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.

The pictures are sent from the host broadcaster. Can't see why it takes 272 people just to add some commentary and film a few bits with hosts and pundits etc. I can pretty much guarantee that ITV won't have sent nearly that many people. And 300 to Glastonbury is utterly ridiculous. The BBC just takes the piss.

1 small crew for local coverage of the England matches I could understand.

But some people want to watch all the games, just because you might not want to doesn't mean there's not a huge audience for it

sooper Exactly. Some people seem to labour under the impression that everything shown on the BBC must be of interest to them, otherwise it is 'a waste of money.'

I don't enjoy classical music and I am a republican, so the proms or the Royal Wedding and Jubilee will have me turning off the TV or Radio faster than you can say 'Zardoc the Priest.' I imagine both events were equally if not more expensive than covering the world cup and involved similar numbers of BBC staff. These things are important to a large number of people so it was be churlish of me to bleat on about them, just because they hold next to no interest to me.

I really enjoy the half- time and post match analysis; even when it doesn't feature Thierry Henry.

I don't mean don't show the non-England matches! I just don't see the point in having physical commentators in every stadium and then another load in a studio somewhere in Brazil. Show those matches with commentary based in the UK.

The BBC don't need all the pundits. They only need Mark Chapman.

But it's not just England games that need coverage. I actually think the BBC have it right. Most of the ex player pundits will be working for several different channels. Thierry Henry went from the BBC studio in rio to The Meracana for the Argentina game for another broadcaster.

I can assure you that all the pundits you see on the BBC will probably only be getting an "appearance fee", flight and accommodation will be covered by either another broadcaster they are mainly working for or will be paying their own way. Plus behind camera staff will probably be freelancers, some may even be based in Brazil anyway.

Do you object the the amount of people that covered the Olympics, or that cover Wimbledon every year?

I reckon there would be more whiney threads if the BBC didn't cover the World Cup and the rights were sold to the highest bidder. Sky or BT sport.

However, ITV coverage has been dire! Adrian chiles has less charisma than an gnat!

As for Glastonbury, live music gets very little coverage on TV now. Think of it as the old budget for Top of The Pops is now all used up over one wet weekend in Somerset

Numbfaker how would the commentators do a live comentrary if they aren't there to actually witness the match?