It came as no surprise to anyone that Sky TV to learn that it has refused to even consider putting the cricket world cup final on free-to-air TV even if England are one of the two teams involved. Nor will anyone be remotely surprised that the English Cricket Board (ECB) have recently sold the TV rights to all live cricket up to 2024 to Sky. The ECB are happy with Sky’s decision. They don’t want to upset their ‘corporate partners’, you see. £1.1 billion is a lot of money.
The recent game between England and India attracted a peak TV audience of 1.7 million, by far the highest viewing figures of the tournament to date. This sounds very impressive until you remember that back in 2005, the last time cricket was on terrestrial TV, nearly 10 million tuned in to the Ashes series against Australia. There was huge public interest and the likes of Andrew Flintoff became household names. Now, public recognition of the England cricket team is very different. Many cricket fans know who the players are. The people cricket needs to attract, particularly the young, are not paying attention. There is little by way of a shared experience across the land. Far more people are talking about the Wimbledon tennis championships and the women’s football world cup. Cricket is going on in the background.
As ever these days, the sporting authorities value just one thing: money. They put the riches they receive from pay TV subscribers above stemming the fall in cricket participation, particularly among the working classes. Nowadays, a young player is far more likely to play cricket professionally and then play for England is he attended a private school, not least because state schools barely play the game.
I am told that Sky’s money has been invaluable in improving facilities for existing clubs across the land, essentially maintaining its base in the comfortably middle classes. I understand how the ECB, which is hardly a glittering example of class diversity, will be happy about that. However, there is a trade off.
If your entire support and playing base comes from a narrow section of the nation, and in cricket that means the affluent middle classes, then ignoring everyone else will keep the game precisely where it is. And as time goes by, people will regard our summer game as something other people play and watch.
The word the ECB uses when justifying going after Sky’s money to the exclusion of everything else is ‘inclusion’. They have made major efforts to make this year’s world cup inclusive to all sections of society. Some of their best friends live in sink estates, you see. They have done everything except allowing the vast majority to people in Britain to actually watch it. This is why, whatever happens, including an England victory, cricket will continue to decline.
In football, the Premier League has gone after Sky’s money and after the corporate, more middle class pound. Golf, which remains a middle class plaything has sold its soul to Sky, and cricket, for the last 14 years, has done the same.
The world cup is great for cricket fans, even if they know in their hearts that the format has been rigged to ensure the big countries make the semi-finals. There is sheer unadulterated joy in ram-packed stadiums in the big cities. But make no mistake: for most people, the world cup is barely a thing. This is all well and good if people aren’t interested in expanding the game and extending opportunities of the lower orders, as I imagine the cricketing authorities regard working class people. To all intents and purposes, this world cup has been a huge failure. But in terms of money alone, it’s a huge success. And that’s all that matters, isn’t it?
