Why doesn't RL do this?

The argument has always been that the BBC don't want to show a RL game every weekend.

But the recent football Championship deal allows the BBC to show just 10 games over the course of a season.

I think the RFL should look at selling such a package to the BBC. Maybe include an international, and the Challenge Cup regular rounds.

This would mean that Sky would keep its dominance over the game, all its Friday night games, but the sport's main competition would get some coverage on terrestrial television.

Sounds good but it's the people running the game thats the problem.

If by "the people running the game" you mean Sky TV then I'd agree, if you mean the RFL then I wouldn't.

When selling the rights to the game the package is put together to suit the buyer, not the seller, and given that there is a scarcity of TV distributors to market to I would imagine that there would be a conversation towards Sky on the lines of "what would be the best solution for you ?".

Any other suggestion of splitting rights would only work if Sky and the BBC paid the same rates pro-rata for the number of games they show - given that exclusivity is the prize element in the package then the chances of the overall income reducing dramatically are very good.

Yep, for any other sport than football, exclusivity is key to get the most money.

The BBC do such a great job on the Challenge Cup and with Super League Show scheduling it really shows a big commitment.

And paying to show 10 Football League games a season really is just lip service to show how great the portfolio of rights they have is. Utterly pointless.

Sky show 2 games a weekend and have the rights to the GF and also have B&A each week.

BBC have the rights to the CC and show 1 game a week on a Sunday afternoon at the same time as the SLS which will be live from said game. All other weeks the SLS will be as it is now.

Sorted.

Sell a package of Bank Holiday games.

For Example
Good Friday: Wigan/Saints
Easter Monday: Leeds/Bradford
Spring Bank: Hull/KR

wouldnt SKY just pay less for the remaining games? meaning that we end up with less money overall

People say this but I've seen no evidence of it.

At the moment, we have one exclusive package and, as you say, it is designed to suit Sky's needs. Sky know that they are the only bidders for such a package, as they are the only broadcaster that could show that many games, including that many on a Friday night.

If, however, we had three packages, with one 'hardcore package' designed for Sky, one smaller package designed to spark a bidding war between Sky and say ESPN (with Sky eventual winners), and an even smaller package designed for the BBC, we'd actually have an auction.

When football was made to split up the rights to games, there were loads of people predicting a smaller TV deal. It didn't work out like that...

Or, Sky could just turn around and say "Nah, sod it. You need us more than we need you".

You idea also makes one major assumption; that the BBC are interested in screening live Super League every week.

There is a big difference in cost and commitment between showing a 30-45min highlights package in selected BBC regions to screening live Super League nationally every weekend.

Not if Sky had the pick of the rest of the games + 2 games on these weekends still.

There may be some negotiation over Sky losing the derbies but these could be replaced with some of the other barnstorming games - Warrington/Saints, Cas/Wakie.

The added bonus is that BBC get major fixtures on days people are at home and thus RL gets a greater exposure.

If Sky had one package and ESPN another then you would be paying for two satellite subscriptions to see the same number of games.

Also Sky and ESPN are currently working together whilst bidding for Scottish football rather than competing against each other

Exactly like the package the BBC currently has, but with the right to one live game rather than the highlights round they have now and refuse to show nationally?