ECB sign new deal with Sky TV - no cricket on free to air until 2017 (or ever as is likley)

There will be no live cricket on free-to-view television until at least 2017 following the ECB's announcement today that it has renewed its exclusive deal with Sky TV.

Emphasis has remained determinedly focused on securing maximum revenue to protect the financially stricken first-class game, in defiance of the protests of a vociferous free-to-air lobby. The ECB will claim that this has been achieved after securing a deal that is thought to be comparable to the previous agreement, which industry sources estimated at £280m over four years.

Sky Sports, the only serious bidder, has won the rights to show live domestic and international cricket in England and Wales from 2014-17 as part of a package that includes all England's home Tests, ODIs and T20I series, selected England Lions and England women fixtures, plus 60 days of domestic cricket every season.

The deal also includes an option to extend for a further two years, which would encompass tours by India in 2018 and Australia in 2019 and would, presumably, neatly sidestep any potential government legislation that might be introduced to give the Ashes series "crown jewels" status and so demand it was available free of charge.

Giles Clarke, the ECB chairman, who led the talks alongside the commercial director John Perera, made no apologies for the deal. "No-one should be in any doubt that our partnership with Sky has been of immense benefit to the wider game," he said. "World-class support structures for our successful England teams, major ground improvements at county level, a flourishing coach education programme and a 5% increase in participation at our 'Focus' clubs are all by-products of this relationship."

The ECB has also announced a new deal with Channel 5 for England highlights, with an early evening slot for transmission going some way to appeasing critics.

Thanks to the announcement last week of a new six-year deal with BBC Radio, the ECB is able to claim that "broadcasting agreements for the next contractual cycle will deliver an overall increase in revenues compared with the previous four-year period". It is a marginal claim at best.

The awarding of TV rights followed an open tender process in which all broadcasters were invited to bid for a variety of packages, which included the rights to individual Test matches, series or competitions, and a mixture of live and highlights programming.

In a major economic downturn, the ECB will be satisfied with maintaining the status quo. It is certainly aware of the art of timing. It negotiated the last deal just before the banking crash and it has rushed through this deal to try to capitalise on England's No. 1 Test ranking - just before the cricketing crash, some might say, after England's horrendous defeats in the first two Tests against Pakistan.

Millions of cricket lovers, unwilling or unable to contemplate pay TV, will not be appeased, whatever the benefits. The images of England's 2005 Ashes win and the open-top bus ride through London still resonate and many put that down to the fact that the Test series was available for all to watch.

In 2009 a review led by David Davies, a former executive director of the Football Association, recommended that England's home Ashes Tests should return to the "crown jewels" list of protected free-to-air events. The ECB dubbed the conclusions "deeply flawed" and warned of mass cutbacks if the proposals were accepted.

The previous Labour government suggested it was of a mind to accept Davies' recommendations but the 2010 general election brought a change of government and an announcement by the incoming sports minister, Hugh Robertson, that any decision would be delayed until 2013 - time enough for Ashes series up to and including 2019 to be secured by pay TV.


http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/551654.html

Thoughts?

As much as I do believe it should be free to air, and wish it was in terms of the popularity of the sport in this country, I can't help but be pleased as Sky really are the very best at what they do. The production and the commentators/pundits involved with Sky are second to none, it is such a well oiled machine.

the thing people forget is that SKY are willing to pay the sort of money they are for a package that also includes showing games that we would never see if the ECB were forced to give the ashes to free-to-air broadcasters.

would we see the same quality and breadth of coverage of the rest of the england schedule and also the amount of international cricket which doesnt involve england if SKY were told they couldn't have the "crown jewel" of the package

The thing that strikes me is that there were no other tenders for the contract. I know their are arguements for having it on free-to-air but if the BBC/ITV/Channels 4 & 5 aren't interested then the arguements hold very little weight. It seems to me that they'll accept it only on their terms, i.e. given to them at a lower rate.

iirc the ECB usually split the overall contract into small packages and each one can be bid on seperately , as you say if none of the free-to-air broadcasters even bid for one of the live packages then you cant really blame SKY

i also dont buy this argument that kids wont get involved in cricket coz its not being shown live, do we really think that a kid now is going to sit and watch cricket for 7 hours a day for 5 days in a row

imo they would be more likely to watch the highlights package on ch5 anyway

Good excuse to not watch India bundle England out for under 50 next winter

I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Giles Clarke: the simple fact is that a decent amount of the money generated by the sky deal DOES go to grass-roots cricket (in particular the ECB CA is entirely funded by sky). With the availability of internet streams (which Giles Clarke dislikes) those of us unable to afford sky will still watch the cricket comfortably.

Rich makes the excellent point that with Sky getting the whole package we can watch county cricket and other games for which there would usually be no interest if the deal were broken up.

There is an argument that young children won't be able to discover the game if it's not on Free-to-air TV. I find it tenuous at best, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support it.

Overall a good thing.

Think cricket is big enough to keep up interest without free to air - especially as the success and a hardcore section of the fans will always keep it alive. Must say though miss watching caddick bowling brilliantly for little reward on c4 when I was a teen. Was fantasic - sometimes used to bunk college so I could watch full day. When mum retired from work - it put paid to all that

Free to air is best from boxing and other sports which are difficult to follow due to high number of individual participants with little structure.

im actually glad that cricket is staying on sky...i really enjoy sky's commentary.

Mike Selig wrote:I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Giles Clarke: the simple fact is that a decent amount of the money generated by the sky deal DOES go to grass-roots cricket (in particular the ECB CA is entirely funded by sky). With the availability of internet streams (which Giles Clarke dislikes) those of us unable to afford sky will still watch the cricket comfortably.

Rich makes the excellent point that with Sky getting the whole package we can watch county cricket and other games for which there would usually be no interest if the deal were broken up.

There is an argument that young children won't be able to discover the game if it's not on Free-to-air TV. I find it tenuous at best, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support it.

Overall a good thing.

One can get a general gauge/trend of the numbers who are interested in cricket based on the numbers who watched the Ashes in 2005 when it was free, compared to the numbers who watched the Ashes in 2009 when it was shown live on Sky.

gboycottnut wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Giles Clarke: the simple fact is that a decent amount of the money generated by the sky deal DOES go to grass-roots cricket (in particular the ECB CA is entirely funded by sky). With the availability of internet streams (which Giles Clarke dislikes) those of us unable to afford sky will still watch the cricket comfortably.

Rich makes the excellent point that with Sky getting the whole package we can watch county cricket and other games for which there would usually be no interest if the deal were broken up.

There is an argument that young children won't be able to discover the game if it's not on Free-to-air TV. I find it tenuous at best, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support it.

Overall a good thing.

One can get a general gauge/trend of the numbers who are interested in cricket based on the numbers who watched the Ashes in 2005 when it was free, compared to the numbers who watched the Ashes in 2009 when it was shown live on Sky.

Not really... the '05 ashes captivated the imagination of the public as much because of the quality of the cricket played by both sides (well, England and Warne anyhow) as because it was on free-to-air. There is no way to know that the '09 ashes (which was, a few moments aside, a fairly drab series which was probably won by the lesser side) would have generated the same audience.

Besides, this is not the argument. I perfectly accept fewer people will watch cricket on TV (although many who don't watch it on TV will find another way) when it is on Sky rather than free TV. My point is that audience numbers don't necessarily translate into numbers out on the field playing, until someone shows me a clear correlation.

With plenty of sport this summer what with the Soccer European Championships in Poland/Ukraine as well as the Olympic Games in London, not to mention the Wimbledon Tennis Championship, no member of the ordinary public will be interested anyway in Cricket.