Online Streaming in Sports Pay
Television
How
Conquers the Dutch Market
Yasar Ozcan 6113915
Television and Cross-Media Culture Master Thesis
Dhr. Dr. M. Stauf 22832 Words Introduction
The 2016 Grand Prix of Barcelona is a race that won’t be forgotten soon in Holland. For the first time a Dutch driver, Max Verstappen, won the race and he was also the youngest winner ever of a Grand Prix. While the race was taking place, I was at my brothers’ house, who is a season ticket holder of the football club PEC Zwolle. When Verstappen was racing his legendary race, PEC Zwolle played an important away match at the same time. Logically, as a season ticket holder, my brother wanted to watch the PEC Zwolle match. For away matches he has a subscription of the pay channel Fox Sports where Dutch football is
broadcast live. When Max Verstappen came closer to his legendary win, other attendees and I asked my brother to switch channels. I thought my brother would refuse, but without hesitation he did. Before I could ask if he really didn’t want to see his favorite club, he already turned on a tablet and started an app. It
appeared to be the Fox Sports App, an app where you can stream all the matches broadcast by Fox Sports on television.
The convenience of watching a television channel with an app was very handy at that moment. It made me think of how pay channels did this in the past. Is this convenience a reason for people to get a subscription? And is there a difference in watching sports on television or online? And does that affect the televisual experience as well as the economical situation, such as the price of subscriptions and broadcasting rights? In this thesis I want to examine how sports television in the Netherlands has evolved into a situation where online streaming is inevitable. Fox Sports is the pay channel that broadcasts Dutch football, as well as international sports. I want to examine how they gained their market share and what they’re doing to keep and expand it. To understand the situation in the Netherlands the situations in the US and the UK are explored. Are there major similarities and/or major differences and how did this influence the current situation of sports television in the Netherlands.
Nowadays television and online streaming are highly interlinked and inseparable. In the case study I will examine how Fox Sports deals with this development, and how they try to keep their subscribers satisfied in a time where just broadcasting on television isn’t enough anymore for a sports pay channel. This is relevant, as Fox Sports’ predecessors didn’t manage to be profitable, mostly because the amount of subscribers was disappointing. In this thesis the technological developments in sports television will be examined to show how it affects the economic institutional elements of sports with Fox Sports as main case study.
1. Sports and Television
To understand the situation and the technological and economical developments in Dutch sports television it’s important to see the changes as part of
international technological and economical institutional trends. For this I take a closer look at the contemporary world of sports television, and then specifically to the structure with cable television, public service broadcasters and pay channels till digitization. Cable television is important to see the shift from network
television to special interest channels, while sports pay channels are special interest channels. Public service broadcasters are important because they symbolize the regulations which sports television has to deal with in especially Europe. This overview will show how technological developments in television affect the economical situation of sports television and broadcasting rights in the USA, the UK and the Netherlands.
The US is examined because it’s the biggest market when it comes to sports broadcasting rights. Also the situation in the US, with cable television and a large amount of networks, makes the market interesting because networks are always looking for improvements to have a competitive advantage over other networks. The US is almost always ahead of Europe when it comes to (new) media and sports coverage. A similarity between the US and the UK is for example the competition between cable and satellite television while economically both cases are different.
The UK is interesting because their case of sports television is somewhat similar to the Netherlands, whereas both countries are different from the US when it comes to the structure of television networks. The UK and the
Netherlands have a public service broadcaster (PSB) that is obliged by
broadcasting law to show sports. The difference is that there’s a competition between PSB’s in the UK, and commercial television started almost 40 years earlier there. Because of this the UK case can be seen as a possible future situation for the Netherlands and therefore it’s interesting to compare. Partly it shows the future situation of the Netherlands, whereas lessons learned in the UK can be applied in the Netherlands. For that reason it’s interesting to compare the two.
