Events that unify the nation seem pretty rare nowadays. The Ashes series of 2005 was certainly one of them. There were a few elements in the success of this captivating series. Pulsating cricket and great individual stories were certainly amongst them. But another major reason was the fact that the last Ashes series was shown on free to air television.
The last series was watched on TV by over 10 million people and these ratings could be achieved because the Ashes were on free to air TV. A wide range of viewers made up these massive viewing figures. The casual viewer who wouldn’t normally watch sport, and certainly wouldn’t subscribe to a sports channel. The poor and elderly who may not be able to afford the subscription to satellite TV. The schoolkids who chanced upon the TV coverage and found new sporting heroes to emulate.
Since the TV rights were sold to Sky, TV audiences have gone from over 10 million to under 1 million. Terrestrial coverage brings with it accidental viewers in a way that satellite coverage can not. It means that cricket can become the background to many a family summers day. Removing cricket from terrestrial television is depriving the game of the all important oxygen of exposure. Surely the loss of a massive stream of potential interest can only be detrimental to the future of the game.
The sad truth is that, after the success of the last Ashes, the ECB has decided to take the money in the knowledge that cricket will be being watched by a smaller audience, more likely to be composed of dedicated cricket fans. The English Cricket Board (ECB) have taken a calculated decision to reduce the possible televised audience for test cricket in return for a bumper pay cheque from Sky. In doing so, they have threatened the long term future of the game. New fans are less likely to be won over when the matches are tucked away on Sky. Indeed, more than half of the under 18 year olds in the country live in households without Sky. Surely we shouldn’t be depriving the potential future cricketers a chance to watch their heroes? Children that could be idolising Flintoff, Pietersen and all may be grow up without any real exposure to the game.
I have little doubt that this Ashes series may almost be as captivating as the last. As a cricket fan I’m looking forward to it enormously. Sadly, it will be viewed by considerably fewer people. It is such an important sporting event that it must be viewed by the largest possible audience.
Related posts:
“Indeed, more than half of the under 18 year olds in the country live in households without Sky. Surely we shouldn’t be depriving the potential future cricketers a chance to watch their heroes?”
David, I couldn’t agree more with that comment. The ECB is terribly shortsighted and virtually everything that they have done to cricket is money driven.
Obviously all kids wanted to be Freddie Flintoff or KP last time round; what better role model for so many keen cricketers than Ravi Bopara as well. So little cricket is now played in state schools that it is down to the clubs to develop youth cricket. Giving full access on free to air TV to the Ashes series could have been a wonderful boost to the game in this country for the benefit of the next series.
Interesting one Dave, but 80% of the ECB’s income comes from its broadcasting deal with Sky. The extra funding has enabled them to fund the kind of grassroots projects that have caused participation in cricket to increase significantly since the 2005 Ashes.
There is another argument – the 2005 series was on terrestrial TV because the broadcasting deal was done when domestic cricket was still on the Government’s list of events that should be free-to-air. Test cricket has since been taken off the list. This is because, unlike the FA Cup Final (which is 90 minutes a year) it would require one of only five terrestrial channels to block off 250 hours of daytime programming to broadcast a text series. In England. Probably in the rain.
Finally, don’t blame the ECB too much. They had very little choice in who to sign a contract with. Channel 4′s offer was awful, and the BBC didn’t bid. The BBC claims that it didn’t bid because the tender was loaded in favour of sky, but i’m not so sure. Do you think the fact that they spent a load of money buying the rights to Formula One about two weeks earlier had anything to do with it?
All the same, interesting stuff. And, despite everything i’ve said, it’d be great to see the Ashes on free-to-air TV!
“The poor and elderly who may not be able to afford the subscription to satellite TV”
I remember this argument being used in the early 90′s by Labour politicians, as Sky was slowly starting its path to domination. As an installation contractor working for Sky, the vast majority of subscription Sky systems were not being fitted in middle class suburbia, but on the council estates at a ratio of perhaps 5:1. To the middle classes, Sky was the chav choice of its day, not to be touched with a bargepole, it was only when the slightly more upmarket BSB squarial came on the scene, did we see interest in satellite TV from the middle classes. Of course BSB and all the other competitors since have fallen by the wayside, leaving SKY dominant. Money was never the issue, it was always snobbery.
Dom – A few points in relation to your comment.
Firstly, test cricket was only taken off the list of protected events after Lord Maclaurin had asked for it to be removed from the list. At the same time, he “gave his ‘personal reassurance’ to Tony Blair that ‘the ECB would wish to keep a substantial amount of live coverage on the BBC’.”
Maclaurin continued that:
“I do feel very disappointed that the deal was unpicked soon after I left office,” said MacLaurin. “To me, Sky’s exclusive live rights represent a headlong rush for the maximum profit, and the outcome is that so many people – especially youngsters and senior citizens – cannot afford to watch our national summer game.
“I would like to see some intervention from government on this. But I am not saying I would go back to putting everything on the A-list. I still think that the original deal – in which one Test match per summer and all the limited-overs matches went on to satellite TV – was perfectly balanced. It brought money into the game that we were able to spend on building the national academy and introducing central contracts.”
The full article is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/5110224/Lord-MacLaurin-calls-for-Test-cricket-to-return-to-terrestrial-TV.html
In terms of the BBC or Channel 4 clearing their schedules for test match cricket, they had very little trouble doing it for the first 40+ years of free to air coverage. Given the expanded number of free to air platforms, it is difficult to see why this would be tougher now than it was ten years ago.
Surely a few makeover programmes or repeats of Dick Van Dyke detective series could make way for the shared national experience of test match cricket?
A fair point about the ECB using the money to fund grassroots cricket. But those grassroots will become increasingly limited if the game loses the oxygen of publicity. Besides, how much of this money has been squandered by County chairmen over the past few years?