Spurs nailed Fulham 4-0 today in the FA Cup to make it through to the quarterfinals. Huzzah! For some reason the game was only on Fox Soccer Canada with a one-day delay in the US. Nice to see Tottenham back to winning ways.
Spurs have traditionally been a cup team and are staying true to form this campaign. It’s odd, but I think they have a better chance of winning the UEFA Cup, which features other also-rans from Europe, than winning the FA Cup where the likes of Chelski and Man Ure are still alive. Something psychological there, but it’s hard to put your finger on it.
The Champions League starts back up this week and I’m quite looking forward to it. ESPN has caught on to the fact that they’re better off showing world-class footie during the day instead of running rodeo or ladies’ pool reruns. The match-ups here are great. Take a look at the field in the tournament’s last 16:
Celtic vs. AC Milan
Lille vs. Man Utd
PSV Eindhoven vs. Arsenal (Tues. @ 1:30PM Central, ESPN2)
Real Madrid vs. Bayern Munich (Tues. @ 4:00PM Central, ESPN Classic)
FC Porto vs. Chelsea (Wed. @ 1:30PM Central, ESPN2)
Barcelona vs. Liverpool (Wed. @ 4:00PM Central, ESPN Classic)
Inter Milan vs. Valencia
Roma vs. Lyon
And they’ve got a UEFA Champs League highlights show on Friday at 2:00 Central on ESPN2. It’s remarkable how far the sport has come in regards to television in the last decade. There’s been slow but steady progress. In high school, the US national team’s friendlies would literally be on at 3:00 am. Now we get four Champions League games during the week. Brilliant.
Of course, US television rights to the Champions League are cheap because of the relative lack of interest. As interest rises, the games will no longer appear on basic cable but rather pay-per-view—and I’d love to see how the whole “watch the game on the Internet” idea is working out. I don’t know who is paying $10 per match for streaming video of live Champions League games on the computer, but it ain’t me.
Astute sport fans will have noticed how American sporting events have slowly been migrating from broadcast television to pay television (cable/satellite) and it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the next step is migrating to predominantly pay-per-view viewing. What I find funny is that people think this is somehow new. It’s been happening in Europe for years. A person is more likely to spend some cash to see all of his/her home team, which is a direct revenue stream for the team/league instead of generating revenue via advertising on “free” television. This a la carte system may be appealing on the surface, but it’s really about tapping directly into your wallet.
For example, how much did I spend on watching the Packers this year? Nothing, because I watched most of their games on network or satellite TV, which I’ve already paid for. In the future, it’s quite likely that I’ll be able to watch all the Packers games I want for the low, low price of [insert figure here] by purchasing a “Packers package” above and beyond what I pay for satellite. The alternative to “all” games? None, of course. Except for when the Packers are available on the Game of the Week or whatever they keep on network television. And the best part? There will still be advertisements. Remember, those things that were supposed to be funding the “free” event? Yeah, now you as the fan get the benefit of paying for what used to be free and still be bombarded by advertisements.
Check back in 2017 and let me know if I’m right. Doesn’t the future sound exciting?
Current Mood: I Should Be Writing | 
Currently Listening To – Grateful Dead – “Workingman’s Dead”
5 Comments
I disagree Trent, without apologies, that Pay Per View is soon to come to the US, I think sporting events will remain for a long time on both broadcast and cable due to advertisers desire to be there. The big cable companies control “The Big Bundle” as they call it, and have little reason to offer a la carte. Until pay per episode is so affordable that many people will cancel their Cable TV package and download directly to their media player/DVR for later watching, The Big Bundle will rule.
Another trend working in the cable companies favor…VoIP. As long as you care about high speed internet, they’ll be able to use their VoIP and Cable TV packages as loss leaders, offering a better bundled price than separating them out, and really increasing the switching costs for consumers.
Yet more things working in favor of Big Cable…all of your Senators and Congresspersons.
