Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport, and International Relations Committee

Bore da. Croeso nôl. Dŷn ni'n symud yn syth ymlaen at eitem 3. Dŷn ni'n dal i edrych ar hawliau darlledu rygbi'r chwe gwlad, a nawr dŷn ni'n cynnal sesiwn dystiolaeth arall. Fe wnaf i ofyn i'n tystion i gyflwyno eu hunain ar gyfer y record. Fe wnaf i fynd at dystion yn yr ystafell yn gyntaf. Fe wnaf i fynd at Huw, yn gyntaf.

Huw Llywelyn Davies yw'r enw. Dwi'n gyn-ddarlledwr ar y gêm ac yn ymwneud â'r gêm nawr ar lawr gwlad. Dwi'n llywydd ar glwb rygbi Pentyrch yn y cyffiniau yma.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Dave.

I'm Dave Chapman, the executive director for UKHospitality in Wales—that's the trade association for all of the hospitality industry, really.

Thank you so much. Diolch yn fawr. Richard.

Good morning. My name's Professor Richard Haynes. I'm a professor of media and sport at the University of Stirling in Scotland.

Thank you.

Ac yn olaf, Seimon.

Bore da. Seimon Williams ydy fy enw i. Dwi yma fel blogiwr ar chwarae rygbi ac fel awdur y llyfr Welsh Rugby: What Went Wrong?.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Fel roeddwn i'n dweud, does dim rhaid i bawb ddod mewn ar bob cwestiwn, ond os dŷch chi eisiau dod mewn, os dŷch chi eisiau jest dangos i mi.

Fe wnaf i ddechrau drwy ofyn: sut ydych chi'n meddwl bod y farchnad o ran hawliau chwaraeon wedi newid ers i'r drefn bresennol o ddigwyddiadau rhestredig gael ei chyflwyno'n gyntaf? Sut mae pethau wedi datblygu dros y blynyddoedd hynny yn y farchnad?

Dwi ddim cweit yn deall y cwestiwn, sori.

O ran sut mae'r farchnad—. Os oes mwy o—. Wel, dwi ddim eisiau gofyn leading question, ond sut mae'r ecosystem wedi newid o ran—? Dwi'n ceisio meddwl sut i ddweud hyn yn y Gymraeg.

How the ecosystem has developed since the listed events regime was first introduced.

Os yw hwnna'n gwneud sens.

O safbwynt rygbi yng Nghymru?

Ie, o ran unrhyw bwysau sydd wedi newid—unrhyw beth fel yna.

Yn y dyddiau cynnar, wrth gwrs, dim ond darlledu rhad ac am ddim oedd ar gael, oherwydd y ddwy sianel, BBC ac ITV, bryd hynny, ac oddi ar hynny, wrth gwrs, mae'r deinamig wedi newid yn llwyr gyda'r cwmnïoedd niferus bellach y mae'n rhaid talu amdanyn nhw. Mae hynny'n golygu, dwi'n credu, fod llai o bobl yn gwylio rygbi ar y teledu a bod hynny yn andwyol, mewn ffordd, i'r gêm yng Nghymru, oherwydd mae yna gysylltiad rhwng y nifer sy'n gwylio'r teledu a'r nifer sy'n chwarae. Ac mae tystiolaeth criced, er enghraifft, yn dangos—ers i'r BBC golli hwnnw a bod e wedi mynd i Sky—fod llai o bobl yn chwarae, neu llai o bobl ifanc yn chwarae criced. Felly, mae yna gysylltiad rhwng y ddau beth, dwi'n credu.

Diolch am hwnna.

I think that Professor Haynes wanted to come in. Richard.

Yes. So, historically, a form of listed events has existed since the 1950s, actually, although the legislation in 1996 kind of gave that belt and braces. And I suppose sports broadcasting for decades was considered to be a public good. It was non-exclusionary, it was non-rivalrous, everybody could watch it. But, today, of course, as has been mentioned, most sport—live sport, that is—is behind the paywall—what economists would call a 'club good'. So, unless you pay to be in the club, you don't get to see it.

One thing I'd say from 1996—. Obviously, Sky Sports began in the early 1990s and used sport, as Rupert Murdoch said, as its battering ram for a new era of television. And I think, in many ways, that equation continues. But one thing I think you'd say for audiences of sport is that that idea of paying for sport has been normalised. It's kind of common ground that if you want to watch the sport that you're interested in, then most likely you have to pay for it. But, of course, that raises lots of questions about ability to pay and so on and so forth, which we may get into later on.

Does anyone else want to come in? Seimon, yes.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Jest eisiau gwneud y pwynt oeddwn i am natur sut mae chwaraeon yn cael eu darlledu, ac o ran rygbi mae'r ddarpariaeth yna yn reit fractured mewn ffordd. Hynny yw, does yna ddim un lle i ffeindio gemau. Felly, os ydych chi eisiau gwylio gemau sydd yn rhad ac am ddim, maen nhw'n eu rhoi nhw ar y BBC ac S4C ac yn y blaen, ac ITV. Ond os ydych chi eisiau gwylio'r Bencampwriaeth Rygbi Unedig, ma hwnna ar Viaplay; os ydych chi eisiau gwylio gemau clybiau Lloegr, maen nhw ar TNT; os ydych chi eisiau watsio Cymru ar daith yn yr haf, mae'r rheini ar Sky; ac os ydych chi eisiau gwylio gemau hydref Cymru, mae'r rheini ar Amazon. Felly, dyna un o'r problemau, dwi'n meddwl, yw bod y ddarpariaeth mor fractured. Neu os ydych chi eisiau gweld y gemau i gyd, mae'n rhaid i chi gymryd allan sawl tanysgrifiad i sawl darparwr gwahanol.

Mae yna drafodaeth, dwi'n meddwl, ynghylch y ddadl o gwmpas y ddêl newydd. Mae'r chwe gwlad wedi bod yn ei ddelio fe mewn gyda gemau'r haf a gemau'r hydref. Mewn un ffordd, fe allai hynny efallai wneud pethau'n haws i bobl allu ffeindio'r gemau yma os ydyn nhw i gyd yn yr un lle, o ran gemau rhyngwladol.

Diolch am hwnna, Seimon.

Dave, how affordable are sports subscription packages for hospitality businesses in Wales?

At the moment nothing is affordable for our industry. We've got really difficult times persisting from March 2020 until now and a succession of serious hits from COVID through to inflation, energy and food and drink inflation. The latest inflation figures show, I think, 2.9 per cent, but 6 per cent food and drink inflation is within that. And the effect of all of the economic pressures on our customers means that we can't really lift prices to be able to accommodate the soaring costs that are coming underneath. The margins are squeezed everywhere and that means that at the very best at the moment most local pubs, for instance, are now finding livings, but they're not actually making much profit. They can't reinvest and they can't take steps that might be available to them to try to draw more customers in, such as taking out subscriptions if they're really that close.