1.1 The Situation of Sports Television in the US
Before the 1970’s there was mainly network television in the US. ABC, NBC and CBS were the main networks in an oligopoly, with few or no competitors, offering
programs in all sorts of genres1. Sports were one of the genres. It was used to
brand the network and place the network in the market in a certain way. The networks also used sports to compete and therefore they had to outbid each other for the broadcasting rights of every sport and big sporting event. In this way the market was clear and the prices stayed within the budgets of the three big networks. An example of this are the 1988 Olympic games in Seoul, while other networks started broadcasting the Olympics in 2008 so the example still shows the situation from before the 1970’s. When NBC did a final bid for the broadcasting rights of the 1988 Olympics in Seoul, ABC and CBS were asked if they would bid more before the Seoul Olympic Organizing Committee accepted NBC’s offer2. There were always three potential bidders and three potential
networks that aired sports in the US.
In 1972 this situation changed with the rise of cable television. Previously, cable television was only available in areas where air transmission was difficult, for example in mountainous areas. Because of the deregulation of the cable television industry, cable television had become available in most parts of the US by 19723 which resulted in two common ways to watch television: via satellite
and via cable. In both ways a subscription is paid to a provider to receive a basic package of channels. If you want additional channels an extra fee must be paid. The main networks had all sorts of programs on one channel, and there were no special interest channels like cooking channels or whole sports channels. With the arrival of the basic package special interest channels were introduced, as there’s more capacity for extra channels on cable or satellite4. The most famous special
interest channel nowadays is ESPN, a 24/7 sports channel that was introduced in the basic satellite and cable package in 19795, the year ESPN was founded. This
changed the structure of US television in general as well as US sports television. Since 1979 ESPN competes with the three networks ABC, NBC and CBS that already aired sports and used sports to compete with each other6. With the rise of
ESPN their domination in sports broadcasting was over. As a result the price of the broadcasting rights rose since then, because ESPN had to outbid the three networks. The clear structure of three possible bidding networks was over and since more sports networks were founded after ESPN the prices only went up. In
1 (Litman, 393)
2 (McMillan, 260)
3 (Seiden)
4 (De Jong and Bates, 161)
5 (Vogan, 1)
this case the technological development of cable television that allowed special interest channels, directly caused an economical change in the market of sports broadcasting rights.
ESPN bought the broadcasting rights of almost all the major sports in the US, but in the US most sports are ‘shared’ with other networks. For example ESPN has an agreement with the NBA (National Basketball association) to show 58 regular season matches and the matches of the second round of the play-offs. Other networks like ABC (less matches then ESPN), TNT (more matches) and NBA TV (more matches) also have the right to broadcast NBA matches.
This example is not an exception. In all the major sports multiple networks share broadcasting rights, where each network has a different amount of live matches, content like news and all-star matches and online broadcasting rights7. The main
networks broadcasting sports nowadays in the US are ESPN, Fox Sports, and NBC Sports Network. Other large networks were founded by the sports federations themselves, such as NFL Network and NBA TV. This is interesting because in the US the sports federations hold the broadcasting rights and negotiate with
television networks8. Thus they can negotiate what content can be available on
their own channels, as live matches are sold to other networks whereas
interviews, news reports and less interesting friendly matches are broadcast on the federations’ channel. In the UK and the Netherlands football clubs sued their federation for the ownership of broadcasting rights. The clubs won, which makes the situation in the US different from Europe. In the US the federations hold the power, leading the negotiations for broadcasting rights, and they have their own channel for other content then live matches. With live matches and other content being divided over multiple channels, the degree of dispersion in sports viewing in the US is evident.
