01/08/2011
NEWS STORY
 |
The news that the BBC and Sky Sports will share coverage of F1 next year is just three days old yet it seems like a lot longer. There is already at least one petition with over 20,500 names signed up in opposition to it and the response from the public in general has been overwhelmingly negative. But who is really to blame and who should step in to stand up for the fans if it is really necessary?
The Times motor racing correspondent took a sideswipe at F1's boss Bernie Ecclestone on his Twitter page by saying that the deal is down to "the money that CVC Capital Partners, the owners, via Bernie, take out of the sport." Nice try but the real reason that Sky is on the scene is that the BBC broke its contract to broadcast F1. The Beeb had an agreement to broadcast the sport exclusively next year but something had to give in order for it to cut costs following the license fee being frozen. F1 was an easy target given that the alternative being bandied around was the BBC cutting its crown jewel of Wimbledon coverage.
Looking at it logically, it is hard to blame Ecclestone. He was simply doing his job which is taking the best deal on the table. According to F1's industry monitor Formula Money, the BBC was paying £31m annually for its exclusive annual coverage but under the new deal this will drop to £15m with Sky Sport's parent company BSkyB paying £25m. So overall F1 benefits due to the additional revenue.
Contrary to initial reports, the deal is not a breach of the Concorde Agreement, the contract between the teams and the F1 Group which runs the sport. An appendix to the contract states that "the Commercial Rights Holder may not permit Formula 1 events to be shown only by pay television in a country with a significant audience if it would materially adversely affect audience reach in that country." The new deal does not move F1 only on to Pay TV so it does not break this clause. It also means that Ecclestone remains true to his word when he said last month that "it isn't possible that F1 could go on to pay-TV, we wouldn't want to do that."
Some may well think that the way this clause has been adhered to is a technicality with the spirit of it intended to prevent F1 from shifting to Pay TV at all (though this is clearly not what it says). These doubters will presumably use this argument to once again blame Ecclestone for the BBC and Sky deal but even this isn't justifiable.
Once the BBC had made the decision to cut F1 it was left with a big question - how could it do this without losing too much face? It is understood that the Beeb needed to make cuts as quickly as possible which explains why its new agreement with Sky starts next year. If the BBC had dropped F1 completely next year it would have had to pay a huge financial penalty to the F1 Group so that was not an option.
Indeed, since the BBC had a contract to broadcast F1 next year if it wanted to reduce its fee or its obligations then the onus was on it, and not Ecclestone, to come up with a way to do this. The most logical way of reducing its fee is to reduce the amount of F1 it broadcasts and this is exactly what it did. Reducing its coverage by half required finding a partner to broadcast the other 50% of races and it is pretty obvious why the BBC turned to Sky.
Both ITV and Channel 4 were in negotiations about taking over the F1 rights and Ecclestone told Pitpass' business editor Christian Sylt that, if necessary, he would have asked Channel 5 if it wanted to make a bid. However, all of these stations are direct terrestrial rivals to the BBC whereas BSkyB is not since it is predominantly a Pay TV broadcaster. This explains why, according to Ecclestone, "the BBC brought Sky to us with the idea of a joint contract." Likewise, when asked whether he felt it was a shame a terrestrial broadcaster would no longer be showing every race live he said "it was not us who made that decision." The upshot is that it really does not make sense to blame Ecclestone for the decision given that the BBC brought Sky to him.
If the fans want the deal to be stopped it is a much harder to answer who should be the ones to block it. However, one group sticks out like a sore thumb.
An annual subscription to Sky Sports costs around £470 so it seemed astonishingly insensitive for Lotus Renault team principal Eric Boullier to say on Friday that the Sky-BBC deal "is rather good news and should be positively welcomed by fans." It is hard to understand how anyone could seriously think that it is beneficial for something which previously cost £145.50 (the price of a television license fee) to now have an additional £470 price tag. It looks like a good example of how out of touch F1 is with the real world and the day to day concerns of the man on the street.
Indeed, Williams' chairman Adam Parr even went as far as to say that the fans will be charged to watch F1 to cover the costs of the sport. "People have to bear in mind what it costs to put on this show. It is part of the character of F1," he said. So, let's get this straight, the teams are saying that fans should pay so they can go racing around the world.
Given that the Formula One Teams Association (FOTA) has made a big point over the past two years to engage fans through its so-called Fan Forums, surely it should now stand up and defend these fans who are now having to pay an additional £470 for something which previously cost £145.50. The press release for the first Fan Forum said that it would give fans the opportunity "to have their voices heard." Well, the fans have well and truly spoken out against the Sky deal so it is over to FOTA to decide if they want to help their cause.
The very fact that the teams are in general supporting the Sky deal rather than opposing it seems to suggest that they are not really concerned for the welfare and views of the fans. There is no doubt that having to fork out an additional £470 annually is going to have a huge impact on their fans and the reactions over the past few days show that few are happy about it.
FOTA's failure to take a stand resembles its reaction to the decision to reinstate Bahrain on the calendar. True, the very fact that most of the teams were unaware of the BBC-Sky deal before the morning it was announced shows just how little power they really have. However, it is the thought that counts as they say and although the teams do not decide who to sign TV contracts with, there are gestures they could make which would endear fans to them. And we are not talking about threatening not to race.
Instead, why haven't the teams got together with Sky and come up with a system where they could subsidise subscription packages for UK F1 fans to give them a discount? It's not as if the teams don't have the assets to do this since they could easily offer Sky advertising space on their cars in return for them reducing the Sky Sports subscription price specifically for F1 fans. Of course this will never happen but let's be clear, the teams are to blame for that.
If the teams want to prove that their words about being interested in the fans' views and welfare are not empty then surely they should at least do something to try and stop them being charged £470 for watching F1. The thanks the fans have got from being loyal FOTA supporters so far is a kick in the teeth by being told that the Sky deal is rather good news and they should bear in mind what it costs to put on this show.
At that rate it wouldn't be a surprise if the next Fan Forum, certainly in the UK, turns into a lynch mob.