Options
Will English cricket be in a better state in 20 years for being Pay TV Exclusive?
RadioKnower
Posts: 2,272 Forum Member
✭✭✭
I'm no anti-Sky moaner. But I've been wondering whether cricket could in the long run be weaker in this country, in terms of interest and breadth of talent in the game.
I also wonder if cricket isn't at the same interest level, whether funding from Sky, or the big pay broadcasters is going to be there in say 2032.
I personally think, to have some international cricket on free to air TV, would keep interest levels up, if Sky still had the lions share. Anyone who subscribes to Sky for cricket now, would probably still subscribe and you'd then pick up people who have been put into the cricketing mood.
I feel the same thing will happen to golf.
I'm not interested in the politics. I just want people to debate whether cricket in 20 years will be in a better state as a result of being pay TV exclusive than it would be if a FTA broadcaster held some test rights.
I also wonder if cricket isn't at the same interest level, whether funding from Sky, or the big pay broadcasters is going to be there in say 2032.
I personally think, to have some international cricket on free to air TV, would keep interest levels up, if Sky still had the lions share. Anyone who subscribes to Sky for cricket now, would probably still subscribe and you'd then pick up people who have been put into the cricketing mood.
I feel the same thing will happen to golf.
I'm not interested in the politics. I just want people to debate whether cricket in 20 years will be in a better state as a result of being pay TV exclusive than it would be if a FTA broadcaster held some test rights.
Will English cricket be in a better state in 20 years for being Pay TV Exclusive? 73 votes
Yes
32%
24 votes
No
67%
49 votes
0
Comments
On the one hand yes, the idea of Cricket being Sky Sports only, feels like it a bad thing.
HOWEVER Sky Sport is such a monopoly now, that any sports fan, will have it, so sports on Sky Sports will still be able to reach the majority of sports fans, and sporting people.
Ok for reasons of national pride, its really nice for thins like The Ashes to be on free to air TV, but I the people it actually matters to, (not the bandwagon jumpers who only pay attention to cricket when its The Ashes, and when we are winning) will already have Sky Sports.
Meanwhile sport is something that can be passed down in a family, im sure the fact im not a sports guy, is down to 2 things
1) my not being very good at sport
2) my Dad not being a sports guy
My uninformed take on this is no live FTA TV coverage would be a hinderence, but it's difficult to see it's true effect, or to say whether cricket would even end up suffering because there are other variables e. I don't know what the situation is with going into schools and introducing kids to cricket from an early age, but things like that are just as important,
I don't think that Sky Sports has that many subscribers...to be in the majority of fans homes.
Sky can offer more money, which allows resources to be thrown back into the game at all levels. Sky's commitment to the game (which you feel would be less strong if they didn't have exclusive coverage) also ensures that domestic competitions and the women's game get the type of exposure they would simply never get on Terrestrial TV.
Another point to make is that the TV Sport world has changed drastically even since 2005. These days most children follow sport through the internet and subscription TV - a marked move from the past when the only access children could have to professional sport, other than actually attending events, was through what was shown on terrestrial TV. The significance of this is that, in the past and even the relatively recent past, young sports fans would watch what they could - FA Cup, Boat Race, Grand National, Wimbledon, Test Cricket, Anything else on Grandstand.
Right now I think that that has gone. Sadly most youngsters will choose football as their favourite sport and watch football and only football (there is enough football on Sky to not need to become interested in anything else). For those not lucky enough to have Sky they'll follow their sport through the net.
In terms of cricket it should also be noted that - rightly or wrongly - the sport has a more middle class demographic than, say, football does. This naturally means that more (in my experience the vast majority) of those that play cricket can afford to pay for Sky.
You could argue that those from poorer backgrounds might miss out. A few may - although, as I say, I suspect people would follow through the Internet. But in the long term the money Sky put in will result in those kids being able to access better coaching and facilities at their schools and clubs, which can only be a good thing.
In an ideal world the decision made in 2005 should not have been made - some deal should have been struck to keep 1-2 Tests each summer on the Category A list. But, as I say, what we have now will benefit English cricket on the whole in years to come.
You'd have to be crazy to turn down what Sky keep throwing at the ECB!
