It started with a “fracas” over a lack of on-set catering, and has resulted in headlines that have dominated the domestic news agenda for the past 48 hours and made headlines around the world.
This is of course the alleged punch-up led by the indomitable Jeremy Clarkson, a broadcasting veteran who clearly should know better and who divides opinion in unparalleled fashion. He is considered a bigoted petrol head and xenophobe by some, and a much-loved presenter on one of the world’s most successful TV shows by others.
There’s no denying that Top Gear is successful. According to BBC Worldwide Top Gear has an estimated worldwide audience of 350m in 214 countries, 4.3m YouTube subscribers, 15.3m Facebook likes, and a global print run of 1.7m for the Top Gear magazine.
Clarkson has of course made millions from his involvement with Top Gear (and not just from his sizeable presenting salary). He made tens of millions from Bedder 6, the company he set up as a joint venture with the BBC’s commercial arm to exploit Top Gear’s global commercial potential. And more latterly his pockets were lined still further from the sale of his stake in the firm when it was bought in whole by the BBC, who assumed full control of the Top Gear brand in 2012.
So while Clarkson no longer retains any rights or control over Top Gear, for many Jeremy Clarkson is Top Gear, and therefore not easily disposable. And therein lies the problem for the BBC.
To employ a particularly apt boxing analogy here; in the red corner we have the BBC Trust, the governing body of the BBC that exists to serve the public, and whose mission is to inform, educate and entertain and of course uphold the moral standard – and who cannot be seen to endorse violence. In the blue corner, we have 740,000+ Clarkson supporters who have signed an online petition demanding his immediate reinstatement, many of whom will be BBC licence fee payers. Throw in the tens of millions of pounds the Top Gear brand is worth to the Beeb (a brand intrinsically linked to Clarkson) and it’s clear to see that the BBC is in something of a bind when it comes to deciding what to do with their punchy presenter.
When Luis Suarez sank his teeth into opposition defenders his employers did not dream of sacking him – he would be an asset to any club, he delivers success, and football audiences love him. BBC director general Tony Hall will have to play football manager over the coming days and decide on an appropriate sanction for Clarkson without disaffecting his audience.
To put it bluntly sacking Clarkson would be a commercial calamity for the BBC. Global distribution deals and the licensing of the Top Gear format reap colossal sums for the BBC – reportedly an annual £50m equating to the entire cost of running Radio 1, according to stats quoted on Wednesday’s Newsnight.
Furthermore, the BBC is set to face a multimillion-pound bill from foreign broadcasters eligible for compensation if it fails to deliver the final episodes of the series on schedule, as well as the possibility of renegotiating the original deal price for a full series. It’s a financial nightmare of epic proportions, especially for an organisation funded by the public.
The dispute also comes at an interesting juncture in the life of the BBC given that its royal charter renewal is on the horizon. Speaking to BBC employees earlier this year, Tony Hall said the corporation was currently at a moment of ‘high risk’, and so when it comes to Clarkson’s potential termination, they’re damned if they do, and they’re damned if they don’t.
It’s also worth bearing in mind that if Clarkson was to leave the BBC then inevitably he would be snapped up by a rival broadcaster, as Jonathan Ross was when he left the BBC in 2010. Both ITV and Channel 4 have previously tried to poach Clarkson and his departure would undoubtedly spark a bidding war among commercial rivals. A situation the BBC would be wise to avoid.
However, unlike many of Clarkson’s previous faux pas (and there have of course been many), this one is not a broadcasting violation. To be fair to Clarkson, some of his previous gaffes (commenting that lorry drivers murder prostitutes and that everyone who visits India suffers constipation, among others) were aired at the discretion of the BBC. So while Clarkson may often appear to be boorish in nature, ultimately it is not his decision what gets aired. Similarly there is no evidence Clarkson was responsible for the Falklands number plate idea. However, punching a production team member, which is what Clarkson is alleged to have done, would be a common assault for which he would be solely responsible.
Lawyers and advisers will be busy guiding BBC senior executives to dig the corporation out of this rather unfortunate hole – will commercial considerations and social media mob voices outweigh the BBC’s moral obligations? The answer to that question is, quite simply, yes they will. The BBC will batten down the hatches, ride the media storm, protect their cash cow at all costs, and bring Clarkson back into the fold.
Undoubtedly they will be lauded and lampooned for this in equal measure but no one ever said that morals and media made for easy bedfellows. And at the end of the day cash is king.
Sion Clwyd Roberts is head of media at Capital Law
To get weekly news analysis, job alerts and event notifications direct to your inbox, sign up free for Media Network membership.
All Guardian Media Network content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled “Brought to you by” – find out more here.