First of all, there are specialist pubs that do that, and you'll be aware of that. There'll be sports bars and places that would want to bring in the type of customer that wants to see that and stays there for a number of hours watching a succession of games, perhaps. But local pubs don't tend to go that far and we're really not in a position to be able to extend the offer at the moment, just because things are really tight. And I should say at this point that, if there was any support and opportunity to be able to take business rates back to 75 per cent relief from where they were last year, from the 40 per cent that has now been put into the Welsh budget, in the few weeks that we've got between the draft and final budgets, the industry would be really appreciative of that, and it would make a huge difference over the coming year.

Thank you, Dave. Alun, you wanted to come in.

Can I say, I fully accept the point that you make about the difficulties facing the sector? We've all seen a decline, and I've been in more empty pubs recently than I've been in in my life before; it's very striking, the changes that are taking place at the moment. So, that makes sport more important. You've described—. I was reading this morning about people taking part in this dry January thing, which is alien to me, but it means that there is less public socialising, shall we say, and the rest of it. So, that makes sport, I would have anticipated, more important—so, that sort of event provision. I can't imagine that I'm alone in having watched a rugby match or a football match or something in a pub. It's a great social occasion and I would have thought that all hospitality venues, shall we say, would be looking towards a programme that includes, you know, we're talking about the six nations here, but we could be talking about other games as well, in the future.

It's very important—you're quite right. I think it's one of those occasions where I don't have to provide much empirical evidence to Members because you've all got your own experiences of how this works. And you're quite right to say, as well, that the community factor is probably as important to Welsh people as the perpetuation of the economic surroundings for their local pub—the chance to get together. There is a unique atmosphere in our pubs when these things happen. But I must come back to the economic factors. I haven't got any definitive research, but I've done some checking around with different businesses and I can give you some quotes that might highlight what you're saying, really: a single pub, a 70 per cent turnover improvement; 80 per cent in another one; one pub said that it's absolutely essential for them and it goes up 100 per cent when it happens. The 2019 figures that I've been given by members of the industry on the free-to-air competition was that there was a 40 per cent increase in beer sales during that, and the six nations have similar things.

I really do want to emphasise the importance of our industry as a special case for this, where we play a part in the culture, the community of Wales, in every single part of Wales, in every constituency in Wales. We are the third biggest industry in the UK, economically, but there are very few industries that touch every part of every nation in the way that we do, and help to create that. So, there is no doubt that, if it was free to air, there would be many, many of our establishments that would benefit. And, in the current environment—and I can't see the environment changing dramatically over night and there are always other things that could affect it over the coming time—it's the period between January and March that's really critical to pubs' survival. You will have seen—. I mean, we've got 10 per cent more pub closures than England in Wales. I think you will have seen the impacts of the current squeeze hitting, particularly in the early days of January and going forward, following the Christmas and new year season, which is traditionally a chance for us to get some money in and some protection for the year. It's this period now that is particularly relevant and that's when the key six nations comes in.

Thank you.

Let me play devil's advocate, because if, for example—. You've given the evidence that I think committee will accept without any issue at all. So, if the six nations, for example, goes behind a paywall and there are people who, for whatever reason, be it financial or other, aren't willing to pay for that, it might well be of benefit to some of your members, because we will have to go somewhere where it's being shown, somewhere public. So, you'd go down to a pub usually, wouldn't you, to go and watch, in the same way as, occasionally, I watch Premier League football on a pub tv, because I don't have—. I've just got the Cardiff City package, so if I want to go and watch any other game, I'd have to go to a pub to watch it, and I wouldn't necessarily make the choice to go to a pub if the football wasn't on. So, it might well be that your sector could be perhaps the only sector, if you like, to benefit from the six nations going behind a paywall.

You're proving to be a member of incredible discernment—dry January being neglected and a Cardiff City sponsorship is something else. [Laugher.] You're right, but, of course, what I think it demonstrates is the huge scale of our industry and it's very often considered to be leisure or an afterthought in the economic table, but we are so important and so diverse, that, really, all repercussions will vary across the industry. There will be people who will benefit; there'll be others who will lose. But, in the main, most pubs and most communities would have pubs without that specialist facility and I think that's something that the broad numbers of our members would appreciate. But we're obviously ultra supportive of all our members, particularly those who are able to find a niche and a unique selling point that will help them to keep going in the current climate.

Thank you, Dave. I know that Huw wants to come in on this, and Richard and then I've got Hefin, who wanted to ask a question as well. So, I'll go to Huw first and then to Richard. Huw.

Byddwn i'n ategu'r hyn a gafodd ei ddweud—ategu beth ddywedodd Alun. O’n profiad ni yn ein clwb bach ni ym mhentref Pentyrch, mae mwy o bobl yn dod i wylio pan fydd y gemau ar sianeli rŷn ni'n gorfod talu amdanyn nhw. Mae’n rhaid cofio bod y gêm yng Nghymru efallai yn wahanol i'r gêm yn Lloegr a’r Alban, a'i bod hi'n perthyn mwy i'r dosbarth gweithiol, ac ei bod hi'n perthyn mwy i'r dosbarth canol yn y gwledydd eraill. Felly, mae llai o arian ar gael i'r cefnogwyr rygbi, ac, erbyn hyn, mae mynd â theulu i wylio gêm yn fyw—gall hynny gostio £500, £600 i rywun, ac mae hwnna y tu hwnt i boced lawer iawn.

A hefyd, o ran y sianeli rŷn ni'n talu amdanyn nhw, mae yna rai sy'n methu ei fforddio fe; mae yna rai sydd yn gwrthwynebu'r egwyddor hefyd o orfod talu. Byddai llawer yn dweud y dylai’r gemau fod ar gael i bawb. Felly, rhwng hynny i gyd, o'n profiad ni—. A phe buaswn i'n siarad gyda’r trysorydd nawr sydd gyda ni ym Mhentyrch, mewn un ffordd byddai fe'n croesawu’r ffaith bod y gemau yma'n gorfod mynd ar sianeli rŷn ni'n talu amdanyn nhw, ond dyw pob tafarn a phob clwb ddim yn gallu fforddio hyd yn oed i gael y sianeli yma. Fel y dywedwyd, mae’r gemau’n cael eu darlledu ar gymaint o sianeli gwahanol ac mae'n costio tipyn o arian mewn man cyhoeddus i gael pedair neu bum sianel rŷn ni'n gorfod talu amdanyn nhw. Ond i'r rheini sy'n gallu talu, sy'n gallu ei fforddio fe, mae yna elw i'r clwb yn sgil y ffaith bod pobl dyw e ddim ganddyn nhw gartref, maen nhw'n dod i'r clwb, ac mae hynny mewn un ffordd yn cynyddu’r teimlad cymunedol sydd yn ein gwahanol bentrefi ni.

Diolch am hwnna. Fe wnawn ni fynd at Richard a wedyn Hefin. Richard.

​

Thank you, and I'd concur with the things just said there. So, there are two interrelated things here: one that was mentioned about the fragmentary nature of sports rights and the way that you can watch sport. A bit of research was done in Scotland for Scottish football fans, where, if you wanted to watch every single format of either club football or international football, it would cost a Scottish football fan about £53 a month with the various subscriptions—that's just the sports-related subscriptions. Many households just can't afford that, honestly, in this current climate.

