This Knitting Show Lied To You

Añadido: 2026-05-08

[00:00:02]Hello.

[00:00:03]>> I just got an email from Channel 4. They want me to take my video down. In November 2025, a senior communications lead at Channel 4 reached out to me asking me to take my video down. 6 months later, Channel 4 is in my inbox again. Only this time, they're asking to stay anonymous. Let's start at the beginning.

[00:00:36]November 2nd, 2025, episode 1 of Game of Wool airs on Channel 4. 10 amateur knitts competing for the title of Britain's best knitter, hosted by Britain's sweetheart, Olympic diver and knitting enthusiast Tom Daly. It's a standard reality show format. Each week has two challenges, a group and an individual. And each week someone is eliminated. But moments after the first episode aired, before some people even finished watching, kits were announced.

[00:01:02]Now, there are a few things to notice about this kit drop. First, the price.

[00:01:07]These range from $ 160 to over $200.

[00:01:11]That is not cheap for a chunky vest kit.

[00:01:14]But even more important, the contestants who designed these kits are not properly credited. They are mentioned by first name only, not last name. and they are not tagged with their website or their Instagram handle on either the product page or the Instagram post announcing the kits. And that feels especially icky because these vests were supposed to be autobiographical. They told the personal story of the designer who created them.

[00:01:35]So monetizing them, turning into kits, and not even properly crediting the designer just feels a little bit off.

[00:01:41]Now, publicly available evidence suggests that the designers did not even know these kits were being made until they were announced. They found out about the kits at the same time as we all did with that Instagram post. After those kits drop, knitts start showing up in the comment section and asking some really targeted questions about how the designers are being compensated.

[00:01:58]Ultimately, Rowan, the yarn brand behind the kits, responds in the comment section, and they say, "Our partnership is with Game of Wool and Channel 4, who run the show and therefore own the rights to what has been produced, not the individual creators in the show.

[00:02:13]However, we've ensured that the makers are credited and that we give them a spotlight on our platform. We can infer from this statement that no, Rowan did not pay the designers for their patterns. And in fact, not only were the designers not compensated for their designs, they didn't even own the rights to them. They were being paid an exposure. But we'll come back to that in a minute. Now, let me be clear. This contract language where the IP that's being produced on the show is owned by the show and not by the creators, that's not new to Game of Wool. It's happened in reality shows before. Famously, Project Runway has been using a clause like this for decades. I am not accusing Channel 4 or Hello Halo of doing anything illegal. I am wondering, is it moral? Is it right? And most of all, I'm wondering, was the messaging about these rights to the public clear and true?

[00:03:00]Because what happened next made those questions a lot harder to ignore.

[00:03:04]Episode two airs November 9th and again immediately after the episode drops kits appear on Instagram and the Wool and the Gang website for the 80s inspired sweater from the group challenge and people are immediately in the comment section. Wool and the Gang are you paying the designers for their work? Are they being compensated? How is this working? And Wool and the Gang responds in the Instagram comment section. We have developed these patterns in partnership with The Game of Wool and Channel 4 who run the show and therefore own the rights to what has been produced. However, we've ensured that the contestants have been credited and their profiles linked on our platforms.

[00:03:38]Again, Channel 4 owns the rights. The designers are credited. Let's take a look at that credit. First name only, no handle, no link, no last name, no rivalry page. If you wanted to find this designer, it would be very challenging to do it. And then one of the designers commented on the Instagram post. That's Hular, General Hogbuffer, and he's commenting on his own 80s sweater design. He was part of the team that designed this and he's asking in all caps, "Where is the bow?" That is not the comment of a person who was deeply involved in the making and selling of this kit. That is the comment of a person who is seeing this thing for the very first time alongside every single one of us in the audience. This comment only further underscores my suspicion that none of the designers knew these kits were happening until they were publicly announced. They found out at the same time we, the audience, did. And take a closer look at the bull and the gang language. This statement that they made about the rights and how the designers were being compensated. It looks a heck of a lot like the Rowan comment. Actually, they're almost word for word. And there's a reason for that.

[00:04:42]Rowan and Wool in the gang are owned by the same private equity group. Their response was coordinated. This was a prepared answer. At this point, I've been covering the show since before episode 1, and I was craving some clarity about exactly what this designer compensation meant. Rowan and Wool and the Gang had a contract with Channel 4, but that doesn't mean that Channel 4 wasn't compensating the designers directly. So, I decided to give them the benefit of the doubt and reach out and see what structures they had in place.

