Quality Over Quantity? It Appears Fans are Beginning to Make it Clear What They Want.

Is there too much sport today?

The last two decades have seen the whole sports environment turned on its head.

Broadcasters set up dedicated sports channels offering sport on your screens 24 hours a day. Some even offered channels dedicated to one sport alone.

In order to give the public such offerings the stations had to secure the rights to broadcast the top events so that they could attract the viewers, and in many cases entice these viewers to part with their hard-earned money to buy a subscription to be able to access these sporting events.

The sports that were seen as being a drawcard for the broadcasters rubbed their hands with glee. As suddenly they were now paying vast sums for those rights, but sometimes over the top amounts just to secure the rights as their station needed the sport needed the content in order to keep it’s subscription market.

The broadcasters needed content. This had a great deal to do with the proliferation of hybrid versions of many sports. Shorter bite-size events suddenly were everywhere. It was takeaway TV. It didn’t really matter if you missed it, but it satisfied a desire, a hunger, to have something available. Just like many of us do not need to snack on food that is in our refrigerators, but we do. The same was true with much of the sport that was being served up. So much of it was irrelevant. The truth was there were still only key leagues, tournaments and events that really mattered to most sports fans.

Many of those who missed out on being a part of the menu for the dedicated sports broadcasters sold their souls to make it appear that they were indeed matching the big sports.

Many sports produced their own content, some with limited know-how or expertise, and simply gave it to the broadcaster to air. The broadcaster of course reaped the benefit, as in some cases they gained more subscribers but ultimately, they had a free product that they could sell advertising around. So, generate income with no cost.

There were others who opted to set up their own platform for their sport. Somehow someone convinced them that they could make money from such a venture. Once again the big sports can, simply because they have the fanbase to make such a venture viable. The trouble is the investment to make this work is huge. It is far bigger than many have been prepared to invest. That is why once they reach a certain level of viewers before it buffers or falls over.

Many who have gone down this path were also convinced that if they charged fans a subscription fee they would at least cover their costs. That was never going to be the case, and many soon found out that this was never going to happen.

The problem with many of these sports is going down this path is that they have in fact damaged their product beyond belief. For it has been lost from mainstream coverage, The awareness of the sport has diminished. Only those truly passionate fans with the disposable income to buy a subscription tune in. Some simply cannot justify the cost on top of the other channels they subscribe to.

Many when deciding whether the subscription is worth it, look at the quality of the coverage before deciding for or against subscribing.

Of course, also in the mix now is livestreaming. This is the ideal way to promote a sport if it is made available to all and for free, via platforms that are set up for such a service, such as YouTube.

In this space there is again the same question is there too much sport being streamed? Some sports believe that by offering more games they will increase participation, awareness, sponsorship and viewers. Sadly, that is not always the case. If it was that easy all of the sports would be thriving, and they are not.

The first question that has to be asked is why are you doing this? What is your motivation, and what are you hoping to gain from such a venture?

Then you have to look at how many games you want to stream, and what level of the sport are they. Is it justifiable to stream these games? Just as with some of the competitions receiving full-blown coverage on mainstream platforms one has to ask if the coverage is benefitting the sport. In many cases it is not. The quality of the games on show are simply not worth airing in full. They would be better off as a highlights package, but that too comes at a cost.

As each of these sports tries to achieve their goals of obtaining coverage, and growing the sport many are trying to do it on a budget. Which raises the question again as to whether it would not be better to cherry-pick the games or events that will attract the most interest or viewers, and produce a quality broadcast? With so much quality sport available now people expect a certain level of production even when sport is live-streamed.

Only truly dedicated parents will sit through a game with no commentary, with poor camerawork where the action is so far away it is hard to pick up. Yes, there are AI options now available but how many of them have been developed with each specific sport in mind? The algorithm has usually been developed for one sport, and that is why the camera often fails to follow the action. One famous example was when a pigeon landed on the stand in front of the camera. The motion-activated camera then spent the next five minutes fixated on the pigeon. As memorable as that was, is that really what viewers want to see?

