Martin Snedden: Host broadcast role coup for Sky and NZ

New Zealand games will be free-to-air. Photo / Brett Phibbs

Martin Snedden, CEO of Rugby New Zealand 2011 Ltd, took issue with sports editor Paul Lewis' column last week ('Rugby needs free TV to mend health'). This is his response.

There was a lot more in the announcement of the RWC 2011 TV rights to be happy about than concerned and Paul Lewis' interpretation in last Sunday's column was faulty, I think.

Three decisions were announced last Thursday by Rugby World Cup Ltd (RWCL), the IRB subsidiary that owns all RWC rights:

That Sky had been appointed to be host broadcaster for RWC 2011.

That Sky had secured the pay TV rights for the tournament and to show all 48 matches live on its Sky Sports channels.

That, later this year, RWCL would put out to tender the rights for NZ broadcasters to show up to 16 matches (the final, both semifinals, the bronze final, all quarter-finals, all four All Black pool matches and another four key pool matches) live on free-to-air.

Sky's success in securing the host broadcast production contract is a major achievement which has been lost in this ongoing debate. For most, this would have seemed obvious, a fait accompli. But that certainly wasn't the case.

Sky had to work extremely hard. They had to prove to RWCL they could do a job which is bigger than anything they or any other NZ broadcaster has attempted. Producing live coverage of 48 RWC matches, spread across 13 venues, all in high definition and with sometimes as many as eight matches per weekend, is several steps up from producing coverage of All Black test matches played once a week or covering four

or five weekend Super 14 or Air NZ Cup matches.

TVNZ and TV3, as each acknowledged to RWCL, could not take on this job.

For a while, there was a very real risk RWCL might set up its own host broadcast unit and import most of the production capability - something done at a number of major events including the last two cricket world cups in South Africa and the West Indies. RWCL investigated this option in depth. What a wasted opportunity for New Zealand that would have been.

Sky won out because they are leaders in live sport production. Their success should be recognised and celebrated, particularly as this contract, coming as it has in the middle of an economic meltdown, will provide hundreds of much-needed new jobs and/or continuing job certainty for New Zealanders working in that industry and significant new money for our struggling economy.

Whilst the decision to award Sky the pay TV rights, was reasonably straightforward, its real significance is that it did not give Sky exclusive broadcasting rights in NZ. RWCL remained strong in its belief the opportunity for the best matches to be shown on free-to-air needed to be preserved.

What RWCL has decided is that the free-to-air rights for the 16 most important matches (for NZ fans) will be put up for tender later this year. Come 2011, most or all will almost certainly be shown simultaneously live on Sky and a free-to-air broadcaster.

As I see it, the ball is now with the free-to-air broadcasters. If this event is truly as significant as Paul suggested (and I agree with him) the bidding will be competitive and will lead to the desired result. It was understandable TVNZ and TV3 were reluctant to commit to showing all 48 matches live but I would be very surprised if they both don't see this package of 16 matches as attractive.

So, if we end up with a situation where:

All 48 RWC 2011 matches are live on Sky.

The 16 best matches (from a NZ viewpoint) are also shown live on free-to-air.

We take RWC 2011 to 13 cities and match venues across NZ.

Ticket prices are modest-to-low for almost all those matches not live on free-to-air.

Free-to-air TV coverage is available for all of the highest-priced matches - then, in my view at least, that adds up to a pretty well balanced and "inclusive" package for our fans.

That will give rugby a timely shot in the arm, something which this "professional administrator" does care deeply about.

- Sky's ability to host the broadcasting simply wasn't an issue and wasn't mentioned.

The column attempted to deal with the broader issue of pay TV versus free-to-air and the effect on sport, as in the UK where cricket has asked to move back to free-to-air television because it feels it is losing its status as a national sport on pay TV.

The thrust then, was not an attack on which TV operator won the rights. The point was whether the noble sport of rugby, using the World Cup as an example, could afford to continue money-linked dependence on pay TV and still hope to ignite a whole new generation of kids and fans.

- Sports editor.