Then there was the shameless Stanford affair, in which ECB basically bent over and took it from behind from Sir Allen Stanford (who I believe is in jail)!
Its the kind of thing you can debate, but you could never do a proper study on it, due to the long term nature of player development, and the next generation
Like most people I think it would be nice to have some cricket on FTA channels. What most people forget is that it's the money SKY have put into the game which has allowed for central contracts, allowed for better coaching/backroom staff and allowed for better coaching of youngsters through performance squads and the Center of Excellence at Loughborough.
It's these things that have allowed the national squads to be better coached/prepared and will do so in the future. You can make a comparison to the football team, for all the massive support they have, poor preparation and coaching mean they have continued to fail at the highest level.
Whilst I am aware of Team Sky, it did surprise me that one way or another the Sky logo was on just about every page, but Sky had not paid the magazine directly for that.
I found it really off putting, and would hate to think of my hobby as having the News Corp seal of approval, or that people would associate my riding my bike (something I did long before Team Sky) as part anything related to the team, even if its just that "I was inspired"
Why would 'Team Sky' pay the magazine? They probably did afeature on the cycling team, and inevitably, their sponsors logos will be everywhere.
Incidently, have you seen 'The Road to Glory' on Sky Atlantic? Fascinating, and it'll tell you what Sky's money has done for British Cycling
I said the magazine didnt get paid, which is what so concerning, the entire sport seemed to be kept afloat by Sky money.
not something I would like to see my hobby be involved with.
Sky have made a huge investment in cycling in the UK their investment in both leisure and pro cycling is huge factor in the success at the team gb at the Olympics and a historic victory for a British rider in the Tour de France. Sky's promotion of leisure cycling in the UK should be applauded, they are promoting a mass participation sport for nothing but the good will. only thing they ask for is their logo to appear on kit and in associated media, no tv rights for Sky you pretty much see cycling everywhere but Sky Sports.
It's not exactly done the Premier League too much harm as it? Equally rugby and cricket have thrived on Sky money, as well as cycling as mentioned above.
Keep the sporting crown jewels FTA, but everything else should legitimately go to the highest bidder. I grew up through the 80s and 90s, a fairly abysmal time for English sporting success, although at least it was all FTA. Would I want to go back to that? Would I f.....
their always outcry from cricket fans, mainly because cricketing event is not protected, the world cup final should be a protected event and the ashes, so their at least some cricket guaranteed in FTA, like rugby and other sports, but apart from that I don't mind cricket in sky sports anyway, since their actually do justice to cricket and show lots of international cricket from all countries apart form Pakistan and sri lanka.
If not, it is hardly their choice, whereas FTA services do not bar their being a part of the audience.
Thus, televised cricket is most certainly not "available to the vast majority of households", unless of course
you went to the Giles Clarke School of Logic
and
the rules of mathematics have been changed.
He said available, not have. Unless you have no sat coverage or cable coverage or BT broadband, then Sky Sports is indeed available to most if they pay up. Much in life is free today.
The real point is that if FTA want Cricket then they should pay up. End of. In many other countries FTA tv battles against Pay TV for sports rights. In the Uk they should do the same or shut up.
Further in 20 years tv will be nothing like it is today.
Not much maths required I'm afraid, more a very basic grasp of modern technology and viewing options available.
Are you disputing that the vast majority of UK households do not have access to broadband, and therefore by extension, a computer/laptop/tablet?
Because everybody who does has access to Sky Player. And if you have access to Sky Player, you have access to Sky Sports. As over 70% of people in the UK have broadband televised cricket most definitely is available to the majority of households. Sorry to prick your pompous bubble.
By the way, I'm referring to the reach of Sky Sports. Not whether you're too tight to put your hand in your pocket and actually pay for it.
EDIT - sorry just seen a reply that it almost identical to mine, and absolutely bang on
Should have read NOT much in life is free today.
Still where is Team Raleigh, Team Halfords, or even Team Red Bull?
There will ultimately be fewer young people joining in this sport as a result of the lack of television exposure.
It's not just highlights but real matches from the different cricket formats that are needed on free to air TV even if it's only a minority portion. I don't mind Sky having sole access to 65% of matches but 100% is not on.
Where would they be if this had happened 20 yrs ago?
Its unbearable to watch