Paul Lewis: Rugby needs free TV to mend health

The announcement that the Rugby World Cup 2011 will be broadcast by Sky Television will bring negative comment as predictable as it is relevant.

Rugby in this country, as has been often aired in this column, is struggling for survival. Falling attendances and TV viewership mean this country's hosting of the 2011 World Cup has become something of a beacon for a game which is increasingly disenfranchising itself.

As explored elsewhere (see Brendon O'Connor, p74-75), the fallaway of fans is regarded by many as a crisis while rugby administrators sometimes seem barely perturbed.

The solution to problems of falling crowds, thinning TV audiences and an increasing lack of enthusiasm would not seem to be locking people out of a TV broadcast of the biggest sports event held in New Zealand.

Surely, the emphasis should be on inclusion, not exclusion.

In other parts of the world, TV coverage of mainline sport is controlled. Governments, keen not to upset fans who are a significant voting sector, make sure free-to-air television has a slice of major events.

In the UK, for example, the Government is reviewing the 'A-list, B-list' system. Free-to-air coverage of A-list events is mandatory. Events on the B-list need only have highlights packages on free-to-air TV.

A-list sports comprise: the Olympics, the football World Cup, the football European championships, the FA Cup final, the Grand National, the Derby, Wimbledon's finals, the rugby league Challenge Cup final and the Rugby World Cup final.

B-list sports (exclusive to Pay-TV) are: cricket tests (at home), Wimbledon (non-finals play), Rugby World Cup non-final play, Six Nations rugby, the Commonwealth Games, the world athletics championships, Ryder Cup golf and the British Open golf. English cricket is complaining it is losing its status as a national sport because it is not on free-to-air TV.

There are reports the RWC 2011 final will be free-to-air here. Hope so. Otherwise, British fans will see the Rugby World Cup final live, free-to-air. New Zealand, host of the competition, won't.

As a strategy for helping to ensure the survival and maybe growth of the game, it's like fisheries officers sending dynamite to remote islands in the Philippines and including a note it shouldn't be used for fishing.

While some matches will be delayed coverage and free-to-air broadcasters will screen 16 matches, the clear implication is that, if you want to watch important matches, you'll need Sky.

But times have changed. Rugby is doing a very good job of not only putting its feet in its mouth but eating them as well. Professional rugby has brought about a whole new era of people who don't really care about a game once described as "a religion" here.

When under siege from previously alien concepts like boredom and indifference, the answer is surely not to exclude people.

Already, many of the RWC 2011 games will be kicking off late at night to satisfy international TV. But if a World Cup is a way to grow the game and to hook more people, particularly young people, what is the sense of kicking off at night and then barring such people from watching the games?

The beef about Sky having RWC 2011 coverage is not so much the old free-to-air vs pay TV argument - although it is noticeable this government seems comfortable with Sky's virtual monopoly on sports with the recent announcement that it will scrap proposals to trim Sky's ability to screen iconic events, saving them for free-to-air TV instead.

But that's not really the issue.

It's about a game that is suffering under the strains of its own excesses and which seems to be run by broadcasters.

Professional rugby has bound itself in the chains of its reliance upon money.

Of course, the IRB, RWC 2011 and the New Zealand Rugby Union are different things - although fans don't see it that way. They just see the broad 'rugby'. They don't differentiate. If something stinks, it's the whole of rugby that smells.

For two weeks this newspaper tried to contact All Black kicking coach Mick Byrne through the PR people at the NZRU. He'd call back, we were told. Nothing. We sent a further email. Still nothing - from anybody. No explanation. Ask me now my opinion of the NZRU.

The story ran last week without Byrne. A small example, perhaps, but if this is the way rugby approaches matters in a time of urgency, well, we can hardly be surprised that it is not grasping the broader nettle and insisting on free-to-air coverage for the jewel in its crown.

The IRB/RWC 2011 has no choice but to sell the broadcast rights. Money talks. Screams, even. It's yet another example of how rugby cannot fit its own clothes any more. It needs the money to keep things afloat. But, in doing so, it is increasingly disenfranchising those it seeks to attract.

We should - all of us, including me - perhaps not have given up the free-to-air rights so easily in the past. Not just because of viewership issues but also because rugby needs it.

Not that anyone in the halls of power is seeming to notice.