That this House has considered the impact of free to air broadcasting on cricket participation.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I don’t like cricket—I love it. How could I not love a sport that has given me the joy of the 2005 Ashes series, an England victory in the 2019 world cup and so many long afternoons in the sunshine, sometimes with whites on, sometimes with a real ale in my hand, and sometimes both at the same time? It is a sport that reminds us of patience, perseverance, heritage and tradition, and—rare in a world now dominated by doom scrolling and a 24/7 news cycle—the virtue of delayed gratification.
The English cricket calendar, however, has undergone a major change in my lifetime, particularly in the last few years. The season is now crowded, in large part due to the introduction of the Hundred: a competition focused on the search for a format that would work for that elusive thing, a new audience. We, of course, all applaud the England and Wales Cricket Board for searching for that audience.
At the outset I should state that I am open-minded about different forms of cricket. I enjoy all of it, but it is very strange that we have so many different formats in this country: five days for a test match, four days for the county championship, a 50-over competition, a 20-over competition, and now the Hundred, a new 100-ball contest run to a completely different pattern of play and contested by new franchises with which few long-standing cricket fans have any affinity. But it has brought new people in to follow the game—younger people.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. On the T20, will he take a moment to congratulate Somerset county cricket club for reaching the finals—I heard the cheering from my garden at the weekend—and will he recognise that county cricket needs all the support it can get?
Yes, I will congratulate Somerset. As a Gloucestershire fan, I can tell the room that I was a member at Somerset as a student. It was an excellent deal, and we used to travel from Weston-super-Mare to sit in the ground at Taunton. I spent many fun days there. It is a pity that Somerset triumphed over Gloucestershire this summer, but we will have to look past that.
Let us start with the good news about the Hundred. Although the debate is sometimes shrill and the suggestion is that it has been a total disaster, there have been some good points to the Hundred. It is pretty much the only high-profile cricket available on traditional free-to-air television, although some of the one-day internationals are on free to air too. The model has undeniably helped to fund the wider sport with new income. It has promoted the women’s game and there is more income for disabled cricket as well. The sale of franchises has brought new investment, which has been shared among the traditional counties. That success is to be welcomed, but it has not come without cost—I know that cost is acknowledged in the sport.
Even as somebody who is open-minded, I feel somewhat alienated by the Hundred. There is no team competing in the Hundred that represents my town, my county, or indeed the entire west region. For those who have suggested that the Welsh Fire is the west’s team, I beg to differ. I suspect Welsh cricket fans will be pleased to hear me say that I am not going to attend Sophia Gardens to support the Welsh Fire any time soon.
The creation of the Hundred means four-day county cricket has been pushed to the peripheries of the season, with August reserved for the short form of the game, although this year the amazing end to the final England-India test did just creep into the start of August, into the summer holiday period. As a knock-on effect, it is argued by many in the game that time and player availability for county championship cricket, which is crucial for test match preparation, has been greatly cut back. It is worrying to see the bedrock of the sport being pushed to the margins in that way. The fans who attend their county grounds and many of those involved in the administration of cricket at all levels could be forgiven for feeling overlooked and ignored. I have heard from many of those people.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Does he agree that another problem with the lack of four-day county cricket during the August period is that it is pushed to the margins, which impacts on batting development for future test players, as they are playing in the colder conditions of the early season, and inhibits the development of spin bowlers, who struggle at that time of year? We are perhaps inhibiting some player development in both batting and bowling for our future test stars.
The hon. Gentleman makes some really good points that have been rehearsed by cricket commentators over the last few years. I believe we have to bear that point in mind, and I may come on to it a little later.
It is no secret that this jumble of the calendar has profound consequences. As I said at the beginning, the ECB is doing the right thing by looking for new audiences, increased participation and more cricket on television. It might argue that participation is increasing as a result of the Hundred and the investment brought about by deals with subscription channels for test matches and other forms of cricket. Indeed, there is clear evidence that watching sport leads to increased participation and more money flowing into the game. The ECB reported a 61% increase in amateur cricket club membership following England’s victory at the 2019 world cup. Sadly, however, these days only a handful of free-to-air cricket matches are available each year in the traditional media, and county club cricket takes a variable approach to broadcast.
