BBC MOTD total waste of money
Why does the BBC waste so much licence fee payers' money on Match of the Day.
The cost of the rights to just show the highlights for only one season is £60m, a shocking amount of money.
The presenters are on a fortune. Lineker and Hansen are supposed to be on about £1.5m each. Shearer and Lawrenson supposedly were on something around £1m. Then take the MOTD2 team, the pundits are less established and are on smaller contracts but this is cancelled out by the fact there are more of them on a show and the pool of people is larger. We can then estimate that the bill for what the BBC ironically calls "talent" is just north of £10m.
The production costs are staggering too. The BBC need to send a commentary team to every Premier League match. This is in addition to the 2 other commentary teams they typically have at a game. One for national radio, 5 live and another for BBC local radio. That's 3 BBC commentary teams and their entourage per game. The BBC are sending almost 300 staff just to cover the world cup for 4 weeks in the summer. There will also be hundreds at home in the UK assisting in production work. Then there's the expenses associated with production, which are breathtaking. For example, they spend £15k on taxis just for Gary Lineker a year. Shearer, Lawrenson and Hansen are also regularly chauffeur driven from Merseyside and Tyneside to the studios and back again, a one way trip costing about £500 each. Then there's hotel bills and transport to be chucked in for all the other staff. A years production costs, excluding highlights rights and talent salaries, is likely to be around £15m-£20m at least.
The total annual bill for MOTD probably comes to somewhere just shy of £100m. Put it this way, every radio station the BBC has, the annual cost of each is less than MOTD. The same for it's TV channels, except BBC 1 and BBC 2. Even for BBC 2, the MOTD budget it ONE QUARTER of the total BBC 2 budget.
How much content do we get for this money? Well MOTD is on for 1.5 hours a week and MOTD 2 for 1 hour, 38 weeks a year. Averaging this out we get a figure of just 1.8 hours a week. That's 1.8 hours a week for £100m, are you bloody joking? The BBC are committed to at least 15 hours a day of quality content on BBC 1 and BBC 2, the rest of the time it'll be repeats or the news. A week that's 105 hours of content per channel. Put it this way, you get 105 hours of BBC 2 content, for £400m a year, and 1.8 hours of MOTD for £100m a year, good value or what?
The BBC is a public service broadcaster, it should be covering things that other broadcasters won't cover and that the public want covered. With the internet, ITV, Sky, BT Sport, phone apps showing all the goals, there is no justification.
WASTE OF MONEY, licence fee payers money to be precise.
The cost of the rights to just show the highlights for only one season is £60m, a shocking amount of money.
The presenters are on a fortune. Lineker and Hansen are supposed to be on about £1.5m each. Shearer and Lawrenson supposedly were on something around £1m. Then take the MOTD2 team, the pundits are less established and are on smaller contracts but this is cancelled out by the fact there are more of them on a show and the pool of people is larger. We can then estimate that the bill for what the BBC ironically calls "talent" is just north of £10m.
The production costs are staggering too. The BBC need to send a commentary team to every Premier League match. This is in addition to the 2 other commentary teams they typically have at a game. One for national radio, 5 live and another for BBC local radio. That's 3 BBC commentary teams and their entourage per game. The BBC are sending almost 300 staff just to cover the world cup for 4 weeks in the summer. There will also be hundreds at home in the UK assisting in production work. Then there's the expenses associated with production, which are breathtaking. For example, they spend £15k on taxis just for Gary Lineker a year. Shearer, Lawrenson and Hansen are also regularly chauffeur driven from Merseyside and Tyneside to the studios and back again, a one way trip costing about £500 each. Then there's hotel bills and transport to be chucked in for all the other staff. A years production costs, excluding highlights rights and talent salaries, is likely to be around £15m-£20m at least.
The total annual bill for MOTD probably comes to somewhere just shy of £100m. Put it this way, every radio station the BBC has, the annual cost of each is less than MOTD. The same for it's TV channels, except BBC 1 and BBC 2. Even for BBC 2, the MOTD budget it ONE QUARTER of the total BBC 2 budget.
How much content do we get for this money? Well MOTD is on for 1.5 hours a week and MOTD 2 for 1 hour, 38 weeks a year. Averaging this out we get a figure of just 1.8 hours a week. That's 1.8 hours a week for £100m, are you bloody joking? The BBC are committed to at least 15 hours a day of quality content on BBC 1 and BBC 2, the rest of the time it'll be repeats or the news. A week that's 105 hours of content per channel. Put it this way, you get 105 hours of BBC 2 content, for £400m a year, and 1.8 hours of MOTD for £100m a year, good value or what?
The BBC is a public service broadcaster, it should be covering things that other broadcasters won't cover and that the public want covered. With the internet, ITV, Sky, BT Sport, phone apps showing all the goals, there is no justification.
