The ignoranti namely the BBC and Sky condemn MMA (and boxing ) yet make fools of themselves

The moral outrage was risible. A video of two boys grappling in a cage, ringcard girls, and a crowd cheering. No question there were things out of place here. But this wasn't mixed martial arts. Or 'cagefighting', as it is referred to on the high moral ground of news pages.

Sky and the BBC's newsdesks both went in search of experts to explain what we were seeing. The problem is that they don't have anyone who does actually report on the sport.

Both the BBC – and Sky News had reports on it today, and indeed, one of my colleagues at The Telegraph wrote on this matter. I feel sure that they have never seen or been around the sport, or ever reported on it. It is wholly untrue that the sport has 'few rules'.

They are there, deep and complex.

It is now strongly codified. The biggest mistake is that the boys in the video are not taking part in mixed martial arts… but neither Sky nor the BBC have an authority of any description who covers the sport.

Reporting that the moral compass is switching – that's on Sky – is just laughable. Ahem…moral compass. Dear, oh dear. NewsCorp's moral compass is so far stretched with its recent phone-hacking scandals, it really ought not to be given any credence.

What was wrong about this event, which I do agree with, was hiring a fighting arena, and having ringcard girls while children grapple. All three things, separated, have their place. But the boys were having a jiu-jitsu bout.

That's where the moral compass was wrong in this event. I condemn the organiser for that. Wrong place, wrong time. But children do practise MMA, and indeed often jiu-jitsu, which can be gentle, too. MMA and jiu-jitsu have transformed some communities, just as the old boxing club was want to do.

Look closely at whether the children in the video – and they are that – are involved in combat. They are not. They are grappling, and their work is a mixture of wrestling and jiu-jitsu, a form of Brazilian-Japanese combat, designed to help a small man fight a bigger man. This is not MMA.

I'm currently in Denver, Colorado, covering the world's leading MMA organisation, the Ultimate Fighting Championship, which is taking place in its spiritual home. The UFC began in Denver, Colorado, in 1993.

It was pushed underground at one time, labelled as 'human cock-fighting' by its abolitionists, but it has been owned By Zuffa LLC for the last decade. They invested millions, have unified its rules, and codified mixed martial arts into a sport. From being banned in every US state in the 90s – then often because of being misunderstood and misinterpreted – it has become one of the fastest growing sports in the world.

Three weeks ago the UFC signed a 7-year $700 million dollar deal with the Fox Network in the US. It will take the sport onto the mainstream sporting landscape. It may appear brutal on the outside, but as someone who covers many sports, many many exponents I meet in this sport stand out as role models, both as sports people and in their communities.

Confusion still swirls around BBC/Sky deal and what it will mean for viewers

There has been a lot of talk this morning – and, indeed, over the weekend – regarding the BBC/Sky deal and what will/will not be shown by the BBC from next year. With just 10 race weekends live on free to air, the focus of the speculation regards what the BBC plans to do with the other 10.

When the split-channel deal was announced in Hungary in July, there was immediately intrigue on this score with McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh saying he had been “assured” more than once by Bernie that the BBC would be broadcasting full re-runs of the races they do not show live (remember, this is extremely important to the teams given their business models/sponsors).

Bernie himself sounded less sure, saying the matter had yet to be decided although the joint BBC/Sky press release seemed pretty clear-cut, announcing “extensive BBC highlights on TV, Online and Mobile, of all races and qualifying sessions that BBC is not covering live.”

Could that still change? Could the BBC still broadcast full re-runs of the races as the fans/teams want?

It seems unlikely. You would imagine Sky have protected themselves against such a possibility, which would surely impact on the number of new subscribers who take up their subscription service. Then again, watching the race live may be enough of a pull for many F1 fans.

Bernie has also poured cold water on the possibility. He is being quoted this morning as saying that the BBC will be showing “75mins” highlights at “6pm” for the races which it does not have live.

Yet I understand from other sources that things are still “up in the air”. The 75mins, I am told, refers to the “minimum” amount of time which the BBC must show while the possibility of some races being shown ‘delayed live’ on the BBC and others covered by highlights is still being discussed.

I’m told this would depend on the timing of each individual grand prix due to the “hold back” clause in the deal with Sky which means the BBC cannot broadcast any footage until a certain amount of time has elapsed. During the European season that could fall during in the middle of the prime time evening slot, when a full re-run of a race is impossible.

