Cricket's first World Test Championship (WTC) is due to take place in 2013 in England. Test cricket, given its format, does not naturally fit within a competition window; however, the International Cricket Council (ICC) decided to proceed with a tournament involving the top four test sides in the world, with the final (potentially as a timeless test to ensure a result) taking place at Lords. It is a move that has generally been welcomed. Whilst many still see Test cricket as the pinnacle of the game, outside of England and Australia those numbers are dwindling, and it is to be hoped that a play off system will go some way to improving the commercial viability of the 5 day game.
However, one of the problems faced by administrators is the already overloaded (and unstructured) fixtures calendar. It is clearly difficult to shoe-horn three versions of the game together and keep any sort of format. This also means that broadcasters, from whom cricket generates huge revenue streams, will want to ensure their position is protected and this issue is at the heart of a dispute which may threaten the WTC.
In order to ensure the WTC can proceed, and hold status as the major event in the calendar for 2013, the ICC have removed the Champions Trophy from the fixture list. The Champions Trophy, which takes place every two years, has never really worked as a tournament or as a concept; indeed, its only USP is the TV revenue it generates. The problem with this decision is that ESPN Star, which holds an 8 year rights contract with the ICC worth $1.5billion, are unhappy about losing the Champions Trophy. Although ESPN would be able to screen the WTC, the Champions Trophy, as an event and therefore a platform for selling lucrative advertising, is of more interest to ESPN's core Asian market. Furthermore, the WTC was not part of the deal when it was signed in 2007.
Resolving this issue will not necessarily be easy. The ICC has mooted playing both the Champions Trophy and the WTC in the same calendar year; however, that will only further crowd the calendar and dilute the meaning (and quality) of both events. Furthermore, whilst it may resolve the issue with ESPN, it will create a problem with the governing bodies of both England and Australia. Neither board, if they are to be expected to play in the WTC (followed by back to back Ashes series in 2013) will want to commit players to the Champions Trophy in addition.
Comment
A wider issue, and an interesting discussion point, relates to the control broadcasting companies have over sporting calendars. The sale of broadcasting rights is crucial for the commercial programmes of governing bodies and event organisers, such as the ICC. Indeed, television revenue has replaced ticket sales as the major source of income. The Champions Trophy is a prime example of an event which often attracts poor attendances but retains commercial viability because of the broadcasting deal. What this means is that television and media companies hold considerable influence over fixturing (a prime example being BSkyB's influence over Premier League fixtures). Whilst before, the ICC would have been able to control and dictate its own calendar, the advent of billion dollar television deals means that this is no longer feasible. Provided the income filters it way down the sport and is used to develop the sport from grass roots, then the trade off can be worth it. However, as with the ESPN Star dispute, managing the interests of national governing bodies, broadcasters and the players themselves is far from easy.
DCMS report on football governance
The enquiry into the governance of football in England is due to produce its final report in the coming days. The key issues under review are:
- should football clubs in the UK be treated differently from other commercial organisations;
- are football governance rules in England & Wales and the governing bodies themselves, fit for purpose;
- is there too much debt in the professional game;
- what are the pros and cons of the Supporter Trust share holding model;
- is government intervention justified and if so what form should it take; and
- are there lessons to be learned from governance models in other sports in the UK and abroad.
The Sport Lawyer will provide full comment on the report when it comes through.
The contents of this brochure are intended as guidelines for clients and other readers. It is not a substitute for considered advice on specific issues. Consequently, we cannot accept any responsibility for this information or for any errors or omissions.
Thomas Eggar LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC326278 whose registered office is at The Corn Exchange, Baffin's Lane, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1GE (VAT number 991259583). The word 'partner' refers to a member of the LLP, or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. A list of the members of the LLP is displayed at the above address, together with a list of those non-members who are designated as partners. Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Lexcel and Investors in People accredited.
Thomas Eggar LLP is not authorised by the Financial Services Authority. However, we are included on the register maintained by the Financial Services Authority so that we can carry on insurance mediation activity which is broadly the advising on, selling and administering of insurance contracts. This part of our business, including arrangements for complaints and redress if something goes wrong, is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The register can be accessed via the Financial Services Authority website. We can also provide certain further limited investment services to clients if those services are incidental to the professional services we have been engaged to provide as solicitors.
Thesis Asset Management plc, our associated financial services company, provides a comprehensive range of investment services and advice. Thesis is owned by members of Thomas Eggar LLP but is independent of and separate to it. No lawyer connected with Thomas Eggar LLP provides services through Thesis as a practicing lawyer regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Thesis is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Thesis has its own framework of investor protection and professional indemnity cover but Thesis clients do not enjoy the statutory protection of solicitors' clients.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.