champions league final - tv ratings

A very good question. I've long complained at the way sport, football mainly, puts the schedules all over the place. I mean just where was my dose of Corrie on Wednesday? Surely in this day and age of digital tv they could have a sports channel devoted to it and leave the mainstream channel schedules alone. And ITV are not the only culprits here either...
 
The truth maybe that not as many people are interested in football as the media like to think.

I for one NEVER watch football.
 
whiteflyer said:
I for one NEVER watch football.
Click to expand...
Nor me. I can't stand the game... However, I accept a number of people do, including some women. I've no problem with that, just don't want it rammed down my throat on prime telly.

Between football and the adverts i'm now a video junkie and a dab hand at skipping the adverts...
 
i aways try to watch every game thats on tv lol even if its a team i dont support i do watch a lot on tvants and sopcast lmao if i havnt bought the tv channels like setanta lmao
 
If you think of the number of hours of, for example soaps, that are on the telly, a football match every now and again works out to be far less. I enjoy watching the football, but never watch soaps, so I guess it works both ways...
 
Gebadire said:
If you think of the number of hours of, for example soaps, that are on the telly, a football match every now and again works out to be far less. I enjoy watching the football, but never watch soaps, so I guess it works both ways...
Click to expand...


Exactly. How come it's invariably those who watch soaps who complain about the televising of sport simply because thier beloved show is moved or postponed? If you added up how many hours of prime time tv were taken up by soaps and soap style drama series such as the Bill and Holby City, you'll soon see that actually sport gets very little prime time coverage. To complain the the coverage of the biggest game in world club football played between two English teams was shown on terrestial televsion at prime time is a bit rich.
 
OK, so lets say you have Sky Sports especially to watch Prem League, but one night they decide that there is a real good episode of Corrie on where Bet Lynch (i know, i know) gets eaten by a crocodile so they cancel the footy and put Corrie on?

But with ITV, I'm guessing its down to being able to get bigger paying sponsors for the footy than for the programs its replacing. Not sure what BBCs excuse is.
 
badgerbaiter said:
OK, so lets say you have Sky Sports especially to watch Prem League, but one night they decide that there is a real good episode of Corrie on where Bet Lynch (i know, i know) gets eaten by a crocodile so they cancel the footy and put Corrie on?

But with ITV, I'm guessing its down to being able to get bigger paying sponsors for the footy than for the programs its replacing. Not sure what BBCs excuse is.
Click to expand...


That argument makes no sense whatsoever. Sky Sports is a subscription servce. ITV is a free to air service. If the football had been shown on a soaps channel then you would have every reason to complain. If there was nothing but sport on all five terrestial channels then you would have something to complain about.

ITV showed the final because people wanted to watch it, just the BBC would if they had the rights to it. I don't know what your wife does in the tv broadcasting business but she obviously doesn't work in the right place to get the correct information according to The Telegraph whihc states that:

The Champions League Final penalty shoot-out was the most watched television moment of 2008 so far, according to ITV.

The broadcaster said its audience peaked at 14.6m, a 60pc share of total viewers, as Manchester United beat Chelsea in Moscow.
Click to expand...

Perhaps your wife wife was mistaken as the figure for The Apprentice was listed at 5million.
 
Simple. It's because there are so many channels nowadays for us to choose from.
There are also other things to occupy our time, the internet, games consoles etc, on demand viewing, DVD rentals, even Sky Plus (so you can watch Neighbours that you missed a couple of hours ago).

It all means we have more choice, and the TV (and subsequently, what is offered on the 4 or 5 main channels at the time), isn't as central to our lives as it once was.

Couple that with shift working (plus more and more families have both parents working), and it all adds up.

Besides, watching 22 overpaid puffs kicking a bag of wind about, isn't as popular as it used to be ;). I for one used to enjoy watching the odd football game, but all I see now is 2 businesses, not teams. If you see what I mean.
 
Marcel said:
Besides, watching 22 overpaid puffs kicking a bag of wind about, isn't as popular as it used to be ;). I for one used to enjoy watching the odd football game, but all I see now is 2 businesses, not teams. If you see what I mean.
Click to expand...

and the worst thing is that we've got to put up with yet another summer of it
 
the missus just sent me the internal bullitin.
i've copy and pasted it.

