I cannot quite see what business the Government has interfering in a private arrangement between a sport’s governing body and a broadcaster.
The governing body is the owner of the event and, it seems to me, perfectly at liberty to sell its rights to whomsoever it wishes. To interfere with this right is a restraint of trade and should be challenged in the courts.
Some argue that it is in the best interests of a sport to have its events on free to air since this increases the number of viewers. This, of course, has logic on its side. But who is in the best position to make a judgment of how to balance rights revenues against exposure? Surely, it is the governing body. And if you disagree with the decision of the governing body, the remedy is to elect a new chairman, not impose a decision externally by diktat.
Some argue that crown jewel sporting occasions are of great national importance and that there is a strong public interest in having them shown to as many people as possible. That, again, is true. But why should a governing body have to suffer a reduction in its income in order to serve the public interest? This is a bit like forcing Cliff Richard to perform for free because he is a national treasure. It would not only be unfair, but a violation of his rights.
Much better, if we insist on free to air sporting occasions, that the government compensates the governing body for its loss in income.
Advertisement
That way, the governing body gets the commercial rate for its rights (which it can then spend on developing the game, or whatever else), the public gets to watch the event on terrestrial television and the government must convince the electorate that this is a good use of public money.