Memorandum submitted by Keep Cricket Free
KeepCricketFree.com was set up by cricket fans
David Brook, Mike Sainsbury, Ben Ferns and John Grogan, MP for
Selby, in September of this year. Within four weeks, over 14,000
members of the public had registered their support and thousands
have written to the DCMS to register the strength of their feelings
about the loss of Test cricket coverage from free-to-air TV.
A. THE ISSUE
OF BROADCASTING
1. England's historic Ashes victory has,
in the words of the Prime Minister, "lit up the summer".
England captain Michael Vaughan was "amazed" at the
level of public interest in the Ashes series. This enthusiasm
is particularly high amongst the young. There are ten thousand
Freddie Flintoffs playing cricket at the end of this summer and
they are all under 10. Does anyone really believe this interest
would have been generated, however compelling the cricket, without
the widespread exposure that free-to-air TV provides? The current
mix of free-to-air coverage for the new and casual viewer together
with the comprehensive Sky Sports pay-TV coverage of One Day Internationals
and domestic cricket for the committed fan has ensured that cricket
has achieved the optimum mix of exposure and income and has contributed
to the sport's remarkable resurgence. This is now under threat
from the withdrawal of all free-to-air coverage.
2. When the Gordon Advisory Group recommended
taking cricket off the protected A-list of Sporting events and
putting it on a B-list, the special status of Test Cricket was
recognized. A balance was sought that offered cricket the opportunity
to generate greater income from pay-TV whilst protecting the exposure
to test cricket that free-to-air coverage provides. At the time,
as Lord MacLaurin has repeatedly acknowledged, the then Secretary
of State Chris Smith was extremely reluctant to concede all domestic
Test cricket whilst he recognised the need for the game to attract
more money.
3. A compromise solution was arrived at
whereby a minor series was introduced into the domestic schedule.
Smith accepted the financial situation could be improved by making
this series available to open tender whilst the major series of
the domestic season would remain free-to-air. This arrangement
formed the basis of the agreement between the ECB and the DCMS
that did, indeed, result in extra funding and investment in the
game.
B. THE DELISTING
ARGUMENT
4. The status and interpretation of this
agreement between Smith on behalf of the Government and Lord MacLaurin
on behalf of the ECB has been called into question. The DCMS states
"there was no binding agreement between Chris Smith and Lord
MacLaurin. The policy `gave the ECB the responsibility for balancing
media exposure and income, whilst protecting highlights coverage'"
(see Annex). In fact, the nature of the Agreement is no different
to the thousands of self-regulatory agreements that are characteristic
of UK governance. Smith made clear to Parliament at the time the
nature of the arrangement and that he expected that most domestic
Test Matches would be shown live and free to air. He also indicated
that he reserved the right to review the situation if the ECB
failed to exercise the responsibility it had been given. (See
Appendix 1—DCMS 135/98 25 June 1998 (not printed here).)
His statement could not be clearer. "If these expectations—especially
the test of achieving substantial live coverage on free-to-air
television—are not fulfilled, then I may of course need
to review the listed criteria again."
5. The extra funds made available are important
as broadcast revenues represent 80% of money coming into the game
at the present time. The Smith/MacLaurin agreement expressly acknowledges
this and, as the ECB accepts, the mixed funding model (of free-to-air
and pay-TV) that has operated since 1998 has worked and allowed
for additional funds and investment. It is difficult to see how
the ECB was suddenly going to be so much worse off at this time.
In fact, one of the consequences of ignoring the existing agreement
is that it puts the long-term financial security of the game at
risk. By condemning the game to vastly reduced audience exposure,
the ECB will not be able to develop many other potential sources
of revenue—through broadcast sponsorship, merchandising,
endorsement revenues and so forth. With these sources of revenue
dwindling, the game will become ever more dependent on broadcast
revenue and, correspondingly, in an ever weaker bargaining position.
This vicious circle will have disastrous consequences for grass
roots cricket.
6. The value of this lost exposure on terrestrial
TV has been estimated by Walker Media (leading UK independent
media buyers) as just under £40 million per year.
7. The ECB considers that full, uninterrupted
coverage on Sky together with the highlights on Channel Five (and
ball-by-ball coverage on BBC radio) will be enough to sustain
interest in the game and inspire interest in "fans of the
future". The ECB claims this will also be furthered by the
grass roots initiatives funded by broadcasting incomes. The people
at the grassroots of the game (largely unrepresented within the
ECB) disagree with this profoundly.
