The DCMS has for the last couple of months been conducting a review into the listed events – those events that must be covered live on free-to-air television – Group A Events. That’s event like the Olympics, the World Cup and so on. It also includes events to which highlights must be made available on free-to-air TV – Group B Events.
You can see a full list of these events here (PDF).
I’ve previously argued long and hard about the recklessness of the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) when they sold pretty much all their rights to Sky – meaning that we no longer see any live cricket on free-to-air TV at all. Yes, Five shows nightly highlights and at the moment the BBC is showing late night highlights of the ICC World Twenty20 competition. But that’s not the same as free-to-air live coverage. The ECB was greedy, and I won’t accept any excuse otherwise. They looked to the short term of their sport and not the long term. If England win the Ashes this summer, do not expect another ticker-tape procession in Trafalgar Square like last time. Most people won’t have seen it.
Anyway, today Sky released its response to the consultation. You can read the full document here, as well as a speech given by Jeremy Darroch given at a Sports Industry Group breakfast this morning here. Or if you prefer, read The Guardian’s summary here.
Unsurprisingly, they don’t want Government shackles put on what sports bodies are and aren’t allowed to sell them. They argue that many bodies will continue to sell their rights to free-to-air broadcasters.
But I’m not sure that’s the case. There are a lot of very short-sighted people in charge of sports. Look at all the sports that might be losing millions because they didn’t learn from the ITV Digital fiasco when it came to negotiating with Setanta – reportedly close to going into administration. The Scottish FA has already doled out £3m which should have come from Setanta. Will they get any cash from them if they do go to the wall? It remains to be seen.
But given that Fifa and Uefa have both in the past argued against the Listed Events system employed in different countries across Europe, it’s safe to say that they’d happily sell more of their European Championships or World Cup rights to pay TV broadcasters if they could. Indeed they might sell all those rights.
It’s true that horseraces like the Derby and the Grand National would of course remain on terrestrial TV – this is a sport that essentially pays Channel 4 to retain coverage. Without widespread broadcasting, its betting revenues would dwindle. But the Derby in particular has been broadcast across more than one free-to-air channel over the years.
I’m similarly unconvinced that a free-to-air commercial broadcaster wouldn’t be interested in carrying cricket. Channel 4 revolutionised cricket coverage in this country, and was simply outbid by Sky. The ECB might have wished that the BBC had entered the bidding and pushed prices even higher, but you don’t always get what you wish for. There’s certainly no question that the BBC could bid for Test Matches again in the future – there’s plenty of space to broadcast them (look at the efforts they go to with their red-button scorecard service employing the Test Match Special radio commentaries).
Sky’s response is, of course, completely self-serving. They need exclusivity to drive subscriptions. Sport is fundamental to their entire business. They want as much opportunity to build that business as possible. Look at their recent sponsorship of British Cycling. Although Sky’s coverage of the sport is limited, the Olympic results from Beijing and the likely success in London in 2012 mean that even though they haven’t carried much of the sport, they’re getting involved and pushing further. If that means getting some of the World Cup matches or a piece of Wimbledon, then so be it.
Look – I’m a subscriber to Sky Sports. I think they provide an excellent service, and they cover what they do with excellence (even if they do employ Andy Gray and Jamie Rednapp). But that doesn’t mean that I don’t want to see sport reaching as wide an audience as possible.
Sport gets a lot of state aid and public money via a vast diversity of routes from Lottery funding to local authority grants, tax breaks and many many more areas. Sport has to give back to the population. It’s more than just another business.
Anyway, Sky’s put its response into the review. So I’ve just put mine in too. And I’ve reproduced it below.
Note: The responses to these questions are based around this document.
Q1. Do you think that the UK should continue to protect certain major events through live or deferred coverage on free-to-air television? Please give a reason for your response.
Yes it should.
Sport is an important part of our culture, with millions regularly enjoying and watching major sporting events throughout the calendar. The biggest TV audiences are regularly reserved for major sporting occasions.
Sport also encourages our children to participate. At a time when there’s a major obesity problem with children, promoting and encouraging sport at any level should be key. Seeing sport on TV is a motivating factor for children, and indeed all adults, to take part in healthy activities.
Sport is not just a commercial business; despite what some pay TV operators might think. Most sports have in some way benefited from public money – via grants, transport infrastructure, policing, and many other ways. Therefore sports have to “give back” to the public, and this can be done through free-to-air broadcast rights.
Q2. Do you think that events other than sporting events should be listed? If so, please give your reason. You will have an opportunity to suggest appropriate events at a later stage in this consultation document and do not need to do so now.
Anything that is historically of strong importance to a UK society should be listed. So, yes, that might extend beyond solely sporting events.
Q3. Do you agree that this should remain the essential criterion test? If you do not agree, please explain why and please indicate what you consider should be the essential criterion in a sporting context.
I agree that these should remain the essential criterion, although I’m not certain that having a national team or national representatives in the sport concerned are enough. In the case of Wimbledon, although we currently have a world class contender in Andy Murray, for many years that hasn’t been the case. So although the “national resonance” clause may apply here, it’s possible that the tournament would not be included on that measure.
Q4. If your answer to Q2 was that non-sporting events should also be considered for listing, what might an essential criterion be?
Historically appearing on free-to-air TV would be an obvious criterion. Attracting a large television audience should not be a key measure however. Some events may resonate more with different demographics of society – the elderly population for example.
I believe that some kind of “measurability” should be put in place, but it’s not clear to me exactly how that might be framed in legislation. Perhaps a National Importance Index determined by means of independent research?
I would also suggest putting together a broader advisory panel than the one created for this consultation for non-sporting events, since the criteria for picking this panel seems largely sports based.