[00:05:09]On November 10th, I sent a formal inquiry email to both Channel 4 and Hello Halo. I made it clear that I wanted to ask for a formal statement to clear up the questions the knitting community had, and I plan to share that response on my channel. Two days later on November 12th, I received a response from a senior communications official at Channel 4. We have partnered with Rowan, Woolen Gang, and Ser in the making of this program as they supply much of the yarn used in the show. The contributors whose designs were selected for the kits are fully aware that their designs are being used with a full credit to them and their work to allow viewers at home to knit along with the series. Okay, so she confirms the brand partnerships, Rowan, Wool and the Gangs and Ser. Fine.

[00:05:50]And then she says that the contestants are fully aware that their designs are being used in the kits. She doesn't say that they consented ahead of time. She doesn't say that they were consulted.

[00:05:59]She doesn't say that they approved of the kits or had a hand in their creation. They're just fully aware. And she says that there's a full credit. But we took a look at that credit. So you can make up your mind as to what a full credit means. But she does not at any point in this response answer my question. I asked a very direct question. Are the contestants being compensated for their designs? And since the contract is with Channel 4, it would be up to them to compensate the designers directly, but she ignores my question entirely. Now, I inferred from that that the answer was probably no.

[00:06:31]But it was never said explicitly. So, as soon as I got that email, I took a screenshot and I created a short video which I posted on Tik Tok and YouTube saying, "Hey, I got an answer from Channel 4 and it looks like they're not compensating the designers." This is the answer that knitts have been waiting for. A few days later, November 15th, my episode 2 recap video goes live. That's a longer video on YouTube. And I include the screen grab of that email as well.

[00:06:53]About 30 minutes after my long recap video went live. I got another email from that senior communications official. And this time it was pretty cold. She said she never gave me permission to use her email in my video and she asked me to take it down. Let me remind you, this was a senior communications official at Channel 4 responding in her professional capacity to a press inquiry. I made my platform clear. I shared my viewership numbers and I explicitly stated my intention to include the response in my upcoming video. Despite all that, I took the video down immediately. I happened to be out of town already that day, and I was able to delete the Tik Tok and the YouTube short from my phone. But I knew that my long- form video had just gone live and her name was in that too. I had used the same screen grab. So I rushed to a local public library. I did my best in browser to blur out her name. In fact, if you go back and look at the episode 2 video, you'll still see a blur hovering in the first 30 seconds of the video. And that's an artifact from me rushing to try and censor her name out of respect of her wishes. Her email address was never shown. There was no identifying information except for her full name acting in her professional capacity as a press official at a major UK broadcaster. And yet, if someone tells me they don't want their name shown, I'm going to do my best to honor their wishes. I've been thinking about that exchange ever since. Because when a senior communications official is requesting anonymity, it raises the question of who gets protected and who gets exposed in the making of a reality show like Game of Wool. Episode 3 comes and goes without a kit. But episode 4 was a different story. November 23rd, episode 4 airs and immediately kids crochet costume kits drop on Instagram and the Ser website. But this time something is different because both on Instagram and on the product page, there's a new line that's showing up that hasn't appeared on any of the previous kit descriptions. The knitts will receive profits from the sales of their designs and are free to use their patterns as they wish once the series is fully transmitted. And for the first time, the designers are actually tagged in the posts announcing their kits. And the knitting community is really excited. I actually even made a short video announcing this, screen grabbing it and saying, "Amazing. Ser is finally doing the right thing." For the most part, knitts were really satisfied with this answer. And generally, people moved on. But I couldn't move on because I kept getting stuck on the word profits.

[00:09:17]Now, profits sounds straightforward, right? The kit is sold, it makes money, and then the money they make is shared with the designers, which sounds really good, but profits is a very specific legal term. Now, I can't verify the exact accounting for this production, but I can tell you that in other profitsbased compensation models, here's how things work. Profits are calculated after every single overhead expense has been deducted. I'm talking about the yarn in the barn, the needles, the tools, the couches, the lights, the microphones, the makeup artist, the food onset, everything. And in a production of this scale, those expenses can really add up. So, when you subtract all those expenses from the revenue produced by those kits, there are no profits.

