sport for the people

Dear Premiership Footballer

2009-06-09T21:52:00.004-04:00

I may not always tell you exactly how much I appreciate you, but I do. I love admiring your skill on the ball. My heart leaps - and so do I - when you score an unbelievable goal. Your tricks always make me chuckle, and I appreciate it when you act as a good role model for my kids.

But - you know it, I know it - our relationship has been less than equal for quite some time. In fact, it's been getting more and more unequal! Our difference in income is striking - you earn more in a week than I or my friends could hope to earn in a year. Your lifestyle bears no resemblance to mine, needless to say! But most importantly, it's pretty hard to even keep track of what you're up to. I don't mean off the pitch (the Daily Mail website gives me more than I need to know), but on it. As you demand higher wages, your employer looks to me to fork out more for tickets, merchandise and TV subscriptions. And, to be honest, I can't keep up.

It's got a lot worse recently. Many of your fans are seeing their wages shrink! Quite a lot of them have lost their jobs! Not you, though. At least - not yet.

But today it was announced that Setanta - one of the middle-men that we hand over wads of cash to so we can catch you on the pitch - is heading for administration. This should wake us all up, I reckon. Now even the broadcasters can't keep up with the FA, who can't keep up with the wage deal they've struck with you and your friends! Where will it all end?

Don't get me wrong: I still think you're great. Well, most of the time... It's not all your fault. We're all guilty of feeding this system. But now it's unsustainable. We all need to rethink - starting with the FA, the Premiership clubs... and you.

As for me - well, I'm going to hold on to my cash and wait to see what happens next. In the meantime, I'll check out my DVDs of your greatest moments - that should keep me going for the summer at least, and they're free to view!

Mets fans foxed again...

2009-04-11T23:50:00.004-04:00

We are blessed in New York to have access to several local sports channels via cable TV. I've always thought this was a pretty amazing thing, really - in the UK, for example, you have to punish your wallet and buy a fairly pricey annual subscription if you want to watch your favorite soccer team's channel (that is, if they have one at all). It was a bit disappointing to discover, therefore, that one of our local sports channels, SNY, seems to be facing a few problems this season.

New York Mets evening games starting before 7pm EDT cannot actually be broadcast on SNY until after that time due to some exclusive rights now held by Fox TV! Apparently, Fox now has the exclusive rights to air games between 1.10pm and 7pm EDT. That would be sort of ok if they actually televised the games - but they don't seem to be doing that! Recent Mets games against the Florida Marlins started around 6.30 (at their request) and fans found radio was the only option. Despite frantic searching - as evidenced by discussion on the Mets Blog, linked from the post title above - fans found no live feeds on the internet. It seems the only way to see the start of the game live was to, er, go to Florida...

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

2008-08-09T09:50:00.002-04:00

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

2008-07-02T21:39:00.002-04:00

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?

2008-04-14T13:47:00.001-04:00

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

2008-01-28T22:19:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-21T18:27:00.000-05:00

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...

Will pay-TV coverage of the English Premiership persist?

2007-12-27T18:43:00.000-05:00

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

2007-12-18T22:55:00.000-05:00

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.

Do we have some powerful friends?

2007-11-02T15:03:00.000-04:00

An interesting article on BBC online last night. Click on the title above to link to the relevant web page. Meanwhile, here's an extract:

' Minister slams 'obscene' salaries

Sports minister Gerry Sutcliffe has condemned Chelsea captain John Terry's salary as "obscene" while criticising Manchester United's ticket prices. Sutcliffe believes the sky-high wages and ticket prices are alienating fans.

Speaking at a sports summit in London, Sutcliffe said: "Good luck to John, but it is obscene to be on £150,000 a week. And United season tickets went up by 13% - holders have to automatically buy European and Carling Cup games at £200, that takes it away from ordinary fans." '

It's encouraging that UK ministers are highlighting some of the challenges inherent in today's sports 'market'. It may mean some kind of policy response is likely - though what, exactly, would that look like?

At the end of the day, these challenges are ones that sports governing bodies and clubs need to address collectively. It is, after all, in their own interest to do so, since the current situation is clearly unsustainable - particularly in football, which has been dubbed 'the game that ate itself' (source: the Guardian - an article highlighting the looming crisis in UK football 3 years ago!)... We need action, or there will be nothing left to eat!

A word about voting rights

2007-10-12T21:17:00.000-04:00

First, I want to apologise for what may seem to be an outrageously undemocratic poll - the one through which you 'vote' to show your support opposite. I realise that this is a false vote, in that there is only one option to vote for (you don't even have 'reopen nominations' or RON as he's called...). I'm afraid that was the only technology available to me - or, at least, that I understood how to operate - so as to allow people to show support for the Campaign for the Democratisation of Sport! No (ironic) disenfranchisement intended...

Second, there are some other good options for making your voice heard on this issue. Again, no 'votes' as such. But links to two current petitions are also given opposite. Please sign up if you are remotely moved to do so! The first is the Football Supporters Federation petition to keep 'away fan' ticket prices affordable - this is quite good fun, because when you sign an email is automatically sent in your name to all the English Premiership Clubs! Of course, what you get back is an autoreply of some sort - but it's quite good fun seeing an email arrive in your in-box from 'Arsenal FC' or 'West Ham', etc. The other link is for the petition to the England and Wales Cricket Board, and is essentially geared at keeping major cricket matches 'free to view' on terrestrial television.

I'm off to hunt for more! Let's make our feelings known...

Who owns sport these days?

2007-10-07T21:29:00.000-04:00

It's an interesting question - and it's the basis for our campaign. Increasingly, the big sports clubs are owned and controlled by equally big private interests. In the US, it's not uncommon for baseball 'franchises' to be owned by huge conglomerates. In the UK, there is a growing trend in football of clubs being bought up by millionnaire businessmen. Often these owners contribute significant investment - in new facilities and new players, for example. But the fans still drive the business, through gate receipts, merchandise and by paying to watch sporting events on television. The net flow of investment is generally from the fans to the sport. Yet fans are often excluded from decisions that affect their access to and enjoyment of their chosen game...

Over the coming months, we will be investigating how the world of sport is evolving - where the money is, how decisions are taken, how accessible it all is. Please send us your comments. And, if the way sport is evolving concerns you too, please join our campaign!