The issue about pubs and public spaces is also important for, 'Well, where would young people go?' Some pubs might well let young people into pubs, but it's still an environment that has a generational divide, so you're starting to exclude certain audiences from watching live sport once it goes behind a paywall, either because the household can't afford it or because it's in a public space that is not really conducive for young people to attend and watch the sport. So, the issue, really, around free-to-air sport, and rugby in particular, which we're discussing today, is fundamental, really, it's about access and how people can access it and at what price point—so, going back to the idea of the listed events, which supports that public good argument that sport is an important part of culture and society, and sharing the ups and downs of your national team is actually quite an important part of identity and connecting people in particular ways. So, access to that is very valuable.

I'd like to pick up on what Richard said there and perhaps put it to our media experts. The WRU was pretty clear that—. Can you hear me, Chair?

Just at the beginning of your sentence we couldn't, but we can hear you now okay.

You can hear me, yes?

Yes.

Yes. So, I'll put it to the media experts. The WRU was pretty clear, they aren't going to shift on this, and the six nations committee looks to be hugely influential on UK Government approaches. So, we need a plan B. I'm just going to concentrate—. Richard, I know you made the point about domestic viewing, but I'm thinking about hospitality. Would a plan B—? Given that the fragmented nature of the subscription services means that no pub could possibly affordably subscribe to everything, certainly not Gilfach Workmens Club, which is where I'll be watching on Saturday, and the various workies and institutes across the Valleys communities in which I live, would it be better then to push for a deal, perhaps even regulation of subscription services by the UK Government across the UK, so that a single fee and point of offer is made to hospitality services at a subsidised level in order to make sure that all sport is available to watch at those venues?

Who would like to—? Richard.

I think that's a really interesting idea. There was a slightly different amendment proposed to the Media Bill by, again, a Scottish MP who is quite vehement in trying again to open up free-to-air access to Scottish qualifying games in football, but the same principle applies. I think the idea that—. I suppose, coming back to the governing bodies of sport, the argument about going behind a paywall is that it increases commercial income, which then trickles down the pyramid to grass-roots sport. But, of course, the flipside of that is that the visibility of the sport also decreases, and, if you can't see it, you can't be it, in a sense. And, again, I know Welsh rugby at the grass roots is very strong, or has been historically, but it potentially gets undermined if people can't view the elite level of the game in their communities. So, the idea of public funding for sport that's supporting the ability to watch sport, but also how then that feeds into just the visibility and the participation in sport at grass-roots level I think is a very valid argument to discuss.

The mechanisms for that obviously might be quite complicated in some respects—different sports would make, again, different claims for how that public money might be spent in the circumstance. But I do think that regulation needs to step in here to, in a sense, balance the playing field, because I think the danger is—. Because the other dynamic of all this in a global sense is that football, soccer, is by far the most dominant sport—. Sky have just done a new deal for the English Premier League and with English league football as well, and are going to show over 1,000 games a season, going forward. So, other sports are just getting pushed out, and following the model that football has done is not necessarily the best model for all governing bodies to follow, I think. And I think rugby maybe needs to take a look at that in terms of what's the benefit for itself in terms of growing the game and the passion for the game and so on.

The game is growing worldwide. Across Europe, there are more people playing rugby, arguably, and in African nations as well; obviously, there's a world cup forthcoming in the United States. So, the global growth of the game is there, potentially, but at its roots—which arguably Wales is—some of the commercial decisions could really undermine the value of the game in that nation, if they're not careful, by doing strange deals that just exclude people from watching it.

[Inaudible.]—of time, so we will have to move on very soon to Llyr, but Tom wanted to come in just on one of the points that you were making.

Sorry, can I just come back to you, Professor Haynes, on the point you were making there about football—the 1,000 games a season, the record deals, the growth of the Premier League? The interesting aspect to me at least is there's clearly a demand or a willingness among many people to pay a premium for what they see as a premium product, which would be the Premier League, and with football being the most popular sport. Is there evidence that people are also willing to pay for what they might see as secondary sports, if you like—which, everything is, frankly, behind football?

I don't have the evidence for that. I think cricket was mentioned earlier, and I think what cricket has had to do is continually experiment with the format of the game of cricket into a shorter format to make it more exciting and entertaining. And we might come on to the discussion that, for younger generations of viewers of sport, or fans of sport, live sport is not always the kind of content that they want to consume. Again, Ofcom evidence suggests that, that younger viewers or younger fans of sport use different forms of content, either through social media or other streaming services, and other kinds of narrative about sport. So, Drive to Survive, for example, for Formula 1, has definitely grown the sport, particularly in the United States, amongst younger viewers.

So, again, governing bodies looking at their sports rights perhaps need to look a bit broader around what kind of content they're producing and who it's for. Live sport remains the premium and that's probably where people are most likely to want to pay, but there are, as we now know, lots of other platforms for delivering content. So, it really is about coming up with the right mix for any given sport that really showcases the value of the sport, the entertainment factor of the sport and so on and so forth, that keeps the appeal going. And it's a complicated balance; I'm sure you've heard that from the Welsh Rugby Union themselves.

Seimon, oeddech chi eisiau dod mewn ar hyn?

Ie, plîs. Diolch, Cadeirydd. Ie, jest eisiau dod mewn yn gyflym iawn ar y drafodaeth o gwmpas criced, achos dwi'n meddwl mai yna canfyddiad bod criced wedi diflannu fel pwnc trafod ar lawr gwlad ac mae yna dystiolaeth anecdotaidd o hynny. Mae'n anodd iawn ffeindio pethau; roeddwn i'n dreifio lan o'r de Dydd Sul ac yn trio gwrando ar y criced ac roedd e'n cuddio bant ar talkSPORT 2, ac mae hwnnw'n amhosib i'w gael yng nghorllewin Cymru yn y car wrth ddod. Dwi'n meddwl bod yna sefyllfa lle mae yna ddiffyg visibility, ond hefyd dwi'n meddwl bod yr ECB a Chriced Cymru wedi rhoi rhaglenni yn eu lle i lesteirio'r math o effeithiau negyddol yna.

Felly, os ydych chi'n edrych, dwi'n meddwl, ar y bar cyfranogiad, mae nifer y dynion sy'n chwarae wedi syrthio ers 2005, ers iddyn nhw fynd tu ôl i'r wal dalu yna, mae nifer y blant yn weddol gyson, ac mae nifer y menywod sy'n chwarae wedi cynyddi’n sylweddol. Ac felly, beth mae'r ECB a Chriced Cymru wedi gorfod ei wneud yw bod yn greadigol iawn a dod â mathau gwahanol o gemau mewn. Maen nhw wedi creu'r Twenty20, maen nhw wedi creu The Hundred ac yn y blaen. Dyw e ddim yn griced traddodiadol i efallai pobl draddodiadol sy'n licio criced tri-dydd, pump-dydd, beth bynnag, ond mae yna ffyrdd o ddod rownd hyn. Felly, dyw'r pictiwr o gwmpas criced ddim cweit mor glir a bod y gêm wedi diflannu a dyw pobl ddim yn dilyn y gêm rhagor; mae e'n fwy cymhleth na hynny, dwi'n meddwl.