[00:10:04]There's nothing left to share. Now, again, I can't prove this. To be clear, this is all speculation, but the word profit means something really specific.

[00:10:14]And if Channel 4 and Hello Halo wanted to make sure that the designers were actually compensated for their work, there are way more reliable ways to do that. They could have compensated them with a percentage of each sale. They could have compensated them with a flat fee per kit. Either of those ways would guarantee that some money would wind up in the pockets of the designers. Now remember, the contestants have already signed away their rights in their contract. They no longer own the IP for these designs. And this statement only came after public backlash. So it starts to feel like the profit sharing model was chosen specifically because this line would plate the angry mob of knitts in the comments without actually having to pay the designers anything. Now, before we go any further, I am not saying that Channel 4 or Hello Halo sat in a conference room and decided to exploit these contestants. But you don't need malicious intentions in order for people to get hurt. And in a situation like this one where you have a massive television network and a production company with money and teams of lawyers behind them and then you have 10 regular people knitts who just decided to take an opportunity a once in a-lifetime opportunity to be on this really cool show and maybe get some exposure for their craft. That's a power imbalance.

[00:11:33]The party with power strategically used language to ensure that they would never have to pay the other party. and they did so in order to manage outward appearances. It feels pretty slimy, but it's fully legal. It's the way our world works. At this point, I went back to Serar directly, and that's when something strange happened. I asked them for a couple more details about what the compensation model looks like. I asked for clarification. How is profits defined in this context? Have the contestants been formally notified in writing about how revenue will be allocated? Ser never responded, but here's what did happen. By the time I checked their website again on December 3rd, that statement about profit sharing and rights reversion had been quietly deleted. Here's the before. Here's the after. I cannot prove that Ser deleted that line because of my inquiry. No statement was issued. No correction was published. It was just removed. Now, in defense of Serir, the official statements from both Rowan and Wool and the Gang made it clear that their contract was directly with Channel 4 because Channel 4 owned the IP for the design. So they were the ones who had the right to sell them to these yarn companies. Or maybe Channel 4 even conveyed to Ser like, "Oh, we're going to work something out." And Ser posted that statement in good faith. Ser's obligation ends with the contract they signed with Channel 4. They paid the owner of the design to put the design in their kit. They did everything above table. And whether Channel 4 decides to pass any money along to the designers for their designs has to do with the contracts that they signed at the beginning of the show, which according to Channel 4, it's confidential. On November 30th, episode 5 airs and immediately afterward, chunky cabled cardigan kits go live on Instagram and the Wool in the Gang website. That same profit sharing and rights reversion language appears with those kits.

[00:13:21]December 7th, episode 6. December 14th, episode 7, no new kits. And then December 21st, episode 8, the season finale, hat kits drop with Rowan, and we see the same language again about profit sharing and rights reversion. And with that, the series is fully transmitted.

[00:13:38]That's the end of Game of Wool. And at this point, the knitting community has largely moved on. Those statements issued by Wool and the Gang and Rowan seem to calm people down. The comment section are no longer full of angry people wondering why designers aren't getting paid. Here's the question I've been sitting with for months after episode 4. Channel 4 makes it clear that not only will contestants receive profit share from their pattern sales, they will also get the rights for their patterns and designs reverted back to them once the show has fully transmitted. The series transmitted on December 21st, 2025. It is now the end of April, 2026. It has been 4 months since the show fully transmitted. I took a peek at Rivalry. I looked for the contestants game of old designs. They're missing. They're not there. Looking at Hular's page, someone who's trying to redefine themselves and build a career as a knitwear designer and personality.

[00:14:30]If Hular got the rights to his designs back from the show, don't you think he would have posted them on Rivalry for for sale or for free? If you had a design that tens of thousands of handmakers had watched you create on television, and you had the legal right to publish and share that design, why wouldn't you? Formal statements from Wool and the Gang Ser and Rowan all suggest that the rights should have reverted by now. But the evidence on rivalry suggests otherwise. So if the designers can't monetize their patterns, who is actually making money from all this? Rowan, Wool and the Gang, Ser.

[00:15:04]Three different brands, but all with the same rights reversion and profit sharing language under their posts because they're not three separate companies.