WASTE OF MONEY, licence fee payers money to be precise.
Scroll to see replies
It costs like £3billion quid for the whole match
60mill is nothing.
Stfu and let the poor people see some football lol.
60mill is nothing.
Stfu and let the poor people see some football lol.
How many people watches it (aka demand)
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by yaboy nobenders
It costs like £3billion quid for the whole match
60mill is nothing.
Stfu and let the poor people see some football lol.
60mill is nothing.
Stfu and let the poor people see some football lol.
They can still see football. It's all over YouTube. There are free goal apps offering people the chance to see all the goals. Also, before the BBC bid for the rights, ITV had the rights. The BBC is a public service broadcaster, it shouldn't be pricing commerical broadcasters out of the market by using licence fee payers' money, it's wrong. If the BBC didn't show it, someone else would.
Original post by 122025278
They can still see football. It's all over YouTube. There are free goal apps offering people the chance to see all the goals. Also, before the BBC bid for the rights, ITV had the rights. The BBC is a public service broadcaster, it shouldn't be pricing commerical broadcasters out of the market by using licence fee payers' money, it's wrong. If the BBC didn't show it, someone else would.
If it's what people want
them give them it.
I see absolutely no issue, just you have an agenda against football.
Original post by AnharM
What do you mean by ''license fee payers money''???
The BBC is funded by a licence fee. If you have a TV, laptop or phone and watch a live broadcast of any channel, you need to buy a TV licence from the BBC for £145.50, even if you never watch anything on the BBC.
If you don't buy one, you're breaking the law. 150,000 people a year get criminal records for not having a licence and some even go to prison for it. That's what I mean by licence fee payers' money.
Original post by yaboy nobenders
If it's what people want
them give them it.
I see absolutely no issue, just you have an agenda against football.
them give them it.
I see absolutely no issue, just you have an agenda against football.
I have an agenda against football? That's pure conjecture, not fact. I can tell you I love football, which can be backed up by the hundreds of posts I've made on the football threads here over the years.
Also, 1) We don't know if it's what the people want. 2) Even if it is what the people want, it isn't the remit of the BBC to provide it. 3) The cost is astronomical.
Original post by Jkizer
Put it this way, MOTD didn't even come in the top 20 of just BBC 1's most watched shows, ranked by viewing numbers. MOTD 2 comes far below even that.
Original post by 122025278
The BBC is funded by a licence fee. If you have a TV, laptop or phone and watch a live broadcast of any channel, you need to buy a TV licence from the BBC for £145.50, even if you never watch anything on the BBC.
If you don't buy one, you're breaking the law. 150,000 people a year get criminal records for not having a licence and some even go to prison for it. That's what I mean by licence fee payers' money.
If you don't buy one, you're breaking the law. 150,000 people a year get criminal records for not having a licence and some even go to prison for it. That's what I mean by licence fee payers' money.
Oh right, yes. My family does pay for the TV license of course. Right, well you said it yourself:
''The BBC is a public service broadcaster, it should be covering things that other broadcasters won't cover and that the public want covered. With the internet, ITV, Sky, BT Sport, phone apps showing all the goals, there is no justification.''
The public wants MOTD. There are a LOT of football fans like me, who watch MOTD every single week. Football fans don't just watch MOTD for the highlights, but they watch it to get a good insight of how the game was played out, who the stand-out players were, from the pundits. If MOTD wasn't being watched by many people, they would officially cancel the show because of the money they need to broadcast the show every year.
The public like it, it stays. Get used to it.
Original post by 122025278
Put it this way, MOTD didn't even come in the top 20 of just BBC 1's most watched shows, ranked by viewing numbers. MOTD 2 comes far below even that.
Source?
Original post by 122025278
Put it this way, MOTD didn't even come in the top 20 of just BBC 1's most watched shows, ranked by viewing numbers. MOTD 2 comes far below even that.
I would love to see the source for that. I refuse to believe that MOTD didn't come in the top 20 most watched shows on the BBC. Thought it would be in the top 5, to be honest. I don't even watch it, but I know that millions of people do.
Original post by AnharM
Oh right, yes. My family does pay for the TV license of course. Right, well you said it yourself:
''The BBC is a public service broadcaster, it should be covering things that other broadcasters won't cover and that the public want covered. With the internet, ITV, Sky, BT Sport, phone apps showing all the goals, there is no justification.''
The public wants MOTD. There are a LOT of football fans like me, who watch MOTD every single week. Football fans don't just watch MOTD for the highlights, but they watch it to get a good insight of how the game was played out, who the stand-out players were, from the pundits. If MOTD wasn't being watched by many people, they would officially cancel the show because of the money they need to broadcast the show every year.
The public like it, it stays. Get used to it.
''The BBC is a public service broadcaster, it should be covering things that other broadcasters won't cover and that the public want covered. With the internet, ITV, Sky, BT Sport, phone apps showing all the goals, there is no justification.''