ESPN is included in the basic package; most other sports channels are only available when added to a package. This means ESPN cannot be excluded if you want cable or satellite television in the US. It’s a special interest channel because their content is all about sports where ABC, CBS and NBC have a wider range of content including sports. For ESPN it’s easier to attract viewers that like sports because they broadcast it 24/7 and are widely known to be a sports only network. ESPN has thus dominated sports coverage television over the last 25 years in the
7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_the_United_States
8
http://deadspin.com/what-the-nbas-insane-new-tv-deal-means-for-the-league-a-1642926274
US with multiple channels that offer a wide range of sports. They gained a larger and larger market share in the live coverage of sports on television and obtained even more broadcasting rights and created other programs and shows around it. Documentaries, talk shows, sports news coverage and preview shows, all
produced in-house, have resulted in round-the-clock sports programming on multiple sister channels. Whereas ESPN2 is also included in the basic package, there are channels that can be added to the subscription. Those sister channels are ESPN3, ESPN+ (South America), ESPN Latin America, ESPN Films, ESPNews, ESPNU (high school and university leagues), ESPN Classic, ESPN Deportes (targeted to the American Spanish speaking audience), the Longhorn Network (US regional sports) and the SEC Network (Conference member school sports). With so many different programs and sports ESPN tries to address all sports loving viewers, and with the wide range of content ESPN launched themselves as US market leader in sports television.
The prize of a basic cable and satellite package in the US is determined by the accumulation of the price of all available channels. When a channel is part of the basic package, it doesn’t mean there’s no monthly fee. It means the monthly fee cannot be excluded from the basic package. The monthly fee of ESPN is the most expensive of sports networks in the US9, and an expensive channel in the
basic package in general. For cable providers the inclusion of ESPN is a huge selling point for people that like sports, but for households that aren’t interested in sports this can be seen as unwanted extra costs. In spite of that they have no choice if they want to watch television by cable or satellite, because ESPN is included in the basic package and therefore cannot be cut out of their
subscription10. The reason for this is the selling point of cable providers that
provide sports fans a 24/7 whole sports network. For people not interested in sports it means they also finance ESPN; in the US 70% of the people watch television by cable11. It gives ESPN a strong market position because everyone
with a basic package pays for an ESPN subscription. With a monthly cost of $6,61 ESPN is by far the most expensive subscription compared to other sports
networks that have to be added to the basic package like the NBC Sports Network ($0,30), the NFL Network ($1,31) and the CBS Sports Network ($0,26). In addition
9
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/the-15-most-valuable-sports-networks-050715
10
https://consumerist.com/2016/01/14/would-you-ditch-espn-to-shave-8month-off-your-cable-bill/
ESPN2 ($0,61) is also included in the basic package. It shows the value cable companies give to ESPN: it’s the most expensive sports network but still it’s the only one included in the basic package. ESPN created a situation in the US where they are considered as an indispensable television network. In the next chapter will be showed how ESPN obtained this position in the US sports television market.
In the US, sports are considered to be a basic feature in a cable package and even though ESPN costs a monthly fee it’s included in the basic package so everyone has to pay for it. Before the rise of ESPN the structure of television in the US was very clear: there were three big networks that also showed sports. Ever since the inclusion of sports network ESPN in the basic cable package, special interest channels are included in the basic cable package more and more. ESPN can be considered a trendsetter for special interest channels. Eventually sports programming in the US is splintered nowadays, with multiple networks offering multiple sports, partly because of the rise of ESPN. This can also be considered as a characteristic of US sports television. Compared to Europe the big stakeholders are less clear, and there are more channels offering sports, where even a single sport is broadcast on multiple channels. It shows how complex negotiations can be between broadcasting right holders and television networks, and this complexity in competition drives prizes up. Sports are
important content for networks to attract audiences, but the prizes of
subscriptions also rose because of the competition. It opens up a debate for people not interested in sports. However, ESPN is such a huge selling point for cable providers that they will not be excluded from the basic package. It shows that the technological development affected the economical situation, while the rise of cable/satellite television had a great influence on the prices of
broadcasting rights and the prices of watching sports on television in the US. 1.2 The situation of Sports Television in the UK
The main difference between the US and Europe in television is that in Europe most countries have a channel that is funded, owned and/or regulated by the government. The networks of these channels are called public service
broadcasters. A public service broadcaster is a network without commercial objectives and mostly funded by the government. Their goal is not to make profit but to provide public service12. Governments fund these channels because they
want to provide public service to their nation. Therefore, they can decide the programming and the content shown to the public. Within their budgets,
governments decide if a program provides public service. Every nation has got their own thoughts about what exactly is considered public service, but generally it’s ’directly related to the democratic, social and cultural needs of each society and to the need to preserve media plurism’13. So there are guidelines the
governments should adhere to, engendering debates as to whether programs are public service, and if governments should allocate funding in their budgets for those programs. Public service broadcasters always have to account for their programming to the public, especially when a program is expensive, because in the end the programs are paid with tax money. Public service broadcasters have the privilege to be accessible for everyone within a country, but when
commercial channels are also getting accessible for everyone, this advantage is gone and questions arise if the government should still pay for expensive
television content. A good example of this content is sports. While some sports can be considered public goods, broadcasting rights are getting more expensive.