Clearly there is still some confusion on the issue. And that is before we have even got to the question of whether all 20 races may be shown in full on the BBC Red Button or on iPlayer once the “hold back” time has elapsed.

With BBC Director General Mark Thompson due to face questioning from the Commons’ Culture, Media and Sport select committee next month – in the wake of some stinging letters from Lib Dem MP Don Foster who is scathing of the deal – there are lots of questions left unanswered, both about how the deal came about and what it will mean for TV viewers in this country going forward.

Whiff of betrayal in the air as Sky/BBC F1 deal announced. But is it such a bad thing?

“They have been trying to buy the TV rights from us for a long time, but we won’t because they are not free-to-air television broadcasters. Sky are doing an incredible job but if you look at their audience they are nowhere. With their figures it would be almost impossible for teams to find sponsors. That would be suicidal.” – Bernie Ecclestone, May 2011.

Everyone knows that you take what Bernie says with a pinch of salt, but even by his standards today’s revelation that BBC and Sky are to share the coverage from next season – with the Beeb getting only half the races while Sky get all of them – was quite something.

It took everyone here in Hungary – including most of the BBC staff (commentator Martin Brundle said he found out only last night and was “not impressed”) – by surprise.  And when people are surprised they tend to react emotionally.

Indignant fans have unleashed their outrage via the medium-of-choice these days: Twitter.

Many of the concerns raised are valid. Some are complaining that they cannot afford Sky and will not get to watch the entire season live; others are nervous that this news is the precursor to a full-blown NewsCorp buyout of the sport and fear what that might mean for F1, particularly in light of ongoing investigations in to the phone-hacking scandal. Nearly everyone feels duped.

Perhaps fans were lulled into a false sense of security by Bernie’s assurances and the teams’ apparent intransigence over the issue (FOTA chairman Martin Whitmarsh made it abundantly clear on a number of occasions recently that the teams absolutely required the coverage to remain on free-to-air for their business models – Bernie answered reassuringly that that was what he wanted too).

In short, there is a strong whiff of betrayal in the air.

But once the shock and outrage dissipate this may not be the disaster that everyone is painting it to be. The short answer is it is still too early to say. We don’t have enough detail yet.

As Whitmarsh pointed out: “I don’t think anyone should be immediately reacting to say this is good, bad, or indifferent. What we need to understand is whether the large audience we currently enjoy in Formula One will be maintained. I think we also need to understand exactly how this is being done.”

What we can be sure of is that Sky will do a brilliant job of covering the sport. The nuts and bolts They have revolutionised the coverage of football in this country with the Premier League arguably the biggest sporting phenomenon of our age (although, of course, many would accuse Sky of having ripped the heart out of the Beautiful Game and that too is a valid point, too. Perhaps the most important point… but on this score, plus ca change…Formula One long ago decided it was a commercially-driven sport).

Given F1’s basic requirement (to make money) it is then about creating the TV model which will provide F1/the teams with the best returns given the economic climate. And that is not by losing fans in their droves. We will see if Bernie/the teams have managed to achieve that. It is unclear at the moment to what extent the teams were aware of this deal and whether they might challenge it.

The media landscape is shifting at a extraordinary rate and the concept of a sport such as Formula One remaining on one free-to-air platform outdated. The potential of F1 in terms of media coverage is vast and largely untapped. Mobile phones, internet TV, iPads. No one yet knows how it will all work or whether the audience will rise/fall but both Sky and the BBC have a strong track record.

The fact is the BBC was never going to keep paying what it was paying. Something had to give. Fans have been spoiled by what they have had recently and any change to the status quo was always going to provoke a storm of protest.

But F1 is not leaving the BBC. It has been almost overlooked amid the howls of outrage that the BBC has in fact extended its coverage for another five years until 2018. Half the races (the best ones) are remaining on terrestrial free-to-air (which is much better than you get with football on the BBC), while the rest of the season will be covered by highlights shows. That is still get a very good service for the licence payer. And for those who do have Sky it promises to be a fascinating era with different commentators/innovations.

Of course, there remain lots of unanswered questions – about NewsCorp, about how it will all work, about affordability. The proof will be in the pudding.