[00:15:13]They're all owned by the same private equity umbrella group. DMC Group, yes, the same one that makes embroidery floss is majority owned by Lion Capital, a private equity group based in the UK.

[00:15:24]So, every single yarn company that Game of Wool partnered with, both in the yarn barn and to make these kits, answers into the same private equity umbrella.

[00:15:33]Channel 4 gets lowcost, highengagement programming. DMC Group gets to push tons of product because you can only buy these patterns bundled with over a hundred, sometimes over $200 worth of yarn. And every time someone wants to knit one of the designs from the show, that money goes to the yarn brand, not the designer who created the pattern.

[00:15:54]And the value doesn't stop when airing ends. Game of Wool continues to generate revenue from YouTube clips, from Instagram, from reruns on TV. Every time someone goes back and watches the show, advertising money flows back into channel 4. But the show doesn't exist without the crafters who appear on it.

[00:16:12]It's their labor that made all of this possible. This show doesn't feel like a knitting show meant to celebrate and showcase the craft. It feels like an advertisement, a retail operation. Every episode was a product launch. Why were episode 1's fair ale vests controversially made with chunky yarn?

[00:16:32]because they were trying to sell Rowan big wool. That challenge was reverse engineered to sell a product, not to showcase the skill and the art behind fair ale design. Now, you might be feeling like, Deborah, why are you surprised? This is what PE does. They get their hands in things and they try to maximize profit. But this isn't all PEentric. Game of Wool received 240,000 pounds from the Screen Scotland Broadcast content fund. That's public funding. It comes from the Scottish government and the National Lottery and it's administered through Creative Scotland which is meant to further Scotland's screen industry and creative culture. Now the show was filmed in Glasgow and it's called Game of Wool and there was such an opportunity here because frankly the British wool industry is struggling. Within the last few years British farmers have been burning their fleces because it's cheaper than trying to sell it. British wool is in crisis and Game of Wool filmed in Scotland, partially funded by the public, had an opportunity to showcase the heritage and art of the British wool industry to draw attention to small producers, to heritage breeds, to the farmers who are trying to save this industry. And instead, they partnered with private equityowned yarn brands. After episode 1 aired, the Shetland Organization of Knitters issued a formal statement, saying the show left them shocked and saddened. The Shetland Textile Network called the productions approach laziness and disregard.

[00:17:58]Shetland's MSP wrote directly to Channel 4's chief executive and lodged a motion in the Scottish Parliament. But here's the crazy thing. The production team had actually reached out to Shetland knitts prior to filming. They asked them all these questions. They tried to get it right. And then they disregarded all of that during filming. They knew who to ask. They did ask. They just chose not to listen. The problem isn't that Scottish heritage is absent. It's how little of the show's value is directed toward the people and craft that it claims to be celebrating. The yarn barn you see in every episode, it's not a love letter to knitting or wool. It's a handshake between CEOs in a boardroom who have probably never touched knitting needles in their lives. I want to be clear. I'm not saying the show did anything wrong with their funding. In fact, it seems like they did exactly what they had to to check the boxes for their funding. But what I am saying is they had an opportunity. Dye and Lydia were people on the show who have their own yarn brands. This show could have spotlighted them, could have lifted them up, and they made a different choice.

[00:19:00]So, the brands aren't compensating contestants. The show isn't really amplifying them, but at least they're getting exposure, right? Well, let's talk about exposure because exposure is what the contestants were paid in.

[00:19:11]Contestants are not tagged consistently.

[00:19:13]When they are mentioned, they are mentioned by first name only. But it's not that the show didn't know how to give exposure. They knew how to give exposure. They gave it to Tom. Tom received coordinated cross-platform promotion. Instagram posts were shared on both the Game of Wool page and his own. And after airing, he was able to absorb and adopt the Game of Wool YouTube channel as his own. The contestants did not receive comparable amplification. And given that exposure was the only way they were paid, it starts to feel unbalanced. But exposure isn't all good. During airing, contestants were catapulted from relative anonymity directly into the public eye. And during airing, they were bound by a gag order in their contract, meaning they couldn't speak publicly about their experiences on the show. The internet is a rowdy place. It's the wild west, and comment sections can get a little crazy. Specific contestants were being attacked in comment sections and they were not able to defend themselves.