Sports are considered public goods because it can create a national unity and identity14. Supporting the same team unites people, so a national football
team or the Olympics can be very important in creating this national unity. For a nation this is important because unity can keep a country together, for example when different ethnic groups are living together in one country15. When different
ethnic groups support one team it unites them, making them forget their differences for a while. An example of this is the UK that unites England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. In football all countries have their own national league and national football team, but in the Olympics the countries are combined as the UK16. In the Olympics this unites the four countries, creating a
transnational identity, which makes Scottish fans supporting English athletes, English fans supporting Northern Irish athletes and so on. In football (or even in general) there’s a fierce rivalry between the four countries, but the Olympics can create a transnational identity making people forget (for a period) the differences and rivalries. For the UK government this is important to diminish the calls for independency, showing opponents of the UK there’s a transnational unity and identity. This shows how important sports can be in creating a national unity and
13 (Katsirea, general introduction)
14 (Tomlinson and Young, 8)
15 (Lopez, 220)
identity. That is why sports are considered public good by governments and are therefore an important part of the public service television has to offer. It creates a united audience that relates in terms of national identity.
If sports is part of the public service is not the question, but still the public service broadcaster in the UK, the BBC, has been the subject of many debates, especially when it comes to football. The reason for this is a very particular system where commercial channels that are not funded by the government can also provide public service. The debates are mostly about the question if the government should pay for expensive broadcasting rights. Thereby in some ways the situation in the UK is comparable to the situation in Holland, so it is
interesting to see how the BBC manages to keep broadcasting football in a time when broadcasting rights are getting more expensive.
The British BBC was founded in 1927 to provide public service to the British audience17. The BBC is accessible for free for everyone within the UK, so it’s a
good platform to provide the public service the government wants to provide. The only problem was that the BBC had a monopoly in the UK, and the main concerns were that the programs the BBC produced were designed to reach the largest possible audience. Also the BBC was seen as a propaganda machine of the British government by a lot of people. To create a more balanced programming and to avoid accusations, the UK government created the television act in 1954. This law implies that the BBC can have competitors, and that commercial channels are allowed in the UK18. In 1955 the first competitor of the BBC was founded, ITV.
ITV is a commercial channel, not funded by the government and made up of regions with in each region a different company running the channel. In contrast to the BBC, ITV runs on money made by advertisement but they’re still obligated to provide public service. The reason for this is that the government grants ITV full accessibility on free-to-air television, so ITV is also accessible for everyone within the UK, same as the BBC. In return ITV should also provide public service, so in that sense the government regulates their programming. The difference with the BBC is that ITV doesn’t have to legitimize their budgets. The government doesn’t fund them, so they don’t restrict ITV’s budget. On the one hand this is an advantage, because while they don’t have to justify their expenses to the public. On the other hand it’s a disadvantage, while since the government has got a larger budget and if they really want a program to be on the BBC, ITV cannot win that battle if the expense of the government can be justified to the public.
