Alan Watkins: Sky's wider horizons clouded by money and Murdoch

As far as I am concerned, it was the Lions tour of South Africa in 1997 that did it. Saturday after Saturday I would find a pub with Sky Television; have an argument with the landlord about changing channels; sit looking at a set in a corner just under the ceiling, so risking temporary damage to the neck muscles; and try to make a pint of Guinness last an hour and a half.

As far as I am concerned, it was the Lions tour of South Africa in 1997 that did it. Saturday after Saturday I would find a pub with Sky Television; have an argument with the landlord about changing channels; sit looking at a set in a corner just under the ceiling, so risking temporary damage to the neck muscles; and try to make a pint of Guinness last an hour and a half. Often the experience would be repeated on Wednesday too. Finally, I had suffered enough. I looked up the number for Sky in the telephone directory. Rupert Murdoch had won once again.

And he has carried on winning. Before long, the only live coverage of Test cricket will be provided by Sky, with subsidiary rights for Channel 5, which many viewers receive in a blurred way, if they receive it at all.

In rugby, the position remains substantially unchanged, with the Rugby Football Union having done a deal with Sky for exclusive live coverage of all home internationals, together with France v England in Paris. The Premiership is covered exclusively by Sky. It also covers the Heineken Cup. When the Powergen Cup match between Leicester and Gloucester was shown on BBC 1 last Saturday, it seemed a disruption of the natural order of things.

There is, however, one recent change which is not clearly to Mr Murdoch's advantage. The Heineken company is apparently thinking of withdrawing sponsorship of the European Cup because it is dissatisfied with the number of viewers on Sky, compared to the number who used to watch on BBC.

The Cup's organisers would presumably have to honour their contract with Sky, irrespective of who was sponsoring. But, in these circumstances, one cannot see the old or, rather, the most recent arrangement lasting very long.

It is a question of money. In the modern game, it nearly always is. But that does not mean that differently based judgements have no place in the discussion. There is a disposition to depict the BBC as invariably virtuous and Mr Murdoch as a kind of pantomime dame of evil. And yet, the Corporation's coverage of the Heineken Cup used to be thoroughly inadequate. There were some matches which were virtually ignored.

True, the games that were covered were usually well covered. For instance, one Sunday afternoon, not so long ago, I remember nodding my head in sage agreement when the percipient Jonathan Davies told us, in the encounter between Leicester and Llanelli, that if the Welsh club thought they were going to hang on to a one-point lead by closing down the game, they were mistaken. Sure enough, Tim Stimpson duly knocked over a penalty from inside his own half, so eliminating Llanelli again.

But Sky has given the Cup more comprehensive coverage than the BBC ever did. There is Stuart Barnes too, our greatest living master of the Baroque metaphor. As he observed of John Bentley in the Lions tour to which I have already referred: "If he lived in India he'd be one of the people they call the Untouchables.''

Until Sky's arrival the BBC took rugby for granted; as mainly it still does. It had a monopoly of the Five Nations Championship, with Bill McLaren averting his gaze from any untoward incidents as Barnes would never do. Indeed, Barnes and several of his colleagues on Sky go to the other extreme, excusing or even justifying flagrant illegality on the basis that it is a laudable example of professional behaviour.

But Sky does not ignore the club game, as the BBC did. There used to be a kind of fig-leaf programme on BBC2 called Rugby Special, which was put out at varying times on a Sunday afternoon. It was long presented by Chris Rea: a fine player, a good writer and a nice man but not, somehow, one to go out and sell the double-glazing. Admittedly I find the modern presenter more rebarbative, like a perpetually overexcited granny. But Rugby Special somehow epitomised the BBC's dismissive attitude.

The contribution which Sky has undoubtedly made should not, however, mean that it is entitled to hold a monopoly of England's home internationals and the Paris match. There is very little prospect that the international rugby board will or can bring the RFU to a recognition of its responsibilities. The only solution, I fear, lies in action by the government. As it is ever-anxious to please Mr Murdoch, there is very little possibility that this will happen.