HC Deb 26 April 2001 vol 367 cc542-50

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]

6.57 pm
Mr. John Grogan (Selby)

During the last football World cup in 1998, there was an average of 600 million viewers worldwide per match, with a total of 37 billion viewers worldwide for the tournament. In Bayswater, where I rent my London flat, a multitude of restaurants serve cuisine from all around the globe, encompassing every taste from Spanish to Brazilian to Japanese to Iranian. During the 1998 finals, every one of them seemed to have installed one or two ordinary television sets for the month of the tournament to cheer on the wide variety of teams of their choice and to animate their customers evenings.

FIFA is the custodian of this great international tradition. However, two years before the France 1998 World cup, on 5 July 1996, FIFA brought shame upon that tradition and upon themselves when its executive, by nine votes to six, with three abstentions, voted to sell the European television rights to the 2002 and 2006 tournaments to the German media entrepreneur Kirch and the worldwide rights to his associates, ISL. It stipulated only that the final, semi-finals and any match featuring the national team should be on terrestrial television. The other 50 to 60 matches could be sold off to subscription television.

The press release subsequently issued by Kirch's agents, Prisma, is remarkable in that it begins with a couple of paragraphs praising the impact of the coverage of past tournaments on terrestrial television. It said: Following the record television ratings for France 98, with audiences of up to 80% of the market share in leading European football nations, the FIFA World Cup proved again that it is the most compelling television spectacle on earth. World cup football transcends all other football. It consolidates audiences like no other sport, with breathtaking viewing figures that add up in billions. It is watched by men and women, by children and grandparents. It appeals to all kinds of people, from every walk of life"— It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr.Mike Hall.]

Mr. Grogan

The press release continues: It can empty the streets of traffic. It can fill major cities with jubilant fans. The release has a cynical punch line, however. It states: The 2002 FIFA World Cup will be more widely available to broadcasters than ever before … The drama and excitement, the universal appeal and commercial potential of the 2002 FIFA World Cup are now available to broadcasters throughout Europe. There is no mention of fans or viewers. The key word in the press release is "broadcasters". By its own admission, FIFA was prepared to sell out billions of ordinary viewers to court a handful of subscription television companies, whose agenda was clear.

That action is in sharp contrast to that taken by the International Olympic Committee, which has adopted a principle of making the summer and winter Olympic games as widely available as possible. It also contrasts with the decision of UEFA, which has sold on the rights to the next two European football championships, beginning with the 2004 tournament in Portugal, to the European Broadcasting Union. That will ensure that everyone with a basic television—young or old, rich or poor, in Manchester, Munich or Milan—will be able to see all the action.

It is worth remembering that, in recent months, FIFA officials have been courting Europe's political leaders on other matters, such as help over transfer fees. Millions of pounds of public and lottery money throughout Europe goes into building football stadiums. Would not it be timely for European Governments or the European Parliament to suggest to FIFA that it might be in its own long-term interests to show a more responsible attitude when it gets around to considering future broadcasting rights?

Fortunately, the United Kingdom has a long tradition—going back to the Eden Administration in the 1950s—of protecting for the nation the broadcasting of the crown jewels of sport. That relatively modest intervention in the market is designed to ensure that we can all enjoy and share in the great sporting events of national or international importance. It allows us to experience the tension and excitement together, and to be part, for a little while, of something bigger. It means that we can all, in some way, be in the ground or stadium where an event is taking place.

If the great sporting occasions were not free to all, that feeling—that frisson—would be lost. Many people would merely hear the cheers coming over the wall, and for the majority the result might well mean exclusion from the stadium altogether. Among the people so excluded might be the children who could grow up to be tomorrow's stars.

The precise list of the crown jewel sporting events to be protected has been amended and reviewed down the years. The entire football World cup finals tournament has been listed since at least the prime of Baroness Thatcher in the 1980s. In 1997, the new Government instituted a review of the listed events and set up a committee under Lord Gordon. That committee suggested delisting the bulk of the World cup finals tournaments. In my opinion, it badly misjudged public and parliamentary opinion. The 1998 tournament reminded us all of the thrill and joy of watching teams such as Brazil and Cameroon, regardless of who they were playing against. It also reminded us that, despite Lord Tebbit's cricket test, many British citizens, as well as keeping an eye on England's fortunes, wanted to check on Jamaica, which was making its first appearance in the World cup finals.

