Both partially Wrong
Pretty interesting stuff.
Finally, he noted that American pool will never have the business model enjoyed by Matchroom, a beneficiary of the Tele-tax in the UK which is approximately $200 per family in the UK, and which raises huge moneys for the British networks to fund their programming.
sjm is referring to Mark's comments on stream.
"I'm afraid this is incorrect, MS programs are NOT aired on the BBC (which is funded by the taxpayer via a TV licence fee) and as such is a purely commercial company as are any of the other companies that create content for various TV and satellite stations. As such their products (mosconi, WPM etc) have to stand on its own commercial footing and be of a quality level that generates the audience figures that make the companies like SKY wish to continue to purchase them."
CraigS
I believe that both of these comments are partially wrong. First, I don't know about the Tele-Tax itself. However, all countries other than the US is, at the least, partially subsidized by the government. The US has unique ideas about some issues (this is one) unlike any country in the world. We distrust government overall. Therefore, we frown upon the government taking part of business more than others. We also believe that our voice should be greater than the government (shorter leadership terms). When the government gets involved, we usually call it "interfering with business." Other countries are more likely to trust the government to protect their welfare or don't have the tools in place to make immediate changes.
Because of these beliefs, the US government will not subsidize any portion of television programming (with small exception of PBS, which is irrelevant to mainstream). ALL OTHER COUNTRIES PARTIALLY SUBSIDIZE ALL STATIONS, ESPECIALLY NEWS. This gives the government some, even if a little, voice in programming. A good example is the criticism of Rupert Murdock's (owner of SKY and in the US Fox broadcasting) deep ties to government officials and possible payoffs. Now, I do agree that the BBC (which has some of the best programming in the world) may be the only fully owned British government's stations. All other stations still have some government oversight. And other programming must compete with other stations in their programming. But, all stations are still influenced by their government. Remember, all of Western Europe is different than the US in many aspects. Sure, we are very similar in many also. The best advice is that you
cannot compare apples to oranges. You cannot simply assume that what works in Western Europe will work in the US. This is something that we (in US) have learned about freedom. Our ideas about freedom does not translate into the same idea of freedom in … say, Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other country.
BTW, I would imagine that pocket billiards still falling under the umbrella of the Olympics (barely), would give the government some incentive to see billiards flourish. I believe the popularity of the sport in Asia and Europe may catapult it into a more prominent role in the future. In US, (b/c of ideas mentioned above) we do not subsidize the Olympics ANY.
The US Olympic committee is owned by the people. But, we plan ahead (novel idea for our sport, rather than react) and use this for more prominent, mainstream sponsorship. The idea of looking ahead must happen by the leadership getting together and talking (not making decisions, just talking and learning from one another). Mainstream sponsorship is key to growth, but not necessary for our existence.
Daren Johnson
PS...The funny thing is the paradox with all above comments with the rating system and the "seven dirty words" rules that our government enforces "over air" programming of ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox etc. If you see programming in other countries, US'ers are usually surprised by nudity in other countries programming. It is really funny to me.