Bydd yn rhaid inni symud ymlaen, yn anffodus. Fe wnawn ni fynd at Llyr.

Ie, diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd, a bore da, bawb. Does yna ddim amheuaeth o arwyddocâd pencampwriaeth y chwe gwlad o safbwynt ymwybyddiaeth neu fywyd cenedlaethol Cymru, ond roeddwn i'n edrych ar y criteria mae'r DCMS yn eu defnyddio ar gyfer pennu ddigwyddiadau chwaraeon sydd yn cael eu gwarchod ar gyfer darlledu cyhoeddus, ac mae'n ddweud fod yn rhaid iddo fe fod â phwysigrwydd cenedlaethol arbennig—wel, does dim amheuaeth ynglŷn â hynny yn y cyd-destun yma—fod e'n elfen sy'n uno'n genedl—wel, mae hynny'n digwydd mewn ffordd dyw bron iawn dim byd arall yn llwyddo i'w wneud, byddwn i'n tybio, yr adeg yma o'r flwyddyn—fod e'n bwynt a rennir ar y calendr cenedlaethol—wel, rŷn ni'n clywed am bobl yn dod at ei gilydd ar benwythnosau adeg yma o'r flwyddyn yn benodol i weld y gemau yma—ac nid yw o ddiddordeb i'r rhai sy'n dilyn y gamp o dan sylw yn unig—wel, mae hynny'n wir hefyd; mae yna bobl sydd byth yn gwylio rygbi mi wnawn nhw eistedd lawr i wylio Cymru'n chwarae ym mhencampwriaeth y chwe gwlad. Felly, mae'n ticio'r bocsys yna i gyd, a'r cwestiwn fan hyn yn ei hanfod i fi yw: tra bo'r undeb yn dweud bod yn rhaid inni gael y cydbwysedd yna rhwng exposure, access a refeniw, oherwydd arwyddocâd cymdeithasol, diwylliannol, economaidd—rŷn ni wedi'i glywed am y diwydiant lletygarwch—y pencampwriaeth, oni ddylwn ni fod yn ddweud doed a ddelo fod y chwe gwlad yn cael ei gwarchod o safbwynt darlledu gwasanaeth cyhoeddus?

Dwi'n cytuno'n llwyr â beth oedd Llyr yn dweud am bwysigrwydd hanesyddol a phresennol y gêm i'n diwylliant ni fel cenedl. Yr un peth dwi ddim yn siŵr amdano yw rŷn ni fan hyn yng Nghymru yn trafod y peth, ond oes rhaid cael cydsyniad ar draws y gwledydd i gyd cyn bod hyn yn cael ei weithredu? Neu a fyddai Cymru yn gallu mynd mas a chael cytundeb eu hunain o ran rygbi lle mae Cymru yn chwarae? Mae hynny wedi digwydd gyda phêl-droed, oherwydd mae S4C a'r gymdeithas bêl-droed wedi llwyddo i gael y gemau pêl-droed diweddar ar deledu di-dâl. Felly, ydyn ni yng Nghymru yn gallu ceisio trafod pethau yn fan hyn fel un genedl, neu oes rhaid cael cydsyniad ar draws y gwledydd i gyd?

Byddai hynna'n rhywbeth byddai San Steffan yn gorfod penderfynu. Mae San Steffan wedi awgrymu, os oedd Llywodraeth Cymru yn teimlo'n gryf am hyn, y bydden nhw'n cymryd hynna i mewn i ystyriaeth, achos er bod darlledu ddim wedi'i ddatganoli, mae chwaraeon wedi'i ddatganoli. Dyw e ddim yn hollol glir, ond maen nhw wedi dweud bydden nhw'n cymryd hynna i mewn i ystyriaeth yn sicr, felly dydy'r drws ddim yn gaeedig, dwi ddim yn meddwl.

O safbwynt y Gymraeg, byddai fe'n beth da pe baem yn cael y gemau felly wedi eu canoli ar S4C unwaith eto, fel sy'n digwydd gyda phêl-droed. Byddai mwy o bobl yn gwylio, felly, yn y Gymraeg, ac fe fyddai hynny'n beth da, dwi'n credu.

Diolch, Huw. I think Richard's hand went up marginally before Seimon's, so shall we go to Richard first and then to Seimon?

I support the idea that, yes, the six nations as part of our cultural heritage across all parts of the UK is very much valued by many people across the country, watched by millions, obviously, when it is free-to-air, and it has been free-to-air. When you look at the other sports or events on the listed events, the six nations really should be on there.

I suppose the challenge, regulatory-wise, and particularly if you have specific Wales clauses in the listed events, is that, obviously, broadcasting policy regulation remains a reserved matter for Westminster. If a deal was done for S4C, it still would be available in Scotland and England and Northern Ireland to view on some platform or other, so it becomes very complex about how to slice this pie in ways that work for all.

Fundamentally, the structure of the regulatory area around broadcasting is one of the things that is creating this problem, really. The fact that sport is devolved is also complicated, because again, the amendment put in for the media Bill, which wasn't successful, had underlying it the idea that if governing bodies lost some of their commercial income by being free-to-air under the listed events, governing bodies of sport or the Parliaments and Governments of the devolved nations could receive funding to support the grass roots and that income lost.

That, again, raises whole questions about the Barnett formula and how that would work and so on and so forth, so it's really, really complicated. The regulatory regime of broadcasting creates this scenario where it is difficult. I think if the Welsh Parliament were able to make its own listed events, the six nations would be the first thing on the list, I'm sure, for obvious reasons. That's the fundamental problem here, at root, and in terms of siphoning off one nation within the listed events, although it was recommended by the David Davies independent review of listed events in 2009, the mechanisms for that to work are very difficult, I think.

Forgive me, and I know that Seimon wants to come in as well, but there is a precedent, of course, with there being a different situation—. I think that Llyr probably was about to make this point—forgive me, Llyr. But with Scotland, with the Scottish FA Cup, there's a recognition within the legislation that there's a particular resonance. I'm having Alun gesticulating at me in the room implying it isn't quite the same thing, but there is that precedent there.

That's true, yes. I think anything is workable. I think the question about the S4C thing—which might have been not necessarily a listed events thing, but a commercial decision that the six nations could make, that, like with the football, a minority language channel could have access to showing coverage—is the idea that, also, it would still be available elsewhere in the UK, which, again, for the rights holder might be something that would stop them doing it. Welsh football games against whoever across Europe, or in qualifying games, is not likely to be as popular as six nations games of rugby, where all four home nations are involved. So, yes, there are issues there, commercially, around that idea.

Fe wnawn ni fynd at Seimon, ac wedyn fe wnawn ni fynd yn ôl at Llyr.

