[12907835202]

Tennis is definitely not more popular.

It's odd that you seem to think popularity = it would be easier.

Soccer's popularity is what causes this issue because there is so much money to be made by splitting it up and selling to multiple companies rather than just one cheap, easy solution.

If Tennis attempted the same it would be so detrimental to its viewership it wouldn't be able to survive.

Unlike soccer which is so popular it can get away with it.

[celticninja]

This is not about popularity though. Wimbledon is in a particular class of sporting events, known as the Crown Jewels, that are protected and must be shown on free to air terrestrial tv.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofcom_Code_on_Sports_and_Oth...

[Crosseye_Jack]

> Soccer's popularity is what causes this issue because there is so much money to be made by splitting it up and selling to multiple companies rather than just one cheap, easy solution.

The reason they are split up in the UK is to stop a single pay tv gaining a monopoly on the broadcasts like in the past. So even if sky wished to pay all of the monies for all the games they can’t, they are limited to a set number of game blocks they can purchase, so the other providers get a chance at showing some games too.

It was meant to be a “good thing” but turned into the mess we have today.

However IIRC this only covers the premier league, TV providers can bid for all the games in other leagues. But not really much of a football fan so I don’t follow the subject that closely.

[rusticpenn]

It would have made more sense to make the broadcast non exclusive….

[temp_praneshp]

> It's odd that you seem to think popularity = it would be easier.

Yeah, I can see how my line of thinking doesn't make sense. I was thinking popular -> can earn more from ads, less popular -> need subscribers, but there is no way tennis shows more ads than football

In India it'd be unthinkable to put cricket on paid channels, because the money is from putting ads wherever there's space