The continuing row over television rights for Cup Match raises a number of important issues both for the media and for the general public that need to be resolved.

The first issue concerns whether television and broadcasting rights should be granted for Cup Match at all.

The answer to that question has to be yes. Cup Match, regardless of its historical importance and legacy, belongs to St. George's and Somerset Cricket Clubs and they have the right to offer broadcasting rights to the best bidder, just as they have the right to charge for tickets at the gate and to lease parts of the ground to independent contractors, whether they are for food stalls, Crown and Anchor or seating areas.

Whether the clubs should have put Cup Match on pay per view as opposed to allowing it to be freely broadcast on television is another matter, but in the end, it was a business decision for the clubs. No one has said just how many people actually signed up for the service, but on the face of it, charging $100 for the two days seemed to be a bit steep.

The fact that it seems that Somerset CC never saw the contract that was signed for the pay per view deal is a matter for the clubs, and it will, presumably, be dealt with in the courts or be settled before it gets there.

What is of greater concern is that MP Glenn Blakeney, whose company won the deal, wanted to prevent other broadcasting organisations from covering the game at all and tried to prevent ZBM News Director Gary Moreno from conducting interviews within the club's grounds .

That he then allegedly tried to make this a Bermudian versus Trinidadian (Mr. Moreno's nationality) issue only compounded the issue.

The bottom line is that ZBM is a legitimate newsgathering organisation which must surely have the right to cover Cup Match as a news event, in the same way that this newspaper would and did.

To prevent ZBM, or anyone else, from carrying out their legitimate function would appear to be an infringement on the organisation's freedom of speech. After all, there was nothing to stop spectators from bringing regular or video cameras to the game. Why should a news organisation be prevented from doing so?

It may be that news organisations wishing to cover the event should be accredited just as they would to cover the Super Bowl, the World Cup or the Olympics. That might be necessary if only to enable the organisations to get the kind of access they need, for example at the cup presentation where this newspaper and others were refused close access, allegedly for security reasons.

But that should be a decision for the clubs to make, not for the holder of the broadcasting rights, as happened in this case.

This whole episode, along with the poor sportsmanship on the field by players, has left a bitter taste in the mouths of the thousands of people who love and support Cup Match, and has taken away from what was one of the most dramatic finishes to "The Game" in many years.

Cup Match, which marks the anniversary of the Emancipation from Slavery and the settlement of Bermuda, should be a time for celebration, not recrimination. This year, sadly and unnecessarily, it was the latter.