Wisely, Parliament decided to maintain the protection of the listed events legislation for the whole of the World cup finals. That list was subsequently ratified by the European Commission under the relevant clauses of the TV without frontiers directive, whereby members of the European Union agreed to respect each others lists.

It is true that different nations place different weights on the importance of the various events. No other European nation lists the finals tournament in its entirety as Britain does, but some—such as Denmark, for example—go further than we do in other respects. Denmark has decided, unlike Britain, that all World cup matches—even those in the qualifying rounds—that involve the home nation must be shown on terrestrial television in Denmark. Outside Europe, the Australians passion for sport means that they list nearly 50 events—including, incidentally, our own FA cup final.

It is important that rightholders respect the law of the land of the different countries to which they want to sell their products. Contrary to some claims, Kirch knew full well in 1996, when he did the deal with FIFA, what British law consisted of—if he overbid for the rights, that is essentially his problem.

No one is saying that Kirsch has to give away the rights for free. Under the terms of the legislation, any deal which involved any exclusive element of live coverage of the World cup for subscription television would be subject to the agreement of the Independent Television Commission. The ITC would have to be convinced that the terrestrial broadcasters had been offered the event at a fair and reasonable price. Under the terms of the legislation, they would take into account previous fees for the event or similar events, the time of day for live coverage of the event, the revenue or audience potential associated with the live transmission of the event, the period for which the rights were offered, and competition in the marketplace.

The BBC and ITV have, according to newspaper reports, made a bid of £50 million for the 2002 finals. This may not be the £150 million to £200 million for which the Kirch Group was hoping, but it is 10 times what was paid in 1998. Given that during the 2002 finals in Japan and Korea most of the matches, instead of preceding or following on nicely from "Eastenders" and "Coronation Street" in prime time—as happened in 1998 in France—will be in the middle of the night, £50 million sounds reasonable. It also seems reasonable that ITV and BBC, to find this considerable sum, should pool their sport budgets to make a joint bid.

The Kirch Group is having none of all that. It has written to all interested Members of Parliament saying that it wants to start an auction process. It is widely rumoured and feared that Kirch is waiting for an election to be called before beginning the auction. Moreover, the group has claimed to have started proceedings in the European Court of First Instance to challenge the whole concept and scope of the United Kingdom's list. Fortunately, the Government have been robust in their assertions that our law must prevail. Moreover, in recent days Sky Sports has declared that it is not interested in participating in any auction for the World cup rights. Vic Wakeling, head of Sky Sports, told the Financial Times on 23 April: We're not going to be used just because they've overvalued the European rights for the event without doing their homework. You've got two broadcasters (BBC and ITV) who, between them, have got a lot of money. They've winced at the price and I don't blame them. I think the price Kirch wants is absolutely outrageous—we wouldn't pay that sort of money even if we were allowed to. It is interesting to note that Sky, which has made an enormous contribution to the televising of sport during the past 10 years, has thrived despite the listed events, the concept of which it opposed in 1997. As Wakeling sees it in the Financial Times interview: we've never gone for a listed event. It's the consistent coverage of a particular sport which has helped us drive subscribers,

not the listed events. The issue of the television coverage of the next two World cups has become a major one in several European countries. In Spain, World cup rights have been sold to a satellite company called Via Digital. In Germany itself, where there are no listed events, the issue is even more sensitive. Chancellor Schroeder's Government put considerable pressure on the terrestrial broadcasters which have paid Kirch over DM500 million just for live coverage of 24 of the 62 matches in 2002, with only a possible option on covering 2006. Consequently, although Germany beat England for the rights to stage the World cup in 2006, ordinary Germans may be able to watch only a handful of matches on television compared with United Kingdom citizens, even though millions of deutschmarks of taxes will have been spent on the stadiums. Not surprisingly, in Germany a campaign is starting to have a similar list of crown jewels to that which we currently enjoy. British football fans of both the fanatical and casual variety will not rest easy until Kirch signs a deal with the BBC and ITV. It is clearly in the interests of the company to come to a deal without unnecessary delay.

