie” and his new best friend Mr Murdoch want to get involved together in F1 broadcasting (netcasting) it is fine by me. When the pit walk of the British GP is the best piece of “TV” I have seen in a long time, someone is doing something right…
Worthwhile comment to Cris there Joe.
Joe
This is wrong for a variety of reasons;
You state the BBC can’t afford this. Accordingly to one well known daily newspaper, therefore it may or may not be true, this was a decision made by the BBC to continue being able to fund it’s Wimbledon coverage. So the Beeb’s powers that be chose a sport which it covers for only two weeks a year and which we have had no British champion for decades and are unlikely to get one in the near future over a sport that lasts months and which we have had several recent british champions. Also the majority of the teams are based in this country, the economic consequence of which adds far more to the country than a two weekly increase in sales of sparkling water and fruit cordial. Also the BBC are spending millions of pound moving a large proportion of staff and production facilities to Manchester, a move apparently nobody wants.
Secondly the teams, Messrs Parr and Whitmarsh, seem to think that the added revenue from Sky will make up for the loss of sponsorship. Whilst Mr E has, contrary to what a lot of your correspondents think, done a lot for F1, equitable distribution of wealth is not one of them. At a time when it appears Ecclestone and is employers are preparing to sell F1 any new income, that doesn’t go straight to his pockets, will enhance the balance sheet to make F1 more attractive to potential investors.
Thirdly where will F1 fit in Sky’s portfolio? It’s major money maker is football and F1 is unlikely to trump this. The ever increasing football season means the majority of F1 races will take place at the same time as Sky’s over hyped ‘Super Sundays’. For those unaware of this phenomenon it is wall to wall football over several hours. Whilst Sky will push F1 to recoup their investment it will not allow it to usurp the monster it has created in Premiership football. At best F1 will be second fiddle on Sky sports 2.
In your reply to Chris you ask why we should expect anything for free. Watching or listening to the BBC is not free, I pay £110 a year for the privilege and F1 is the only time I will sit and watch the BBC for several hours.
F1 needs to realise that whatever it gains in revenue in the short term will be minimal compared to the loss of new fans in the future. I’ve been following F1 since the late seventies when my only exposure to motorsport was through the BBC. At the moment my six year old son sits next to me as I watch the grand prix. He is begining to develop favourites, predictably and unfortunately the scarlet Italian team. The disjointed coverage that the BBC will offer next year is only, I believe, the start of their complete exit from covering the sport. In two years time you will only be able to watch F1 on Sky. My son, inevitably, will be distracted by the myriad other activities vying for his attention and like many other be lost to F1.
Yes we live in a free market economy but I have managed to survive without Sky up till now. I can not afford to pay at least £60 a month purely so I can continue to watch F1 once a fortnight, which would be the only reason I would subscribe. You state that we we fans should wake up to the new commercial realities. But this reality is based on a large number of people passionate about the sports they choose to watch. Removal from free to air will lead to a reduction in peole following and being aware of sports. Since tests were moved to Sky Cricket has seen a reduction in those taking it up and how many men or women on the Clapham omnibus can name a succesful British boxer? F1′s commmercial reality is based and sponsorship which is a simple numbers game. As viewers diminish so will sponsorship and advertising income.
The more I think about this the more, perhaps irrationally, angry I become. The BBC is culling a programme the gets some of it’s highest viewing figures and F1, which I shouldn’t be surprised about, it going for the quickest buck.
Joe, your blog attract some of the most passionate and erudite fans of any website I’ve come across. When you meet Mr E and the other movers and shakers in F1 can you at least express our feelings of dissatisfaction with this decision.
I can only sympathise with my fellow F1 fans in the UK. I lived in your country for 10 years until returning to my native South Africa three years ago. Here, F1 is only available on DStv (our version of Sky) and – surprise, surprise – only when you cough up some 50 quid a month for the “premium package.” To be fair though, South Africa’s national broadcaster, the SABC (who, like the Beeb, charges a licence fee from everyone), is an absolute shocker, rooted in corruption and displaying a jaw-dropping inability to tell their arse from their elbow. The BBC is better. (No, really it is…)
The important point is this: as a sport, F1 was HUGE in South Africa and enjoyed massive support. Then, in 2001 the SABC struck a deal with DStv that they’d “share” the broadcasting. Within a year, it was all live on DStv with the SABC showing re-runs at 01:00 on a Monday or Tuesday morning. They then, predictably, dropped it entirely when Bernie came knocking to renegotiate the contract in 2004 and it’s been estimated that F1 viewership in South Africa has since fallen by some 65%. No: that’s not a typo. 65%…!!! Of course, we’re not even remotely an important market for the F1 sponsors so no-one noticed but there’s a possible parallel with what may happen in the UK…
Finally, for those of you who can’t afford the Sky subscription: I can again commiserate. For the first two years after I returned, I couldn’t afford the DStv package. Having two young children, my wife at home full-time to raise them and purchasing a home into the bargain meant that my finances were really stretched. What got me through was finding streams on the Web to watch, together with 5Live’s commentry.