should sport be run by big money?

There's the rub - is it better to have a series of sports run by the big money people so that they can provide the facilities that spectators want? Or should sports be run according to what the sports fans want? The truth is that most, if not all, sports are short of money and need rich sponsors. Most have decided the way to get money is to get in the rich and the mighty - and to squeeze as much money from their fans as well. Some have decided that broadcasters are a rich source of funding and so they have sold their souls to the pay per view channels or the subscription channels. That leaves the less rich audiences out in the cold. When recession hits, the ranks of the less rich audiences swell up. That's what we have now.

That's why you'll find football fans sitting in pubs, trying not to drink much, so they can watch their teams on Sky or ESPN. But what about the sports that don't fit pub viewing? The rugby world cup might fill a pub now and then - just as the soccer world cup did, but cricket? Surely not. And Formula 1? Doesn't seem likely somehow. And what about the viewers who don't like pubs?

So where do we go from here? How about sponsors paying the broadcasters' costs so that they can continue free-to-air? Let's face it, we already have public events with a sponsor's name in the title - even the Chelsea Flower Show - and the BBC read out the full title. It's happened for snooker - and for some yacht races...why not F1?