Six Nations Rugby Championship: Viewing Access

I will call Charlie Dewhirst to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of free-to-view access for the Six Nations Rugby Championship in 2026 and beyond.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am pleased to have secured this timely debate on the future of the Six Nations and its broadcast in the UK, as the championship’s current deal with the BBC and ITV comes to an end after this tournament. For the record, I am a former employee of the Rugby Football Union, but I have not been an employee there since 2017. I am delighted to be joined today by colleagues from across the four home nations, but I assure hon. Members that I will not mention the results of the England or Wales games at the weekend—there is no need to dwell on those.

First, I will address the importance of the Six Nations to rugby union and the nation. It is one of the most popular annual sporting events, and over the weekend millions of people across the UK were watching at home, in the pub and at rugby clubs. It celebrates old rivalries between the home nations and inspires so many children to get involved in the game. It also fills a void in the sporting calendar during the cold and wet weekends in February and March, when not many other major events—or, indeed, anything else—are taking place.

I do not want to rub salt into the wound, but we had a magnificent game this Saturday and we enjoyed the victory; others will come—there are more to go. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate, and he mentioned a factor that is critical for me and for most of us. Does he agree that UK buy-in at the Olympic games, and the national pride experienced, are partly due to the accessibility, which means that people can watch and become engaged? That is one way for us to inspire the next generation of boys and girls he referred to.

I absolutely agree; the hon. Member makes a good point. I will come on in some detail to the importance of the tournament’s accessibility and how it inspires the next generation of fans and players. I also note that the match at the weekend was really excellent for at least 40 minutes, but we will leave it there.

The tournament has a rich history. It was first played in 1883, as the Home Nations championship, among the four home nations of the United Kingdom. In 1910, the tournament became the Five Nations championship in 1910, with the addition of France. In 2000, it was expanded to become the Six Nations, when Italy was invited to join.

Over the years, the Five and then the Six Nations has provided many iconic moments. Would you believe, Ms Jardine, that I am just about old enough to remember the great Scottish grand slam-winning side of 1990? Who can forget what Gavin Henson did to us English in 2005? On the flipside, I was lucky enough to be at the Millennium stadium in 2017 when Elliot Daly scored that last-minute winner to break Welsh hearts. The tournament has made names such as Hastings, O’Driscoll, Warburton and Itoje household names. My fear is that any move away from free-to-air television could see audiences plummet and risk us missing out on the next generation of rugby players and fans.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this really important debate. According to a recent study by CHoosing Active Role Models to INspire Girls, only 28% of 14-year-olds were able to identify a sporting role model. Does he agree that if the women’s Six Nations follows the men’s game and moves behind a paywall, it would limit girls’ access to the sport, reduce visibility and ultimately harm efforts to grow women’s participation in rugby?

I absolutely agree. The women’s rugby game has been a huge success story over the last decade, and the free-to-air coverage that we have of the women’s Six Nations has been a key part of that. I pay tribute to all the clubs up and down the country that have done such a huge amount of work to get more girls and women into the game and to play it.

To go back to what I was saying about free-to-air access across the board, all current matches are shown on the BBC and ITV. That ensures that the sport has a vital window to the wider population; that is key to keeping it in the national spotlight. It is worth recalling that the last comprehensive free-to-air broadcast deal for test cricket was for the 2005 Ashes series—arguably the greatest of all time—but I question whether that rollercoaster summer of cricket would have grabbed the nation’s attention in the same way had it not been accessible to all.

Since then, cricketing authorities have been battling for the survival of the test format; this is 20 years after it went behind a paywall. They have had to invent what I will call a new gimmick format for free-to-air television in an attempt to win over the next generation of fans. Thankfully, today’s is not a debate about the pros and cons of the Hundred, so I will return to the matters in hand.

We could go on for hours on that.

We could. Perhaps that is an opportunity for later in the year; we could return to Westminster Hall.

There were several reports in the media last week that a deal between the Six Nations and TNT Sports for coverage in 2026 and beyond was imminent. I am grateful to the Six Nations for providing me with clarification on that point, and I can confirm that those reports are inaccurate, as any deal has yet to go out to tender. That does, however, set the backdrop for today’s debate, as it will be vital that any new deal maintains free-to-air coverage.

I thank the hon. Member for initiating this timely debate. Does he agree that the Six Nations needs to ensure that there is a balance between reach and revenue when entering into these conversations with broadcasters?

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and the debate is very timely, given what I am about to say. I am also grateful for her contribution, given her role in Parliament as regards rugby and her previous role in the sport as well. I am very aware that income from broadcast deals is vital to the home nations’ rugby unions, but I would caution against a dash to the highest bidder. This should be a case not of maximising income but of optimising it so that the sport continues to have a broad reach, which in turn creates more fans.

I think the decision would run counter to the aim of increasing engagement in the sport. The hon. Member will know that the Rugby Football Union receives £28 million of taxpayers’ money to not only deliver the women’s rugby world cup but improve engagement in the women’s game. However, is he aware that the joint venture between the rugby world cup and the RFU to deliver the tournament awarded the contract to provide the equipment to Rhino Rugby, a long-term RFU sponsor, which was paid £800,000 and selected ahead of Aramis Rugby, which offered to deliver all the equipment for free? I would question that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should do more to monitor how taxpayers’ money is spent and whether that is being done in the interest of growing the game?

