blonde poker forum

In regards to TV rights - does this list still exist?

Always thought that the Open Golf rights were "guaranteed" for terrestrial TV?

Was very surprised to see the live coverage moving to SKY.  Think its a very sad day for free sport broadcasting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/golf/31114083

therse are the category A events remaining

Category A events are events which must have live coverage made available to free-to-air channels, although PPV networks may share live coverage. As of 2000, these events are:[1]

Association football:

    FIFA World Cup finals (all matches)
    UEFA European Football Championship finals (all matches)
    FA Cup Final
    Scottish Cup Final (applies to Scotland only)

Horse racing:

    Grand National
    Epsom Derby

Rugby league:

    Challenge Cup final

Rugby union:

    World Cup final

Tennis:

    Wimbledon Championships men's and women's finals

Multi-sport events:

    Olympic Games (both summer and winter)
    Paralympic Games (both summer and winter)




the six nations is currently in negotiationn too might go to sky

thats on the category b list that is free to go

Category B events can be shown on PPV, provided sufficient secondary coverage (highlights, delayed broadcast, etc.) is made to free-to-air broadcasters. As of 2000, the events covered by this category are:[1]

Athletics:

    IAAF World Championships

Cricket:

    Test matches played in England
    World Cup (the final, semi-finals, and any matches involving the Home Nations)

Golf:

    The Open
    Ryder Cup

Rugby union:

    World Cup (excluding the final)
    Six Nations Championship matches involving the Home Nations

Tennis:

    Wimbledon Championships (excluding the finals)

Multi-sport events:

    Commonwealth Games
    Invictus Games (From 2014)


its only athletics, wimbledon left once the 6n goes

I never understand this because bbc and itv are not 'free' they are just cheaper than sky.  You still 'pay' via the TV licence which, in part, goes towards the fees for the BBC to purchase these rights.  The reason why sky has more products is because they charge more.  I have never understood why it's a 'right' to be able to watch top class sport for 'free' on TV any more than it is a right to watch it live without paying for it.

Not about cost for me its about access. Just think the R and A (like the ECB) are short sighted. They will be complaining in 10 years that junior golf is dead and they cant attract new players.

Really sad news this. Think golf on Sky is one of the sports where they let customers down badly.

interesting. why's that?

they do cricket very well by the way, but it terribly terribly misses a presence on terrestial

Well their highest profile tour is shown with the live symbol in the top corner and they should be done under the trades description act there. Can listen to it on internet radio and be miles in front of their coverage. They show loads of it which is good but could you ever see them showing a football/rugby/cricket match that is 30 seconds+ behind some overseas feeds?

agree totally pointless for anything inrunning punting related.

I massively prefer the BBC coverage, too. Probably the only sport where I do (maybe Wimbledon). Golf isn't a "hype" sport for me. I enjoy sitting down and watching a major unfold quietly in front of me.

Whispering Peter mellowly notes how "Young Richard" Fowler's stance reminds him of some bloke I've never heard of from the fifties. Ken Brown drops a ball on the eighth green and putts it to show the left to right break we are about to see when Hunter Mahan finishes his deliberation.

The only edges I'd give Sky are when Jack Nicklaus is on for the Masters and I generally enjoy Butch Harman staring straight down the lens to address any question thrown his way.

ok why do they do that? cheaper satellite costs?

the coverage itself is ok, but the time delay isn't?

If it means we can finally see the back of Peter Alliss it isn't all bad news.

For non punters, a slight delay doesn't matter at all does it?

The thing I can't stand about the US coverage is they insist on showing Woods and Mickleson even when they are totally out of contention.

I'm not really sure of the reason, they did have a  Q and A with someone at Sky golf in the RP a few years ago and he claimed it was live. There is a feed into some European countries that take it on Golf Directo (which I think is still free to air) which doesn't have many ad breaks. They show US golf slightly quicker than Sky and even the Euro picks would be 4-5 seconds in front too. Some Aussie feeds are quicker and then the Canadian feed is about the quickest there is and it is usually at least 30 secs and can be a minute some weeks in front of Sky and Directo.

Arb deffo on the mark re in running markets but even if you take gambling out of it think I agree with Tal too.

well it depends if you want to watch(and pay for) live sport that's live I guess. Would it be ok to show a Prem soccer match 30 seconds behind other providers and still call that live?