First off, I should say I don’t have any hard data to support my argument: this is the Internet after all. But over the years I’ve seen critics pointing out that the creation of the NFL Network and moving more games onto pay television (NFL network and ESPN’s Monday Night Football) is the first step in reducing the number of games on network (i.e. “free”) television. From there, I think it’s a short jump to get paying subscribers to switch to tailored programming. While some sports enthusiasts will want to see all the games possible, more would be willing to just see “their” games, especially if you live outside your favorite team’s immediate market. Watching the Packers in Seattle was either impossible or expensive; I didn’t want to shell out for each game and few games were on network television. I don’t think a “Packers Package” is too far off. After all, they could get some money from me with a package whereas they don’t get any more money off me now if I watch what’s on the Big Bundle or not.
My ten-year forecast is probably too aggressive because it doesn’t allow for a paradigm shift in how Americans consume entertainment. I’m less convinced that cable will continue to rule. Like the music industry, I see them as being set in their ways and unable to cope with emerging technologies. I don’t think it’s too far off that we’ll be plugging a CAT5 cable into the TV and into the wall and have our entertainment streamed to us, like that Qwest commercial that claims the dude in the desert hotel with the hot girl at the counter could get “any movie, in any language, at any time, day or night.” People with better computer set-ups than mine already download episodes of the Sopranos immediately after they’re on HBO and watch them, for free, on their televisions which are hooked up to their computers.
So I think we’re in basic agreement, except my timetable is probably way too aggressive. One way or another, I have no fear that I will end up paying the same or a little more for approximately what I get now, will still be subjected to round-the-clock advertising, and someone else will be making more money off me.
I would love to see a la carte, but not even entire games. With the amount of money in fantasy football now, I think a content provider that could provide you in depth detailed content on specific players may have more value than a “Packers only” package. I’m a Bears and Cubs fan, but I wouldn’t pay a penny for the package unless there were no football on at all (game breaks and sportscenter give me a good enough idea of what happened).
Re: the internet as a delivery medium, I now have certain Netflix hours (1 hour viewing per dollar of subscription) per month, though I have yet to try it. And stay tuned, Wal-Mart just opened their own movie download service. (but it only works with IE browser…dammit we just can’t ever get rid of IE!)
The content providers and studios are aiming to keep the size of the content larger than the efficiency of “download and watch” technology….but I think Blu-ray and HD-DVD have essentially reached the maximum sharpness that a human eye can detect, and thus content delivery will catch up on content storage size over time now. But I don’t see most Americans using the HD as a make or break when watching content (they won’t choose Copland in Hi-Def over Goodfellas in SD).
To me the most effective content delivery providers (cable companies, et.al.) will combine the on-the-go aspect of video (iPods, etc.), with recordable hi-def for home viewing across multiple TVs. Until then, status quo. Thanks for engaging me on this topic, I love to think about it, but am going to have to bow out after you get the last word, if you want it.
I think that those who are complacent about the status quo will get a surprise come April 2009 or whenever the date is for broadcast TV to relinquish their VHF and UHF channels and go to HDTV. For a while cable will support those who don’t want to buy a new TV or add a converter box to pick up signals over the air, but the HDTV changeover will provide incentive for those who want to do a paradigm shift in pricing.
So I think that there will be a net loss of free sports on TV by 2009-2010, followed by a big backlash. After that, it’ll depend on who is offering what service and which model, advertiser driven free TV or pay-per-view, pisses off the fewest people.
WGN and WTBS superstations used to show all the Cubs and Braves games. Now they hardly show any, and the fans are still pissed off. MLB has co-opted the online broadcast of live games with a model that changes every year. It worked well enough for my wife to listen to Cubs games the first year, but last year they made it too restrictive and too difficult and too expensive. When the leagues finally realize that their online revenue streams are coming from such a small audience, they may realize that quantity numbers is what brings in the fans.
It’s all about shooting off your foot instead of untying your shoes. (grin)
Dr. Phil
When the leagues finally realize that their online revenue streams are coming from such a small audience, they may realize that quantity numbers is what brings in the fans.
Or they’ll just rig the whole thing like Major League Baseball just did with their new DirecTV deal. By allowing DirecTV to become the exclusive provider of the Extra Innings all-you-can-eat baseball plan, MLB created a huge market for their own online all-you-can-eat offering from all the people on cable and Dish who won’t be switching to DirecTV just to get baseball. No, it’s not a huge number of people, but for MLB it’s almost pure profit: unlike DirecTV and cable and whoever carries games, the league doesn’t have to pay itself a licensing fee.