We should consider the wider consequences of the situation. It is a jumbled calendar with multiple different formats that are confusing to many and a lack of free-to-air broadcast. That cumulative impact risks alienating existing fans while reducing the number of younger people engaging with different forms of the game that are not the short-form Hundred, and making it harder for our test team to thrive. It also puts at risk the long-term sustainability of the county game.
Peter Matthews, chair of Gloucestershire county cricket club, told me:
“Cricket needs to be played at a time when the next generation can be encouraged to go. If this isn’t the case, it will continue to be watched by retired folk and will not grow a new audience. This means that weekends and school holidays are important. Right now, there is very little county cricket in the school holidays, other than ‘The Hundred’ (only at eight venues) and the One Day Cup. Non-hosts have a total of four days home cricket at the height of summer. This cannot be helpful commercially or for developing the next generation of cricket lovers.”
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on securing this important debate. I agree with him that cricket is a fantastic sport. I also love cricket. Where we disagree is that my drink of choice when I go to watch cricket is cider, and I think that the test format is the supreme format of the game, although I appreciate that people enjoy other formats.
I am proud to represent a constituency that has several cricket clubs, including Stockport cricket club, founded in 1855; Heaton Mersey cricket club, founded in 1879; and Heaton Mersey Village cricket club. Before the parliamentary boundary review I also represented Offerton cricket club, which is now represented by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), and which also has a rich history.
I do not want to repeat the points made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, but participation in cricket could be a lot better, particularly among young people from lower-income backgrounds, and young people who do not go to private schools or boarding schools. The 2023 report of the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket warned of an elitist culture
“driven…by the lack of access…in state schools”.
They reported that, at the time, 58% of England players had been privately educated. The data will have changed over the last two years but so much more could be done.
I wish to declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for cricket. I place that on record. I love cricket, but as a Labour party member, who many people would call quite left wing, some people say to me that cricket is not really a sport enjoyed on the left. I make the argument that the majority of people who play and watch cricket across the world are from countries in south Asia and in the Caribbean islands. Many countries in Africa also enjoy cricket. We should make sure that cricket is introduced to young people in schools at all levels across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There is a lot more to be done.
Again, it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. This has been a special afternoon for me; I hope it has been special for you as well.
I commend the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for setting the scene so incredibly well and so clearly outlining his love of cricket. As someone who is maybe not as enthusiastic, but who loved cricket during my time at school at Coleraine Inst back in the late ’60s and early ’70s—that has completely aged me—I can never understand why cricket is not more highly regarded. Indeed, some in those days might have seen the sport as upper class, but nothing could be further from the truth. Cricket is for everyone, and I believe that allowing more cricket to be broadcast will open the door to many others.
I am going to speak about the Irish cricket team. I hope I will not offend any English cricketers when I mention that the Ireland team, which is north and south—people from both sides of the community and both countries play for the Irish team; Ireland’s national team represents both the Republic and Northern Ireland—has increased the sport’s profile with key victories, for instance knocking out England in the 2011 cricket world cup. That boosted national interest and led to a boom in grassroots participation. That culminated in Ireland being granted elite test match status by the International Cricket Council in 2017, which was another step up in the level of cricket back home.
We have plans for the future, with Cricket Ireland initiating projects to build world-class facilities to support the sport’s growth, and the board has approved a strategic £1 million investment for phase one of a major redevelopment at the Northern Ireland Civil Service Sports Association at Stormont in Belfast. Just some four weeks ago, I attended an event at which games from both sides of the community were promoted. I spoke to the guy in charge of cricket and was really encouraged by what he told me they were going to do. This investment will transform the international venue of Stormont to host matches for the 2030 T20 world cup, which Ireland is co-hosting. We anticipate great things for that tournament, which will be an opportunity to celebrate right across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland south—a cricket tournament in which we will be sharing venues for this special moment.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I start by placing on record my membership of the all-party parliamentary group for cricket. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on bringing this important debate. Although I share his love of the long-form game as by far superior, I disagree slightly on the Hundred, which I recognise has introduced an impossibly packed schedule. When I can find time to attend a Hundred match, I am struck by how accessible to families—girls as well as boys—that format has made cricket. That is a big difference I have noticed in the crowds that turn up to watch the Hundred.