I think we can all agree that we are looking forward to the women’s world cup. I am not aware of the detail of the situation to which the hon. Gentleman alludes, but I am sure it is something the Minister will take an interest. I hope they can both meet to discuss it further.

Viewing figures for matches that involve the home nations and that are shown free to air during the Six Nations have significantly outperformed viewing figures for, for example, the autumn internationals on subscription services showing the same countries. If rugby risks its broader fanbase, it will become harder to attract other sponsors, and that will become counterproductive in the long term. These are, of course, commercial decisions for private organisations, but Parliament does have a say through the listed sporting events. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has powers, using the Broadcasting Act 1996, to draw up a list of sporting events of national interest.

In Wales, rugby is of course a part of our culture and national identity, and international tournaments such as the Six Nations are an integral part of our national calendar. Caerfyrddin, my constituency, has produced a plethora of first-class players. There are far too many to name, although perhaps I should drop in one or two such as, in the past glory days, Roy Bergiers and Delme Thomas, and more recently, Shane Williams—a phenomenal player—Mike Phillips and, to come up to date, Gareth Davies. There are many more. Does the hon. Member agree that, win or lose—as is our case at the moment—rugby brings us all together in Wales and should be included in group A? Of course, the free-to-view aspect is also so important for S4C, which produces our Welsh-language-medium coverage of sport. This tournament needs to be included in group A.

I could not agree more. I hope that the hon. Lady’s local clubs will play a key role in the rebuild of the national side and that there will be a few more victories in future.

Returning to listed events, the broadcast rights must be offered to the main free-to-air terrestrial broadcasters on fair and reasonable terms. The aim is to ensure that events are made available to all television viewers and are placed in groups A and B. Any group A events must be shown in full and live by the qualifying broadcaster, but group B can have live coverage on subscription services, as long as the highlights are then provided to free-to-air terrestrial broadcasters.

Currently, group A events include the Olympic and Paralympic games, the men’s and women’s football world cup finals tournaments, the men’s and women’s European football championship tournaments, the FA cup final, the Scottish FA cup final, the grand national, the Wimbledon tennis finals, the rugby union world cup final, the Derby and the rugby league Challenge cup final. Group B, which only needs highlights on free to air, is test cricket matches played in England, non-finals play in Wimbledon, all other matches in the rugby union world cup finals tournament, the Commonwealth games, the world athletics championship, the cricket world cup where home nations are playing in the final or semi-final, the Ryder cup, the Open golf championship and the Six Nations.

In terms of basic viewing figures, the Six Nations outperforms a number of events already in group A. England games regularly have in excess of 4 million viewers, which is higher than either the Derby or the rugby league Challenge cup final.

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. He mentioned his previous occupation, and we had this discussion when the RFU did a deal for England home games in the Six Nations and, I think, for away games against France. We saw a big difference in viewership figures for those England games, which fell from an average of 4 or 5 million to just 2 million. With the Six Nations games now averaging 8 million, it would be a huge drop if we were to return to those sorts of numbers. Perhaps the RFU, and those making this decision, should keep that in mind, particularly when we are trying to get as many people as possible to watch these games.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is important that we get the timings of the games and everything else right so that we optimise the broadcast number. As we have seen with various experiments in recent years, whether games take place on Friday nights or Sunday afternoons, rather than the traditional Saturday afternoon, also has a bearing. That all needs to be taken into account, as I am sure it will be as the negotiations progress in the coming months.

As has been mentioned, the tournament attracts about 120 million viewers—a clear demonstration of its popularity. The Six Nations matches involving the home countries should be moved from group B to group A to ensure that this much-loved tournament continues to have the broadest possible reach. That is vital for the health of the game, from elite level down to the grassroots.

Watching our international teams through free-to-air coverage of the Six Nations is often the only exposure fans will have to professional rugby. For many of us across the UK, the opportunity to watch elite club rugby in person is a postcode lottery. My own constituency of Bridlington and The Wolds in East Yorkshire is equidistant from three of the closest English premiership teams: Leicester, Newcastle and Sale. Anyone with the vaguest grasp of geography will know that none of those is remotely close to where I live.

In my part of the world, the grassroots game is therefore the bedrock of local rugby. Clubs such as Bridlington, Driffield, Hornsea and Pocklington do an incredible job of introducing hundreds of boys and girls to the sport every year, ensuring the continued strength of the amateur game. To take one example, Driffield fields six senior teams—four men’s teams and two ladies’ teams—and has minis and juniors at every age group from under-sixes to under-16s. Those are the epitome of community sports clubs, but many of those kids gave rugby a go only because they wanted to be the next Marcus Smith, Finn Russell or Liam Williams. I suggest that watching the Six Nations, and being inspired by it, is a huge part of the pathway to taking up the sport.

I thank the hon. Member for giving way on that point, because rugby does bring us together, but we cannot ignore the financial challenges faced by the sport we love in all of the home nations and overseas. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does the hon. Member agree that it is important that public sector broadcasting comes to the table and is able to be competitive and to provide a future, so that grassroots sport and future generations keep playing rugby and have a love of the sport, as we all do in this Chamber?