For dramatic tension the 2009 home Ashes series has continued where 2005 left off – with one glaring difference. Not a second of live televised action has been available to anyone who has not paid a subscription to BSkyB (which begins at £27.50 a month). As a consequence, the nailbiting last stand between James Anderson and Monty Panesar on Sunday evening in fading Welsh sunlight was watched by a fraction of the potential audience.
Official television industry viewing figures show that Sunday's cricket was watched by 358,000 people on average between 10am and 2pm, then after two, until that absorbing close, by an average of 800,000. The peak audience, at 6.30‑6.45pm, to watch Panesar and Anderson successfully see England to the draw, was 1.47m.
That is considered a respectable pay-television audience by the England and Wales Cricket Board, Sky and TV insiders. It does not, however, compare with the huge audiences drawn to the Ashes on free-to-air Channel 4 in 2005. Then, the peak periods of the third, fourth and fifth Tests, all similarly thrilling closing moments, were watched by 7.48m, 8.2m and 7.2m people respectively. Cricket garnered huge, growing audiences; the 8.2m fourth Test peak drew a 47% share of people watching television at the time.
Any comparison with this year must allow for the fact that we have had only the first Test but the ECB's decision to sell the rights exclusively to BSkyB has dramatically cut the television audience for its sport. Despite the oceans of top action BSkyB has bought up exclusively, with not a single Premier League football match having ever been shown live on free-to-air television in 17 years, and despite the universally recognised quality of its coverage, under a quarter, 6m, of British homes subscribe to Sky Sports.
The Ashes is serving as a timely demonstration of Sky's hold on British sport, as a government-appointed panel, chaired by David Davies, considers which sporting events should be considered "crown jewels" and reserved for free-to-air television. The panel will conclude hearing submissions on Monday with a visit from the BBC.
Cricket will occupy more of the panel's deliberations than any other sport because its removal in 1998 from the A list – events that must be available live on free-to-air – and relegation to the B list, which stipulates mandatory free-to-air highlights, has been most controversial.
Critics argued, when the ECB first sold the rights exclusively to BSkyB for 2006-09, that it betrayed a gentlemen's agreement made in 1998 between Lord MacLaurin, then the ECB chairman, and Chris Smith, the culture secretary, that some live cricket would remain free-to-air even if it was taken off the A list.
A campaign was launched, Keep Cricket Free. Its founder, the media consultant David Brook, formerly at Channel 4 and now Scottish Television's director of programmes, maintains his view. "Sky is a good partner for cricket, providing comprehensive and high-quality coverage," he says. "A committed pay-TV partner is essential. But every sport needs free-to-air exposure and the ECB is missing that opportunity, for cricket to reach really large audiences at the moments of high drama."
Perhaps surprisingly the ECB does not substantially disagree. Giles Clarke, the ECB's chairman, says the Cardiff viewing figures are respectable – the Channel Five highlights had a 926,000 average on Sunday evening, a peak of 1.1m – but he argues that the BBC should have bid for the rights.
The ECB is understood to have asked Davies' panel not to recommend Test cricket be compulsorily restored to the A list but it argues that the BBC's public service remit, to provide for everyone who by law must pay £142.50 for a colour TV license, should include showing live cricket. The BBC has said it did not bid last time due to the problems of scheduling so many hours of cricket across four busy years of sport but the ECB does not believe the BBC demonstrated any real desire. Clarke has been scathing about the BBC's decision last year to pay £200m for five years of Formula One rights.
The ECB also justifies the Sky deals by arguing that the £220m the satellite broadcaster paid for 2006-09, followed by £300m for 2010-13, provides significant investment in grass-roots cricket. Clarke told this column last week that 23% of the ECB's income, which was £94.5m last year including the BSkyB money, is allocated to cricket development via clubs, counties and the 39 county cricket boards. Clarke has also quoted a slightly lower figure, it is understood, to Davies' review panel – that 21% of all revenue goes to grass-roots cricket.
Those figures, it turns out, appear to be an exaggeration. The ECB's finance director, Brian Havill, noted in the 2008 accounts that expenditure on "enthusing participation at grass-root and recreational level" amounted to £12m. That was 12.6% of the ECB's total income. "I am happier talking about the actual money spent rather than percentages," Havill said this week.
Some ECB sources argue that the 21% figure comes from treating the £12m as a proportion purely of the ECB's broadcasting revenue and point to other spending which could be classed as providing for the grass roots. Clarke, however, has explicitly stated it as 21% of the ECB's total income. The figure for grass-roots cricket, however it is defined and calculated, is dwarfed by the amount paid to the 18 first-class counties. That was £32.8m last year, described by Havill as "by far the largest of the [ECB's] expenditure items".
The counties overall run at a significant loss, and are subsidized by the ECB, which makes its money largely from the England international team, including the Sky deals. William Buckland, author of Pommies, a powerful critical analysis of English cricket, compares the game's governance here unfavorably with the Australian model where, along with other differences, all Test matches are available on free-to-air Channel Nine.
"The ECB justifies the Sky deals on the grounds of development," Buckland argues, "but it has removed television access for most people, and the bulk of the money goes to the counties, not the grass roots."
Buckland points out that the ECB is controlled by representatives of the counties, so has an inherent interest in maintaining the system that allocates most money to supporting the counties which are run at a loss. Senior cricket figures, notably Bob Willis, have argued strongly for reform, saying too much mediocre professional cricket is played at county level, which saps talent at the top and sucks up too much money that could go on development.
The ECB, however, argues that the county structure maintains a strong basis for senior cricket. "If we want a first-class structure, the center has to subsidize it," Havill said. "We have 400 professional players; you can argue we could have 300, but a pyramid of talent is necessary in all sports. If we did not subsidize the counties, they would operate at a much lower base."
England and Australia join battle again at Lord's tomorrow, a high point of a momentous sporting summer. Every ball can be followed live, thanks to the miracle of TV – but only by those who have paid a subscription to BSkyB.
No comments:
Post a Comment