C. AN INTERNATIONAL
ACCORD
8. No other governing body responsible for
a major sport anywhere in the world believes the national sport
for which they have responsibility can be without free-to-air
television. Whilst some revenue may be lost in the short term,
there is a need to continually renew the sport that the governing
body represents by attracting new people to the game and this
is a primary consideration. It is difficult to see why cricket
should be treated differently. Indeed, all other national governing
authorities of cricket do not believe it is different. The Australian
government has recently taken action to ensure that free-to-air
coverage of Test Cricket is protected for the next ten years,
recognizing the importance of maintaining interest in the longer
form game. When, on 21 October of this year, the Indian Government
insisted that pay-TV broadcasters could only broadcast Test cricket
involving the Indian team if they shared the feed with the national
free-to-air state channel, the UK became the only cricket-playing
nation that will have no Test cricket shown free-to-air.
D. THE THREAT
TO THE
FUTURE OF
THE NATIONAL
SPORT
9. Deprived of the opportunity to see the
best cricketers in the country competing at the highest level,
hundreds of thousands of young people will remain unaware of our
national game and local clubs will fail to recruit new players.
The first duty of any sport's governing body is to preserve the
future well-being of their sport and the ECB has failed cricket
utterly. Furthermore, those retired and on fixed incomes, many
of whom have been watching cricket for more than 50 years, will
no longer be able to watch their national team compete. The same
is also true of many disabled people and people who simply cannot
afford more than £400 to watch England play. Victories like
England's historic Ashes triumph belong to the whole nation, not
just the privileged few who can afford to pay.
10. Lack of vision from the ECB threatens
the future of cricket. The perceived need for more money will
be of little or no benefit to the grassroots game as most of the
revenue goes to support the anachronistic structure of the county
game. Whereas most sports have undergone radical re-structuring
in recent years, county cricket has essentially retained the same
structure since 1864. It is getting increasingly difficult and
expensive to sustain. The National Cricket Association, the body
that represented the grassroots amateur game, was subsumed into
the ECB when the ECB was established. Although charged with acting
in the best interests of the game from playground to Test arena,
it is instructive to note that the Governing Body of the ECB is
entirely dominated by senior County officers. As a consequence,
the grassroots game is institutionally excluded and, of course,
financially excluded too.
11. In taking the short-term money, the
ECB has ensured cricket will be denied the oxygen of the widespread
exposure that will attract a new generation to the game. A game
that has contributed so much to cultural life in the UK has had
its very future threatened by the body set up to ensure its future
well-being.
12. Cricket is also the most multi-cultural
and ethnically diverse of sports. Next summer sees the visit of
the Pakistan national team for a four test series and 2007 welcomes
the West Indies and India national teams. At a time when events
that foster a sense of national cohesion are all too few, to deny
the British Pakistani, Indian and West Indian citizens the ability
to watch their national side is to deny cricket its time-honoured
role of integration.
E. A DAMAGING
CONTRACT
13. The ECB contract will prove disastrous
for the future of the game given the difficulty many schools have
in offering any serious commitment to cricket. Our cricketing
facilities continue to be threatened by a shortage of resources
and young enthusiasts are denied access to the game. Only two
of the Ashes winning team played any cricket at school. The other
players, like Andrew Flintoff, were inspired by watching their
national team on television, and were fostered and developed by
local clubs. The vast majority of local clubs receive absolutely
nothing by way of financial support from the ECB and inner city
needs have been virtually abandoned. Many local clubs fear the
huge amount of enthusiasm drawing youngsters into the game after
this summer will disappear as quickly as their heroes have done
from their screens.
14. Twenty per cent of the population in
the UK cannot receive Channel Five, so very many people will be
unable to see any Test cricket at all. This important point of
deprived signal areas was recognized in the original Staging Agreements
between the ECB/TMG's (April 2000) yet seems to have been ignored.
Furthermore, very many people will be deprived of the opportunity
to watch by virtue of where they live. There are often restrictions
on housing association and council tenants getting cable installed
or having satellite dishes either because of damage to the fabric
of the building or because of planning restrictions on multiple
dishes on blocks of flats. According to the census of 2001, just
under 5 million people live in council properties or housing association
properties. In exactly the same way, a huge number are not able
to have a satellite dish, because of planning and listed building
laws. Many of these areas are also not passed by cable.
F. THE MISLEADING
BIDDING PROCESS
OF THE
ECB
15. The ECB claim that if they had been
precluded from considering exclusive bids from "subscription
broadcasters", competition for the rights would have been
limited. It is claimed that there was no terrestrial broadcaster
bid for overseas tours, one day internationals, women's internationals
or domestic cricket. The ECB claim that had it not been able "to
consider exclusive bids from subscription broadcasters" £80
millions over four years would have been lost. There would have
been massive cuts in investment (see Annex).
