Why greed is the enemy for sports fans, not Sky

THE CRICKET World Cup is proving rather enjoyable, but it seems not a day can go by without the dreamers whinging that none of the games are on ‘free to air’ television.

Usually the ill-informed then blame Murdoch and Sky even though the apparent Australian anti-christ no longer owns the broadcaster.

I’ve not written anything until now, but I’ve snapped after Jim Maxwell’s comment on Saturday evening that it was ‘disgraceful’ none of the tournament was free to air.

No Jim, what is disgraceful is cricket, like all sports seeks to ‘maximise’ its broadcasting revenues – sell them to the highest bidder at prices beyond the market forces of our licence fee, advertising funding free to air channels.

I don’t know what Sky paid for the rights to the World Cup, but the new deal to show all of England’s matches from 2020 onwards is worth £1.1billion. Can you imagine the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 or 5 paying that sort of money?

Sky is a business and of course wants exclusivity but there is nothing to stop rights holders such as the ECB offering one/two packages for just free to air broadcasters. If that reduces Sky’s investment a little then so be it.

However, certain free to air broadcasters will hope that day will never come as quite simply many don’t want to show sports such as cricket.

A one-day came takes eight hours, can you see the BBC clearing their schedules for that long, only Wimbledon gets that privilege.

A test match takes five days, four usually in the modern era. When terrestrial was king, the BBC would leave the test match on Saturday afternoons to go horse racing.

The ultimate snub was Channel 4 who ensured test matches would start at 10.30am so they could clear off and show Hollyoaks and if rain meant a late finish, they’d often draw stumps on the coverage then too.

What do you get with Sky? Uninterrupted coverage which if you are a fan of the sport is all you crave.

Something has got to change, rights holders need to put people before profit and think creatively. Can they offer something to free to air broadcasters while recognising the investment Sky has put into their game.

But can broadcasters such as the BBC and ITV come to the table and offer sports the space they need to breathe? I remain doubtful.

In the last 18 months Sky have been forensically assessing the price they pay for everything, one hopes they don’t take umbrage at this negativity and take their bat and ball home.

Because then cricket, as with many other sports, would be stumped.

Free to air vs Pay TV – A mismatch of the day

TIGER Woods roared back the years last night and almost pulled off a Major victory, remarkable for a golfer who has virtually been rebuilt in the last five years.

What do you mean you didn’t see it? Didn’t you watch it all on Facebook then on the streaming site Eleven Sports? No of course you didn’t because sports fans want TV broadcasts not to be huddled round their laptops.

The debate over free to air versus Pay TV has raged for more than decade in most sports and for almost three decades in football.

Sky Sports swiping of the new Premier League in 1992 did indeed herald ‘A Whole New Ball Game’ for football fans on the pitch and in front of their television sets.

Nothing much has changed, challengers have come and gone while BT Sport now appear to be on the pitch for good.

Not a single match since then has been free for all to enjoy, why should Sky give something away when the price they pay is so high?

Cricket has long fretted over the departure of the game almost completely to Sky in this country while golf bosses in the US were so determined this weekend’s PGA Championship wouldn’t get wall to wall coverage on Sky Sports dedicated golf channel they sold the rights to a fledgling streaming service.

But the rules of the game appear to be ‘boo Sky for pricing the beloved BBC/ITV out of the market’ when in truth it’s the attitude of our major terrestrial broadcasters to sport in the last 30 years which created the corporate giant Sky has become today.

Back in 1988, you got one English top flight match a week plus Match of the Day, very little Football League and barely anything below that. Now it’s at least four top flight games, multiple offerings from the Football League while the National League is covered in depth by BT Sport.

Sky’s investment made that possible, turned average players into millionaires and spawned the cash cow that is the Premier League. But equally it’s the Premier League who seek pound after extra pound when they sell the ‘Greatest League in the World’.

Surely one of the packages could be made available to a terrestrial broadcaster? After all CBS in the
US show games from the National Football League on Sunday afternoon while NBC take over in prime time.

The same goes for cricket, the ECB could make a package solely available for terrestrial viewers but choose to chase cash from Sky et al.

And then what about the terrestrial broadcasters themselves? While live sport starts at a specific time, its conclusion isn’t always fixed which gives the BBC its annual Wimbledon headache.

Remember the BBC and Channel 4 often went horse racing on Saturday afternoons during the test match, Channel 4 ended coverage of delayed test matches to show Hollyoaks and The Simpsons while last year’s BBC coverage of the US PGA Championship was done so cheaply it was a wonder we even saw the winning putt.

The only way this mismatch of the day can be resolved is if those at the top of these sports put people before vast profit and any new terrestrial kids on the block can commit to coverage as good as Pay TV provides now.

Not easy when budgets are squeezed and pressure to sell adverts is at its height.

So the next time someone with sport complains about the lack of free to air coverage ask yourself, what are they doing to achieve the right result?

Neville is right, so prove him wrong

GARY Neville was the special guest on Sky Sports Sunday Supplement over weekend and provided a fascinating insight into football writing, journalism and the way ahead for our industry.

The former Manchester United full back and well established Sky pundit almost invited himself on some weeks ago when he took issue with some of the more modern aspects of the sports journalism industry.

But to say he is no fan of journalists would be a mistake, with every criticism there was praise and the desire for players to be MORE involved with journalists not less.

For me as a journalist it was a fascinating snapshot of where we are in 2016, where something needs to be 

published seconds after it happens not in a few hours.

He was particularly good on the row with Loic Karius which saw the Liverpool keeper and indeed Reds boss Jurgen Klopp bite back at some of Neville's criticisms of the man between the sticks.

No personal offence seems to have been taken, instead there was a frustration that actually a relatively mild form of criticism (what Neville is paid to do as a pundit) became such a story.

Neville criticised the goalkeeper after Liverpool lost to Bournemouth but later that afternoon saved his stronger criticism for Maarten Steklenberg the Everton keeper and memorably labelled Marouane Fellani 'pathetic' for conceding a last minute penalty.

Yet the Karius story stuck and became red hot when Karius decided to have a go back and Klopp chimed in by pointing to Neville's not great record as Valencia head coach.

But Neville provoked scorn by saying 'shut your gob' to Karius – his appearance on Sunday Supplement allowed him to elaborate on it. Neville simply said it was advice from an old pro to shut up, play well, win the title then ram his criticism down his throat.

Because that's how players should take criticism, think 'Right, I will prove you wrong!'

I don't get this 'rise of the super pundit' stuff, Neville (and for that Carragher, Souness, Keane et al) are simply being honest.

The best analysis of football is when the former pro doesn't make excuses and simply calls something for what it was.

Neville is searingly honest, which for me as a fan is what I want to hear not the cosy Match of the Day dressing room banter with Gary and his mates or BT Sport's 'look at us we are all new' approach.

Is he always right? No of course not. Is he biased against Liverpool because of his Manchester United career? No, if you have listened to Neville in the last three years he has eviscerated Van Gaal and certain Manchester United players.

Can subjects of his criticism and scorn prove him wrong? Of course they can. That's the beauty of a nine month football season.

We need journalists to bring us the insight and match reports and pundits to analyise the matches as former pros.

Long may both parts of the Beautiful Game continue.