Diolch. Roeddwn i am wneud y pwynt am gyllid ac effaith hynna, ond roeddwn i jest eisiau gwneud pwynt cyflym am ddarlledu yn y Gymraeg. Dwi'n meddwl ei bod hi'n hollbwysig, beth bynnag sy'n digwydd, bod yna ddarpariaeth Gymraeg ar gael yn agored. Yn ddiweddar, mae Amazon wedi darparu dau ffrwd, fwy neu lai yn union fel ei gilydd, yn ystod gemau'r hydref—roedd hwnna i'w weld yn gweithio'n reit dda. Ond mae'n rhaid iddo fe fod ar gael ac yn hawdd i'w gyrraedd, ac o safon hefyd.

Dwi jest eisiau mynd yn ôl i bwynt Llyr gynnau am pa un ai, doed a ddelo, y dylai'r chwe gwlad gael ei symud i grŵp A. Dwi'n meddwl bod rhaid i ni fod yn ymwybodol iawn o effaith posib hynny ar y gêm ar lawr gwlad trwy leihau gallu'r undeb i greu'r incwm mae nhw ei angen i gefnogi'r gêm. So, mae'r holl beth yn holistig—ie, mae'r gêm yn mynd i fod ar gael, os ydy e'n cael ei symud i grŵp A. Ond rŷn ni'n gweld yr effaith ar yr undeb rygbi; maen nhw'n brin iawn o arian ac maen nhw angen cynyddu'r incwm sydd gyda nhw. Mae gyda nhw adroddiad Rafferty ac yn y blaen; mae nhw'n gorfod ymateb i hwnna, sy'n mynd i gostio arian iddyn nhw wneud. Ac felly mae hwnna'n rhywbeth sy'n fy mhryderu i.

Rŷn ni'n gweld llai o incwm yn dod mewn, sy'n golygu bod llai gyda'r clybiau proffesiynol i wario, mae chwaraewyr yn mynd i adael, mae yna lai o amser paratoi yn mynd i fod. Rŷn ni'n gweld chwaraewyr yn dweud eu bod nhw ddim ar gael i Gymru—er eu bod nhw dal yn gymwys—sy'n chwarae yn Ffrainc a Siapan, ac yn y blaen. Mae hynna'n gwanio'r tîm cenedlaethol, sydd yn debygol o leihau'r llwyddiant.

Ac, wedyn, wrth gwrs, rŷn ni eisiau'r arian i gefnogi gêm y menywod hefyd. Mae yna lot o fuddsoddi wedi mynd mewn i hwnna ar hyn o bryd. Ac, wedyn, mae'r undeb, ar hyn o bryd, yn rhyw fath o 'ring-fence-io' arian sydd yn mynd i'r gêm gymunedol. Felly, o symud o gategori B i gategori A, mae yna risg, dwi'n meddwl, bod yr incwm yn cael ei leihau, felly bod y buddsoddiad yna i bob un haen o'r gêm yng Nghymru yn lleihau, ac felly yn gwanio'r gêm, a gwanio'r linc yna yn y boblogaeth ar y cyfan a'r gêm.

Doeddwn i ddim o reidrwydd yn dadlau o blaid yr agwedd doed a ddelo, ond dyna yw'r tensiwn sylfaenol fan hyn: ydy hwn o arwyddocâd mor sylweddol bod rhaid i bethau eraill, er gwaethaf, efallai, y byddai yna oblygiadau, ddim mor eithafol ag y mae rhai'n awgrymu, ond pwy a ŵyr—. Mae hwnna'n densiwn, onid yw e?

A jest i ymateb i Richard, wrth gwrs, o ran yr arwyddocâd a'r pwysigrwydd cymharol o safbwynt y chwe gwlad yng Nghymru, o gymharu â gwledydd eraill sydd yn rhan o'r twrnament, dwi'n meddwl mai hwnna sy'n bwysig fan hyn. Hynny yw, fe glywon ni gan y BBC bod 65 y cant o gynulleidfa teledu Cymru wedi gwylio gêm gynta'r chwe gwlad llynedd neu'r flwyddyn gynt, sy'n llawer iawn uwch nag unrhyw ran arall o'r gwledydd sy'n cystadlu. Felly, hwnna yw'r peth, onid e—y gwahaniaeth cymharol, y diddordeb cymharol sydd fan hyn yng Nghymru.

A gaf i, felly, jest ofyn un cwestiwn byr arall? Dwi'n ymwybodol bod amser yn mynd. Rŷn ni wedi sôn am griced a'r effaith—af i ddim ar ôl hwnna efallai—ac, eto, y trade-off yma rhwng cael yr arian i fewn, ond, efallai, colli'r gynulleidfa boblogaidd i raddau. Ond mae yna ryw hanner ffordd ar gael fan hyn, onid oes e? Achos rŷn ni'n gwybod bod yna ddarlledwyr wedi prynu hawliau, ond sydd wedi cytuno, wedyn, i ddarlledu elfennau am ddim ar YouTube, neu gyda phartneriaeth gyda sianeli eraill. Roedd yr US Open, y rownd derfynol, ar Sianel 4, er enghraifft. Fyddech chi yn meddwl, efallai, bod hwnna'n cynnig rhyw ateb sydd yn ticio'r ddau focs rŷn ni'n trio eu cyflawni fan hyn. Pa mor ymarferol, a pha mor gyffredin yw hwnna? Dyna beth rwy'n gofyn. Achos dyw e ddim yn digwydd yn aml.

Pawb yn meddwl. Roedd Huw eisiau dod i fewn yn gyntaf, ac wedyn mi wnaf ddod at Richard.

Ydy Llyr yn awgrymu yn fanna bod rhai o gemau'r chwe gwlad yn cael eu darlledu?

Efallai, wrth werthu’r hawliau, eu bod nhw'n dweud bod yn rhaid i gemau cartref Cymru, er enghraifft, fod ar gael am ddim ar ryw fath o blatfform.

A fyddai derbyniad i hynny ar draws y sbectrwm—dwi ddim rhy siŵr—bod rhai ar gael, yn enwedig rhai Cymru? Er, fel roeddech chi'n dweud, mae Cymru'n wahanol, oherwydd mae trwch y boblogaeth fan hyn yn dilyn rygbi, a dyw hynny ddim yn wir am Loegr a hyd yn oed yr Alban. Ond dwi mewn cyfyng gyngor, yr un peth â phawb arall, ar hyn. O bwyso a mesur, ar y naill law, yr effaith andwyol os nad yw'r gemau ar gael i bawb, ond ar y llaw arall, yr ochr ariannol sy'n cael ei phwysleisio gan Nigel Walker a'r prif weithredwr cyn hyn, mae'n anodd iawn cydbwyso'r naill yn erbyn y llall a phenderfyno p'un o'r ddau yna sydd bwysicaf i ni a'r gêm.