[00:20:12]In some cases, these comments were genuinely hateful. They were hurtful and the contestants could say nothing. Not until the show had completely finished airing. And Channel 4 was nowhere to be found. They didn't issue a statement.

[00:20:25]They didn't come to the defense of the contestants. But Channel 4 responded immediately when my video showed a name they didn't want shown. The machinery of the institution moves quickly when it's trying to protect itself. Now, I'll say this from my own experience. After six months of sending emails, of reaching out, of trying to get answers, Channel 4 stopped engaging. Hello Halo never responded. For the most part, I've gotten nothing back. The people who do respond ask to remain anonymous. I've reached out to the contestants on the show. I've invited them on my channel.

[00:20:54]Genuinely, no strings attached. And a wall goes up there, too. I don't blame them for that. I think they're scared.

[00:21:00]And make of it what you will, but it feels like a memo has gone up somewhere.

[00:21:05]An email was sent that said in big bold letters, whatever you do, don't talk to Deborah. You don't need a legally enforcable gag order to silence someone.

[00:21:16]You only need to remind them of who has the lawyers and who doesn't. Which brings me to what I think is the most important part of the story. None of what I'm describing is unique to Game of Wool. Reality TV contracts have been taking advantage of contestants in this way for decades. It's pretty standard in the industry, which doesn't make it right, but does make it prolific. But the knitting community specifically has spent hundreds of years fighting for fair compensation for their work.

[00:21:40]Knitting is historically coded as women's work, as domestic labor, and because of that, it has historically been undervalued. And then this show comes along that's meant to spotlight and celebrate the craft. and they had an opportunity to fairly compensate the designers for their appearance on the show and for the designs they created.

[00:21:59]Frankly, they could have unfairly compensated them. They could have given them a small stipen for each of their patterns, something far below market rate, but at least it would be something. But instead, they grabbed their legal team and they doubled down on paying the contestants nothing.

[00:22:14]Channel 4 is a national broadcaster with decades of experience. They've made reality shows before. They have legal teams behind them. They know exactly what profits means. They know how to properly credit people when they want to credit them. They know how to use first and last names. They know how to link with handles. And they know how to request that content be taken down when they fear it might harm someone who they care about. The contestants on this show are regular people. They're knitts like you and me. They have day jobs. And so when a contract is slid across the table and it says, "We're going to own the rights to everything you make on the show." You take a look. Maybe you have a lawyer to consult. Maybe not. Lawyers are expensive. But someone takes a look and they say, "Yeah, this sounds like a pretty standard reality TV contract."

[00:22:56]So, you sign it because when are you going to get an opportunity like this again to compete on this reality show, this amazing opportunity to to maybe redefine your life, to maybe turn your hobby and your passion into a job, to use this to launch yourself into the dream you've always wondered about.

[00:23:13]You're going to take that opportunity.

[00:23:14]And then episode one airs and the kits drop and you're finding out about it at the same time as everybody else and you realize all of a sudden like wait a second that's 160 that's $240 for that kit for that pattern that's telling my life story and I'm getting none of it and your contract says you can't say anything. And then a couple of episodes pass and all of a sudden you're reading these comments and they're about you and they're hateful and they're racist and they're horrible and you can't even defend yourself. By the time the show finishes and your contract is complete and you're technically free to speak, there's the fear hanging over you because you know that the network still doesn't want you to. They want you to check in with them and make sure it's okay before you send out any messaging about the show. Channel 4 is powerful and they make sure the contestants don't forget it. And it's not an accident.

[00:24:04]It's a system and it costs Channel 4 absolutely nothing. I posted my final episode recap on January 16th and then kind of set Game of Wool aside for a while, but all the financial stuff, the feeling that the show had somehow taken advantage of the contestants and had dug their heels in to avoid properly compensating them and then turned to a legal statement to plate the masses without actually making changes. It was bothering me. I let things marinate a little bit until March 2026 when season two of Game of Wool was announced. On April 13th, 2026, I sent a follow-up email to Channel 4. I asked three specific questions. Were participants compensated for their commercial kits?