Last night's UEFA Champions League Final between Manchester United and Chelsea averaged 4.5m viewers (18 TVRs) on ITV1 across 1900-2259 (with Extra Time & Penalties). Viewing peaked at 2215 (24 TVRs, 6m viewers) and ITV1 had a 51% share of viewing across 2200-2230. The match helped ITV1 increase viewing across the day by 60% versus the previous 13 weeks. (based on PayTV Adults)


of course, ITV are a very honest company and would never lie to anyone *cough ant cough and cough dec* (just had to clear my throat there)
 
The Champions League Final penalty shoot-out was the most watched television moment of 2008 so far, according to ITV.

The broadcaster said its audience peaked at 14.6m, a 60pc share of total viewers, as Manchester United beat Chelsea in Moscow.

Champions League Final: Ronaldo was one of the players to miss a penalty
Ronaldo took and missed one of the penalties in the shoot-out

Overall 11.1m tuned in for the whole match, which was drawn 1-1 in full-time, leading to extra time and finally a penalty shoot-out which United won 6-5.
Click to expand...

slightly more than 5 million! Plus, how many people watched it in the pub? a good few more than likely :p

EDIT: Just read that memo....and it does seem quite low. All the Corrie fans must have switch off their tv's in protest.
 
Last edited:
the other thing i dont get, is when football is on one main channel, the other main channel just gives up and puts some crap on that no one else wants to watch. I dont understand why they dont put something on to try and challenge the other channel..
 
hepburn said:
That has been the case more times than I can remember or quote.
Click to expand...

Really? I seriously doubt it has ever happened. Certainly BBC1 and ITV1 can both broadcast England matches at the same time at peak times, but what other sports would the other channels be showing? BBC2 could feasibly be showing tennis, snooker or darts at the same time, and either Five or if it was a while back Four might be showing cricket, but as these two never held the rights concurrently at least one of them wouldn't be broadcasting sport.
 
hepburn said:
Surely in this day and age of digital tv they could have a sports channel devoted to it and leave the mainstream channel schedules alone. And ITV are not the only culprits here either...
Click to expand...

There are sports channels devoted to sport. And ITV tried a sports exclusive channel a few years ago that folded as it could not compete with the money Sky can throw at sport.

If i remember correctly i think that the Champions League is a sporting event that is 'protected' be legislation that prevents it being sold to a subscription/pay per view only broadcaster. The Open Golf Championship, Wimbledon, The Grand National are other events protected too.
 
NorthernNikon said:
Really? I seriously doubt it has ever happened. Certainly BBC1 and ITV1 can both broadcast England matches at the same time at peak times, but what other sports would the other channels be showing? BBC2 could feasibly be showing tennis, snooker or darts at the same time, and either Five or if it was a while back Four might be showing cricket, but as these two never held the rights concurrently at least one of them wouldn't be broadcasting sport.
Click to expand...

golf, rugby, horse racing, boat race,F1, american football, ice hockey, the list is endless. Oh, and not to forget the way itv repeats sports too. It's more prevalent late at night perhaps, but it does happen.

Let's see what the schedules look like once the olympics commence... ;)
 
Last edited:
MG TF 135 said:
There are sports channels devoted to sport. And ITV tried a sports exclusive channel a few years ago that folded as it could not compete with the money Sky can throw at sport.
Click to expand...

They could always use ITV 2, 3 or 4 for the event. Those channels often repeat their regular schedules several times a day (ITV 4 shows the same shows 3-4 times a day frequently). Likewise, the BBC could use 3 or 4 too. It doesn't have to be a permanent channel...
 
hepburn said:
golf, rugby, horse racing, boat race,F1, american football, ice hockey, the list is endless. Oh, and not to forget the way itv repeats sports too. It's more prevalent late at night perhaps, but it does happen.

Let's see what the schedules look like once the olympics commence... ;)
Click to expand...


But these events are rarely or never scheduled at peak time. When the Olympics start the coverage will only be on the BBC, ITV don't have the rights to it. Like I said, I doubt that sport has ever been broadcast at peak times across all five terrestial channels concurrently.
 