I remember once 15/20 years ago when the only in-running betting was satanJ on teletext and we had the choice of watching either the sky coverage or the US feed on an adjacent channel.

I soon realised that the US coverage was miles(20/30 seconds) ahead of the sky one and satan was pricing-up via the slower one.

I had a really good night but it sadly never happened again.

The US golf coverage is piggybacked off NBC though isn't it?

Shame to lose The Open it off normal tele but I have to say, Sky do do sports absolutely fantastic.  Maybe Sky should have a scheme in place where they showed one day of an event free of charge.  I was thinking that about the cricket a few weeks ago, a one off test match from the Ashes live free of charge, shared with one of the terrestrial channels, wouldn't hurt Sky and they main gain customers.

Yes its piggy backed from whichever channel is showing it in the US but it's at least 30 secs slower in the UK most weeks.

The slowness isn't a big issue for most, I can understand how you punters need it faster.  Is there still that place in London where you can watch sport to bet on with zero delay?

at least explains the Phil and Tiger love

I'm finally convinced that you will say anything to get a reaction.

WP BTW.

I have to agree with him Tom although he does still have his moments.

For many of us who are actually into golf Alliss has been past it for years.

I agree he is awful now. Every 15 minutes he tells you about another of his acquaintances who has died or is at deaths door, so depressing.

They've done that in the past with football and a few other sports. Showing them on Sky 1 (or whichever channel it was that was free to view for non-subscribers).

You think my life is that empty that I would do that?

WP on getting me to bite BTW.

I have to agree with this as well.  Alliss was very good at one point in time, but sadly no longer.
Still a sad day when another sport leaves the BBC to go to Sky.   Don't know what they will show on Grandstand now.

He was, alongside Dan Maskell, my favourite commentator when I was growing up. Knowledgeable yet funny and whimsical.

In the last 10 to 15 years though he's become a mean spirited old bigot.

Should have retired a decade or so ago while he was still at the top when SKY took over the majority of BBC golf events.

You're all philistines and weirdos.

Agree completely with the Alliss opinions. Have found him completely unbearable for about the last decade. Amazed he hasnt been sacked a long time ago to be honest

i actually prefer listening to 5 live for the golf than watching bbc1 or 2 not sure why

Not sure about Peter, but I'd miss Ken!

Love Ken and Jesse too.

@sportingintelligence

"The Open didn't make the top 30 most-watched shows that week on BBC1 last year. On BBC2, made No21 that week. "

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B87NUnvCUAEXHey.jpg)

What this does is remove another sporting event from the mass UK watching market.

I don't know what percentage of households have Sky subscriptions but the bottom line is those that don't have Sky will have basically lost another route for kids to get hooked on a sport.

Growing up I loved watching most sports on TV. And I would go out almost every night and holiday to play tennis, golf, football, cricket etc.

Now because I don't and wont pay for satellite subscriptions on principle, I (and my kids) have not watched cricket, boxing, football etc in years or in my kids cases ever.

I'm sounding like a luddite (I probably am) but it saddens me to see whole generations of kids missing out on being inspired and wanting to play sport. Some people call it progress but I don't see less and less kids playing sport, understanding the benefits from a health, well being and future career perspective from playing competitive sport as progress. I see it as another way our society has lost its way.

this is my concern with a sport i love,cricket

sky cover it really well. really really well. Atherton and Holding are fantastic. Bumble is a one off, the analysis, camera angles and technology, depth of coverage is great. they'll show you ODIs from new zealand, the bangladesh t20 league etc etc

but the downside is that since 2004, participation rates have plummeted in under 21s. Part of this is schools funding and playing fields, part is that kids are not getting exposed to the sport any more

already, less than a generation after the sport went PPV, you won't find a member of the England cricket squad who didn't go to public school.

my lad is sports mad, but his mum doesn't have sky, the home has freeview and when we chat about cricket he talks about chennai super kings, dhoni, kohli etc because for three summer terms he has come home from school and been able to watch it on freeview via ITV4

hasn't seen any domestic or england cricket in that time, as far as i know

Where sport is covered on TV is huge in its future

100% agree Tighty, cricket is probably the best example.

Short term I'm sure its brought money into the game but long term its screwed itself.

As a kid I loved watching the test match on TV, loved the Sunday League game when it was on BBC. It inspired me to play the game.