The public wants MOTD. There are a LOT of football fans like me, who watch MOTD every single week. Football fans don't just watch MOTD for the highlights, but they watch it to get a good insight of how the game was played out, who the stand-out players were, from the pundits. If MOTD wasn't being watched by many people, they would officially cancel the show because of the money they need to broadcast the show every year.
The public like it, it stays. Get used to it.
It won't be staying for long, the contract runs out in a couple of seasons and the BBC are needing to plug a huge hole in their finances, it'll then be gone.
You're missing the point. The BBC aren't around to just do things people want, hence why they show Songs of Praise, Sky at Night, Antiques Roadshow, Question Time, Bowls, Badminton, Cycling etc. They are actually meant to show things that other broadcasters won't show.
Here's the logic. The other broadcasters are commercial, hence they NEED to show things that the public will watch, their funding is totally contingent on viewership. No viewers then no advertising and/or no subscribers then no business. The BBC get the licence fee irrespective of audience share and viewing figures, which is how they are able to show programmes like Gardeners World and why ITV wouldn't.
Just because the public want it doesn't mean the BBC have to show it.
Boris Johnson's a far greater waste of money. Can't we get rid of him instead?
Original post by NathanW18
I would love to see the source for that. I refuse to believe that MOTD didn't come in the top 20 most watched shows on the BBC. Thought it would be in the top 5, to be honest. I don't even watch it, but I know that millions of people do.
I think he's referring to this, which is clearly a terrible source for what he's claiming.
Original post by 122025278
The BBC is a public service broadcaster, it should be covering things that other broadcasters won't cover and that the public want covered.
Like Eastenders and The Voice? Absolute ****e. And don't get me started on BB3.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by NathanW18
I would love to see the source for that. I refuse to believe that MOTD didn't come in the top 20 most watched shows on the BBC. Thought it would be in the top 5, to be honest. I don't even watch it, but I know that millions of people do.
http://www.barb.co.uk
Last week it was only the 24th most watched on BBC 1. The week before it wasn't even in the top 30. MOTD 2, which is shown on a Sunday night and is 40% of the total coverage, comes way below MOTD.
Original post by 122025278
The BBC are committed to at least 15 hours a day of quality content on BBC 1 and BBC 2, the rest of the time it'll be repeats or the news. A week that's 105 hours of content per channel.
I guess the BBCs definition of 'quality' must be different than that found in the dictionary.
Original post by 122025278
It won't be staying for long, the contract runs out in a couple of seasons and the BBC are needing to plug a huge hole in their finances, it'll then be gone.
You're missing the point. The BBC aren't around to just do things people want, hence why they show Songs of Praise, Sky at Night, Antiques Roadshow, Question Time, Bowls, Badminton, Cycling etc. They are actually meant to show things that other broadcasters won't show.
Here's the logic. The other broadcasters are commercial, hence they NEED to show things that the public will watch, their funding is totally contingent on viewership. No viewers then no advertising and/or no subscribers then no business. The BBC get the licence fee irrespective of audience share and viewing figures, which is how they are able to show programmes like Gardeners World and why ITV wouldn't.
Just because the public want it doesn't mean the BBC have to show it.
You're missing the point. The BBC aren't around to just do things people want, hence why they show Songs of Praise, Sky at Night, Antiques Roadshow, Question Time, Bowls, Badminton, Cycling etc. They are actually meant to show things that other broadcasters won't show.
Here's the logic. The other broadcasters are commercial, hence they NEED to show things that the public will watch, their funding is totally contingent on viewership. No viewers then no advertising and/or no subscribers then no business. The BBC get the licence fee irrespective of audience share and viewing figures, which is how they are able to show programmes like Gardeners World and why ITV wouldn't.
Just because the public want it doesn't mean the BBC have to show it.
If the BBC started exclusively showing **** programmes like antiques roadshow and gardeners world, people would eventually get sick of paying the license fee and it would end.
(edited 10 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Disney and The BBC
- Grades below already lowered entry requirement
- NTU leniency for entry requirements
- Thames Water boss says bills need to rise by 40%
- Underachieving in A-levels compared to potential, at 16
- Interview tips for dental hygiene and therapy
- Ual is not worth the money
- Graduation dilemma?
- How likely will UoB accept me?
- Help w uni courses and weird a level predictions
- KCL: Msc in Advanced Cyber Security (part-time distance learning)
- Do you watch regular TV or streaming services more?
- UCAS Tariff Points/Grade Requirements
- 57 great titchfield street
- advice on expanding fashion sense?
- DDE in A-Levels with Unconditional Offer
- Chances of getting into Neuroscience with an Access to HE course?
- dropping out of open university?
- Can you study Medicine after studying Radiography?
- not sure on what to do