Traditional television was slow to react to many of the advances in technology. While many of the top sports and broadcasters embraced it others found that they simply could not afford it, or were not prepared to pay for it. A prime example was the technology in the recent Ashes cricket series where the International Cricket Council was not prepared to pay for the highest level of technology to ensure that decisions were correct, so an inferior version was used that made what some would say were match-turning errors.

We have raised this before, unless you are going to pay for the best available should such technology still be used? As rather than making sure the crucial decisions are correct we are still witnessing baffling decisions being made, in part because the video official is not being given what they need to make the correct decision.

There have been a proliferation of production companies since the dawn of streaming and the Covid pandemic. Some are extremely professional, some are not. The worrying thing is that those employed by the sports to give a contract to a production house often themselves have absolutely no experience in this space, and are too proud to ask people who do. One story shared in recent weeks was truly terrifying how the person tasked with such a decision had never worked in any media space, and has in fact cost their organisation tens of thousands of dollars.

There is an old saying, “there is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper and people who consider price alone are his easy prey.”

Many sports now fall into that category.

Long before this writer became involved in commentary it was said that ‘a good commentator can lift a poor game, but a bad one will destroy a good match.’

Since the Covid pandemic a trend that was emerging has rampaged. Experienced commentators, camerapersons, directors and producers have been sidelined for cheaper less professional – in some cases – and less experienced operators. All of this is done, we are told to save money. The production companies claiming that the sports do not have the money to pay for a quality production.

So, in numerous aspects of the viewer experience they are ending up with a substandard product. An example is when a replay is being shown as an attack is happening. When we the viewer comes back to the live action we have missed that attack and suddenly one of the teams has a corner or a penalty, but we have no idea how that occurred.

Which takes us back to the point made earlier should these sports be trying to cover every event if they have limited budget? If you ask most fans they would prefer quality any day over quantity. Poor quality coverage and lots of it is never going to benefit a sport. In fact it will see viewership drop, which will impact sponsorship, and also any chance of selling future coverage to a broadcaster.

What is encouraging is that in some countries the broadcasters are beginning to wake up to the fact that poor quality coverage comes at a cost. That it does indeed impact viewing figures, and they are starting to reverse the trend and drop some of the inexperienced staff and go back to those with experience and who offer genuine quality. Those who have had the courage to do that have it is claimed seen an almost immediate impact.

Surely, just as the top class athletes deserve the best officials officiating their games they also deserve quality coverage? In some sports they remain ruthless when it comes to expert analysts, if you do not bring anything to the table you are cut. In recent times that has not been the case, with cricket’s coverage being a case in point. Ex-players are dropped into a role with zero experience and often no training, and expected to perform. Moving from playing to broadcasting is not a natural transition for most and it takes time to learn. This should be like your playing days where if you are not up to it someone else comes in.

Football has also fallen prey to “experts” who say nothing that viewere does not already know or can see, and interestingly in recent weeks there has been a backlash on this topic on social media.

What is also frustrating, and this can only be due to cutting corners financially, the sound levels on some matches have been dreadful. A game this writer watched at the weekend had the crowd sound so high that you could not hear what the commentator was actually saying; that could have been a blessing in disguise, but we will never know. If you are havig to adjust your volume from when those pitchside are talking to when the commentary starts you know that the sound levels have not been checked. How often does this happen these days?

While some people are unaware of the difference between equality and equal opportunity, (Equality or Equity, Which is Really Going to Carry Sport Forward?) it has been interesting to see how good the female cricket commentators are in comparison to their male counterparts. Alison Mitchell, Isa Guha and Isabelle Westbury being stand outs that offer a great deal more insight that many of their male counterparts. Proving that if given an opportunity the cream will rise to the surface, it is not about gender.

With sports fans today having to pay for so much of the coverage do they deserve better?

Do they deserve to know whether the commentator is actually at the game or whether they are commentating remotely? While it is often very easy to tell if they are actually at the venue, with the increase in the cost of paying to view surely the least the viewer can expect is that the commentators are actually there and are giving them up to the second information? Should broadcasters be forced to declare whether they are there or not?

Remote commentary was coming in prior to Covid and broadcasters were convinced that this was going to be the way of the future, however some glaring hiccups have seen this stall to some extent. Some sports have even wised up that the broadcasters are only going with this option to increase their profit margins on the broadcast. While savvy broadcasters have worked out that remote commentary works with some sports, but simply is not an option with others.

