Would BBC Commit to International Cricket

A government review of the events that are protected for terrestrial television has hinted that live international cricket could once again return to the nation’s screens. Culture Secretary Andy Burnham is known to favour returning cricket in one of its forms to free-to-air broadcasters.

The 2005 Ashes was the last we saw of international cricket unless we had access to Sky TV. From free-to-air coverage, supporters could now only watch live cricket if they were prepared to pay a subscription of about £400 per year.

A much needed injection of £208 million into the sport was immediately contrasted with the potential effects from the lack of viewing figures. Whilst increasing numbers do have access to Sky Sports press reports have estimated an 80% reduction in the television audience watching cricket since it left Channel 4.

The former Sports Minister, Kate Hoey, said, apparently without any irony, ‘The sell-off of cricket to the highest bidder is shameful and is a reflection of the short-sighted people running the game’.

That the ECB were engaged in a commercial venture totally in accord to the spirit of the privatisation mentality of neo-liberal political regimes doesn’t make it right, but it sticks in the throat when these advocates of privatisation now complain.

You can’t promote the sovereignty of markets for the health system, post offices and every other asset of worth to a nation’s social infrastructure and be alarmed when sport does the same thing.

Still, if cricket is available to a wider audience then that has to be a good thing.

Though whilst Test Match Special remains the most rewarding way to follow England, the BBC has done itself no favours with its attitude to the televised form.

Last summer, the ECB agreed a £300m deal with Sky that renewed their deal, giving them exclusive live rights to all England games. Despite a range of packages designed to entice the BBC and Channel 4 to make competing bids, the BBC showed zero interest.

The problem now for cricket is one of profile. With advertising revenues falling who knows what the future holds for pay-TV, so free-to-air channels have their role to play in promoting the product.

But it does seem as if they have washed their hands of the Test-match format, finding it difficult to schedule a event that lacks fixed times of play.

However, it is believed that the authorities have considered this and could place international Twenty20 cricket on the protected list. This seems a strange compromise, satisfying the dictates of the television companies rather than the needs of the sport or the wishes of the fan. Burnham argued that television’s social role to include and involve drives the principle of a protected sporting list. This may ring true of the Croatia vs England game last September, which was available to just a few Satanta subscribers, but to Twenty20 cricket?

You cannot say that the sport is suffering because of Sky’s exclusive coverage. Both attendances at domestic games and people actively playing cricket have risen in recent years. The most popular form is the Twenty20 and apart from a couple of games in the first season, it is a format that has by-passed terrestrial television.

The BBC’s remit is that of public broadcaster. I have argued before that I am disappointed that it has not promoted women’s cricket. Last year it was criticised by Alex Salmond of the SNP for not wanting to show Scotland’s encounter with England. Why didn’t it bid for the Indian Premier League? Its coverage of the Olympics shows the potential to utilise its interactive facilities.

There needs to be cricket on free-to-air television, but it needs to offer more than just the most popular bits. The facility is there to provide it, the sport can only benefit from wider coverage, but I’m left wondering whether the commitment is there.