Unknown: 0:00

Thank you.

Ivan: 0:03

Hello and welcome again to The Bench Report, where we discuss recent debates and briefings from the benches of the UK Parliament. A new topic every episode. You're listening to Amy and Ivan. Today, we're looking into a really interesting discussion from the House about free-to-air broadcasting and its impact on cricket participation here in the UK. It's a topic filled with quite a bit of passion, tradition, and actually some surprising points about how cricket's evolving. You could really feel the affection MPs have for cricket. Max Wilkinson kicked things off saying, I don't know. like cricket, I love it, which I think many feel. He mentioned those cherished moments, you know, the 2005 Ashes, that incredible 2019 World Cup win. And he talked about cricket's values, like patience, perseverance, really resonates.

Amy: 0:46

Absolutely. And what's interesting is how the game itself is changing, especially with new formats coming in. Take the 100, for example. That's the shorter 100-ball competition with city teams. It was specifically set up to pull in newer, younger fans. And, well, it's often the main top-level cricket you see on free-to-air TV now quite a shift.

Ivan: 1:04

Yeah, and the 100 has brought benefits, no doubt. It generates important funding for the whole sport. It's boosted women's and disabled cricket, brought in new money. But there's an acknowledged cost too, isn't there? The calendar's packed. Traditional county cricket gets pushed aside a bit, and some longtime fans feel a bit, well, alienated maybe. Their local teams aren't really represented in the same way.

Amy: 1:26

That's the real tension, isn't it? You've got this clear link, put cricket on free TV, more people watch, more people play. We saw with the 2005 Ashes on Channel 4. Viewer numbers shot up, what was it, 7 to 8.5 million. And clubs reported a, quote, massive increase in junior memberships. Huge impact.

Ivan: 1:45

And the 2019 World Cup final, too.

Amy: 1:46

Exactly. Shared between Sky and Channel 4 reached 8.3 million viewers, inspired over a million under-16s, apparently. You just can't argue with those figures.

Ivan: 1:55

It makes Sarah Dyke's point really powerful. You can't be what you can't see, especially for women's and girls' cricket. The free-to-air coverage of the Women's 100, for instance, has directly helped fuel record numbers playing at grassroots level. It's chipping away at that old idea that, you know, cricket isn't really for girls.

Amy: 2:13

But, and this is the crucial but, there's the financial reality. Those big broadcast deals, like the one with Sky worth over 200 million talent a year, that's the financial engine. That money funds the professional game. Think about women's cricket. We've gone from, what, 17 pro players to over 100 now? That's funded by this revenue. And it supports grassroots programs too. The ECB, uh, The England and Wales Cricket Board puts a good chunk, about 37% of broadcast money, back into the recreational game.

Ivan: 2:39

So that's the heart of the problem. Free to Air gets eyes on the game, drives interest, tackles that perception of elitism, especially with younger people, diverse backgrounds. Yet, the subscription money is absolutely essential to keep the whole structure, professional and amateur, afloat. We saw participation dip after things moved mainly behind a paywall, although thankfully it seems to be picking up again recently.

Amy: 3:03

Right. And you see efforts from the government and the ECB, you know, investing in things like new indoor cricket domes, better facilities at local clubs. They're trying to find that balance. Audience reach versus the commercial needs. It's vital for the sports future, for the counties, for the England teams. It's a, well, a constant negotiation.

Ivan: 3:24

So thinking about all that passion and the hard numbers, here's something for you to consider. Does the current mix of free deer access and subscription income really protect cricket's future? I'll see you next time.