Annex
LETTER FROM JAMES PURNELL MP, MINISTER FOR
CREATIVE INDUSTRIES AND TOURISM, DCMS TO SIR PETER TAPSELL MP
Thank you for your letter of 10 October 2005
to Richard Caborn enclosing one from Mr Anthony Pickerill, (not
printed) concerning the broadcasting of test matches on terrestrial
television. Your letter has been passed to me for reply as the
Minister responsible for broadcasting matters.
I can understand Mr Pickerill's frustration
that live Test cricket will not be shown on free-to-air television
for the 2006-09 seasons. As you correctly state, live coverage
of Test matches is no longer protected to prevent it simply being
sold exclusively to subscription channels. This decision was made
in 1998 in the light of the recommendations of the independent
Review undertaken by Lord Gordon's Advisory Group. The Group recommended
protecting highlights rather than live coverage of Test matches,
principally because of the particular reliance of cricket on television
income and the fact that terrestrial channels with mixed schedules
find it difficult to schedule the long coverage needed for Test
matches, especially as they can extend into and disrupt their
evening programmes.
Overall, the result of the 1998 Review was to
extend the list of protected events, adding some events to the
A list protecting live coverage and introducing a B list protecting
delayed or highlights coverage. This innovation facilitated a
much wider list of protected events, especially of those which,
because of their length, it is difficult for general channels
to cover, such, as the Open Golf Championship. The B list recognizes
the practical constraints on broadcasters and those constraints
apply equally to Test cricket. Other events were also added to
the A list—see Appendix (not printed here).
The Review also took into account the fact that
the ECB did not have the flexibility to engage in a more competitive
broadcasting environment and fully exploit broadcasting rights.
Income from broadcasting forms 80% of cricket's income—and
the vast majority of that comes from the Tests. The increased
income since 1998 has allowed the ECB to invest substantial amounts
in programmes for grass roots cricket and central contracts for
England players.
The letter from Mr Pickerill makes reference
to an understanding between Chris Smith and Lord MacLaurin that
the main Test series each summer would be shown on terrestrial
television. We must be clear, there was no binding agreement between
Chris Smith and Lord Maclaurin. The policy set out at the time
of the 1998 Review gave the ECB the responsibility for balancing
media exposure and income, while protecting highlights coverage.
The ECB tell us they would ideally have wanted
to continue to share live coverage between, for example, Sky and
a terrestrial broadcaster as they have since 1998. However, because
of the specific factors affecting cricket, the decision about
whom to sell live broadcasting rights to should be for the ECB.
For the contracts that followed the 1998 Review, they divided
live broadcasting rights between free-to-air broadcasters and
Sky as Lord MacLaurin proposed. But they have made clear that
this time the terrestrial broadcasters did not offer the sums
of money necessary to sustain the game at international, county
and grass roots levels. The ECB argue that to have accepted the
bids for live terrestrial coverage this time would have undermined
the current funding of cricket and had a devastating effect on
both the England team and the grass roots of the game.
In reaching this decision the ECB tell us they
considered the effect on support for cricket, including its appeal
to the potential players and fans of the future. The ECB argue
that the combination of full, uninterrupted coverage on Sky and
the highlights package on Five at peak time, when most young people
and working families are able to watch, combined with continuing
live coverage on BBC radio, will maintain support for cricket—and
they further point to the effect on building support of grass
roots initiatives which broadcasting income helps fund.
This time round, if we had prevented the ECB
from considering bids from subscription broadcasters, competition
for the rights would have been very limited. Not one terrestrial
broadcaster bid for all of the domestic Test cricket next season.
There was also no interest from terrestrial channels to televise
overseas tours, One Day internationals, women's internationals
nor domestic cricket. Therefore, if the ECB had been unable to
consider bids from subscription broadcasters such as Sky they
would have had to accept approximately £80 million less over
the next four years—a decrease of around 35% on their 2005
income levels. Given the importance of TV rights to cricket's
income this would have meant cuts in investment programmes at
all levels of the game, including grass roots cricket, the national
cricket centre and the England team.
As the Secretary of State has announced, the
Government will in any case need to review the list of protected
events as digital television take-up increases and viewers have
a wider range of options for watching sport, but this will not
affect the 2006-09 contract.
25 October 2005
| 
