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...
Will pay-TV coverage of the English Premiership persist?
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?
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.
Do we have some powerful friends?
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!
' 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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
