Jump to content

possibility of no live WWC coverage


Recommended Posts

From today's Truth and Rumours section in the Globe & Mail...

If you were hoping to watch the women's World Cup of soccer on over-the-air television, you're probably out of luck. CBC Sports may take a pass on the tournament, which was moved to the United States a few months ago after the outbreak of SARS in China.

Scheduling conflicts appear to have forced the CBC to reverse an earlier decision to carry the World Cup, which will be played at a number of venues in the United States. It will run from Sept. 20 to Oct. 12, during which the network has Canadian Football League and NHL commitments.

Rogers Sportsnet would air the World Cup if it could find a way to avoid conflicts with its Toronto Blue Jays schedule. Sportsnet drew large audiences last summer for its coverage of the under-19 women's world tournament in Edmonton and Vancouver. TSN will have NHL, CFL and National Football League commitments during the course of the tournament. At this point, the games could end up being tape-delayed on either Sportsnet or TSN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad news. I'm sneding an email of complaint to the CBC now (hopefully others will as well).

I guess tape-delay on Rodgers for the Canada games is better than nothing. No way the old lady will let me subscribe to any other cable channel. Was planning to catch many of the non-Canada games on satellite at the pub, so may have to go there a little more.

Got the tv booked for this Saturday though! It'll be a great game!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by littleD

But do enough people subscribe and watch WTSN to warrant coverage?

I'm not sure if you're talking about coverage by WTSN of the WWC, or coverage by the article of WTSN.

In the first case, not only is it, by definition, WTSN's place (one might say obligation) to cover women's sports, but it would be a real coup for them to get the WWC, especially live. It would be the biggest event they've ever had, and what better way to attract new viewers? If you already have a digital box or satellite, it would cost only about $3 to add WTSN for one month; if not, about $12. I think either way that's a real bargain for the WWC. Not that CBC, Sportsnet or TSN wouldn't be better, but I think it would be really silly if we end up with no WWC coverage, or even no live WWC coverage, while WTSN just sits there.

In the second case, regardless of viewership, how can you talk about television coverage of women's sports without talking about the television channel that is all about women's sports? But don't take it from me, here is proof that the Globe & Mail regularly mentions WTSN:


- this mentions WTSN's possible role in future Olympic coverage, similar to how it could have been mentioned in relation to WWC coverage


- just to show that soccer is not the problem, this mentions WTSN's coverage of the USA vs. Canada friendly at the end of April


- from just two days ago! this mentions golf on WTSN

I have to conclude that either the writer of the article posted at the top of this thread just neglected to mention WTSN for some reason, or WTSN is not in the running for the WWC. I hope it's the former.

A more general comment: what happened to all the hype surrounding the U19 WWC last year? If that hype was the real deal, shouldn't WWC coverage be a no-brainer?

quote:Originally posted by beachesl

No way the old lady will let me subscribe to any other cable channel. Was planning to catch many of the non-Canada games on satellite at the pub, so may have to go there a little more.

Let's see if I can help out your argument... If money is a concern, I'm sure you'd be spending more at the pub than on an additional channel! If spending time together is a concern, with an additional channel you'd be in the house rather than at the pub! ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More in today's Globe & Mail...

Basically, CBC are reluctant to show the WWC because now it's been moved into prime time. If the tournament was still in China, they'd have early morning time slots which they wouldn't have minded "sacrificing", but now it's a bit different story.

Also, with the event moving to the USA, the cost of covering it has also risen.

I think the cost is obviously more a deterrant than the time slot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...