I used to go to watch Yorkshire regularly as a kid, went to see Test matches etc.

I haven't seen a cricket match in probably 10-15 years now, I know nothing about the game or players any more and have lost interest. And I was a sports nut.

Its all about short term £££££ and there is no thought or vision for the long term health of the sport.

Its doomed to becoming a minority, irrelevant sport in my opinion - and a large reason for that is satellite TV.

I agree with you on the vast majority of your post but why do you feel you have a 'right' to watch top class sport for free on tv and hence won't pay for Sky 'on principle'?  I assume you pay for the standard TV licence?  If you do, why do you not refuse to pay for that TV licence 'on principle'? 

I think the tv sport choices now are just incredible in comparison to 20 years ago.  It was virtually impossible to watch so many sports day in/day out 20 years ago now there is barely a sport you cannot watch.  I appreciate Sky Sports/BT sports/ESPN etc is expensive but relative to the standard of product compared to the 'old' product 20 years ago which was 'free' on the old 4 tv stations i think the value for money is incredible. 

Don't think I said anyone has a "right" to anything.

I said it saddens me to see a big percentage of our society (especially poorer kids) missing out on seeing and being inspired by sport.

The sporting governing bodies can do what they think is right.

I think that sports like cricket and golf are misguided by taking the short term £££ from the Sky's of this world. They are screwing their sport long term in my opinion as no one from a large percentage of the population will see them or bother playing them.

They will end up becoming minority irrelevant sports long term.

I just thought you meant that 'on principle' meant you thought these events should be shown on free tv.  I think the issues are wider than just the TV issue though.  School playing fields being sold off, less PE in schools, social media/phones/gadgets widely used by kids in primary schools now are all to blame as well and parents having more stressful lifes/longer work hours/less time to spend with their kids playing sport.

I had never watched any basketball on TV until i was 16 (1991) yet by that time i was totally hooked on the game from playing it at school/county level by 16.  TV played no part at all in my taking up my chosen sport.  It is definitely a factor but just one of many imo.

You are right there are other issues besides satellite TV.

I just personally wont buy subscription sports on "principle" not suggesting its a right to have them on the likes of BBC/ITV etc.

Looking at this, it's fairly easy to suggest the the non-Sky paying public don't actually give a toss about not having sport on terrestrial tele, it's there but more choose to watch a whole host of other programs.  Does it really matter if it's only on Sky?  It would be interesting to see Sky's viewing figures for an average EPL game (or test match perhaps)  On the radio this morning they said that Sky just had it's biggest increase in subscribers this last quarter. Another 200k+ bring the total to over 11m.  

I'm not so sure it's down to money that kids are missing out.  There's plenty of each sport on Youtube (for example) which may be more of interest as they can pick and choose the best bits from each game, I doubt many kids will sit and watch one full day of test match.  If the right sports teachers are in schools they'll get kids motivated and outside of school the parents can show the way, not having it on free to view television isn't the only problem.   There will also be a lot of kids that do have access to sports on Sky.

One thing I was very suprised about recently was that in the third round of the FA Cup this year, there was no games on tele at all in the first days play.  I could have missed it but I couldn't find a game on any channel.

And another thing, viewing figures - how do they know?  I know Sky can probably track everything through the boxes, there's also those surveys you fill in what you watch and those black boxes where you tell that what you're watching, but that surely gives households?  How do they know how many people in my living room with me watching  :o

There is a camera inside your television Graham that is watching you.

Great Post, Golf does not need "hype", you just need to let the pictures tell the story. Unless, if course, it was those utterly horrible scenes at Phoenix last week, where Golf Administrators, Players, & TV did the game a huge dis-service by highlighting that dreadful "football/darts" behaviour with bottles being thrown on the green, booing of the players (admittedly tongue-in-cheek) & all that malarky. When standards slip, there is no way back.

Sky, imo, cover cricket & football supremely well. Golf, not so much. The whole coverage is bland, & the studio hostess offers no meaningful insight whatsoever. How her hair will cope with a bit of links golf wind will be her main concern.   

The ad breaks, with the overly frequent "top & tail" intro & advertisers music is way too frequent. When Sky cover cricket, they manage to make the adverts infrequent, & non-intrusive, but they destroy the flow in golf.

