Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100
- 102)
TUESDAY 29 NOVEMBER 2005
MR DAVID
BROOK, MR
ANTHONY WREFORD
AND MR
STEDFORD WALLEN
Q100 Mr Yeo: I think we are all clear
that Channel 4 did an exceptionally good job and there is clearly
widespread dissatisfaction with the present situation, but the
solution still seems to me a difficult one and you have to acknowledge
you are saying that the ECB now needs to be overruled by some
sort of meeting convened by the Minister?
Mr Brook: I think what we are
suggesting is that the ECB needs to be encouraged to help facilitate
and broker an agreement at a meeting between Sky Sports, BBC Television,
Channel 4 and Channel 5 to arrive at a voluntary and more equitable
system. If that is not forthcoming, if the participants do not
wish to attend or if people do not wish to broker such a meeting
then, yes, I think relisting has to be an immediate objective.
Q101 Mr Yeo: Given that Sky are already
marketing, as I understand it, packages—and I am a subscriber
anyway so it does not bother me quite so directly—for next
year, have you made any assessment of the likely cost of the compensation
they would expect if they were to lose the exclusivity?
Mr Brook: We have made some back-of-the-envelope
calculations. We are not suggesting that Sky Sports should lose
a single ball of coverage. We are merely suggesting that Sky Sports'
subscribers be encouraged to share the main home Test match series
with those viewers who are perhaps not so fortunate or who have
a freeview box and are not physically able to trade up and watch
the cricket. I think cricket is perhaps unique in that it is one
of those special sports where fans get a lot of pleasure from
other fans enjoying it too. We would all prefer it if everyone
who wanted to watch was able to watch and I think Sky Sports subscribers
would be no different to any others. I would expect the compensation
to be paid by, for example, the BBC to Sky to be a significant
sum but perhaps not as significant as Sky Sports or Sky might
suggest. I think one would need to look very carefully at what
the actual deleterious consequences were, how many Sky Sports
subscribers would actually cancel their subscriptions because
of the notion of having to share coverage of some Test matches.
We know that Sky Sports do an excellent job on one-day internationals
and domestic cricket and that would remain.
Q102 Chairman: But Sky are bidding
for the contract not to maintain their existing subscribers but
to attract new ones who want to come and watch cricket. If they
followed your path and made available key games, the last match
in the series or whatever, then obviously it becomes less attractive
to future subscribers.
Mr Brook: Without knowing the
exact details from the Republic of Ireland Football Association
case, I believe a significant sum of money was paid by RTÉ
to Sky Sports. I think one could say to the BBC or Channel 4 or
Channel 5—and interestingly enough on the BBC's scheduling
problems any cricket fan would sympathise with the clash with
any of the sporting events that Mr Mosey mentioned this morning,
but July and August of next year which is when the Pakistan national
team arrives for the main Test series, are free of such scheduling
problems. There has been a lot of talk about scheduling this morning
and about this imposition of cricket on TV channels, but cricket
takes place during the day where there is not a lot of competition.
An audience of one million is a significant audience and Channel
4 has achieved record market shares on days when cricket has been
on. I do not think we should accept that it is a liability. Channel
4 chose to make a number of additional investments because of
the wider public service benefits, and the BBC, which speaks often
and passionately about public service should perhaps apply those
public service principles to sport in the same way as Lord Reith
saw that coverage of our great national teams was part of the
BBC's national public service.
Chairman: No more questions? Thank you
very much.
| 