[00:24:51]Were the design rights in fact returned after airing? And will anything change for season 2? I made it clear that any statement would be fully and accurately shared in this video. and if they don't respond, I'll note that they declined. I also invited them to speak with me to have a phone call. In all of their season 2 announcement language, they're using phrases like, "We've listened and we're making changes." So, I thought, "Hey, if you want to speak directly to the audience that has questions about your show, I I would love to have that conversation." On April 17th, I received a response and not from the same person I had emailed with before. Remember all the way back in November when that senior communications official responded to me about compensation and then quickly said, "Delete that Tik Tok. I never gave you permission to use my message." Now, this time I heard from the current new publicity lead for Game of Wool. She asks if she can have more time. She needs to go to the production company. They're putting together a response. I say, "Sure, take more time."

[00:25:45]And then on April 24th, 2026, I receive this response. Now, before I read it, this email clearly asks for me to refer to my contact as a spokesperson for the production because last time someone reached out to me, their personal details were leaked, but you already heard me explain what happened at the beginning of this video. So, we can draw our own conclusions about what really went down there. But, I understand the concern and I'm honoring the request.

[00:26:10]So, this is an anonymous source from production. The publicity person for Game of Wool, no name. I will also note that throughout my coverage of the show, every single person who I've spoken with associated with the production has at some point asked for either anonymity to not be named or simply has refused to answer. Nobody wants to be associated with this production. But in the meantime, the contestants faces and edits and even the judges edits, they have no control over how they're being portrayed. They're being abused in comment sections. They're not able to defend themselves. But the people in charge, they want to stay anonymous.

[00:26:48]There's a real power imbalance there.

[00:26:49]Channel 4's statement said, "Contestant and contractual arrangements are confidential between the production and the individuals involved. So, we're not able to comment on specific details.

[00:27:00]What we can say is that we take our duty of care and relationships with those involved in our program very seriously, and we are confident in the fairness of what we put in place. We're very much looking forward to series 2 and to continuing to champion the creativity, skill, and community that make the show so special. Contracts are confidential.

[00:27:20]We're not going to talk to you about that. We take our duty of care seriously. What did duty of care look like when your contestants were being abused in comment sections and they were prohibited from responding to a degree where their family members had to jump to their defense in the comments because they couldn't do so themselves? We're confident of the fairness of what we put in place. You're confident, but you created the system. I'm curious. What would the contestants say, past and future, about the fairness of the system that the party in power built? So, 6 months of questions, here's where we stand. I've reached out to Channel 4, Hello Halo, Banana Jay Wrights, Ser Wool in the Gang, Rowan. For the most part, I've received non-answers and silence.

[00:28:00]Silence is a strategy. If you stay silent long enough, people move on. The algorithm surfaces more exciting content and then by the time season 2 is announced, everyone's forgotten about the compensation questions from season 1. But here's what the public record shows. The profit sharing statement was published and then quietly deleted with no explanation given. The rights reversion statement was published, but 4 months after the show has completely transmitted, I don't see those patterns as live on rivalry, which you'd think would have happened if the designers got their rights back. Season two is coming and I'll be watching for the promised improvements. And honestly, I genuinely hope that they get made. But I'll also be watching for those carefully worded statements that prevent Channel 4 from actually having to answer to the demands of the public, holding them accountable to compensating designers for their work. If you're thinking about competing on season 2, read your contract really carefully. You should probably contact a lawyer. And if you're watching, pay careful attention to the language. Not just what's said on screen, but to those statements that are made in the product descriptions, in the Instagram comments, because last season, one single line of legal ease was enough to make an entire community of knitts stand down from advocating for designers to be fairly compensated.

[00:29:22]Let's not let that happen again. It's just a knitting show. I know that it's just a knitting show. But the contestants on the show and the craft of knitting itself deserves better. If you enjoyed this video and following along with my coverage of season 1 and you'd like to stick around for the coverage of season 2, make sure to hit subscribe and like so you don't miss the next one. And if you want to support independent knitting journalism, not just covering reality TV shows, but also reviewing knitting needle sets and yarn ball winders and swifts, you can support me on Patreon. That's how I fund all of my independent and objective knitting tool reviews. And I give all of the tools I review away there as well. You can find the link to learn more in the description. What do you think about all this? Make sure to join me in the comments and let me know. I am very curious to keep the conversation going.

[00:30:06]As always, it's been so much fun to talk about knitting with you today and I can't wait to see you in the next one.

[00:30:11]Bye.