NorthernNikon said:
But these events are rarely or never scheduled at peak time. When the Olympics start the coverage will only be on the BBC, ITV don't have the rights to it. Like I said, I doubt that sport has ever been broadcast at peak times across all five terrestial channels concurrently.
Click to expand...
The BBC may have the rights but that won't stop ITV showing other sports at the same time.

Anyway, let's agree to differ and as soon as an example comes along i'll be sure to post about it :)
 
hepburn said:
They could always use ITV 2, 3 or 4 for the event. Those channels often repeat their regular schedules several times a day (ITV 4 shows the same shows 3-4 times a day frequently). Likewise, the BBC could use 3 or 4 too. It doesn't have to be a permanent channel...
Click to expand...

Why should it be restricted to those who have access to freeview, cable or satellite television? When peak viewing figures are the equivilent of one third of the population of the country, (and they didn't include thos who were watching in puns and clubs nor the tens of thousands who had gone to Moscow) they've got every right to show on whichever channel and at whatever time they want.
 
If there's one thing i've learnt in life it's not to argue with an idiot as they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience... ;)

I'm going back to my photography now :)
 
NorthernNikon said:
Why should it be restricted to those who have access to freeview, cable or satellite television? When peak viewing figures are the equivilent of one third of the population of the country, (and they didn't include thos who were watching in puns and clubs nor the tens of thousands who had gone to Moscow) they've got every right to show on whichever channel and at whatever time they want.
Click to expand...

couple of points
1) neither 5 million, nor 15 million is 1/3rd of the population and there is no way in hell 1/3rd of the population was watching the football because believe it or not the majority of people dont give a stuff
2) people who dont have access to freeview better sort it out pretty soon before analogue gets turned off
 
i say football is good where it is already my only complaint is that there isnt enough televisation of the lower league games.
 
The pub I was in had about 200 people watching that match. Do our 3 screens / sky connection count for 1 person then ?????
 
badgerbaiter said:
and the worst thing is that we've got to put up with yet another summer of it
Click to expand...

What do you mean ANOTHER summer of it?

There is a football tournament on in summer every 2 years

Euro 2008 is on for a total of 22 days 7th June -29th June
in the last week there are only a few matches as they are at the semi final/final stages
thats 31 matches in 22 days a total of less than 50 hours of football

Unlike Big Brother which is on for 3 months in the summer - I’m sure you can operate the remote control sufficiently enough to turn over to Channel 4


I'd rather watch footballers who entertain me and give me some of the best (and worst) days of me life than some no-body that goes in big brother and will be driving round in an Aston Martin and a million quid in the bank for doing **** all for 3 months except sit in that house
 
StevieF8 said:
thats 31 matches in 22 days a total of less than 50 hours of football
Click to expand...

I very much doubt it when you include the commentary, pre & post match analysis, and repeats. I do however share your sentiments about Big Brother!
 
While I follow the footy I don't pay for sky sports' coverage of the premiership because i'm not usually in when the games are on. However I did watch the final via sky as it tends to give a slightly better picture.

I found the following text on the Guardian website

ITV1's live coverage of the epic Champions League final between Manchester United and Chelsea peaked at 14.6 million viewers last night, May 21.

Live coverage of the match, which was played in Moscow and beamed around the world, pulled in an average of 11.1 million viewers and a 46% share between kick-off at 7.45pm and Manchester United winning the penalty shoot-out at 10.35pm.

The peak rating came in the five minutes from 10.30pm at the dramatic climax to the game, which was tied at 1-1 after normal and extra time, as Chelsea captain John Terry squandered the chance to win the game with a missed penalty. Manchester United goalkeeper Edwin van der Sar then clinched the trophy by saving Nicolas Anelka's effort.

Overall, ITV1's Champions League coverage between 7pm and 11.15pm pulled in 9.6 million and a 43% share, including pre- and post-match comment and analysis.

ITV said the five-minute peak figure made the football the most watched television moment of the year to date.

The 15-minute peak for ITV1's coverage stood at 12.7 million viewers for the quarter hour from 10pm, during extra time.

Sky Sports 1's coverage of the match peaked at 2 million viewers for five minutes towards the end of the second part of extra time, while its 15-minute peak was 1.9 million for the quarter hour from 10pm.

