| 1. | The Committee wishes to express its support for the general principle of listing. In a nation of sports lovers, it is imperative that some protection must exist for some sporting events. (Paragraph 14)
|
| | |
| 2. | Whilst we note the difficulties faced by terrestrial broadcasters in terms of scheduling problems, we lament the fact that no terrestrial broadcaster (other than Channel 4) sought fit to bid for any television rights to live cricket; worse still, that no bid whatsoever was submitted for the highlights package by any terrestrial broadcaster received by 95% of the population and which therefore satisfied the criteria for universality. We believe that free-to-air broadcasters must shoulder some of the responsibility for the public outcry which followed the decision by severely limiting the options open to the ECB. Had the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 all made bids, the ECB could have insisted that they were not prepared to agree an exclusive deal with anyone. (Paragraph 21)
|
| | |
| 3. | We can find no compelling argument as to why no broadcaster, other than Five, was prepared to bid for highlights. (Paragraph 22)
|
| | |
| 4. | We agree with the ECB's decision to enter discussions and conclude negotiations well in advance of the conclusion of the previous contract. Delaying negotiations until after a potentially disastrous Ashes series might well have left the ECB in an intolerably weak bargaining position which, for all who care about the sport, would have been very damaging. (Paragraph 24)
|
| | |
| 5. | It is very evident to the Committee that no matter what description it is given and no matter how its precise ramifications are interpreted, the understanding between Lord Smith and Lord MacLaurin constituted an agreement. And the content of that agreement was unequivocal: live Test match cricket played in England was not to be removed completely from free-to-air TV. What is equally evident to this Committee is that the terms of that agreement have manifestly been breached by the ECB with the tacit approval of DCMS. (Paragraph 35)
|
| | |
| 6. | Whatever the good intentions and pragmatism of the decision at the time, the gentleman's agreement has sadly proved totally ineffectual. (Paragraph 36)
|
| | |
| 7. | Rather than remaining silent on the issue, DCMS should have made a clear decision as to whether they were content for the ECB to be released from the gentleman's agreement. The onus, therefore, was on the Department to confirm its acquiescence to the new contract and to make public its decision to change its policy by allowing the ECB to sell all live cricket to a pay-TV broadcaster. The ECB is entrusted with doing its best for cricket; DCMS have the wider public interest to consider. The Committee wishes to express its profound disappointment with the ECB and DCMS for failing to honour their commitments, albeit not legally binding ones. (Paragraph 37)
|
| | |
| 8. | The breaching of the agreement has wider ramifications beyond cricket and beyond the auspices of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. If decisions are made by Secretaries of State and government departments on the basis of understandings which are subsequently ignored by future incumbents then this Committee would wish to express its firm view that such informal arrangements should cease to be treated as an effective tool in the decision-making processes of government. Formal binding undertakings should instead be sought to make policy decisions effective and to maintain public confidence in government decision-making. (Paragraph 38)
|
| | |
| 9. | The Committee strongly supports the notion that a substantial proportion of Test match cricket should be available on free-to-air TV for the benefit of the whole country regardless of a fan's ability to pay. However, the Committee believes that, ultimately, in the debate as to who should decide what is in the best interests of cricket, the judgement has to be left to that sport's governing body. It is the ECB, too, who must take the blame for any decline in interest in the game. The duty rests on it to ensure that the potential adverse effects on cricket, referred to in this report, are minimised, if not eliminated, over the years of the exclusive Sky contract. Time will tell if it has made the correct decision and if a new generation of youngsters, enthused by successful English teams, comes forward to emulate their heroes. (Paragraph 59)
|
| | |
| 10. | We have received no compelling evidence in support of cricket returning to Group A of the listed events. The potential damage that re-listing in Group A would do to cricket would be too big a risk to take; the vast sums of money poured into the sport and the achievements of the England teams in recent years would all be put in jeopardy. (Paragraph 60)
|
| | |
| 11. | The Committee takes the firm view that the ECB did not do enough to ensure that a non-exclusive deal was brokered. The Committee believes that a more pro-active approach should have been taken by the ECB to maximise broadcasting revenue while ensuring some cricket remained on terrestrial TV. The ECB should have had more, and placed greater emphasis on obtaining successful outcomes from, discussions with free-to-air broadcasters before the bidding process was put in train and at the outset of, and throughout, negotiations. What we are concerned about is the ECB's timidity in not insisting upon a non-exclusive deal. A clear signal from the outset that an exclusive deal was not on the table may have substantially altered negotiating positions in the ECB's favour. (Paragraph 61)
|
| | |
| 12. | We recommend that the ECB enters discussions at an early stage with all broadcasters to ensure that at the time of the next contract negotiation, there are numerous bids from a variety of broadcasters all of whom will have had ample opportunity to deal effectively with scheduling problems. It is the ECB's stated aim to have a mix of broadcasters wherever possible and we sincerely hope that the next deal manages to meet their aspirations and, perhaps more importantly, the commitments they gave to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in 1998. Much of the onus will be on the ECB to ensure that is the case but free-to-air broadcasters too must take up the challenge to help restore live coverage of the game to universally received channels. (Paragraph 62)
|
| | |
| 13. | If the BBC, or any other broadcaster, were to indicate a willingness seriously to consider negotiating with Sky for rights to broadcast live Test cricket, then the Committee would have no hesitation in recommending that the Minister of Sport convene a meeting as a matter of urgency. However, we, like the Minister of Sport, are not optimistic. (Paragraph 66)
|
| | |
| 14. | We are unclear as to why the review of listed events should depend on the roll-out of digital switchover and are unconvinced of the link between the two. We would also remind the Secretary of State that the ECB may well have negotiated a new deal or renewed their existing contract with BSkyB well before that review takes place. The Committee sees no reason why a comprehensive review of the listed events criteria, and the events themselves, cannot be undertaken earlier than 2008-09 and certainly well ahead of the next contract decision. (Paragraph 69)
|
| | |
| 15. | We recommend that any review of listing should have as one of its priorities the broader issue of the distribution of sports rights. DCMS, in conjunction with Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading, should examine ways of encouraging flexibility and competition in the broadcasting of sports rights using new media platforms. (Paragraph 71)
|
