BBC Spoty 2023

[Dicky99]

One wonders what the real parameters are: bribes by the agents/sponsors, political impact, friendship with the selection team etc etc.

You missed virtue signalling from your list.

Never mind. If it helps women's football to get closer to wiping its face it's no bad thing.

[Arborbridge]

Piers Morgan: "No offence to Ms Earps, but shouldn’t it have been given to someone who actually won something in 2023?"

Best Twitter Answer: "Like Prince Harry?"

Scott.

He's an idiot in my view. It's called SPOTY, not the "person who won lots of things in the year".
An individual may have performed an exceptional job but not have been in a winning team (as we all know, the margin between winning and losing is often next to zero anyway) - I don't think that is relevant. What counts is the outstanding performance plus (one might think!) being a person of note.
Would he give it to someone who won, but "won ugly"?

Arb.

[dealtn]

Womens' Football World Cup too, and England will be one of the favourites, so might provide a worthy candidate that could have a decent chance in a year with little obvious alternative winners.

Not bad for 7 months out.

Football betting is not allowed for me though.

[Bminusrob]

This SPOTY vote reminded me of Russian elections. You are given a list of people who "The Party" will allow you to vote for. No others will be considered, whether they are better than the party list or not. It is very much "BBC think".

I am old enough to remember when the BBC used to cover sport, rather than just being the football highlights channel. I really wish they would just stop wasting money on Match of the Day rights, and spend half that money covering lots of other sports instead. Surely it is part of their mandate to educate people. How else does a young person find out about all the other sports.

If you look up the most popular sports by participant, the top five are soccer, badminton, field hockey, volleyball and basketball. How many of these has the BBC covered in the past year, or decade for that matter. This list doesn't even include track and field athletics, which is basically what defines the Olympics, and from which there was an obvious SPOTY winner this year, if only "The Party" had allowed it. Presumably, they have sent Josh Kerr off to a gulag somewhere.

[Arborbridge]

This SPOTY vote reminded me of Russian elections. You are given a list of people who "The Party" will allow you to vote for. No others will be considered, whether they are better than the party list or not. It is very much "BBC think".

I am old enough to remember when the BBC used to cover sport, rather than just being the football highlights channel. I really wish they would just stop wasting money on Match of the Day rights, and spend half that money covering lots of other sports instead. Surely it is part of their mandate to educate people. How else does a young person find out about all the other sports.

If you look up the most popular sports by participant, the top five are soccer, badminton, field hockey, volleyball and basketball. How many of these has the BBC covered in the past year, or decade for that matter. This list doesn't even include track and field athletics, which is basically what defines the Olympics, and from which there was an obvious SPOTY winner this year, if only "The Party" had allowed it. Presumably, they have sent Josh Kerr off to a gulag somewhere.

I note your point about there's a choice about spending the money, but the Party you might trying blaming is the government (s) who over the years have starved the BBC of money. Now, BBC4 is officially reduced to repeating past splendid programs. whereas it used to fund some real crackers.

Another problem, I would think, is the obscene amounts which commercial channels bid for football rights.

Arb.

[Bminusrob]

This SPOTY vote reminded me of Russian elections. You are given a list of people who "The Party" will allow you to vote for. No others will be considered, whether they are better than the party list or not. It is very much "BBC think".

I am old enough to remember when the BBC used to cover sport, rather than just being the football highlights channel. I really wish they would just stop wasting money on Match of the Day rights, and spend half that money covering lots of other sports instead. Surely it is part of their mandate to educate people. How else does a young person find out about all the other sports.

If you look up the most popular sports by participant, the top five are soccer, badminton, field hockey, volleyball and basketball. How many of these has the BBC covered in the past year, or decade for that matter. This list doesn't even include track and field athletics, which is basically what defines the Olympics, and from which there was an obvious SPOTY winner this year, if only "The Party" had allowed it. Presumably, they have sent Josh Kerr off to a gulag somewhere.

I note your point about there's a choice about spending the money, but the Party you might trying blaming is the government (s) who over the years have starved the BBC of money. Now, BBC4 is officially reduced to repeating past splendid programs. whereas it used to fund some real crackers.

Another problem, I would think, is the obscene amounts which commercial channels bid for football rights.

Arb.

You make my point exactly. If the BBC just didn't pay for football rights, they would have an awful lot of money to cover the other sports. In excess of £200 million. I am sure the British Basketball League would be very happy for the coverage at a cost of less than Gary Lineker's annual salary. Volleyball England (for whom I was a National League referee) would be more than happy to be televised for less than a month of Lineker's (obscene) pay.

[Oggy]

Surely it is part of their mandate to educate people.

Sadly not. It is however part of their mandate to tell people what and how they ought to think. Welcome to live conditioning here on the BBC....

[Arborbridge]

I note your point about there's a choice about spending the money, but the Party you might trying blaming is the government (s) who over the years have starved the BBC of money. Now, BBC4 is officially reduced to repeating past splendid programs. whereas it used to fund some real crackers.

Another problem, I would think, is the obscene amounts which commercial channels bid for football rights.

Arb.

You make my point exactly. If the BBC just didn't pay for football rights, they would have an awful lot of money to cover the other sports. In excess of £200 million. I am sure the British Basketball League would be very happy for the coverage at a cost of less than Gary Lineker's annual salary. Volleyball England (for whom I was a National League referee) would be more than happy to be televised for less than a month of Lineker's (obscene) pay.

I note your point about there's a choice about spending the money, - I did say that up front, and I agree: but that does not invalidate my other points. There are obscene amounts of money flowing into football from commercial ventures which the BBC cannot compete with.

[didds]

Cricket behind paywall since "The" Ashes of 2005. .

Tests from India a couple of years starting at 0400 UK time IIRC on C4!

wooty woot woot!

(Joking aside - totally agree with BigB's point!

[Clitheroekid]

I am old enough to remember when the BBC used to cover sport, rather than just being the football highlights channel. I really wish they would just stop wasting money on Match of the Day rights, and spend half that money covering lots of other sports instead. Surely it is part of their mandate to educate people. How else does a young person find out about all the other sports.

If you look up the most popular sports by participant, the top five are soccer, badminton, field hockey, volleyball and basketball. How many of these has the BBC covered in the past year, or decade for that matter.

Does it really matter which sports are most popular on a participant basis? I suspect that a large majority of the people who watch sport don't participate in it, yet many are still passionate about it.

Nobody I know actually plays football, but most of them support a football team and enjoy watching them play. However, many people can't afford the time or money to attend an actual game, particularly as it may be a long distance away, so watching on TV is their only opportunity of seeing their team in action.

There are apparently 4m people who watch MOTD, so it's hardly fair to the BBC to accuse them of `wasting money on MOTD rights'. Bearing in mind that MOTD represents the only free way of watching a programme of Premier League highlights with commentary I think it's entirely justified that the BBC spend the money on a programme that provides so much pleasure to so many viewers. The fact that its' so expensive is hardly their fault.

And I'm afraid that if they stopped broadcasting MOTD it's rather unlikely that the average PL fan would be satisfied with your proposed replacement viewing feast of `badminton, field hockey, volleyball and basketball'!

[Redmires]

I can just see the Daily Mailograph headlines now....

'BBC scraps MOTD. Millions of licence paying football fans deeply disappointed'
'BBC yet again wasting huge amounts of licence payers money by screening Badminton games'