I’ve discussed my views here in the past about the importance of the sports ‘Crown Jewels’ and the list announced on Friday makes interesting reading.

The advisory Review Panel, led by former BBC journalist and Football Association chief David Davies, was always going to be contentious and it was impossible to please all of the people all of the time.

Even though I don’t tend to watch them myself, the omission of the Winter Olympic Games, the Epsom Derby and Rugby League Challenge Cup Final has caused more than a little surprise.

The fact that England's home cricket Test matches, the Six Nations, Commonwealth Games, World Athletics Championships, Cricket World Cup - final, semi-finals and matches involving home nations and Ryder Cup are now all to be up for grabs raises a number of questions.

It suggests that any cricket other than the Ashes is not important enough to be available to the masses – and the same goes for athletics given that the two biggest events for British audiences after the Olympic Games are the World Athletics Championships and Commonwealth Games.

It’s also interesting to note that the UEFA Champions League, which needs commercial funding to sustain its lucrative benefits, has no requirement even for terrestrial highlights under the current recommendations.

The fact is that sport is incredibly important – it provides entertainment, promotes patriotic and community fervour.

But is at grassroots level where sport provides the most positive impact.

When spectators, young people in particular, watch sports events, it captures their imagination and encourages them to get involved themselves.

That, in turn, promotes healthy living, a sense of respect for opponents and collaboration with team-mates, dedication and determination, focus and discipline.

In those respects, the transferrable benefits of sport have such a huge potential influence on society.

Participating in sport can cut the strain on the health service, reduce crime levels in young people, and provide experiences which benefit people in the workplace. It’s a no-brainer.

Yet it is getting more and more expensive to watch sport live, putting added pressure on television to provide viewing opportunities for those who cannot watch events in person.

Paying for sports facilities, coaches and equipment requires massive funding – and as many of the sports federations have said today in reaction to the proposed revised list, preventing certain events from signing lucrative subscription or pay-TV deals could prove disastrous for grassroots sport.

But it’s interesting to note that despite the benefits of Sky’s investment in sport through its coverage deals, only around six million homes currently subscribe and so can watch the events, which is less than a quarter of the total audience.

And how much of the Sky money actually goes all the way to the grassroots?

If you take the Premier League, for instance, since its inception, clubs have invested heavily in foreign players and big wages, rather than developing and nurturing lower league players whose transfer fees provided a knock-on all the way down the football tiers.

Watching sport is inspiring.

If federations have to work harder to secure additional sponsorship, the fact that the potential audiences will be so much larger than on subscription channels should be compelling enough an argument to make up the shortfall.
 
 
I’ve been in two minds about the recent experiment of online broadcasting that limited the live audience for England’s World Cup qualifier in Ukraine last weekend.

There was outrage at the confirmation that the qualifier was only going to be available online, even though it’s probably the shape of things to come.

In this age of the internet and iPhones, it’s only a matter of time before all televisions are web-connected and mobiles are linked in at the same standard and resolution quality.

With Sky Sports fans paying upwards of £40 a month to watch football and other sports events, is it any wonder that we finally had a game available solely online?

Is it really that much different to pay-per-view sports events on Sky such as boxing fights that happen in the small hours?

It’s all very well football fans being outraged at the online-only option, and the limit on the number of viewers to just 1m to prevent the service from crashing is less than ideal, but that will no doubt change.

But it provokes the wider question of why certain ‘crown jewel’ sports events are not available on terrestrial television.

The online or iPhone option is great for the traveller or the fan who wants to watch events in the park or somewhere else where television is not an option.

But I’m delighted to see that the next Ashes cricket series in the UK is now likely to be on free-to-air television.

Even those of us who are not cricket addicts can remember the 2005 Ashes series with nostalgia and recall just where we were when England won the final Test to win the little urn back again.

The same cannot be said of this year’s Ashes, which failed to capture the imagination in quite the same way because it was only available on subscription-based Sky.

There is no doubt that Sky has played a massive role in updating and inspiring sports coverage, not to mention the investment in sports at all levels due to their generous coverage fees.

But if events such as the FA Cup, England football qualifiers and tournaments, Wimbledon, the Olympics and the Six Nations, for instance, remain on terrestrial television, it will have so many positive effects.

More people will be inspired by sport, participating and watching local teams and providing a boost to economies as well as potential reduction to their wastelines and the community benefits sport is known to provide.

And why not follow the FA Cup model, where the final is screened both on terrestrial TV AND Sky, with fans given the choice of who to watch.

Would everyone switch off Sky because there is a free option? I don’t think so. And if it makes them raise their game by improving their own coverage even more, it can only be of benefit both for viewers and the sports who are seeking new followers.

The High Definition element, analysis with a wide array of top experts and all-round presentation that Sky offers is not often equalled by terrestrial TV.

But the option of choosing between Sky or terrestrial TV would benefit everyone and ensure sport does not fall further down the list of priorities where funding is concerned.