I add my support to the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) about the importance of widening access to young people and lower-income families. Sadly, we are long past the days of finding our most talented fast bowlers by sending the coach down the pit. As much as we would celebrate the achievements of Harold Larwood, those days have sadly gone. We need to find a way to bring more young people from diverse backgrounds into this wonderful game.
I have a confession: I do not play, nor have I ever played, cricket. I did not benefit from growing up in a first-class county or a family of cricket enthusiasts. My love of the game came entirely from being able to watch it on free-to-air broadcasting. From Richie Benaud’s dulcet tones, gently breaking over the fading chords of “Soul Limbo”, to lazy Sunday afternoons spent watching the John Player league on BBC2, televised cricket lit a lifelong love of a game with silly fielding positions and glorious cover drives.
When cricket is accessible, without the barrier of subscription fees, it becomes more than a sport; it becomes a shared experience. In the 2019 cricket world cup final, free-to-air broadcasting drew millions of viewers and, I believe, inspired the next generation of Nat Sciver-Brunts and Harry Brooks and, to echo the point, those from more diverse and lower-income backgrounds, I hope.
Does the hon. Member agree that it is now 20 years since the last televised Test series—the greatest Test series of all time—and that since then participation has gradually declined? Is that not clearly an indication that fewer people are being exposed to the joys of this fantastic game?
I certainly agree with the hon. Member. It cannot be denied that participation shrank in that period. We also have to look at how accessible our schools are in making cricket available to our young people. Lastly, I invite all hon. Members to join me in placing on record our very best wishes to the England women for next month’s ODI World Cup.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for securing this important debate and for his excellent speech. This summer has been a great one for British sport with the Lionesses’ success in the Euros, and I hope the Red Roses will follow suit in the women’s rugby world cup later this month; the Hundred cricket tournament also finished recently. All have been viewable on free-to-air TV and watched by millions.
I recently met Holly Woodford, the co-founder of Her Spirit, a women’s sport platform. Her Spirit’s motto is, “You can’t be what you can’t see.” This matters for all sport, especially women’s sport and cricket. Her Spirit’s barriers survey last year found that nearly half of respondents wanted to see more coverage of women’s sport on TV, in the press and media. Research from Women in Sport has also found that equal visibility increases the number of girls believing they can reach the top in their sport.
As my fellow Somerset colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), who is no longer in his place, pointed out, Somerset has a proud cricketing history, with our county club celebrating 150 years “not out” this year. It is in cricket that we have already seen how free-to-air coverage changes perceptions. The women’s Hundred has consistently attracted hundreds of thousands of viewers on the BBC, many of them watching women’s cricket for the first time. This exposure has been directly linked to record levels of participation in grassroots programmes.
In Glastonbury and Somerton, we have a thriving network of women’s and girls’ cricket clubs, with the Street cricket club ladies’ team participating in the T20 softball Holland division; Ilton cricket club competing in the Somerset ladies’ softball league, cup and festival; and the Long Sutton cricket club ladies’ team continuing to grow year on year. However, we know that girls drop out of sport in their teenage years at a higher rate than boys. Some fear being judged, or all too often they are self-conscious or just do not feel good enough; some simply do not feel safe. There is also a lack of opportunities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship as always, Ms McVey—fantastic umpiring, and hopefully no need for DRS. I start with a declaration of interest: over the summer I, alongside a number of colleagues, attended a cricket match with Sky. It was below the registrable threshold, but I am making sure that it is transparently disclosed.
I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for securing this important debate. After another great summer for English cricket and sport, and ahead of the Ashes series and the women’s one-day international world cup, it is timely that we are having this debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their fantastic contributions so far.
As many of us will remember, between 1999 and 2005, test matches were shown on Channel 4. That culminated in the historic 2005 home Ashes series, shown on Channel 4. There was an average of between 2 million and 3 million viewers per day for an average test match, before that soared to upwards of 7 million viewers for the 2005 tests and peaked at 8.5 million on the deciding and dramatic final day of the series. The impact of that fantastic series was clear, with the ECB reporting a massive increase in junior club memberships after the 2005 series, and waiting lists at many clubs across the country. Sport England data showed that junior participation rose in 2006 by roughly 7%, bucking wider trends across the sector.