A dyw'r syniad gawson ni gynnau fach fod y gêm yn iach ar lawr gwlad yng Nghymru ddim yn wir. Mae llai yn chwarae. Os edrychwch chi ar benwythnos o rygbi yng Nghymru, mae tua 20 gêm yn cael eu gohirio bob penwythnos achos bod timoedd yn methu cael digon o chwaraewyr i ymgymryd â’r gêm. Felly dyw’r gêm ar lawr gwlad ddim yn ffynnu i'r graddau mae rhai pobl yn credu y mae hi. Felly, ai arian sydd eisiau, neu exposure, fel ŷch chi’n dweud? A dyna'r dilema i bawb, dwi'n credu. Os ydy Senedd Cymru yn penderfynu neu yn pwyso am gael y gemau yma yn rhad ac am ddim, faint o obaith sydd o lwyddo yn hynny os nad yw’r gwledydd eraill yn cytuno, a hefyd bod bwrdd Undeb Rygbi Cymru ddim yn cefnogi’r hyn mae'r Senedd yn ei ddweud?

Dyna rai o'r cwestiynau mae'n rhaid inni eu pwyso, wrth gwrs.

Oherwydd mae'r pwyllgor yn Llundain wedi troi'r cais i lawr unwaith, onid ydyn nhw? Ac felly, mae eisiau i Gymru wneud pwynt positif, cryf iawn, i gael y gemau yma ar gael am ddim. Ond os ydy Undeb Rygbi Cymru o bawb yn gwrthwynebu hynny, mae'n mynd i fod yn anodd dros ben, dybiaf i.

Diolch, Huw. Dwi'n gwybod—

Can I come in there, Chair, because my question's related to that?

Yes, sure.

To Huw and the experts: have we got any chance whatsoever of persuading the WRU to change their minds, and, subsequently, perhaps, even the six nations committee?

It's going to be very difficult, isn't it? The commercial side of rugby is increasingly complex because of the type of investments that are going on there. As we know, CVC have invested in a whole range of different levels of rugby, internationally and locally, in the six nations. So, you've got private investment wanting to get a return on that investment. So, that's one immediate commercial challenge, which maybe is behind some of the conversations or pronouncements that the WRU make. But their principal job, really, though, is, as you say, growing the grass roots of the sport, because if you haven't got that pipeline of talent, the national team will flounder at some point because there aren't enough people playing.

So, I think, in terms of the challenge, other nations probably would support, in terms of politicians anyway—there seemed to be quite a lot of cross-party support in the house the other day regarding this, in terms of listed events. But the Government's view seems to be, 'Well, governing bodies know best. It's their commercial priorities that come first', so they won't touch it. That's the sticking point, isn't it?

One of the equations in all this is that I would argue that if more eyeballs are watching the content, on whatever platform it's on—whether it's on traditional television, streaming services, social media, you name it, wherever that is—if there's more content available to view, that is more opportunity for sponsorship, advertising and other forms of commercial revenue.

One of the biggest forms of commercial revenue for streaming services in particular is data—data about who's watching what, when, and where. A lot of that isn't shared publicly, but for the likes of Netflix, Amazon, Apple and so on, part of their business model really is about the data behind who's watching what. And so, sport needs to wise up to that, that they have a stake in that game about how that data is used for commercial purposes. So, arguably, the more people watch content, the bigger the value of that data, for them, and the market is around sport. Sports marketing is a huge multibillion-dollar industry; it's huge and global. So, I think that's all in the mix. It's very, very complex, of course. But I think that is part of an argument that could be made to the rugby unions, to say, 'Well, look, can we help you in thinking through broader commercial opportunities by keeping the game free-to-air, as many people watching it as possible, supporting the grass roots, through that visibility, at the same time, enable you to grow the commercial opportunities in different ways?' Because visibility can be across different platforms, different kinds of narratives and storytelling to different generations of people—that, for me, is a win-win. But at the minute, I don't think that's the way in which the current Westminster Government is viewing this at all.

Diolch. Seimon, oeddech chi eisiau dod i mewn cyn inni symud ymlaen?

Plis. Diolch. Jest yn gyflym iawn, dwi jest eisiau mynd nôl at gwestiwn gan Hefin, dwi'n meddwl—sut y byddai rhywun yn gallu perswadio Undeb Rygbi Cymru i newid eu safbwynt nhw, a dwi'n meddwl bod yna ddau beth y byddai'r Senedd a Llywodraeth Cymru, efallai, yn gallu gwneud. Un ohonyn nhw yw i wneud i fyny unrhyw wahaniaeth rhwng y cytundeb fyddai'n cael ei sicrhau trwy fynd i gategori A ac aros ar gategori B—mae'n debygol o ddod â llai o incwm i'r gêm yng Nghymru, ac felly byddai'n opsiwn i wneud hynny i fyny, efallai drwy roi grantiau i glybiau cymunedol ar lawr gwlad, y math yna o beth. A'r ail beth, wedyn, wrth gwrs, rhywbeth sydd wedi bod yn y newyddion dros yr wythnosau diwethaf, yw'r benthyciad mae Llywodraeth Cymru wedi'i roi i'r undeb, sydd yn cefnogi'r clybiau proffesiynol, y pedwar rhanbarth. A dŷn ni wedi bod yn clywed bod eu dyledion nhw ar hyn o bryd, y pedwar clwb, yn golygu bod yna tua £2 filiwn y clwb, sef £8 miliwn, yn diflannu o'r gêm yng Nghymru i ad-dalu benthyciadau—ddim i gyd o'r benthyciad gan y Llywodraeth, ond mae yna lot o arian yn diflannu o'r gêm, ac efallai byddai yna lai o bwysau, efallai, ar yr undeb i gynyddu'r incwm maen nhw'n ei gael, petasai yna ryw ailnegydu o'r benthyciad yna.

Mae gan Alun gwestiwn atodol—gwnawn ni fynd at Alun. Llyr, oeddech chi eisiau inni ddod nôl atoch chi ar ôl—? Ocê, iawn. So, gwnaf fi fynd at Alun ac wedyn nôl at Llyr. Alun.

Thank you. I think we're all asking more questions than we're actually answering this morning. The heart of the case that Abi Tierney's outlined against restricting the rights of the six nations is that, and I'll quote from her letter to the committee:

'Our position'—

the WRU position—

'is not that Six Nations Championship rugby should be moved away from free-to-air television channels. It is that to place this restriction on rugby would artificially

restrict the market for our media rights and significantly diminish our earning potential to devastating effect on our game.'

And I think Nigel Walker continued the argument this morning that we need to retain the option to broadcast on subscription services, in order to keep the existing tension in the market. Now, the question to yourselves—and I accept that you've all got different experiences, so will answer from different perspectives, and perhaps not wish to answer these questions at all, and that's all fine—is to what extent do you agree with the analysis of the WRU? To what extent do you believe that such a restriction on rugby would have the, inverted commas, 'devastating effect on our game'? And to what extent do you believe the WRU analysis is correct and, therefore, the six nations—despite what we might wish for—should remain on the open market?

