Search the Internet          Tips  Sites: Finance, Investment

Recent Specials

Arun Shourie's      tactical errors Stalling of India's      industrial engine Divestment: Will the      horse fly again? UTI bailout: Common      man feels the pinch The fiscal impact      of bailouts Cellular phone war      hots up again Too many advisors      in the North Block? Cricket: FMCG firms      fight for turf

The Murdoch googly

V Krishnaswamy

For almost two weeks now, since the start of the ICC Champions Trophy in Sri Lanka, the logo controversy, which generated more news than whether-or-not-India-will-win analysis, has taken a backseat. Ironically, it has been Indian cricket's on-field performance that has pushed into the recesses of our minds.

Our players no longer look like billboards and their performances - interestingly of the very players who stand to lose most because of the ban on conflicting sponsors' logos - have been amazing. Sachin Tendulkar, Saurav Ganguly and Rahul Dravid have been playing at their very best and the youngsters, Virender Sehwag, Yuvraj Singh and Mohammad Kaif, have been coming good when needed.

Little wonder then that cricket critics at paanshops from Srinagar to Sriperumbudur and Mumbai's maidans, are happy with this without-logo status. I can almost hear them giggle as they say: "They (the players) will now need to win Cups to amass the kind of wealth they did without getting close to the semi-finals in the past."

One thing is sure, should the Indians win at Colombo and then in South Africa next year, they may never need the logo money ever again. Enough of cricketer bashing, let's move to cricket's unfinished tryst with TV and my theory on how News Corp is squeezing everybody in the cricket market.

If you remember it all started with Global Cricket Corporation's $550 million contract with the ICC till 2007. GCC bought the rights and then News Corp bought over GCC itself.

The off-shoot was: players were not allowed to wear logos of companies which were rivals of the official sponsors. So, Coke, Fiat, TVS, Samsung, Sahara and so on were out. They could not use players to promote their products. Using top players during the cricket season would be the most obvious pitch and when that's not allowed the companies may decide to cut down on advertising budgets.

If such a situation - of cuts in advertising budgets - does happen, who loses out? Naturally the channel banking on events like the ICC Trophy or the World Cup. There is a difference of opinion on which way the spending is currently going? Up or down. India's performance, something like what is currently on display could boost the ad sales upwards, but that is all 'iffy', simply because it is not possible to predict how India will perform.

One may argue that there will always be other sponsors. Sure, but they are not likely to put in as much as a Coke might have to counter Pepsi's official status or a Samsung to reduce LG's omnipresence on the screen.

Even if they do, they will have to settle with personalities other than cricketers. So "Team Samsung' or Coke's 'Sehwag with Gavaskar' advertisement will have to be shelved during major events, which actually means the earlier spend on such campaigns becomes useless.

And cut quickly to which channels own rights for the ICC Trophy and the World Cup and where. Sony owns it in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and that's where the maximum revenue comes from in terms of advertising.

In other countries, while advertising is a big source of revenue, especially in the case of satellite channels, subscription money is also substantial unlike in India, where channels like Murdoch's Star always claim that operators do not give them the right figures.

News Corp's Sky TV has the World Cup 2003 rights in South Africa, BSkyB has it in the UK and there is also the possibility of Sky getting the rights in New Zealand. A tie-up with their own Foxtel in Australia cannot be ruled out. Sky has a contract with the West Indies cricket Board from 2004 to 2008 and there is also the possibility of it buying out rights from the current holders for the 2003 World Cup.

So News Corp or its holding companies will have the rights everywhere except the subcontinent. And that's where the logo ban could put a squeeze on Sony. So who benefits in the long run? News Corp, of course.

Does anyone think, it is a mere coincidence that if, and when, Sony bleeds around February-March next year trying to cope with World Cup woes, around the same time Star will be launching its much-touted separate Hindi channel in India. Chances are sport will be an important ingredient in the new Star Hindi channel.

The business of sport and TV may not be as simple, as I seem to think. And there are wiser analysts than me, but I feel this could well be the plan Murdoch has in store. He will win at cricket and also the bigger TV stakes.

Mr Kunal Dasgupta watch out, Mr Rupert Murdoch has just booked his ticket to India once again. <

Powered by

ALSO READ:
More Specials
More Money Headlines