Questions over absence of cricket relay
Editorial
Guyana Chronicle
November 10, 2003
MILLIONS OF CRICKET lovers across this region are denied the privilege of viewing West Indies in action in Zimbabwe. It is cold comfort that the absence of television relays spares them the agony of watching the Caribbean team's substandard performances.
The larger issue is that Jamaica-based Sportsmax, having secured television rights, is asking fees far in excess of what the Caribbean Media Corporation (CMC) and, by extension, some of its client stations are able to pay.
Sportsmax's top personnel include people who have been close to West Indies cricket at the highest administrative level. The CMC, a non-profit organization, was established four years ago with two other non-profit organizations - the Caribbean News Agency (CANA) and the Caribbean Broadcasting Union (CBU) - each having a 50 per cent shareholding.
It is looking ahead to launching a commercial arm to help fund developmental activities in which CANA and the CBU would be involved.
The CMC started its operations with support to the tune of three million euros (approximately US$5 million) from the European Union under the CARIFORUM Project.
The purpose is a developmental programme that includes new equipment, elements of training, public broadcasting, educational programmes on matters like the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME), international trade relations, and so on.
Previous CMC negotiations to broadcast cricket took into account the need to allow the region's less wealthy countries to take TV feeds at concessionary rates. The present situation is not helpful to the smaller units, although one must concede that the holder of broadcast rights is entitled to sell to the highest bidder. This is an important part of business.
The hope was that even if Sportsmax got broadcast rights on this occasion, CMC would negotiate for all countries within its ambit. But this was not to be.
Sportsmax has entered into separate discussions with a number of stations in a classic situation divide and rule.
Former president of the West Indies Cricket Board, Pat Rousseau, is, we understand, a director of Sportsmax. Former West Indies captain Courtney Walsh, we understand, is also involved. Another prominent personality connected with cricket is believed to be associated with the organisation but the company has not released the names of its shareholders.
The time is ripe for Sportsmax to indicate who are its shareholders. We want to be sure there is no conflict of interest.
Meanwhile, a politically aided solution is not to be ruled out for the short and long term, if only because cricket is hugely important and bearing in mind that West Indies are scheduled to host Cricket World Cup 2007.
In fact, for many years there has been high-level political intervention in matters relating to this game cricket. The late Sir Frank Worrell's selection as West Indies captain led to intervention by Dr Eric Williams, then Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago.
Guyana's President, the late Forbes Burnham, censured Sir Garfield Sobers, because the Barbados superstar played cricket in South Africa. The enormous importance of cricket to the culture and psyche of the people of this region should not be underestimated.
With the Heads of Government conference coming up, the question arises as to whether the opportunity will be taken to apply some kind of guidance or moral suasion on the matter of television coverage.
Naturally, this would be done without threatening the ordinary process of negotiation among private commercial entities.
An obvious lack of sensitivity opens the door for queries about commitment to cricket and to the interests of people in this region. These are legitimate questions. --- Barbados Nation