When 'live' doesn't really mean live...

By any standards, yesterday's Olympic opening ceremony in Beijing was spectacular. An awesome display of imagination, excellent choreography and attention to detail. My son and I were up early to watch it live from Beijing... only to find it wasn't to be broadcast on NBC (the only network available to us it seems) until 7.30 in the evening! Even weirder, this was listed as a 'live' broadcast. Huh? Disgusted, I tried to find other viewing options on the web, but those we tried were blocked. Other fans apparently faired slightly better, due to their greater tenacity and ingenuity (see the New York Times article linked from the post title above). But for most US viewers, a wait for the 'live' ceremony was required.

When it came, it certainly had some trappings of a live broadcast. An attempt at a suspenseful build-up... and much more annoyingly the constant peppering of advertisements causing viewers to miss bits of the ceremony! Each time the commentators brought us back with 'while you were away...'. Was this really necessary? Since they'd dedicated such effort to ensuring we waited to see what most other viewers across the world saw 14 hours or so earlier, could we not have had some benefit from it being pre-recorded?

Even with these annoyances, it was an attention grabbing opener to these games. London 2012 sure has an act to follow! (Yikes!) My favourite bit of the evening? Had to be when the camera trained on President Bush, who was looking bored and then checking his watch - when Laura Bush also checked hers, the camera gave up. It seems even truly live action can't please everyone.

NFL clubs fleece captive audience

It takes a lot to shock me these days in the world of sport. But shocked I was when I read this article on Fox Sports today (click on the post title above to go to it). Apparently, certain NFL clubs have over-extended themselves financially to such an extent - through the construction of new stadia, for example - that they are now explicitly asking fans to foot the bills. Specifically, this entails selling fans a 'personal seat license' (PSL) for said stadia, the cost of which sometimes runs into six figures. And what does this get you? Well, the chance to hand yet more money over for tickets to each game. Yup. No kidding. According to the Fox article - and the many comments from readers following it - you can pay $150,000 for a PSL for the Dallas Cowboys, then still have to pay $800 per ticket per game to actually sit there and watch them live! This is, of course, absurd. But some very wealthy fans will pay up, probably through corporate accounts, and the rest of us will be consigned to the pay-to-view drinking establishment...

Or, as one respondent pointed out, you could go and watch live USA Rugby for free. Not too fast though, or a new stadium will be needed to seat everyone, and you know what'll happen next...

How much do ISPs restrict access?

I don't know the answer to this question, but I'd like to. What I do know is that there have been occasions when we couldn't access the ESPN footage online through Time Warner Cable. People I spoke to about this thought it was because the rights deal between Time Warner - which, of course, also does subscription only TV - and ESPN didn't allow it. I wonder...

UK minister says fans should join, even control club boards

In an interview with The Observer newspaper yesterday, the UK Culture Secretary, Andy Burnham, argued for sports fans to be represented on club boards. (You can read the article by clicking the post title above.) Well, in fact, Burnham mentioned football specifically - but it's hard to see how 'punter power' would stop there. According to The Observer, "Burnham said the moves, which he has already made one of his top priorities at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, would usher in an overdue 'democratisation' of powerful bodies that play a key role in the life of the nation." Talk about music to our ears! It's clear that Burnham has been influenced by events at Everton FC, his chosen club, which recently established a 'Fans Council' to represent the views of Everton fans to its board. But Burnham wants to go further than that - he is interested in the concept of collective ownership of football clubs by their fans. He cited Spanish club, Barcelona, as a good example: "They are one of the most pre-eminent names in world football, yet the club is owned by its supporters on a one-member, one-vote basis and they control it. That strengthens it because it's never subject to the whim of one person; it's a collective endeavour. English football should see that as a big strength. I'd love to see if we could grow the Barcelona model here." Very interesting ... Perhaps I should ask Burnham to sign up to Sport for the People...?!!

African Cup of Nations - but not of their citizens

The African Cup of Nations got underway yesterday, as hosts Ghana defeated Guinea with a last-minute goal. Today, one of the hot favorites, Cote d'Ivoire, triumphed over another strong side, Nigeria, in what was billed the 'final before the final'. Unfortunately, of course, many Africans won't have been able to see these games. Not only are rates of television ownership still fairly low across the continent, several public broadcasters have not been able to afford the royalties that must be paid to the rights owner, LC2 International of France. These include TV stations in the Seychelles, Rwanda, Zambia and Kenya. Several news sources have documented disputes between Nigerian broadcasters and LC2 International as well. The alternative for many - but by no means all - football fans seems to be accessing games through their mobile phones, courtesy of cable TV company MultiChoice, who are running a 'mobile TV' trial during the tournament. It's either that or good ol' radio... In any case, it's a sad day when millions of ordinary Africans are unable to watch their national teams compete at all in a major international tournament. Sport for the people? Not even close...