However, there has been a decline, which has been referenced, in participation rates following the switch from free-to-air cricket to subscription-based broadcasting, and there is of course a discussion to be had, as always, about coincidence versus causation, which is why we are here today. For example, Sport England’s Active People survey showed a fall from 428,000 adults playing cricket weekly in 2007-08 to 278,000 in 2014-15. That represents a drop of about 35%, and over the same period participation halved among 16 to 24-year-olds.
5:08 pm
20 of 27 shown
What of the impact on the choices forced on test match players who deserve opportunities for time in the middle? What about the impact on the One-Day cup, which will never gather as much attention in August as the Hundred, despite serving up some absolutely brilliant cricket?
That is a warning from the chair of a club that is doing a lot of good work with the ECB to make cricket more accessible for all through the Gloucestershire cricket talent pathway.
That warning comes as state school cricket continues to suffer decline, bringing about the opposite of the ECB’s aim to increase participation. Peter also told me about the difficulties presented to those counties that retain much-loved out-ground festivals. The Cheltenham cricket festival is the world’s longest-running out-ground festival, having started in 1872. These out-ground festivals bring cricket closer to communities and should be encouraged, but they risk falling victim to ever-higher running costs and an overcrowded cricket calendar.
The Liberal Democrats believe in giving sport back to the fans, which is why we are calling on the Government, the ECB and others to act. We favour taking the more televised fixtures out from behind paywalls. We favour boosting participation by investing in grassroots facilities—I know the ECB is doing that with new indoor domes. We favour supporting community sports clubs too. While the Government clearly cannot interfere in the governance of sport, and I am not suggesting that they should, the nation’s shared interest in cricket should provide Ministers and Members with an important opportunity to engages with the ECB and all others in cricket authority about options that lower barriers to participation, including discussions about the cricket calendar.
Finally, we should consider whether the apparent commercial success of the Hundred might have been achieved by other means. Could the T20 Blast have been adapted to bring new revenues and audiences? Will it be adapted like that in future? Could the Blast and the Hundred be combined or tweaked in a way that protects the traditional forms of the game while retaining new audiences, perhaps with some cricket broadcast via a free-to-air model? The Hundred came about after a well-meaning discussion about participation and audiences, but the challenges that cricket faces as a sport are nothing new. As David “Bumble” Lloyd recently told the excellent “Sports Agents” podcast,
“the game has been dying since I started in 1963.”
That game has constantly adapted to survive. Those with longer memories will recall the fierce debate when limited-overs cricket was introduced in the first place, but at least those formats took the existing pattern of play, making it easier for fans of traditional cricket to understand what was going on. If we can properly balance the cricketing schedule to bring county cricket back into focus, the game can protect its local links and cricket will continue to thrive. We must ask whether the long-term prosperity of the game, the counties and the England team is best served by the continuation of the Hundred in its current form—that is, distinct from the continuation of the Hundred at all.
As part of the discussion we must of course focus on the test game, or we put at risk exactly the sort of moments that cricket fans cherish the most: Shane Warne’s ball of the century, Graham Thorpe batting in the dark in Karachi, the heroics of Chris Woakes coming out to bat with one arm in a sling, the 2019 Headingley test match and my favourite, the 2005 Ashes series—I was there for the day when we won at the Oval. Without those kind of moments, cricket ceases to be the special game it is.
I know that the ECB funds many programmes, and that Sport England supports several cricket programmes, but I do not think it is enough. The England and Wales Cricket Board announced a £2 million investment in programmes aimed at engaging black and south Asian communities and state-educated children. That is good, but £2 million will not scratch the surface in the 4,000-plus secondary schools in the UK. It amounts to about £480 per school if shared around. That is not much. There are also reports in the media—hon. Members can look them up if they are interested—that the latest deal between the ECB and Sky for television broadcasting rights is approximately £220 million. That is a lot of money. I was just speaking to one particular member of the House Service before I came into this debate, because I know he enjoys cricket. He said that the TV licence fee that most of us pay should contribute towards enabling people to watch live cricket games. A lot of people are excluded because they cannot afford the £35 to £40 per month to watch Sky Sports. A lot more could be done, and it should not be left to the Government. The ECB should be doing more, and Sky could be doing a lot more. We need to have a genuine debate about including more people from low-income backgrounds in cricket.
