CREDIT TO SKY, THEY SENSED PUBLIC MOOD

SKY’S decision is both a feather in their cap and an acknowledgment that England’s first potential home World Cup final for 40 years is best experienced by the whole nation. Broadcast rights are not cheap, and Sky have felt embattled during this tournament. They were not helped when Liam Plunkett told BBC radio on Thursday that, should England get there, he would like ‘as many people to watch the final as possible’. That seemed to tap into a widespread sense that this once-in-a-generation event was passing the public by. Plunkett is believed to have represented the majority of the England dressing room, where the subject is sensitive because of Sky’s long-standing support for English cricket. Jim Maxwell, the veteran Australian broadcaster, has called the absence of the World Cup from free-to-air TV an ‘absolute disgrace’, mirroring views of overseas fans and journalists who are unable to see matches they are not attending because their hotels lack a Sky subscription. Sky would have been entitled to ignore the grumbles: they have, after all, invested £2billion into the English game, a sum they argue has safeguarded the game’s future. Terrestrial channels, they say, have shown no interest in cricket. Sky insist their decision to make the final free-to-air — if England qualify — is not a response to pressure from the government, the ECB or the ICC. And they deserve huge credit for seeing the bigger picture at a time when audiences for the women’s football World Cup have gone through the roof, with a peak BBC audience of 11.73million tuning in for the semi-final between England and the USA. The peak for England v India in the cricket was 1.78m. Sky may even benefit from their largesse: the more viewers, the more potential subscribers they can attract.