T20 offers way out of ECB’s TV crown jewels impasse

Children need to eat fruit, right? And they need heating. And houses. And shoes. Look, I’m no expert, but it seems to me they need masses of stuff. It would probably be cheaper to be a crack addict than a parent.

Yet the government has never insisted that Tesco give away oranges to children. Or npower give away electricity. So I’m not sure why they feel they can insist that the ECB effectively give away their most valuable assets ‘in the public interest’.

On the face of it, the decision to recommend home Ashes Tests return to free-to-air TV seems like good news. As Michael Vaughan made clear in his recent autobiography, it was the chance exposure to Test cricket on TV that inspired his love of the game. Many of us can identify with such experiences and there’s little doubt that the long-term future of cricket would be best served by allowing the greatest number of people access to it.

But life isn’t that simple. By preventing the ECB from selling TV rights to the game’s most lucrative series on the open market, the government would actually be jeopardising the game’s viability.

Sound hysterical? Well, the current TV rights deal is worth £300 million to the ECB over four years and, if ECB figures are to be taken at face value, they would expect revenues to fall by up to 50 per cent under the proposed new arrangement. Even conservative estimates suggest the figure would be in excess of 20 per cent.

What would the effect? Well, consider how the counties are funded. Or how their academies and development programmes are funded. Or where the money comes from to pay for many of cricket’s coaching initiatives and grass roots projects. It is, I’m afraid, largely earned from TV rights. Most pertinently, consider what would happen to all those counties who have just borrowed millions in order to fund ground redevelopment schemes. Any threat to their income could have catastrophic consequences. Whatever the long-term benefits of free-to-air cricket, the short-term costs make it almost impossible to bear.

Maybe the effects of free-to-air cricket are somewhat overstated, anyway. After all, the Grand National is shown free-to-view: has it ever made you saddle up a horse and point it in the direction of a hedge? Have years of exposure to the Boat Race had you building a raft and taking it round the Surrey Bend? 

Besides, I’m not convinced that some of the free-to-view channels deserve a helping hand. While Channel 4’s coverage was admirable, it’s worth remembering how they interrupted coverage to bring us horse racing and how they insisted that the start time of Tests were brought forward to accommodate Hollyoaks.

The BBC hardly deserve any favours, either. They already have the advantage of a £3 billion hand-out from license-fee payers, yet have failed to even bid for cricket packages of late. 

It would be nice to think that, if the government believe it’s so important that the nation sees cricket, then the government would pay for it. But even the most ardent cricket lover would surely have to admit that there’s no way the tax-payer should be paying for such things.

But perhaps there is another solution. Not only could a free-to-view highlights Test package be utilised better, but it’s possible that Sky could show some games free-to-view, perhaps on Sky 3.

In the long-term, however, the solution might be to forget the Ashes as the cornerstone of this debate. For the best part of 20 years, there was nothing more likely to put a youngster off cricket than watching England suffer another thrashing at the hands of Australia. Besides, selecting it as cricket’s only ‘crown jewels’ event perpetuates the myth that England-Australia is the only event that matters.

Instead, I’d offer domestic Twenty20 matches to a free-to-view audience. The format might offer more mass-market appeal anyway, while the brevity of games could be more appealing to broadcasters. Ideally I’d like to see an FA Cup style knock-out (incorporating the minor counties) almost given away to a free-to-view broadcaster. The long-term effects would surely counteract the relatively minor loss in income and increase support for the county game. And we wouldn’t have to wait until 2016 for it to happen.