I want to finish on a more historical point. I have not mentioned this since I was elected to this House about six years ago, but according to data from the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians, the ACS, the earliest known reference to the sport being played in Lancashire has been found in the Manchester Journal, dated Saturday 1 September 1781. It concerned an 11-a-side match played the previous Monday, 27 August, at Brinnington moor—Brinnington is the ward I live in—between a team of printers and one representing the villages of Haughton and Bredbury, who were the winners. As Bredbury was in Cheshire, that account is the earliest reference to cricket in that county, going back to 1781, which is quite special.
There are so many fantastic sports available across the board these days, but cricket is so special. I do not think there is a sport that is more English than cricket. So much more could be done to encourage more young people and people from various backgrounds to play cricket.
Despite the positive momentum, cricket in Northern Ireland still faces challenges. Although investment is under way, a lack of quality training and playing facilities remains a barrier to expansion—the hon. Member for Cheltenham set that point in perspective for his constituency and his area. The co-hosting of the 2030 T20 world cup, while a major boost, has faced funding challenges in Northern Ireland. A funding shortfall was reported in July 2025, just a few months ago, requiring consultation with Government partners to secure necessary investment. The Northern Ireland Assembly Member Gordon Lyons has been in touch with the Minister here to see how they could advance. I look forward to the Minister’s contribution, as I think we all do, because the Minister always brings energy and enthusiasm for the subject matter, and today it is cricket. I wonder whether the hon. Lady has played cricket. If she has, I am sure she would have been dynamic. There is no doubt about that.
On trying to find a way forward, it is important to have a joint approach delivering the cricket world cup, if we are hoping to sponsor it jointly. Cricket faces strong competition from more established sports in Northern Ireland, such as soccer, rugby and Gaelic games. For the sport to thrive it needs to be more widely available and accessible. I support the motion, as it would allow cricket to be a riveting game that is understandable and available to people throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Free-to-air coverage also helps grassroots clubs, such as Lanercost, Carlisle, Rockcliffe, Scotby and Wetheral in my constituency of Carlisle and north Cumbria, not necessarily a county associated with heady summer days spent watching cricket. That club cricket creates the important pipeline of talent and passion that sustains cricket at every single level. In short, free-to-air broadcasting grows the game of cricket, widens access, sparks dreams and strengthens participation.
Meanwhile, the recent Government proposal to remove Sport England as a statutory consultee from the planning system could result in the loss of sporting facilities across Somerset. Research from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport suggests that converting spikes of interest in sport into long-term participation requires access to facilities and programmes. However, women and girls do not receive an equal share of available funding from Sport England. Those are all key barriers to boosting participation for girls and women.
Free-to-air broadcasting of sports such as cricket, however, should form part of the answer, as it generates demand. More coverage normalises women playing sport. It shows that women and girls have sporting skill, and that they are passionate and competitive, in the same way as our male sporting role models, who have been idolised for generations. There is a disparity between male and female coverage. Free-to-air TV covers less women’s sport than paid channels, hurting visibility. Research from the Women’s Sport Trust in 2023 found that the BBC and ITV accounted for just 11% of total hours of coverage of women’s sport, but 77% of viewing hours. The Liberal Democrats are clear: the list of women’s sporting fixtures available on free-to-air channels must mirror men’s. We need to expand the list of sporting fixtures with live free-to-air coverage. Key national sporting events—the crown jewels of sport—should be available to all television viewers, including those who cannot afford the extra cost of subscription television, especially during a cost of living crisis.
Analysis from the Somerset Cricket Foundation found that participation in the sport has a positive impact on wellbeing and generates savings for the public purse of more than £40 million. But women and girls still lag behind when it comes to participation. Only 250,000 women play cricket, compared with more than 1 million men. Somerset is encouraging further growth. In 2025, the region launched its first formal women’s indoor cricket league, with 33 teams competing. In addition to the girls-only Dynamos programme, Glow In The Dark cricket sessions have engaged nearly 300 girls this year alone.
