SATELLITE BROADCASTING : THE YING YANG OF SPORT
£6 million per game - that's the price broadcasters now have
to pay in the United Kingdom if they want to show a single football match.
Simply, that's over £66,000 a minute.
In a world where these astronomical fees exist, it is an unfortunate fact that the majority of sport is no longer available free-to-air.
Just a few years ago, the situation was entirely different. When England won the Ashes back in 2005, over eight million people watched the drama unfold live on Channel Four. However, with England cricket matches now screened exclusively on Sky Sports, viewing figures for the 2013 series are likely to be just over 20 per cent of this.
With the exposure for the sport now considerably less, many argue cricket's ability to inspire a future generation to take up the game will be significantly hampered.
But with Sky willing to pay £300 million to screen England test matches, you'd have to be an idiot to not see that this will benefit the game in the long run.
A fifth of this figure is currently set aside for the development of the game at a grass roots level. An amount which would have been unimaginable when Michael Vaughan held the Ashes earn aloft eight years ago.
The success the England team have achieved in this time is no coincidence. Since the 5-0 drubbing suffered in Australia in 2006/07 the England team have risen to spend time as the number one test nation in the world, and were crowned Twenty20 World Champions back in 2010.
The point, therefore, is that without the level of investment Sky have pledged to the sport, would the ECB have been able to maintain this constant level of high performance? Almost certainly not. Look at the performance of the national team in the year's before the TV deal, a side who were statistically the worst test nation in the world at the turn of the century.
Yet while Cricket continues to thrive with the injection of satellite broadcasters' cash, the same cannot be said for our country's other national game, football.
The Premier League's aforementioned new television deal is worth an astounding £3 billion, with a prize of £100 million for the division's eventual winner.
However, while the structure of football in England remains the same, this money will struggle to benefit our national side and could in fact prove to hinder rather than help their progress.
Yes St George's Park has finally been built to provide all age groups of the England team with a state-of-the-art training facility, but what's the point if the players using it aren't playing regular Premier League football?
The injection of cash into the Premier League has seen an inflation in the transfer funds and wages of English players, take the ridiculous fees spend on Carroll and Downing by Liverpool as an example.
With English players now so costly to clubs it is no surprise that clubs in the division are now looking abroad to improve their squads. As things stand (15th July 2013), 85 per cent of new signings made by Premier League teams have come from abroad.
While the argument is often made that young English talents will benefit from training with the world' best players, surely this is worth nothing if they are denied first-team exposure?
In a world where these astronomical fees exist, it is an unfortunate fact that the majority of sport is no longer available free-to-air.
Just a few years ago, the situation was entirely different. When England won the Ashes back in 2005, over eight million people watched the drama unfold live on Channel Four. However, with England cricket matches now screened exclusively on Sky Sports, viewing figures for the 2013 series are likely to be just over 20 per cent of this.
With the exposure for the sport now considerably less, many argue cricket's ability to inspire a future generation to take up the game will be significantly hampered.
But with Sky willing to pay £300 million to screen England test matches, you'd have to be an idiot to not see that this will benefit the game in the long run.
A fifth of this figure is currently set aside for the development of the game at a grass roots level. An amount which would have been unimaginable when Michael Vaughan held the Ashes earn aloft eight years ago.
The success the England team have achieved in this time is no coincidence. Since the 5-0 drubbing suffered in Australia in 2006/07 the England team have risen to spend time as the number one test nation in the world, and were crowned Twenty20 World Champions back in 2010.
The point, therefore, is that without the level of investment Sky have pledged to the sport, would the ECB have been able to maintain this constant level of high performance? Almost certainly not. Look at the performance of the national team in the year's before the TV deal, a side who were statistically the worst test nation in the world at the turn of the century.
Yet while Cricket continues to thrive with the injection of satellite broadcasters' cash, the same cannot be said for our country's other national game, football.
The Premier League's aforementioned new television deal is worth an astounding £3 billion, with a prize of £100 million for the division's eventual winner.
However, while the structure of football in England remains the same, this money will struggle to benefit our national side and could in fact prove to hinder rather than help their progress.
Yes St George's Park has finally been built to provide all age groups of the England team with a state-of-the-art training facility, but what's the point if the players using it aren't playing regular Premier League football?
The injection of cash into the Premier League has seen an inflation in the transfer funds and wages of English players, take the ridiculous fees spend on Carroll and Downing by Liverpool as an example.
With English players now so costly to clubs it is no surprise that clubs in the division are now looking abroad to improve their squads. As things stand (15th July 2013), 85 per cent of new signings made by Premier League teams have come from abroad.
While the argument is often made that young English talents will benefit from training with the world' best players, surely this is worth nothing if they are denied first-team exposure?
Take Scott Sinclair for example. A promising talent at
Chelsea, he made just five appearances for the Blues in a four-year spell. It
wasn't until a move to Swansea City that he was finally able to show his
ability, but following a big money move to Manchester City his talent has again
been stifled. Sinclair made just three starts last term.
The story of Scott Sinclair is one which will be continually replicated by young English players while the financial situation in the Premier League remains the same.
The story of Scott Sinclair is one which will be continually replicated by young English players while the financial situation in the Premier League remains the same.
Clubs will always look for players that offer the best value
for money, English players do not offer them that.
While satellite television remains king in football broadcasting, clubs will continue to sign big names from abroad, with their increased budgets allowing them to spend vast amounts on sending scouts around the world to find the next wonder kid of the sport.
Satellite broadcasters' involvement in sport will always divide opinion.
For cricket, the story has certainly been a positive one. With the money provided by Sky Sports, the sport has been given the secure financial footing it so long craved for. The ECB now able to provide funding at a grass roots level, cancelling out the reduced exposure of exclusivity on Sky.
The opposite is true for football. With the FA receiving little benefit from any TV deal, clubs are free to spend the money as they see fit. English talent will continue to be squeezed out of the sport as foreign exports provide a far more viable option. The prospect of success for our national team seems further away than ever.
While satellite television remains king in football broadcasting, clubs will continue to sign big names from abroad, with their increased budgets allowing them to spend vast amounts on sending scouts around the world to find the next wonder kid of the sport.
Satellite broadcasters' involvement in sport will always divide opinion.
For cricket, the story has certainly been a positive one. With the money provided by Sky Sports, the sport has been given the secure financial footing it so long craved for. The ECB now able to provide funding at a grass roots level, cancelling out the reduced exposure of exclusivity on Sky.
The opposite is true for football. With the FA receiving little benefit from any TV deal, clubs are free to spend the money as they see fit. English talent will continue to be squeezed out of the sport as foreign exports provide a far more viable option. The prospect of success for our national team seems further away than ever.
No comments:
Post a Comment