Who would like to go first on that? Okay, I'll go to Seimon first now, as a change. Seimon.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Ie, jest i ateb cwestiwn Alun fanna: dwi'n cydymdeimlo, dwi'n meddwl, gyda dadl yr undeb bore yma, ac yn y llythyr a gafodd ei gyflwyno o flaen llaw. Felly, fel dwi'n deall eu safbwynt nhw—dŷn nhw ddim yn dadlau eu bod nhw jest eisiau gwerthu'r hawliau am y swm uchaf posib. Beth maen nhw'n treial ei wneud yw cynyddu’r tensiwn yn y farchnad, fel bod—. Petasai gemau'r chwe gwlad yn symud i gategori A, fyddai yna ddim tensiwn yna, achos byddai'r pay-per-view ddim yn gallu cystadlu, ac felly mae yna risg byddai'r cynnig fyddai'n dod o BBC, ITV a phwy bynnag arall yn isel iawn ac wedyn yn effeithio ar y gêm.

Felly, dwi yn cytuno, dwi'n meddwl, yn y bôn, â safbwynt yr undeb, a dwi yn poeni y gallai symud y gêm o gategori B i gategori A gael effaith andwyol a difrifol iawn ar y gêm. Ond fel rŷn ni wedi bod yn ei drafod trwy'r bore, mae'r tensiwn yna, onid yw e? Rŷn ni eisiau cadw llygad ar y gêm, rŷn ni eisiau cymaint o bobl â phosib i wylio'r gêm, a chael eu hysbrydoli trwy weld y cewri yma'n chwarae. Ond rŷn ni hefyd angen cael yr arian wrth gefn i wneud yr holl waith y mae'r undeb angen ei wneud i gynnal y gêm ar lawr gwlad ac ar lefel broffesiynol.

Richard, I think you wanted to come in on this.

I think we can certainly see the point of view commercially. If an event like the six nations became a listed event, then, clearly, the market for who the broadcaster would be would be shrunk quite dramatically, potentially. And therefore, as has been said, the value of the rights would be diminished too. I suppose part of the answer might be about finding ways in which it could be free-to-air, on an open commercial basis, or that the six nations could be persuaded to view it as advantageous, so that—. It's a tricky one. I think part of what you have to listen to is what's coming from the broadcasters like BBC and ITV, because they're working from a shrinking pot as well. So, if it was on the open market, I would say the likelihood of BBC, ITV retaining rights to the six nations is also a bit of a dodgy proposition. I don't think they're increasingly going to be able to afford a competitive price, going forward, and that's been signalled by the outgoing head of sport, Barbara Slater, at the BBC, I think.

So, I come back to the idea that, by being listed and restricted in that form of commercial income opens up other potential opportunities around sponsorship and other forms of commercial income, by having more people watch it. And there are marketing opportunities there that need to be explored, I think. But part of the argument also is about, well, this isn't about finance, this is about the cultural resonance of rugby in Wales, and is that more important? Does that trump all? But the rugby union, obviously, argues that that's not how they see it at present.

[Inaudible.] We already have a listings process in place for some events. So, we do have experience, therefore, of a restricted marketplace. We've got a restricted marketplace in the group A events at present. Is there any evidence that that restricted marketplace has led to a significant diminution in the value of those rights, and in the income to the governing bodies?

Richard.

I suppose one case study there is if you look at Wimbledon. Wimbledon is a very thriving commercial enterprise. We might question whether they've capitalised on, let's call it the Murray factor, of the visibility of a British champion in tennis to then spread the game—probably there are a few people playing tennis. There's also a question about the elitism around tennis, to a certain extent. But that's, again, all about sports development and where priorities lie around that. But I think, commercially, Wimbledon is incredibly successful. They're looking to grow the tournament, globally—it's a huge brand, which has been very successful. Arguably, the six nations is a huge brand. There are international opportunities to sell the six nations games globally. That's potentially a very big income earner—in Australia or New Zealand, or wherever. As the game grows globally, more and more people want to watch it. So, I think there are opportunities, even if it is a listed event, to grow commercial income in other areas.

I fully accept all of that, but my question was slightly different, I'm sorry. My question was about the value of the rights. Now, intuitively, I would agree with the analysis of the WRU—if you're selling in a restricted market, clearly you don't have the same, I would have anticipated, value as you might be able to accrue in an open market, for clear reasons. And the argument I felt that Nigel and Abi were putting forward this morning was a very credible one for that reason. My question was: is there ever any evidence that that argument and that intuitive assumption is actually borne out by evidence in the existing marketplace?

My answer is I don't fully know, but I think the answer around, I would say—the Wimbledon championships; I don't think they're struggling commercially. If Wimbledon were to go behind a paywall I think that would change the dynamic of tennis in the UK, at least, quite radically. A lot of tennis, though, is already behind a paywall, of course. But the Wimbledon championships definitely still have very strong resonance across the country, I think, when they're on. Things like the world FIFA World Cup—the finals tournament is a massive fillip for football, the game of football internationally. I think the rights to world cup finals, again, are pretty valuable, and keep going up every four years. So, the evidence for that is that, in some cases, or maybe in most cases, those listed events still maintain their commercial value, or have done. And part of that is also a question about whether Sky or any other niche sports provider would necessarily want to carry some of these events, because they don't fit into their model, either. Wimbledon would be a tricky one in the sense, if it went to Sky—that's not really in the nature of what they're about. They want things that will keep people coming back to watch and subscribe month after month. Wimbledon lasts for two weeks. So, commercially it's very complicated, but I think that would be my answer to your question.

Thank you so much. I know that Huw wanted to answer Alun's original question and then we're going to go to Llyr, I think, probably for the final question, because we're almost out of time.

So, Huw, ydych chi eisiau—?

Rydych chi wedi bod yn darlledu yng Nghymru ers degawdau, os caf i ddweud hynny, ac felly ydych chi'n gweld yr un ddadl o safbwynt rygbi ar lawr gwlad, a'r impact mae'r WRU yn awgrymu y buasai hynny'n ei gael?

Yn fy nghalon, dwi'n teimlo'n gryf iawn y dylai'r gêm fod ar gael i bawb oherwydd ein traddodiad cymunedol ni o'r gêm. Ond ar y llaw arall, yn y byd sydd ohoni, yn ariannol, yn economaidd, dwi'n gallu gweld dadl Abi a Nigel yn glir iawn. Yn y diwedd, buaswn i'n meddwl ein bod ni'n sôn am yr effaith andwyol, efallai, y byddai mynd ar sianel i dalu yn cael ar y gêm—llai o bobl—ond yn y pen draw, dwi'n credu y byddai cael mwy o arian i mewn, mwy o gyllid i mewn i'r gêm, yn cael mwy o effaith na hynny. Oherwydd, yn ôl y deallaf i, mae'r ddau dîm yn yr Alban, er enghraifft, yn cael tair gwaith gymaint o arian â'r timau rhanbarthol yng Nghymru. Maen nhw'n ffynnu. Mae sefyllfa ein rhanbarthau ni, a'n tîm cenedlaethol ni, i raddau, yn drist iawn, iawn ar hyn o bryd. Yr hyn sydd i'w weld yn hynny yw bod chwaraewyr ddim yn fodlon â'r telerau maen nhw'n cael eu cynnig, maen nhw'n diflannu i wledydd eraill—mae hynny yn gwanhau ein gêm ni ar lefel gymunedol, ac ar lefel ryngwladol, ac yn y pen draw, os ydy ein rhanbarthau ni a'n tîm cenedlaethol ni yn cael amser caled iawn ar y cae, bydd llai o ddiddordeb ymhlith y bobl ifanc. Maen nhw'n hoffi gweld llwyddiant, ac os taw trwy gael mwy o arian i'r rhanbarthau ac i'r clybiau ar lawr gwlad—os taw dyna'r ffordd o gael llwyddiant ar y lefel uwch, yna dwi'n gweld bod y ddadl honno yn un gref iawn ar ran yr undeb.