In another field, the company has already been forced to retreat from its plans to transfer Formula 1 racing to subscription television because of pressure from car manufacturers. Further damaging publicity could make the Kirch Group public enemy No. 1 among sports fans across Europe.

FIFA, too, needs to step in and sort out this problem. In recent days, Neil Wilson of the Daily Mail has brilliantly exposed how ISL—F1FA's agents who handle television rights outside Europe—is close to bankruptcy. Apparently, Latin American television companies paid up to $100 million to ISL accounts that have been frozen due to the company's horrendous debts. Rumours abound that the Kirch Group itself is in some financial trouble. Both Kirch and ISL have made promises to FIFA that they may be unable to fulfil.

It is possible that, on Wednesday 6 June, England will play Greece in a crucial World cup qualifier. I say "possible" because, as of half an hour ago, FIFA had still not decided whether to kick Greece out of the tournament because of various irregularities. Hopefully, that match will go ahead on 6 June. If it does, it is possible that the following day—7 June—will be one of more than usual political significance. Harold Wilson always blamed—at least in part—England's defeat by Germany in the 1970 World cup for his own subsequent loss at the polls. As a Member holding what could be considered by some people a marginal seat, I will thus have a double reason to cheer on England loudly on 6 June, should the match take place. The good news is that I shall be able to watch the match live on terrestrial television—the BBC on this occasion. I only hope that the same will be true of the final of the World cup tournament next year. The matter is certainly not one of life or death, but for many ordinary people it is of some importance.

7.11 pm
Mr. Ivor Caplin (Hove)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting for allowing me to say a few words. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Selby on initiating the debate.

I speak as a football supporter—a fanatical one; as my hon. Friend pointed out, there are different types. I speak also as an officer of the all-party football group. As nearly a third of parliamentarians are members of the all-party group, we like to think that we are the voice of football supporters in the House.

I begin my remarks with a quotation from Mr. Greg Dyke, the Director-General of the BBC, who spoke at the European Broadcasting Union conference on 27 March. He said: Of course the real villain of the piece is FIFA who sold to Kirch instead of the EBU. I do grow tired of certain hypocritical sports rights holders who, on the one hand, speak of the importance of universal access and the significance of their events being open and available to all while at the same time selling their rights to the highest bidder regardless of their commitment to those same principles. The problems that we face in this country about televising the 2002 World cup have been caused by FIFA, whose responsibility as guardian of the world game should be first to football fans and football supporters. It is possible that only four of the 64 matches will actually be shown on terrestrial television in the United Kingdom, if England and Scotland do not qualify and others buy the rights. That is a scandal, so it is right and proper that we are holding this debate, especially as matches between countries in the 1998 World cup drew audiences well in excess of 7 million—and very reasonable they were too.

FIFA's handling of the television rights issue has been a shambles—as has its marketing. On Friday 20 April, The Guardian stated: Fifa's plans for the next World Cup are in chaos following the sacking of the tournament's marketing chief … The ISL fiasco has added to the growing criticism of Fifa's handling of the 2002 World Cup. The article also makes the interesting revelation that Kirch is sweeping the UK auction under the carpet until the general election is over. I do not think that Kirch is waiting until then; it is waiting until the House is not sitting. Kirch is waiting for that moment to take the opportunity to go to auction over the television rights.

I shall briefly address the issue about FIFA, and the sheer arrogance shown by leading members of it. The general secretary, Michel Zen-Ruffinen, said in Edinburgh: There has been a misunderstanding that all matches were available to be sold to subscription or satellite TV channels, but this is not the case. We want the finals to be seen by as many millions of people as possible. His view about finals is simple. He is talking about the World cup final itself. In this country, when we talk about the World cup finals we mean every match, because all football fans, whether fanatics like me or casual supporters like other hon. Members, want to see those during the World cup.