Q5. Do you consider that these characteristics remain appropriate? If you do not, or consider that additional characteristics should be included, please explain why.
I don’t agree that these characteristics remain appropriate. Saying that an event is “likely to command a large television audience” is nebulous. What is large these days? 3 million? 5 million? 15 million? Depending on the event and the channel, any of these might constitute a “large” audience, and they’re all larger than a Manchester Utd v Liverpool fixture on Sky Sports would be.
I also believe that simply using an event’s historic likelihood of being broadcast on free-to-air TV is not enough. That would remove the likelihood of, say, Twenty20 Cricket tournaments ever being listed (I’m not suggesting here that they should), since they’re a relatively recent innovation with little free-to-air broadcasting in the UK.
I think additional measures should be used such as sport’s overall popularity. Special attention should be placed on sports with widespread appeal to children.
Q6. Are these the appropriate other factors that the Secretary of State should take into account when considering whether or not to list an event? If not, or you consider that additional factors should be taken into account, please explain why.
These are largely appropriate factors but with some heavy provisos. For example, season-long championships might be hard for a general channel to carry in full. I wouldn’t expect a free-to-air channel to carry full Premier League coverage for example. However, ITV has shown how significant coverage of a tournament like the UEFA Champions League is perfectly possible on a general channel. It shares the rights with BSkyB, but still shows significant hours of coverage throughout the season.
Pay TV competitors like BSkyB will always be able to argue that listing an event does reduce the potential income a sport is able to earn. It’s always likely that a subscription channel could pay more than a general free-to-air channel. So that should only ever form part of the factors used to weigh up which events are listed and which aren’t.
I’m unsure why radio commentaries are included in the factors alongside delayed coverage or highlights. I don’t believe that access to a sport on radio should be relevant here. It’s possible, for example, that an event’s rights holders might refuse to sell rights to a radio station, or that the price charged makes obtaining those rights commercially unviable.
Look at London, for example, where no local commercial radio stations carry any Premier League football commentaries, despite upwards of five clubs being based in the capital.
I think that the potential for increasing participation in a sport should have more weight placed on it. Depriving viewers of free-to-air coverage effectively means that the poorer members of society are deprived. That has a direct impact on the overall health of the nation.
Q7. Do you agree that both an A and B list should be maintained? If not, please explain why.
I think that maintaining both the A and B lists is a fair system. Although I’d argue that with digital switchover being completed within the next three years, digital television will offer free-to-air services the ability to cover these events irrespective of the difficulty broadcasters may have found in scheduling them previously. For example, BBC Red Button services, BBC Three and ITV Four are already regularly used for major sporting occasions.
Q8. Are there any issues that you would wish to bring to our attention in regard to the way in which the listing arrangements are given practical effect by Ofcom?
No.
Q9. Do you think that the Secretary of State should:
• leave the current arrangements unchanged;
• move existing events between the A and B lists;
• add any entirely new events; or
• remove any events that are currently listed? Please give reasons for your answers.
Broadly, the list as it stands should be left unchanged. In particular, none of the sports in Group A should in any way be diluted with elements pushed down to Group B. However, I believe that a few amendments should be made to it.
1. Wimbledon should be broadened to include the entire tournament and not just the finals. When Tim Henman or Andy Murray have performed strongly in the past, it’s as much of a national occasion as many other sports, yet neither has reached a final (so far!).
2. Cricket Test Matches in England should be moved up to Group A. Cricket is our summer national sport, and currently there is no live cricket on free-to-air UK television. I must admit, I mostly put this blame on the authorities, and in particular the ECB. That said, cricket is a national pastime, and it has benefited from plenty of public money.
3. The Six Nations Rugby Tournament Matches involving Home Nations should be moved up to Group A. This would ensure that UK viewers are guaranteed at least some live rugby beyond the World Cup Final every four years. Obviously all this tournament’s fixtures currently are on free-to-air television, but it would be detrimental for them to be lost.
4. The Open Golf Championship should be moved up to Group A. Again this would enshrine the availability of at least one tournament on free-to-air television in the future.
Q10. If you have suggested that live coverage of any such tournaments should be listed do you think that:
• the entire tournament should be listed; or
• only selected stages, events or matches involving national teams or representatives?
Please give reasons for your view and, if you favour selected listing, please specify which tournaments and which stages, events or matches.
Of the sports I’ve suggested should be moved up to Group A I would argue:
1. At least a number of England Test Matches should be broadcast completely live. A split of a Test series between a free-to-air broadcaster and a pay TV operator would be acceptable.
2. All the Six Nations Matches should be shown live featuring Home nations.
3. The final two days of the Open Golf Championship should be shown live.
Q11. Please suggest which non-sporting events you would like to see listed and why.
The events I believe would be worthy of inclusion would be:
The Trooping of the Colour
The Chelsea Flower Show
The Edinburgh Tattoo
All of these would be popular amongst an older audience and should be protected from a pay TV station that might want to benefit from the kudos (if not viewers) that carrying such an event might provide.
Q12. Do you have any other issues that you would like the Panel to take into account in considering what its recommendations should be?
I think that the panel should consider the wider social ramifications of making significant changes to the Listed Events.
As a society we are aging, and an elderly population is less able to pay to watch premium sports channels. Neither are the poor. Pushing sports into the hinterland, where they may earn the rights holders more money is not the only answer.
Everyone knows the famous Bill Shankly quote concerning football: “Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.”
That remains true of many national sports. Sport has a quality that brings large sections of society together. It can generate great happiness and sadness as the whole country gets behind a particular team or sports man or woman.