The arrival of Luke Littler on Netflix was always going to attract attention. The teenage darts sensation has become one of the biggest names in the sport, and his growing celebrity status has brought opportunities that most professional players could only dream about.
But not everyone is impressed with the direction darts is taking. Former professional Vincent van der Voort has delivered a particularly blunt assessment of the Netflix production featuring Littler, describing the spectacle as a circus. And coming from someone who has spent years competing at the highest level, those comments are bound to spark debate.
The controversy is not simply about whether Littler should appear on television. It is about whether a show promoted as an opportunity for ordinary darts players to challenge the world’s best actually delivered what viewers were promised.
And after watching how the event unfolded, Van der Voort clearly believes the production missed an opportunity.
What Happened During Netflix’s Beat Luke Littler?
Netflix’s Beat Luke Littler was a live darts special broadcast on October 30, 2026, from Manchester. The concept was straightforward: challengers would face Littler in a single leg of 501, with £501,000 waiting for anyone who could beat him.
The event was presented by Gary Lineker, with Richard Osman providing expert analysis. It was produced by Netflix and Workerbee in partnership with the Professional Darts Corporation (PDC).
The format created an intriguing challenge for Littler. Unlike a conventional tournament, he did not have several legs or sets to recover from a poor performance. Every challenger needed only one good leg to take the enormous prize.
That was part of the attraction, but it also created an unusual situation. A player could spend years dreaming of competing against the world champion and have just one opportunity to make history.
Littler managed to defeat 14 challengers before eventually coming up against Fallon Sherrock.
And that is where the biggest talking point of the entire production emerged.
Vincent van der Voort Questions the Entire Production
Speaking on the Darts Draait Door podcast alongside presenter Damian Vlottes, Van der Voort did not hide his disappointment with the show.
He was particularly unhappy with the way Sherrock’s participation was presented. Although she was eligible because she had never held a PDC Tour Card, she was already an established professional-level player with considerable experience on the biggest stages.
Van der Voort said: “What you think of the show, she does throw a 15-darter. That is simply very impressive.”
However, his praise for her performance did not mean he approved of the production.
He continued with a much stronger criticism: “I naturally have an opinion about everything, but then I think: this was absolutely nothing. What a circus!”
He was also unimpressed by the way Sherrock was introduced, particularly the emphasis on her being a hairdresser.
“There is a man on stage shouting that she is a hairdresser, while she hasn’t been inside a hair salon for six years. Except to have her hair done. She is simply a professional.”
Those comments reveal the real issue for Van der Voort. He was not necessarily questioning Sherrock’s ability or suggesting that she should have turned down the opportunity. His frustration was directed at the way Netflix packaged the competition.
And it is an argument worth discussing.
Fallon Sherrock’s Victory Created an Uncomfortable Debate
There is no question that Sherrock produced an outstanding performance when her opportunity finally arrived.
She defeated Littler in a single leg, hit a maximum 180 and completed the winning combination in 15 darts to collect the £501,000 prize.
For anyone who follows darts, that is a seriously impressive achievement.
But her participation also raised questions about what viewers were supposed to understand by the word amateur.
Sherrock is not an unknown player who suddenly discovered she could compete at a high level. She has been a familiar name in professional darts for years and famously made history at the 2019 PDC World Championship by becoming the first woman to beat a man in the tournament.
She has also established herself as one of the leading figures in women’s darts.
That background makes it understandable why some viewers questioned the decision to place her alongside ordinary challengers.
However, there is another side to the argument. Eligibility rules matter, and Sherrock qualified under the criteria used for the event. It would be unfair to blame her for accepting an opportunity that was offered to her.
She was there to compete, and she did exactly that.
Van der Voort Wanted to See Genuine Unknown Amateurs
Perhaps the most interesting part of Van der Voort’s criticism was what he believed the show should have been.
He explained that he had hoped to see genuinely talented amateur players who were not already familiar to darts fans.
“I had more hope that it would be a show with really good amateurs that we don’t know yet. That they would participate.”
That is arguably the strongest criticism of the Netflix format.
Imagine watching a complete unknown walk onto the stage, face Littler and produce the performance of their life. That would have been an incredible television moment.
