Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

GoodmanSimon t1_ix7k8z6 wrote

A bit of a weird thing for the bbc to do.

I mean they have entire teams in Qatar reporting the tournament and yet they still choose to have a go at their human rights.

I think it would have been best for them to not go at all ... but I guess they still had to make money.

−25

Sfb208 t1_ix7kdvl wrote

BBC doesn't make money. It's a public service station funded through the TV licence.

However, they do have a remit to report on anything of public interest to the British people, and yes, that means they cover major sports events. Particularly football, as its probably the biggest sport in the UK.

29

GoodmanSimon t1_ix7lzuz wrote

They do make money, they sell the rights to some of their shows/events.

License fees only partially cover their costs, (large part if I recall), but that's not all of it. They have to sell some of their contents.

>However, they do have a remit to report on anything of public interest

Yes, then why not show the opening ceremony then?

−14

Sfb208 t1_ix7mcvm wrote

True, except most of their money doesn't go into the pockets of shareholders, which is a significant difference than, say, fox.

Opening ceremony isn't necessary part of the games. It's the games they report on. Plus, they're public remit does place them in an awkward position. Plenty of people would prefer tax payer money wasn't spent on promoting Qatar, but they'd be damned by football fanatics if they didn't. Not showing the ceremony is a compromise. Its a nod to taking a stand without withholding actual sports coverage.

14

GoodmanSimon t1_ix7n1a2 wrote

I am not going to split hair here, I think we are both saying the same thing in a way.

I still think they do have to make money otherwise the UK taxpayers would need to pay higher fees and that would make the BBC even more unpopular, (or the government of the day if they had to use taxpayer money to foot the difference).

So, while they are definitely not a private entity they do have to make some money.

Because they are seen as the TV station of the UK, they also have a role to play when it comes to those kind of delicate situations. In this case I think they chose a bit of a backhanded way to still be there but be seen to be outraged.

−5

teabagmoustache t1_ix7ooem wrote

>I guess they still had to make money

This is the part people are disagreeing with.

They make no money from the World Cup.

You turned the conversation into something completely irrelevant instead of just accepting you got that detail wrong.

5

ItDoesntMatter59 t1_ix7lc9i wrote

The BBC makes no money as it’s effectively run as a state non profit.

7

GoodmanSimon t1_ix7m2wf wrote

They do, they sell contents, (like coverage of the soccer world cup), to other providers.

License fee does not cover everything.

−2

teabagmoustache t1_ix7n18p wrote

The BBC does not sell it's coverage rights to third parties. Rights to broadcast the World Cup are paid to FIFA.

They sell their own content to other providers, like UK Gold and Brit Box for example but they do not profit from broadcasting the World Cup.

5