Other website sections

»Sports Market Reports

»Sports Jobs

»Tenders

»Directory

»Conferences

Six of the largest sports governing bodies have written to Ofcom to complain about the media regulator’s plan to force Sky to cut the prices at which it sells its sports channels to rivals.

The six – the Rugby Football Union, the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Professional Golfers' Association, the Football Association, the Premier League and the Rugby Football League – claim the move will "irreparably damage" investment in grassroots sport.

The Guardian reports that Ofcom's decision, which will be announced this week and follows a three-year investigation into the pay-TV market, is likely to lead to lower prices for subscribers to Sky Sports through BT, Virgin Media and Top Up TV.

But the governing bodies are said to be considering lodging objections with the Competition Appeals Tribunal, and potentially to the Court of Appeal and the European Court of Justice, arguing that Ofcom has ignored the impact on them. They say the ruling will damage competition and severely hit the amount broadcasters are willing to pay for rights.

It is understood the governing bodies' letter claimed "it is clear that Ofcom is ignoring the evidence given to it by the sports" and argues that the "grassroots of sport will suffer and be irreparably damaged through loss of funding".

The Guardian quotes one rugby union insider as saying: "We feel we have effectively become collateral damage to solve a different problem. We don't think that's acceptable."

An ECB source added: "Ofcom has failed to understand that cricket fans want to watch a successful product. It's no good starving the game of income and ending up with a product that no one wants to watch."

BSkyB chief executive Jeremy Darroch said: "The governing bodies are right to worry that Ofcom will hit sport where it hurts. Fixing the price of sport on TV will make it less attractive to us as a business and undermine competition for rights in the future. That's why the virtuous circle of investment, development and growth could come to an end.

"It's easy to say it would be nice if something was cheaper but that's not a reason for price regulation. A pound a day is a fair price for a product which costs a billion a year to put on the screen. In the long run, consumers won't benefit if there is less money available for investment and innovation."