It would also have delivered the kind of underdog story that makes sporting entertainment so appealing.
Instead, Van der Voort felt some of the amateur contestants were simply not good enough to seriously challenge the world champion.
He criticised the standard of some performances, arguing that viewers could quickly recognise when certain contestants lacked the experience required to compete.
That is an important distinction. The show needed entertainment, but it also needed credible competition.
Nobody expected every challenger to be capable of defeating Littler. However, audiences naturally wanted to see players who could at least make him work for his survival.
The Former Professional Also Questioned the Contestants’ Behaviour
Van der Voort had another complaint that might surprise viewers.
He was confused by the friendly atmosphere among contestants waiting for their opportunities.
The former professional questioned why players appeared to cheer one another on when only one person could walk away with the £501,000.
He said: “They are all happy for each other. Did they realise that if someone else had won, they wouldn’t have won that half a million? They all acted as if they were best friends. Really hopeless.”
It is a particularly interesting observation because competitive sport normally brings out a different mentality.
When hundreds of thousands of pounds are involved, you would expect everyone to be desperate for their own opportunity rather than celebrating somebody else’s success.
Of course, Netflix may have wanted a relaxed and entertaining atmosphere rather than an intensely competitive environment. But Van der Voort clearly felt the contestants’ behaviour did not match the stakes.
Interestingly, he did find one part of the production enjoyable: viewers were allowed to vote during the show.
He admitted that he liked that interactive feature, although he joked that he frequently disagreed with the audience because he kept voting for the person who ultimately lost.
Was Netflix Right to Make the Show This Way?
There is no denying that Netflix achieved something significant by putting darts in front of a potentially much bigger international audience.
Littler is arguably the perfect face for that ambition. At just 19, he has already become a global sporting attraction, and his personality, confidence and ability to produce spectacular performances make him an obvious television star.
The event also gave viewers something different from the traditional PDC tournament format. Instead of watching professionals battle through several rounds, audiences got a straightforward challenge with an enormous financial reward.
However, entertainment and sporting credibility need to work together.
If Netflix wants to turn this into a regular feature, the organisers will need to think carefully about the selection process. There is nothing wrong with including established names, but the production should be transparent about the difference between an amateur, an emerging talent and an experienced professional-level player.
Otherwise, the criticism will follow every edition.
Interestingly, Van der Voort did not dismiss everything about the experience. His comments about the audience voting suggest he recognised that interactive entertainment could have a place in darts.
That is something Netflix could develop rather than abandon.
Luke Littler Has Become Bigger Than Darts
One thing this controversy demonstrates is how much attention Littler now attracts.
A few years ago, a television special built around a darts player might have struggled to generate this level of conversation. Now, a single Netflix event involving Littler has attracted international attention, produced a £501,000 winner and sparked arguments among former professionals and supporters.
Even Sherrock’s victory has added another fascinating chapter to the sport’s growing popularity.
Littler himself reportedly enjoyed the experience and indicated that he would be interested in doing it again. That makes a potential return particularly interesting, although the format would clearly benefit from some changes.
The PDC and Netflix have an opportunity to build something special here. They should listen to criticism without losing sight of what made the concept attractive in the first place.
Final Thoughts: Does Van der Voort Have a Point?
Vincent van der Voort’s criticism might sound harsh, but his underlying argument deserves serious consideration.
The Netflix show had a brilliant concept, an enormous prize and one of the most recognisable faces in modern darts. Fallon Sherrock also delivered a performance worthy of the occasion.
Yet the questions surrounding the contestants, the presentation and the competitive standard suggest that the production was not without problems.
Personally, I think Netflix should consider bringing the show back with a stronger emphasis on genuinely unknown amateur players. Let ordinary darts enthusiasts have their moment against Littler, while making the eligibility rules completely clear.
Sherrock should not be blamed for taking an opportunity she earned under the competition’s rules. Equally, viewers are entitled to question whether the format delivered what they expected.
Van der Voort has certainly started a debate that darts fans will not be ignoring anytime soon.
But do you agree with the former professional? Was Beat Luke Littler an entertaining success, or did Netflix turn a promising darts concept into exactly the kind of circus Van der Voort described?