I very much hope that tonight the Minister can give us a real and absolute commitment to the 1998 listed events legislation and confirm that our Government, the Labour Government, will not be bullied by Kirch on this issue. We, the football fans throughout the United Kingdom, will stand up and say that the World cup in 2002 and in 2006 must be available across the UK on free-to-air TV. We can, as a House, send that clear message to Kirch tonight, and make it plain that, as The Guardian said, we do not want any auction swept under the carpet. Kirch should come clean and speak to the House of Commons, and specifically to Ministers, about its plans, which it has simply failed to do in the past few weeks.

Nine World cups have now been jointly covered by the BBC and ITV in this country, with growing audiences each time. It is clearly a successful formula for Britain, football fans and the United Kingdom. They say that football is the beautiful game. It is for me at the moment, because I am a Brighton and Hove Albion supporter, and not only have we been promoted but we are about to win our first championship for 36 years. But the World cup is the biggest event in football—the greatest football tournament in the world—and every single person in this country should be able to enjoy it on free-to-air television.

7.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Janet Anderson)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) for bringing this very important issue to the attention of the House. I am only sorry that the Opposition Benches are empty, because I think it a matter of great importance to many people in this country. I am well aware of the considerable concern among Members of the House about television coverage of the football World cup finals tournament. That has been clear in the list of signatories to my hon. Friend's early-day motion on the subject, and I welcome the opportunity to address some of those concerns.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) for his contribution. He has freely admitted that he is a football fanatic. I could not describe myself in that way—although my two sons could probably be put in that category—but I should like to take the opportunity to wish Blackburn Rovers all the best for the coming Saturday and look forward to its promotion to the premiership, which is where it truly belongs.

We all know the importance of sport—and particularly of football, our national game—to the everyday life of so many people. We also know that the health of sport in this country depends to a great extent on the broadcasting sector. Television income is used to develop sport at all levels. A number of major United Kingdom sports invest a substantial proportion of broadcasting revenue at the grass roots under the Central Council of Physical Recreation's voluntary code on broadcasting. Sport has also been vital to the development of many new television services in recent years. The emerging success of digital television has been largely driven by subscription services and, in particular, by coverage of major sporting competitions. The nation has a great appetite for televised sport, and that shows no signs of abating.

The Government do not intervene unnecessarily in the sports broadcasting market. Our main concern is to ensure that everyone has access to those events which have a clear national resonance. Those events, including the World cup finals tournament, form part of the national calendar and make an important contribution to our sense of national identity. They are included in the list drawn up for the purposes of part IV of the Broadcasting Act 1996. Those listed events have a central place in our national life.

Although the broadcasting rights to those occasions are owned by governing bodies, many people regard them as public property. People have come to expect to be able to see those events covered live without having to pay extra for the privilege.

In relation to the World cup, listing seeks to ensure that free-to-air broadcasters, with a reach of at least 95 per cent. of the population, are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to acquire the rights to broadcast live coverage of such crown jewel events. At present, those broadcasters are the BBC, the ITV network and Channel 4. Listing does not guarantee that any event will he broadcast live. Rights holders are not required to sell live rights and broadcasters are not obliged to purchase them or to show the events. However, the legislation clearly stipulates that where live rights are made available for the World cup, they must be made available to free-to-air broadcasters on fair and reasonable terms.

The Independent Television Commission is responsible for ensuring compliance with the 1996 Act and maintains a code on the operation of the legislation. Any United Kingdom broadcaster that obtains the rights to live coverage of the World cup cannot broadcast exclusively live in the UK without first seeking the consent of the ITC. The ITC will wish to be satisfied that broadcasters had a genuine opportunity to acquire the rights on fair and reasonable terms—it is important to emphasise that point—taking into account various criteria set out in its code.