It seems I'm on a limb with Lord Alliss, too, as I love his style, in fact I'd watch some otherwise boring golf Tourney if I knew he was the anchor. Reminds me very much these days of dear old Henry Longhurst. Cuts things down to size, especially those with their heads up their arse.

Ken Brown is wondeful, I'll miss his little musings terribly. Most under-rated Golfie media bloke ever.

The R & A have sold golf out? Not sure I agree with that. Tennis & RU both sold the family silver to TV, but seem to have invested it in the future, & to good effect. Hopefully, Golf does the same. 

For comparison of viewing figures, Liverpool v Chelsea in the League cup on sky last week got 1.3m viewers. Man City v Arsenal in the league got 1.9m a couple of weeks ago. The Ryder Cup got just under a million for the Sunday, and 600k for the first two days, and a Test Match v India last July got about 400k for the Saturday and Sunday play.

you can look things up here - http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-10?

Sky's coverage of tennis is poor as well compared to the BBC.  BBC's coverage of Wimbledon is as good as it gets imo.  I appreciate they only have to wheel out the boys (Becker/Henman/John Mac/John Lloyd etc etc) for queens and Wimbledon for a month once a year but the bbc do a really great job of it imo.  I would hate to see Wimbledon ever leave the BBC for sky for that reason alone.

Annabel Croft is decent on the sky coverage but Greg, Barry and all the other washed up ex uk pros are just tough to listen to week after week during masters series events talking like they have been there and done it when they never got close (excluding Greg obviously).  the anchor man for sky tennis is also very bland after a while as well.

I did Google Sky veiwing figures and ended up on Barb but got put off when it told me how to win at jenga

The Ryder Cup coverage showed everything that is wrong with Sky's approach to sport imo. The hyped it to the hilt for weeks and even changed the name of the channel it was to be shown on. Then they couldn't even show most of the shots live, you have various red button options for other sports yet they didn't even have a red button option to watch individual matches when only 4 matches on course.

So they talked like it was a huge event and then treated it like a regular event, I mean how can you not find a way of broadcasting 4 matches when you have 6 channels showing repeats of old sport most of the time and red button options?

ECB did their upmost in killing off the game imo by selling the domestic rights to sky straight after the 2005 Ashes series. Such a captivating series and all that momentum lost

Is this the fault of sky or the fault of your principles? These sentences make it sound like you value your principles over your kids exposure to sport which you (i agree with you) feel is important.

I actually think live sport is a far better way of getting people into sport than watching it on TV.

Had to smile at this comment.

I'm not worried about my kids exposure to sport. I have girls. They have plenty of exposure through competing in sports 3 or 4 times a week and watching some live events with me.

There will be a lot of kids who won't get that exposure though and won't see top level, inspiring sport on TV. It's not healthy for a large section of our society in the medium to long term IMO.

I watch very little golf, and not that much sport in general at the  moment, but I have fantastic memories of watching the last day of the Open at a small farm near Scarborough where we used to go every year when I was younger. Few years later my dad and I were watching it on Sky with betfair on too mind. It'll be a shame if terrestrial tv does suffer from a lack of sport, but that is just the way of the world I guess. I can definitely see Sky offering some freebies up if things do start to disappear. I'll also always remember being on the putting green age eleven and finally sinking an approximate 6 footer, getting a little fistpump out and saying something about the "US Open" and my dad giving me a right bollocking telling me it should always be the Open. I was very lucky as a kid and get the chance to play virtually every sport I could have wanted to via school and afterschool clubs, honestly the only sport I can really say I haven't tried is Squash. Virtually everything else mainstream apart from bowls/boxing I had a crack at.

Did the last Ashes series still have the C5 highlight show? Absolutely amazed the GP is top of the viewings there. Used to be on at my Grandmas and it was somewhat enjoyable then, couldn't stand for it now though. Everyone I know under the age of 25 watches sport via livestreaming, many rugby games get put onto youtube, not sure about footie, EPL might be a bit quick on the draw.

Every Premier League game is on NBC Live Stream online.  If you know how, you can watch these from the UK.  I wonder how many do this and don't pay a TV company for any of their live sport viewing?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9Epkr2CQAAJMtY.jpg)

I complained to the R&A, got this in response (obv replied tl;dr)

An Open Letter from Peter Dawson, Chief Executive of The R&A 

 

 

We are excited to have announced today a new broadcast model and a significant change in the way The Open will be covered from 2017.  We believe this new arrangement, which will see The Open broadcast live on Sky with prime-time highlights on the BBC, will allow golf’s oldest championship to maintain its position as one of the world’s premier sporting events. 