16. It is ironic that twice in outlining
this argument the DCMS refers to satellite broadcasters in the
plural. No doubt the irony will not be lost on either the BBC
or Channel 4 as they not only have to compete with a subscription
broadcaster determined to secure exclusive rights, but a monopoly
subscription broadcaster to boot. The Secretary of State continually
asserts that a commercial contract has been signed and entered
into after a free and fair bidding process. The bidding process
was neither free nor fair. Once exclusive rights are offered to
a pay-TV platform, no terrestrial or free-to-air company can compete,
because the premium is obtained by denying the coverage to the
rest of the nation.
17. Furthermore, in a letter of the 15 September
to a KCF supporter, the Chief Executive of the ECB, David Collier,
stated "No terrestrial channel bid for more than 35% of home
International Test Matches". KCF got in touch with Andy Duncan,
the Chief Executive of Channel 4 and asked him whether this was
the case. His reply was "We bid for the main Test series
each summer—ie clearly much more than 35% of Home International
Test Matches." The fact that the terrestrial broadcasters
did not bid for `the whole of domestic Test cricket next season'
would suggest both the BBC and Channel 4 respected the self-regulatory
agreement they believed to be in place. For the same reason they
did not bid for the overseas tours, the one-day internationals,
the women's cricket or domestic cricket. For reasons already stated,
other revenue opportunities will now be denied to the ECB because
of the minimal exposure the game will receive. The suggestion
that the game would have lost £20 million annually is wildly
inaccurate.
G. MINISTERIAL
CONFUSION
18. The Secretary of State has stated on
a number of occasions that the Government will "need to review
the list of protected events as digital take-up increases"
and has suggested the appropriate time to do this would be at
the end of the forthcoming BSkyB contract. She suggested that
it would be inappropriate before then because that was nearing
the time when the Government planned to switch off analogue broadcasts.
In an article in the Guardian on 13 September she stated
"We are heading for a period of almost unprecedented change
in TV with the switch from analogue to digital, so ask this question
in 2008-09, once the digital switch-over has begun, and it won't
apply in the same way because there will not be terrestrial TV
as we know it now." This is just factually incorrect, quite
apart from the total disregard for the damage done to cricket
in the interim.
19. Factually incorrect as, of course, terrestrial
broadcasters will continue to function as before. They will simply
use an alternative transmission technology. The switch-off of
analogue terrestrial TV signals is as irrelevant now in the argument
about free-to-air cricket rights on digital terrestrial TV as
it will be in 2009. Perhaps the acquiescence of the DCMS in allowing
an exclusive deal with BSkyB was predicated on this fundamental
misunderstanding. When the Secretary of State promises a digital
future where there is equal access to the fruits of digital for
the elderly and the disabled as the city broker, she fails to
acknowledge that the digital divide between pay-TV and free-to-air
is much the same as the divide between those pay-TV and free-to-air
in the analogue world.
Wisden Cricketers' Almanack 2005—142nd
edition, Matthew Engel
"We are talking about a situation where
the overwhelming majority of the British population will never
come across a game of cricket in their daily lives. There will
be short-term consequences as sponsors drift away; the longer-term
effects will take a generation to unfold. Some believe these could
be serious. I think we're looking at a potential catastrophe."
H. QUESTIONS
1. Has the ECB valued the various online
new media imaging rights (Internet, 3G telephone reception, virtual
advertising etc)?
2. Has the BSkyB Contract with the ECB included
exclusive access to ALL forms of broadcasting/imaging rights in
whatever format?
3. Where is the ECB evidence to prove that
an exclusive deal with BSkyB is more valuable than several contracts
relating to the unbundling and sale of separate licenses to a
variety of commercial interests?
4. Why is the governing body of a national
sport in the form of a company limited by guarantee and not publicly
accountable?
5. Why was the Contract with BSkyB concluded
before the Ashes Series had been played?
6. Why were the terrestrial broadcasters
not courted as assiduously as BSkyB during this process?
I. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Parliamentary Select Committee has an essential
role to perform in recommending to the House that the Secretary
of State should require the ECB to implement the terms under which
cricket was de-listed by the Government in 1998. The Secretary
of State should be urged to bring together the ECB and all interested
commercial interests to broker an arrangement whereby at least
the major domestic series is simultaneously broadcast on BSkyB
and on a free-to-air channel. If the parties are not prepared
to enter into such an arrangement, the Secretary of State should
be urged to undertake to return domestic Test cricket to the list
of protected events with immediate effect.
8 November 2005
| 