There is no doubt that the World cup has a special place in the nation's heart, as my hon. Friends have mentioned. The whole tournament, which involved 64 matches in 1998, has been listed in its entirety since 1985. Interest in World cup matches goes well beyond those involving the home nations. FIFA requires that the opening game, the semi-finals and the final should be shown on free-to-air television, and we would expect those matches to attract large audiences in the UK and elsewhere, but the interest in many of the other matches is perhaps more surprising. During the 1998 tournament, the average UK viewing figure for all matches was 8.4 million. That is an astonishing figure and, even if the prime matches that I mentioned a moment ago are excluded, the average viewing figures for the rest was 6.7 million.

Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test)

I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend say that the British Government are taking a robust position. Does she agree that the signal that a robust defence of this country's crown jewel matches would send to the world is important in ensuring that it is understood that sporting events across the world should not simply be hoovered up by those who wish to restrict viewing to a minority audience who happen to have the wherewithal to see them? Does she therefore agree that what she is talking about could well be of much greater significance than just to the viewing public in the UK?

Janet Anderson

Yes. I could not agree with my hon. Friend more, and I am grateful to him for making that point. I reassure him that the Government are taking a robust stance and that we will continue to do so. It is essential to protect those crown jewels, and I was interested that my hon. Friend the Member for Selby said that Germany is considering a similar system.

The figures for some individual games were remarkably high, with 10.2 million people watching Jamaica v. Croatia, 9.3 million tuning in to Morocco v. Norway and 9.8 million watching Germany v. Iran. Against that background, I can well understand the concern, expressed not only in the House, but among the general public—

hon. Members are reflecting the public's views—that UK viewers may be denied the opportunity to watch the whole of the 2002 World cup live on free-to-air television.

As we have heard during the debate, the German media company—the Kirch Group—acquired the rights to the 2002 and 2006 World cup matches from FIFA in September 1996. I was interested that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove quoted Mr. Greg Dyke, the Director-General of the BBC, and I could not agree with him more. He said: Of course the real villain of the piece is FIFA who sold to Kirch". As my hon. Friend the Member for Selby said, he continued: If you contrast the action of FIFA with the International Olympic Committee—who have ensured the Olympics have remained universally available—the comparison is stark. I hope that that message will go out from the House tonight.

As we have heard, the Kirch Group acquired the rights in September 1996. Sadly, negotiations between Kirch and the BBC and ITV for the sale of the rights to the 2002 tournament fell through because Kirch did not consider that those broadcasters' joint offer reflected the true value of the rights. From what we have heard in the debate, it is clear that BSkyB has confirmed that it is not interested in bidding for the rights because it thinks that the terms that Kirch is considering are outrageously high, especially when one considers that the BBC and ITV paid about £4 million each for the rights to the 1998 tournament. Negotiations with the BBC and ITV fell through, and the Government clearly cannot comment on the rights and wrongs of Kirch's decision, but we expect it to comply with the listing legislation. We have protected these special events in law, and we want to see the objective of that law upheld.

To that end, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has written to Dr. Dieter Hahn, the managing director of the Kirch Group, and our officials have held a meeting with representatives of the group. It has been made fully aware of the requirement in our legislation that the whole of the World cup tournament is a listed event and that any broadcaster purchasing live rights from Kirch would have to comply with the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1996.

We understand that Kirch now intends to hold an open auction for the live UK broadcasting rights. The auction rules are expected to be published in the next few weeks. Kirch has said that it intends to comply with the legislation and with the ITC code. Although we cannot foresee the outcome of that auction, we are confident that the ITC will take all proper steps to ensure that the law works in the way that it was intended to so that UK viewers have the opportunity of seeing the whole of the 2002 World cup finals on free-to-air television. That is the result that we want to achieve.

This has been an interesting exchange. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Selby for bringing the issue to the attention of the House. I shall conclude by quoting a further extract from Greg Dyke's speech in Brussels in March this year. He said: I hope there is the will here in Brussels to ensure the World Cup is available to all on free to air, universally available television. There is certainly such a will in the British Government. I reassure the House that there is such a will in the British Government and that there will continue to be so. I hope that that message will be heard loud and clear by the Kirch Group and by FIFA itself.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Seven o'clock.