At the end of the end of the day the public, and the fans of each sport are the ones who will ultimately make their voice heard. The viewing figures will drop, and they will cease to pay to watch the sports they enjoy. With many sports this is already abundantly clear, although not to be shared with the public. Some sports are desperate to try and spin the statistics give truth to the famous quote “Lies, damned lies, and statistics.” A phrase frequently used to illustrate the persuasive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments.

Often it comes doen to the actual product the sport itself and whether it is appealing. Is it exciting? The English Premier League is currently experiencing this awakening, but for very different reasons. The fans are bored with the style of football on show. It is no longer about beating the opposition, but more about not losing. As a result viewing figures are allegedly not just falling, but plummeting. Most viewers are only tuning into extended highlights.

Former international players have aired their views in recent months and many have received support for their opinions. Ex Liverpool and Newcastle United striker Michael Owen said, “Back in the day, there were loads of great players that were absolute ballers. Now if you can just run a bit further than everyone else & pass the ball from A to B, then you can have a decent career in the Premier League. You don’t even have to be that good anymore.” Despite many fans not liking Owen as a pundit, few disagreed with this view.

While back in the 1970’s former Celtic and Manchester United player Paddy Crerand prophetically said “If the tacticians ever reached perfection, the result would be a 0-0 draw, and there would be no one there to see it.” Are the tactics being employed killing the games?

Sport is supposed to be a release for all, whether playing it or watching it. It should bring joy when your team wins and varying degrees of disappointment when they lose. With the cost to attend live matches now often beyond the reach of many, especially if they wish to take their children, surely it is vital that sport is not behind a paywall, that it is accessible to those who want to watch it and that the product is of a certain standard. If it isn’t how are you going to grown participation and a fanbase?

Many years ago this writer recalls the head of one sport in a European country saying on “Not The Footy Show” that it was vital that they qualify for the Olympic Games, as that was the only time they received any coverage. Now, with a bloated Olympic Program even that is not guaranteed. To put a sport solely on a channel that fans have to subscribe to is taking it down a road to extinction. No wonder new sports are emerging and climbing up the rankings in terms of viewers and participants.

As for the national team, should they not always be free for everyone to watch?

Some sports are facing a very tough next four years, and the key to their survival is going to be promoting quality and not quantity. Employing people who understand this space or consulting with people who do, and ensuring that what they put in the shop window for their current fans is appealing, and of a standard and quality to attract new fans, players and sponsors. They need to be the ones driving what is being aired and ensuring that it reflects their sport in a professional manner to achieve those goals.

Lessons can be learned from other sports. In Europe in many countries the Olympic Sports and other tier two sports are suffocated by the mass exposure that football has. In the USA baseball has fallen behind Gridiron and Basketball, and many say it will never regain that ground.

In the 1960’s and 1970’s thanks to some extraordinary fighters boxing was probably at its peak in terms of interest and coverage for the masses. Interestingly there were only two world bodies at that time, the World Boxing Council and the World Boxing Association. There were only five or six weight divisions, so winning a title meant you really were the best. Then the best fought the best, and that is why these champions names have endured.

Today boxing is predominantly behind a paywall. There are now four recognised World bodies but there are 19 weight divisions, meaning that there can be 76 World Champions at one time. Is that appealing to fans? No. Once again it is quantity over quality.

Swimming at the Olympic Games has again devalued the worth of a gold medal. In 1964 in Tokyo there were only 18 gold medals up for grabs in the men’s and women’s events. In 2024 there were nearly double that with 35 pool gold medals available, and two marathon swimming golds. As one Olympic swimming medallist told this writer “when I retired I soon found out my medals meant nothing.” Was that because there were so many? That they ceased to be exclusive?

Too much of something ceases to make it special. To be able to call your self a World or Olympic Champion should mean something, it should be exclusive to a very small group of people, the best at that time. Quality over quantity in sport has always what has made its heroes stand out and live long in the memory. The same applies to the coverage of sport and it would appear that many fans are begining to say that same, they want quality over quantity.

It appears that if many sports continue with the current laissez-faire approach it will not be long before they reach the point of no return. For some it will take years to reclaim their market, for some they never will.