I don't think I am, re the BBC sending..

[WildThong]

272 people to cover the World Cup (and 300 to Glastonbury)

I like football, I like music, I recognise that a core of technical support staff and presenters is needed for both big events. Why the need for so many 'commentators' and 'experts' though. There were 8 different faces just for the England game last night, most of them added nothing. Phil Neville There are 4 more on this morning in the same studio, passing over to another two at a stadium. Fgs! The radio and local coverage will have even more. It's absolutely ridiculous that our license money is used to pay for this. What a gravy train and 'old boys' club.

they haven't sent 300 commentators though

Nice work if you can get it, I am well jealous.

Yes, that's a lot of people, agreed!

gordy I didn't say that there are 300 commentators.

The World Cup is in lots of stadiums, some 1000's of miles apart. I can understand that needs loads of people.

But Glastonbury?

The ratings will justify it, won't they? In any case, millions of football fans pay their licence fees too - presumably, they are happy about the coverage.

They maybe don't appreciate their licence fees going towards the kind of programmes that you like to watch, OP.

One positive is that DS1 has now made up his mind on a career - a sports journalist!

I would be happy with the BBC sending 271 people and sacking Gabby Logan.

I agree - presenter + 3 commentators in the studio last night; different presenter / 3 commentators team in the studio today for week 1 summary programme, and handing over to at least another 3 commentators during the programme (I was ironing, so only half an eye on the TV).

Although one of last night's team was the rather lovely Thierry Henry, so am slightly mollified.

Wonder what TdF coverage from Yorkshire will be like (completely irrelevant, but I really wanted an excuse to use the .

Getting back to superfluous presenters, I get very grumpy about the hand over to a commentator live outside the (closed) House of Commons, or (closed) Old Bailey at 10pm....how on earth does having the news presented by a shivering journalist in darkness outside a locked up building help in my understanding of the salient issues? Waste of our licence payers money! I think W1A was a little too close to home!

Just re-read your post and realise that you are a fan, so I was a little unfair in my pp.

Nevertheless, it sounds like BBC bashing to me. I'm guessing that ITV have sent a similar number of people to cover the WC. The BBC have to compete with ITV; if BBC coverage was inferior then nobody would watch it and the BBC bashers would be saying things like - See, the BBC can't compete with commercial channels, we shouldn't fund it with the licence fee any more or some such argument.

Whatever it does, it seems the BBC can't win.

272 people doesn't seem that many to cover a massive event like the world cup. I don't know anything about tv production though.

so multiple matches at multiple stadia in a very big country - 2 commentators plus sound, lighting, technical staff, make up, post match interviewers etc etc - 272 seems about right

I like sport though ...and music :)

I can't see anything wrong with it. Have you been reading the Mail? You do know they have commercial interests in ITV, don't you?

At least they were in a studio, in suits. On ITV they're presenting from deck chairs on the beach, in shorts. Bloody cheek of it

I would so love to be there, what a job.

The television pictures from Normandy on 6 June were (I heard it said at the time) courtesy of the . Why could we not have relied upon the Brazilian television companies this time?

What are those commercial interests Icimoi?

The pictures will be from the Brazilian cameras Happy. No cameras already in place at Glastonbury hence the need for more staff. Perfectly reasonable numbers to create quality productions.

Why oh why did one of the 272 have to be Phil Neville?!

It's nice. Lots of employment.

You realise they run one of the stages at Glastonbury? And that it's a major cultural event in the life of our great nation? And that such a huge concentration of huge artists will be there that it's a very cost effective way of getting recordings, interviews and networking for stuff that's used all year round?

I guess if you're not into something yourself then you can't see the attraction for others? Personally I can't stand all the resources wasted on reporting on every breath someone in the royal family makes...

About right I would have thought, but I thoroughly enjoy watching both events.

The Glasto coverage will be higher as the BBC are (I believe) the broadcast partner to the festival which means they can then sell on footage to channels around the world.

For the World Cup, the geography alone means more staff than average would be required.

Did those figures come from the Daily Mail? If so I'd take with a bucket of salt!

Do you know anything about tv production OP? The number of people behind any TV programme is HUGE compared to the number you'll see on screen

Across multiple locations for the World Cup I wouldn't be overly surprised at that kind of figure really, and for Glastonbury the BBC cover multiple stages at any one time, and broadcasting on TV, online and on radio plus red button coverage so I can totally understand how they need that many people

PrincessOfChina, yes you're right the BBC is the only broadcaster at Glastonbury, any footage you see elsewhere has been made by them and sold on

They just said they don't have control over the coverage (so they can't repeat a replay for example). They could do all of the commentary from the UK. They don't need to be in Brazil!!

I would assume they can't repeat a replay because of the rights they've paid for, if they've paid to broadcast it once that's all they can do, it would cost more to buy the rights to do more

They do have their own camera operators/technicians out there