In my playing days—yes, I did play cricket in the garden with my brother, Rupert, invariably beating him both in batting and in bowling; I also played for my village team, Buckhorn Weston, and I played county cricket for Dorset and Wiltshire—women’s cricket was entirely absent from free-to-air broadcasting, with aspiring players unable to see their role models on television, which reinforced the idea that cricket was just not a sport for them. Today, thanks to free-to-air coverage of the Hundred, England international Twenty20 matches and highlights of the women’s T20 Vitality Blast, women and girls across the country can see players who look like them, competing at the highest level and fuelling enthusiasm for the grassroots level, because let us remember:
“You can’t be what you can’t see.”
More recently, we have begun to see a welcome revival in participation rates as more matches are shown on free-to-air television and England’s Bazball style has attracted new admirers. Most famously, that includes the 2019 cricket world cup final, sub-licensed by Sky and shown on Channel 4 as live international cricket returned to free-to-air television for the first time in 14 years. That thrilling final, which I also had the joy of watching, saw a peak of 4.8 million viewers for Channel 4 and 3.5 million for Sky—a total of 8.3 million. It was a huge audience for a huge moment for British sport. Data from the ECB has shown that more than 1 million under-16s watched that final, and I am sure each and every one of them took inspiration from what they saw.
Of course, all sporting bodies face a tension between ensuring that their sports are accessible to the widest possible audience and the need for financial stability and support as provided by subscription-based broadcasters. The broadcast contracts with Sky have been the financial engine of English cricket for some time now, and the most recent deal is worth more than £200 million per year. Those revenues have funded professional central contracts for men and women. That includes increasing the number of professional women cricketers from 17 to more than 100. It has also helped to sustain the England team at the top of the world game and finance grassroots programmes that have reached millions of children across the country. Without that support, the professional and grassroots structures of cricket would simply not be sustainable. As a fan of cricket, I applaud Sky’s innovative coverage—I had the privilege of seeing behind the scenes first hand over the summer.
Recent years suggest that a balance can be struck—and has been struck. The 2019 world cup final was shared by Sky and Channel 4, and reached millions of people. The Hundred has brought live cricket back to the BBC, with sizeable audiences for both the men’s and women’s games, and a clear impact on youth and girls’ participation, alongside vital grassroots community work.
I am pleased that women and girls’ cricket is growing fast across the country, including in my Old Bexley and Sidcup constituency. It is fantastic that local clubs, such as Bexley cricket club, Bexleyheath cricket club—they are separate clubs—and Sidcup are growing the girls’ game in my local community. Last year saw a 21% growth in girls’ teams, a 25% growth in women’s teams, and 1,000 new women’s and/or girls’ teams across the country. Moreover, initiatives such at Metro Bank’s girls in cricket fund have added to that momentum, delivering over 1,000 hours of dedicated coaching support and helping to grow the number of girls’ teams by more than a fifth in the past year alone. That contributed towards a record 192,000 recreational games being played across the country in 2024, more than 12,500 higher than the previous record.
Those moments and the data that follows show that when cricket is visible, it can capture the imagination of the public, regardless of background. That is why the previous Conservative Government were proud to invest £34.7 million to maximise the opportunity of the women’s T20 world cup in 2026, cricket’s inclusion in the Olympics in 2028, and a men’s T20 cricket world cup in 2030 to build a network of state school cricket programmes and facilities.
While the recent announcement regarding cricket dome funding from the Government over the summer is very welcome, this Government have so far only allocated £1.5 million to fund those two new cricket domes. The money was there, but the Government have instead taken the political choice to reallocate what remains of the capital fund. Will the Minister say whether clubs across the country, which will be listening to this debate, should expect more funding to come their way in terms of grassroots support in the years ahead?
The challenge remains trying to find a balance between reach and growth in participation via the exposure that free-to-air broadcasting brings, and with the financial resources provided from subscription funding. We can all agree across the House that too much of one without the other undermines the long-term health of the sport. That is an outcome that none of us wants. I thank all hon. Members again for this important debate, as well as the hon. Member for Cheltenham for supporting it.