I want to express my gratitude to the BBC, our trusted broadcast partner for 60 years. Our relationship developed through The Open’s renaissance in the early 1960s, golf’s boom years in the 1970s and 80s and more recently the height of its global appeal during the 90s and 2000s.  We are delighted that the BBC remains a broadcast partner of The Open Championship for 2017 and beyond and, we hope, for a great many years to come. 

I recognise that this new broadcast model represents a significant change and I understand that change, particularly where it involves the BBC, is controversial. We have observed, over several years, that the way the majority of people are choosing to consume sport is changing.  Time pressures, multi-channel viewing providing sport and entertainment from all over the world, the second screen phenomenon, social media and digital consumption are all important factors in considering how we reach fans of all ages but particularly the younger generation.  We have to cater for that changing environment and deliver the best viewing experience possible to golf fans. 

Numerous factors were weighed in this process such as quality of coverage, household reach, innovations in the broadcast, commercial considerations and promotion of The Open and our sport throughout the year. We have considered this new agreement extremely carefully and firmly believe that by working with the two leading sports broadcasters for the UK and Ireland we have achieved the best result not just for the future of The Open but for golf as a whole. 

In Sky, we have an excellent broadcast partner for the coming years.  It is now well established as the home of live golf in the UK and Ireland and it has demonstrated tremendous enthusiasm and admiration for The Open.  Sky submitted a very strong proposal stressing its commitment to innovation and a determination to enhance live coverage of the Championship and the quality of its bid was a significant factor.  It is essential to invest in our Championship to ensure that it remains at the pinnacle of our sport.  The R&A is committed to delivering the best possible experience for spectators, players and viewers and believe the new arrangement supports this mission. 

Another important consideration in our decision was that fans of The Open do not need to be Sky subscribers to enjoy live coverage of the Championship. Through ‘NOW TV’ viewers can watch The Open, taking a daily or weekly package without the need for a contract.  Our agreement with Sky also includes a limitation on advertising to a maximum of four minutes per hour, with each break lasting just 60 seconds.   

I know there are many who are concerned that The Open no longer being shown live on the BBC will lead to a reduction in participation in our sport and I wanted to take this opportunity to address this specific point.  We have looked at this issue very carefully and believe it is not possible to make an informed case that participation is simply and directly linked to free-to-air television viewing.  There is no question that free-to-air sports broadcasts generate good exposure for sport, we see this time and again through the Olympic Games, the World Cup and Wimbledon.  But, firm conclusions about their positive impact on participation cannot be drawn.  On the contrary, golf’s reported recent decline in participation coincides with The Open, Women’s British Open and the Masters Tournament being shown on free-to-air television.  And, during that same period we have also seen participation in other sports, shown frequently on free-to-air television, decrease while some others, shown exclusively on subscription television, have seen an increase.  Exposure is important, but is just one of many ingredients required to generate growth in participation. 

Significantly, our new agreement will enable us to take our support of golf’s development in the UK and Ireland to unprecedented levels and we have the support of both Sky and the BBC and their active sports engagement initiatives.  Additionally, we are undertaking a comprehensive strategic review on the subject of golf participation in the UK and Ireland and we will ensure that golf feels the full benefit of the enhanced resources available. 

I’d like to reassure you that The R&A approaches change with caution and a great deal of consideration. We are aware that our new agreement will sadden some fans, particularly those who have cherished so many wonderful and iconic moments of The Open Championship on the BBC.  Those moments will continue but through an exciting new partnership incorporating both Sky and the BBC. 

Yours faithfully, 

 

Peter Dawson 

Chief Executive, The R&A 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-06/real-madrid-agrees-to-reduce-tv-income-disparity-in-la-liga

Wales v England audience figures for fri night - 9m peak; 8m for most of the match. (E v NZ autumn on Sky 0.9m)

Not 100% like with like though although a good indication

fri night peak bbc1 with little competition is going to get good figures compared to a saturday afternoon yes

still interesting figures at a time when the Six nations might go off terrestial, which i think would be a real shame

Premier League UK rights 2016-19 have sold for total of £5.136bn. Sky majority of games as now.