Ocê, diolch am hynna. Bydd yn rhaid i ni fynd at y cwestiwn olaf nawr, mae arnaf i ofn.

We have 15 seconds left of time, so we might go a few minutes over. Llyr, for the last question.

Ocê, diolch, Gadeirydd. Roedd Seimon yn cyfeirio yn gynharach ynglŷn â'r gymhariaeth gyda chriced, ac efallai nad yw hi y gymhariaeth decaf, ond mi wnaeth e ddweud, wrth gwrs, fod nifer y dynion oedd yn cyfranogi i'r gamp wedi disgyn, gyda merched a phobl ifanc yn cynyddu. Wel, mae yna ffenomena ehangach, dwi'n meddwl, o safbwynt campau'r merched—rŷn ni wedi gweld rhywbeth tebyg yn digwydd mewn pêl-droed a rygbi. O bosibl, o safbwynt y bobl ifanc, mae'r buddsoddiad a'r arian yn cyrraedd y llawr gwlad wedi cael impact. Ond rŷn ni i gyd yn gweld, adeg pythefnos Wimbledon, pawb yn chwarae tenis—hynny yw, cyrtiau tenis sydd fel arfer yn wag yn ein trefi a'n pentrefi ni yn orlawn o bobl; rŷn ni'n gweld yr un peth gyda phêl-droed a chwpan y byd. Ac mae'r chwe gwlad yr un peth: mae diddordeb yn brigo, onid yw e, ar yr adegau yna? Ond heb fod pobl yn cael mynediad i hwnna'n hawdd, dyw'r lefel yna o ymddiddori ddim yn mynd i fod yna.

Ac felly y pwynt dwi eisiau trio ei wneud yw, mae hynny wedyn, wrth gwrs—ac mi wnaeth Richard gyffwrdd ar hyn gynnau—yn dod â goblygiadau refeniw hefyd, onid yw e, oherwydd mae yna lai o ymddiddori, felly mae yna lai o fynd i gemau, llai o werthiant tocynnau i'r rhanbarthau, ac efallai llai o werthu nwyddau a merchandise, ac yn y blaen? Felly, mae hwnnw'n ffactor sy'n rhaid cael ei ystyried hefyd. Dwi ddim yn gwybod a yw hwnnw'n gwestiwn neu'n ddatganiad.

Wel, rhywbeth rhwng y ddau, efallai. Ydy unrhyw un eisiau ymateb i hwnna, neu gynnig final thoughts? Huw, oeddech chi eisiau ymateb?

Jest taw efallai dyna beth dwi wedi'i ddweud trwy gydol yr awr hon—ddim yn dod mas yn bendant ar y naill ochr neu'r llall, oherwydd mae yna ddwy ddadl yma. Y broblem yw, i chi, yw penderfynu pa un o'r ddwy ochr yna sydd bwysicaf, er ffyniant y gêm yng Nghymru: ai'r arian, neu'r ffaith bod y to ifanc a'r to hŷn yn gallu gweld y gemau yma yn gyson heb dalu amdanyn nhw?

Diolch, Huw. Did anyone else want to come back in with any final reflections, or are you all content? I don't see anyone indicating—oh, yes, Richard.

[Inaudible.] One of the things, I suppose, for us to look at is the finances of the sport and where the money is spent. From what I know—and this applies in Scotland as well as Wales— is, although the turnover has increased through the commercial revenue, the costs have also increased, and it comes back to this idea of the retention of players within the game. Obviously, the athletes want to earn the highest living they can playing their sport, but it costs increasingly. We've seen this in the world of football with the amazing figures that people earn and, obviously, rugby has tried to manage and control that. But recently we have seen people drifting even out of the sport, never mind going elsewhere to play the game. There are so many different competing challenges that the rugby union faces in this, but, fundamentally, I think, if—. The women's sport, more broadly—team sport, in particular: football, rugby, cricket—that's an interesting phenomena, because most of that is free-to-air, is available for people to view, either on the main channels or, as in Scotland, BBC Alba do a lot of coverage of women's football, and it's been very successful in promoting the game. So, I think, again, if you can see it, then you maybe want to be it, and I think that edict still stands for rugby in Wales as well.

Thank you, Richard. Dave, you wanted to—

Very briefly, the associated point in that is to commend the events strategy for Welsh Government. I think it's vital that—. If we look at these matches, the three matches this year, the effect it has on city centre hotels and the city centre communities is really important, and we'd like to see as much support as Welsh Government could give to that events strategy to not only bring economic advantage to the locality, but also to project Wales as the wonderful place that is. I think the Champions League, for instance, was a great example to show that we're able to not only host but to lead in areas of that type.

Thank you, Dave. And then the final, final word to Seimon.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Byddaf i'n fyr iawn. Jest ple: os oes yna fwriad ar y pwyllgor yma, ar ein Senedd ac o ran Llywodraeth Cymru, i gyfyngu ar allu'r undeb i gynhyrchu incwm, byddwn i'n ymbil ar y Senedd a'r Llywodraeth i osod ffyrdd eraill o gefnogi'r gêm yng Nghymru yn eu lle, i wneud i fyny am y diffyg incwm—y gwahaniaeth rhwng y ddwy ffrwd incwm. Felly, jest gofyn am help, plis.

Diolch am hwnna. Diolch. Wel, diolch i chi gyd.

Thank you, all, very much indeed for your evidence this morning, your expertise and your different perspectives—they've really been incredibly valuable to us. So, thank you, all.

Diolch yn fawr iawn am eich amser.

A transcript of what's been said will be sent to you to check that it's a fair reflection of what's been said this morning.

Diolch yn fawr iawn i chi gyd am fod gyda ni—rŷn ni'n ddiolchgar iawn. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr. Pob dymuniad da i chi.

Diolch. Aelodau, dŷn ni'n symud yn syth at bapurau i'w nodi—felly, mae croeso i chi ein gadael ni. Dŷn ni rili yn ddiolchgar am eich amser y bore yma—jest dal yn fore. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you very much.

Aelodau, fe wnawn ni symud yn syth at bapurau i'w nodi. Eitemau 4.1 a 4.2—ydy'r Aelodau'n fodlon inni nodi'r rheini?

Felly, rwy'n cynnig, o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42, i wahardd y cyhoedd o weddill y cyfarfod hwn. Ydy'ch chi'n fodlon inni wneud hynny? Ocê. Fe wnawn ni aros i glywed ein bod ni'n breifat.