The Senedd’s Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport, and International Relations Committee has just released its recommendations following its recent inquiry into Six Nations Rugby Championship broadcasting rights.
They are, perhaps, predictable. The Committee would like to see broadcasting rights for the tournament moved from its current location on the Category B list of events (which means that rights can be sold to pay-per-view providers as long as there is also terrestrial coverage in the form of delayed coverage or highlights) to the Category A list (which would mean that primary live rights could only be sold to free-to-air broadcasters).
The issue is particularly live at the moment, given the sale of the rights to the Autumn Internationals to TNT, and the barely-anticipated yet very-much-incoming World Series Galactic League Thing which will involve the same old nations as usual in a prime bit of ringfenced-pulling-up-the-drawbridge skullduggery from next year.
There is, of course, something in the Committee’s emphasis on the cultural importance of the Six Nations to Wales. In the absence from St. David’s Day celebrations of the kind of bacchanalian shenanigans in which our Irish cousins partake on their saint’s day, we tend to completely lose our minds around Six Nations games. They are our national days. From my vantage point in the broadly rugby-sceptic north-west, the only rugby matches shown in the local pub are internationals, and the only time anybody bar a handful of escapees from the south actually watches the coverage is Six Nations time. It is a national unifier in the way that very little else is. Yes, still. Despite everything. And everyone. As the man nearly sang.
The rugby broadcasting landscape is fractured. To watch all the rugby currently being broadcast, you would need to subscribe to Premier Sport (or whatever it’s called this week), TNT, Sky and (at the moment, but not for long), Amazon. There is a genuine concern, recognised by the Committee, that clubs and pubs may not have the means to subscribe to them all. Its recommendation that the hospitality industry is helped in this respect is understandable.
The recommendation that Welsh-language coverage should be provided is, of course, a non-negotiable. There must be quality, easily-accessible coverage. Amazon has shown that this is possible. Wherever Wales internationals end up in future, the provision cannot be diminished.
And yet, there is a short-sightedness, or at least an inconsistency, to the Committee’s conclusions.
The WRU, in its evidence to the Committee, was at pains to stress the importance of broadcast income to its ability to support the game at all levels. It suggested that around a quarter of its income is derived from broadcast in one way or another. Furthermore, the ability to sell broadcast rights to whoever it wishes – in the case of the Six Nations as part of a larger group – creates, it said, a ‘tension’ in the market. This tension is key to ensuring that it achieves its desired balance between maximising income and ensuring maximum visibility. In other words, if the BBC/ITV are part of a competitive market with Sky/TNT/Amazon/Viaplay, they will need to at least try to be commercially competitive. If they have no pay-per-view competitors, they could theoretically offer a pound for the whole lot.
Those of us with nothing better to do than take an interest in the slow-motion, 40-year long car crash which is Welsh rugby (somebody really should write a book about it…oh, they have…) will be aware of the Rafferty Report, published last November, which absolutely eviscerated the culture within the WRU. It set out a number of recommendations. Recommendations which the Senedd has taken upon itself to monitor, and to bring the WRU’s senior management before it to explain itself. Among which are recommendations which will – correctly – cost money. Recommendations such as properly investing in the women’s game and commissioning external reviews of its governance structures.
The women’s game is receiving a lot of attention at the moment, of course, given Wales’ travails in the Six Nations. Many potential cures for these current struggles have been suggested. Boosting the domestic league structure. Bringing in more specialist coaches. Increasing salaries for professional players from their currently barely-minimum-wage levels to something fairer. All of these would cost money.
There is the state of the professional men’s game, too. With budgets decreasing from £6.5m+ in 2022/23 to £4.5m in 2024/25 (plus a couple of marquee players, in theory), the impact is obvious on the pitch. The professional clubs are struggling to win games, they’re struggling to develop players, and they’re struggling to attract supporters and sponsors. All of which impacts, in turn, on the national men’s team. Players are leaving Wales and making themselves unavailable to the national team. The senior men’s team has won seven of its last 20 games in the Six Nations – and four of those were in the (almost) Jam Slam of 2021.
So, the game is in a bit of a financial state.
If the Senedd wishes to press the Government – which, in turn, it wants to pressure the UK Government – into taking action which is likely to reduce the WRU’s income, it needs to both recognise that fact and accept that it (and the Government) should take steps to ameliorate that reduction.
It could ask the Government to direct grants towards the community game, relieving the WRU of some of that burden. Or it could renegotiate the terms of the £18m Covid loan which the professional clubs (yes, the clubs, not the WRU) are paying back at a rate of 8.25%.
There is merit in the Committee’s recommendations, but there is also a whiff-and-a-half of cakeism. The Committee, the Senedd and the Government should not be in the business of limiting the commercial potential of private bodies. Not unless, at least, it feels able to support that independent body in other, meaningful, ways.
Gwladrugby 