Sky awarded 5 of 7 packages - Friday evening, Saturday evenings, Sunday afternoon and Monday evening

BT have secured the remaining 2 packages - Saturday evening and midweeks

Estimated upshot: from 2016-17 season, BOTTOM club in PL will get c. £99 million prize money. And top club will get £156 MILLION.

The world has gone mental.

City got £96.6 million for 2013/2014 and Liverpool £97.60 million (they were on TV more). Bottom team now in line for MORE than both.

FFP likely to become an irrelvance for English teams, Mike Ashley will be smiling, Stoke will move up 4 or 5 places in the Deloitte Money League and become c15th wealthiest team in the world and supporters can look forward to a reduction in ticket prices. Of course the last point isn't going to happen really...

Welll you might think it's mad but it hasn't ended yet by a long stretch imo.
It will continue to grow. The NFL is the biggest league in the world according to TV revenue. The EPL must eventually dwarf that.

Course it will happen.  Stoke's owner has frozen ticket prices for years (not including inflation so effectively ticket prices fall in real terms every year).  As TV revenue makes up a bigger and bigger % of the teams turnover every year ticket prices will be less and less relevant to their financial strength.

I meant supporters in general where ticket  price inflation for Premier League clubs has totally outstripped RPI/CPI and the impact of the current TV deal (from 2013/2014) has made little difference overall.

as well as ticket prices (obviously right) this is key too

Henry Winter ‏@henrywinter

Premier League TV deal: Windfall must be used to benefit grass-roots and England. Column via @Telegraph http://fw.to/qp4KSkD


hope it happens

See the Open is moving to SKY a year earlier than planned as BBC pull the plug.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/golf/31114083

I have just read this.

Winter thinks the Premier league should invest in English grassroots football and the future of the England football team.
The Premier League has 6 English owners, 14 non English owners ( Swansea & West Ham being Welsh owned).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_club_owners
I can understand Tighty, as an England fan, wanting that. But if I'm a foreign owner of a Premiership team, I have no interest in that. And Scudamore works for me, so the England decline will continue. 

Decline? 

These things are exagerrated and though we've had a couple of bad years recently in the Champion's League, we had English finalists every year bar one from 2005 and 2012 and won it 3 times.

There is precious little evidence that it has caused a decline in the National team too.

England rankings since the premier league started

http://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/associations/association=eng/men/index.html

I would also add they are the only team in the European qualifiers with a 100% record.  I guess in that group, that doesn't mean so much, but they don't look like a team in decline to me.

I certainly don't believe the English clubs are in terminal decline. I agree it's just a cyclical event. Perhaps there is an argument that the clubs are tactically naive but I think it's a short term thing.
With the money that is about to, and will continue to come, I think English teams will overtake even Real Madrid and Barcelona in the future. Money talks.
But English Premiership teams aren't English and neither to an increasing extent, are their players.

I'm referring to the national team.
~30% of players in the Premier league are English. I see no scenario where that figure will rise.
20 years ago most of the Irish players were playing at Arsenal, Pool, United, Chelsea and strong Premiership teams. As the Premiership grew, the Irish representation in the top teams began to wane and they started playing for weaker and weaker teams.
In our last game we had,
                                                     Given (Stoke)
           
                  Coleman (Everton) O'Shea (Sunderland) Clark (Villa) Brady (Norwich)
           
                  Whelan (Stoke) Hendrick (Derby) McCarthy (Everton) Hoolahan (Norwich)

                                       Walters (Stoke) Keane (LA Galaxy)

No one in the top 4 sides. Or 5. Or 6.
Not all those are guaranteed their game at their clubs. We have the Stoke reserve keeper, a Championship player and a guy earning his pension in America.
The bench was obviously even worse!
As for England winning their group impressively, yes. But even this Ireland team might still qualify. The Euros and World Cup have expanded in the last couple of decades and it's easier to qualify now.
Ireland qualified for the last Euros and we got blown away in every game. It was embarrassing.

Ireland are the small fish in this Premiership eco system and England is the big fish. The bigger fish can still survive but the food chain is getting cut off.
20 years ago, you could have gotten 3 teams of England players from the top 4 teams. Now you couldn't get 1 team.
Young English players increasingly aren't getting the chance at top clubs.
England got 1 point in their group in the World Cup. They can't compete at the highest level anymore.
They've qualified for the Euros but they've no chance of winning it.