The average Sky Sports 1's live coverage of the match was 1.8 million viewers.

Sky Sports 1's full coverage, including pre- and post-match analysis, was watched by 1.3 million viewers, with a multichannel share of 6.6% between 6pm and 11.25pm.

Last night's ratings were Sky Sports' best ever for a Champions League final since it started covering the event in 2004.

Neither ITV1 or Sky Sports figures take in the thousands of extra fans who watched in pubs and clubs across the country.
Click to expand...

I thought it interesting to see that they don't take pubs into the equation, the must have been a few million around europe watching from them.
 
NorthernNikon said:
If the football had been shown on a soaps channel then you would have every reason to complain.
Click to expand...

I thought ITV was a soap channel :LOL:


Not enough live footie on mainstream TV, but I supose that's why I have a Sky subscription :D

Steve
 
hepburn said:
They could always use ITV 2, 3 or 4 for the event. Those channels often repeat their regular schedules several times a day (ITV 4 shows the same shows 3-4 times a day frequently). Likewise, the BBC could use 3 or 4 too. It doesn't have to be a permanent channel...
Click to expand...


I think that what they should have done, put it on ITV 3 or 4 as I'm sure nobody would miss another repeat of an old 70s show.

Most people now have access to freeview and everyone will have it in the next couple of years at the digital switch over gathers pace.


The BBC did a good job at the last Olympics and it was the reason I got my freeview/digital recorder (years before the sky+ box came out) The sport I wanted to watch was on one of the red button channels (forget what they are called)
 
Would anyone else like to agree with me there is far too much rubbish on the fta channels. Eastbenders, corrie, Emmerdale, Holby, Bill, Neighbours, Home and Away, Hollyoaks, casualty etc etc, must be at least 10 hours a week of this junk, all on at prime time. It's the reason I got sky!! You can actually come home from work for half five and not move till after 9 for soaps. Granted some people like this, but come on.

To top this off I come on here to see someone whinging about a Champions League all English final being played for a couple of hours, give me a break and lighten up. These FTA channels are grossly in favour of mind numbing rubbish that doesn't appeal to a brain dead fly sitting on a cows back.

But some people like it so I just turn off and move on....:D
 
I somewhat agree, especially ITV and the ludricous number of repeats, especially Emmerdale. I guess part of it boils down to costs and cheap telly.

Having said that, not all of us are brain dead flies on the back of a cow. I am very selective about my viewing and usually watch shows via my DVR so I can skip all the dross. I like Corrie but can't abide any of the other soaps to be honest. I don't watch Holby (insert appropriate extension here), nor am I fan of the bill. In fact, i am more likely to watch something like Monster Moves or Grand Designs. I'm not a fan of Football, or televised sports in general and I'm sure even the most ardent sport fan would accept there are times it overloads the schedules.

What's the old saying about you can't please all of the people all of the time? I guess that's why we have hobbies... ;)
 
hepburn said:
I somewhat agree, especially ITV and the ludricous number of repeats, especially Emmerdale. I guess part of it boils down to costs and cheap telly.

Having said that, not all of us are brain dead flies on the back of a cow. I am very selective about my viewing and usually watch shows via my DVR so I can skip all the dross. I like Corrie but can't abide any of the other soaps to be honest. I don't watch Holby (insert appropriate extension here), nor am I fan of the bill. In fact, i am more likely to watch something like Monster Moves or Grand Designs. I'm not a fan of Football, or televised sports in general and I'm sure even the most ardent sport fan would accept there are times it overloads the schedules.

What's the old saying about you can't please all of the people all of the time? I guess that's why we have hobbies... ;)
Click to expand...

I was going to write something similar, but I'll just quote you instead :D Much easier.
 
That's why I added "but some people like it so I just turn off and move one" !! I have no problem and can appreciate people like what I personally percieve as junk, and they are well catered for, but some perceive football as junk and then get a whinge on when we get a big game on (it's not like it's on for even 90 minutes a week is it??). That's annoying :D
 
Don't even get me started with sunday and omnibus day....

While were at it, saturday night tv has gone down the pan too, full of celebrity dance off and kareoke....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top