arrers!

I've been off work with a cold for the last couple of days, so consequently I've been watching a bit of the BDO World Darts Championship on the BBC. There's no getting away from a couple of obvious truths when it comes to darts, specifically:

• it's a game of great skill requiring nerves of steel
• most of the players look as if they'd have a heart attack running for a bus

- the second of which may be what keeps it from being a huge ratings winner, i.e. it's not a "sexy" sport, though on the other hand it couldn't be better suited for television (very much like snooker). The other problem, sadly, is that there are two rival versions of the World Darts Championship, the BDO (the original championship) and the PDC (which broke away in the early 1990's). No prizes for guessing that it was all about money and broadcasting rights; trouble is that we now have the situation where there are two World Championships which happen within a few weeks of each other in December and January, one (the PDC one, broadcast on Sky) featuring undoubtedly the greatest darts player ever to walk the earth, Phil Taylor, and the other (the BDO one, on the BBC) featuring a whole host of worthies from around the world, including, until last year, the only player to challenge Taylor for the status of world's best, Raymond van Barneveld. Since Barneveld's defection to the PDC (and his dramatic win over Taylor in the 2007 PDC final) the BBC have had to drop their slightly amusing policy of never alluding to the "other" world championship during the BDO coverage; they've even mentioned Taylor's name a couple of times. The point is, though: is the BDO winner's achievement cheapened by not having to face the world's best player? Undoubtedly. Is Taylor's remarkable achievement in winning 11 PDC championships (to go with the two BDO titles he won before the split) cheapened by not facing 50% of the world's best players on the way? Undoubtedly.

There's a wider point about television interference in sport to be made here. There was a lot of stand-up comedy mileage made out of what demands the American TV broadcasters might make before the 1994 FIFA World Cup - quarters instead of halves for more ad breaks and cheerleading, bigger goals, etc. etc. - but what happens when these demands are allowed to go unchecked can be seen by simply watching the Super Bowl every year, or, if you prefer, in a couple of weeks. Or, worse, still, wrestling, though I'm not sure this was ever meant to be serious. Any sport where short-term money-grabbing takes precedence over the sport itself to the extent of rival championships will suffer in the long term. Look at the ludicrous situation boxing has got itself into - with the IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO and doubtless a few others there's a title fight (with pay-per-view facilities on whichever TV supplier has the relevant title-giving authority in a headlock) every week. Cricket was in danger of going the same way with World Series Cricket in the late 1970's, though long-term disaster was averted by the award of broadcasting rights to Test cricket proper to Kerry Packer (which was what he really wanted in the first place).

Darts seems to be on the up at the moment - given that the original split was prompted by a slump in TV coverage and prize money, what better time for the rival organisations to agree to a fully open and unified World Darts Championship? Just imagine the bidding war for the TV rights....