A few months ago, I would have answered this question with a resounding, though slightly resigned, 'yes'. But a couple of articles I've read in recent days have made me think again. First, I found the latest update in the case of Karen Murphy, the Southsea publican who recently lost her appeal to the High Court to show live Premiership football in her pub, which she had accessed via (much cheaper) Greek satellite feeds. The court found this had breached UK broadcast rights, owned exclusively by Sky. But the High Court has not yet considered whether Ms Murphy - and others like her - are supported by European law. EU laws promote competition and free movement of goods, services and people across the EU, and Ms Murphy's lawyers will argue that they apply to broadcast services just as they apply to many other goods that UK nationals purchase from their European neighbours (such as cars, food, DVDs, books, etc). The court's decision on this point could have widespread implications for sports broadcasting in the UK. Definitely one to watch. (BBC article here)
The second article that made me question the sustainability of the 'pay to view' model was about China (linked via the title of this post). Apparently, Chinese football fans have deserted televised Premiership matches in their droves - as soon as they had to pay, in fact! From a potential audience of some 30 million Chinese football fans, WinTV has managed to secure just 20,000 subscribers to Premiership games. Where have the rest of the fans gone? Well, since Chinese fans just want to watch good football, often without a strong club or league preference, most have switched to the Italian, French or German leagues - all of which are still free to view. Sounds like an own goal for the FA, doesn't it?
Sucking the passion out of sport
I read an article in Newsweek today (click on the title above to link to it) that seemed to me to sum up much of what has gone wrong with sport in Europe and North America - and perhaps elsewhere too. The article documented the careers of twin brothers Brett and Michael Yormark, presidents of the Florida panthers and New Jersey Mets respectively. They have made their money by selling every possible marketing space available to them through the sports franchises they have been involved in.
As the Newsweek journalist put it:
" To them, teams are merely the magnetic "show" for drawing an audience of consumers... Where fans see a stadium, Brett and Michael see acres of monetizable space—or, as they say on Madison Avenue, "inventory." Victory for them isn't necessarily the final score. The Yormarks' game is to help their "marketing partners," as the sponsors are known, win over new and repeat customers—the fans who are watching live (and on TV), engulfed in a blaze of logos, brand names and ads displayed on monitors, scoreboards and announcer tables. "
The Newsweek piece seems to confirm that sports fans have become pawns in other's get-rich-quick schemes. The sport itself seems secondary - indeed, the article suggests that the people running many of today's sports clubs don't actually care whether the club wins or loses, as long as advertising and related revenues are generated. How can this be squared with the needs and interests of fans? Do they welcome being 'engulfed' in advertisements? What happens to the club/franchise if they don't buy the goods that are on offer? On the other hand, if they do, then the money keeps flowing in - and managers and players get paid handsomely even if they perform badly...
I don't suppose that anyone is suggesting that all this money be taken out of sport (well, some are, but not many). But asking questions about how it is generated and, more importantly, how it is used would seem legitimate. It would be great if clubs and franchises were to give some simple explanations in return.
As the Newsweek journalist put it:
" To them, teams are merely the magnetic "show" for drawing an audience of consumers... Where fans see a stadium, Brett and Michael see acres of monetizable space—or, as they say on Madison Avenue, "inventory." Victory for them isn't necessarily the final score. The Yormarks' game is to help their "marketing partners," as the sponsors are known, win over new and repeat customers—the fans who are watching live (and on TV), engulfed in a blaze of logos, brand names and ads displayed on monitors, scoreboards and announcer tables. "
The Newsweek piece seems to confirm that sports fans have become pawns in other's get-rich-quick schemes. The sport itself seems secondary - indeed, the article suggests that the people running many of today's sports clubs don't actually care whether the club wins or loses, as long as advertising and related revenues are generated. How can this be squared with the needs and interests of fans? Do they welcome being 'engulfed' in advertisements? What happens to the club/franchise if they don't buy the goods that are on offer? On the other hand, if they do, then the money keeps flowing in - and managers and players get paid handsomely even if they perform badly...
I don't suppose that anyone is suggesting that all this money be taken out of sport (well, some are, but not many). But asking questions about how it is generated and, more importantly, how it is used would seem legitimate. It would be great if clubs and franchises were to give some simple explanations in return.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
