The story which has raised eyebrows in the past week is the decision by the Nine Network to pull the plug on its almost 40 year coverage of Wimbledon, which for the great majority of those years has been first-class television and a major contributor to satisfying the appetite of the Australian public.

Nine cited the "fall in ratings" as a contributory factor, and no doubt it was. After all, the business of television has ratings as its core benchmark.

But it is not the only measure. Status counts for something too, so losing arguably the world's most prestigious sporting event in Wimbledon from Nine's stable of premium products would not have been a decision lightly taken.

My view is that defensive scheduling is at the root of the problem. If you've secured the rights, then at least give the product every chance to succeed.

In Wimbledon's case, the outside courts begin at noon, a time-friendly 9pm in eastern Australia, and the show courts at 1pm. It's true we haven't produced a winner since Lleyton Hewitt in 2002, but there are many Aussies who can and do take the court at noon or 1pm in the first week, especially if the domestic rights holder makes a request. But Nine prefers a later night timeslot to air matches, when there's no disruption to other programming.

One could argue the tennis lovers can watch from 9pm on Fox Sports (which shares the rights), but Nine as the primary and higher-paying licence-holder embargoes all of the marquee matches and prevents from FOX showing them. So the end result is a rights split which leaves the Australian viewers disappointed.

There's no doubt the trend over a number of years by the Nine Network to push Wimbledon later into the night, whilst retaining first rights on the marquee matches, has been a factor in the ratings falls.

The issues addressing rights bidding (anti-siphoning legislation) have been a hot topic recently between all networks and the Federal Government. The free-to-air networks wish to retain priority over subscription TV for "listed" (premium) product, but are often not prepared to showcase them due to other programming commitments, as can be argued in the case of Wimbledon. In some cases, events are actually not put to air at all (called "hoarding" which also has legislation attached to it). On the other hand, subscription TV is demanding unfettered access to bid for rights, and the matter is further complicated by the ability of the free-to-airs to multi-channel.

It was thought a government decision was imminent, but the desire by both of the major political parties not to offend the media barons by taking sides in the debate in the lead up to the upcoming federal election has seen any announcement postponed.

My feeling is that networks should never hoard product (sometimes referred to as "use it or lose it"), and common sense ought prevail when rights are split. So let's give due recognition to Nine's long-standing contribution, whilst harbouring hope that the new Wimbledon rights holder(s) is able to show our Aussies in prime time. I think they'll find the figures may be a pleasant surprise. But for now, let's not jump to conclusions and too quickly blame the tennis public for switching off ... they didn't spill the strawberries and cream!