Australia made the final and played brilliant... yet no coverage! Whats the go... the rights would have been cheap too.
2006-09-17 23:03:57 · 6 answers · asked by whodawhatthe 1 in Sports ➔ Hockey
THe need to earn somehow to pay up for the expenses encountered for the matches. One good way is by braodcasting it to only paid channels.. another smart option could have been advertising - but we see they chose the first option !
2006-09-17 23:17:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Free to air satellite TV is usually used by minor broadcasters, by broadcasters that are testing the waters, or by broadcasters that want to promote their culture or diversity.
Since the hockey world cup doesn't land in any of these categories, it would most likely be offered by subscription or by a major broadcaster.
If you're talking about free terrestial television, if there's an audience will to pay for it-then the broadcasters will be willing to receive.
2006-09-19 11:31:09 · answer #2 · answered by Charles Amith 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No one in the TV industry cares about Australia. It's an island... inhabited by British Criminals. Seriously though... Hockey isn't in anymore.
2006-09-17 23:12:20 · answer #3 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Hey all you nubnuts who want to discuss Grass Hockey, go to the section called other sports. this section is for ICE HOCKEY
2006-09-18 02:35:51 · answer #4 · answered by Mark 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yeah it s*ck man!
2006-09-19 07:10:34 · answer #5 · answered by AbsoluteMart! 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
please phrase your question in the form of a question that makes sense.
thank you.
2006-09-18 10:56:34 · answer #6 · answered by lurk02productions 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