17 (Robson, 468)
18 (Goodwin, 16)
This created a situation of competition and debates, especially about if programs are considered public service and if the government should fund programs or let the commercial channel fund a program. The competition led to better television according to some, but others complained this duopoly created a situation wherein the BBC and ITV were too busy competing with each other instead of providing public service19. It meant their programming was adjusted to
each other, so there were a lot of overlapping programs instead of a broader selection of programs. Because this wasn’t what the television act was meant for, new competitors were launched. They were also commercial free-to-air channels that were accessible for everyone within the UK, and in return had to provide public service same as ITV. In 1982 Channel 4 was launched by the Independent Broadcasting Authority to offer a wider range of content, and also to provide competition to the other commercial channel ITV20. In spite of being a commercial
channel the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, a department of the UK government, conducted the policy for the channel, which shows the blurry lines between public service broadcasters and commercial channels in the UK. A day before Channel 4 was launched, a fully Welsh-language TV-service was launched, S4C. Founded by the government, their main income was advertisement, so it is officially a commercial channel that has to provide public service. Again, the lines between public service broadcasting and commercial broadcasting are blurry, but in this case you could say the public service of S4C is providing programs for a Welsh speaking audience. That is their public service, but the government doesn’t fund them. In 1997 the commercial Channel 5 was launched, a channel mostly offering entertainment but also news and sports to provide public service.
So the situation in the UK is that there are five public service broadcasters, from which the BBC is the only one fully funded by the government. In terms of public service this means the BBC doesn’t have to provide all the public service, a commercial channel can also broadcast an expensive program when it’s
considered public good. In the UK, football is the best example. While the
broadcasting rights are relatively expensive, the law says matches of the England national football team as well as the highlights of the national football league, the Premier League, are public goods and therefore have to be on free-to-air
television21. The question is if the government should pay for expensive
broadcasting rights when the commercial channels can also air it.
19 (Goodwin, 19)
20 (Katsirea, 125)
21 (McGonagle, 235)
First of all the football is divided between live football and highlights. Nowadays, live football is mostly broadcast on pay channels and highlights are shown on free-to-air channels. BBC’s Match of the Day is the program where the highlights of the Premier League are shown and by law this has to stay at a free-to-air channel22 such as the BBC. This can also be a commercial channel if it’s
accessible to everyone within the UK, but never a pay channel.
A pay channel is a channel where a separate subscription is needed, so it’s not accessible for everyone. Because the subscriptions lead to extra income, pay channels are able to pay more for expensive live broadcasting rights. Before 1992 there were no pay channels in the UK, and live Premier League matches before 1992 were distributed over the BBC and ITV if the schedule allowed it and the match was important. Between 1988 and 1992 ITV showed the Sunday afternoon matches live when they made a £44m deal with the FA (Football Association)23.
In 1992 the clubs founded the premier league and from that moment all live matches were broadcast, first by Sky Sports and later also by Setanta Sports, BT Sports and ESPN. Since 2007, Sky Sports has to share some matches of the Premier League because they were accused to have a monopoly24. At least two
out of ten matches per league round are shown live on another channel. Between 2007-2009 they shared the rights with Setanta Sports, between 2009-2013 with ESPN and since 2013 with BT Sports. The decision of the clubs to found the Premier League was mostly caused by hooliganism that lead to a financially very unstable time in English football. First of all, English football clubs were banned for six years in European football because of the Heysel drama, where 39
Juventus supporters died because of crowd disorder in 1985. Second of all there was the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 where 96 Liverpool fans died also because of crowd disorder. The ban in Europe cost the English club money because they missed out on matches, and therefore extra income out of ticket sales and broadcasting rights. The Hillsborough disaster made people afraid to visit
stadiums, and therefore crowd attendances diminished, diminishing the income of the clubs even more. To stop hooliganism, very strict laws were invented and stadiums were modernized to secure the safety. To raise the financial position of English football, the clubs decided to found the Premier League, from which they hold their own broadcasting rights25. They could raise the price for it, and pay
22 (McGonagle, 235)
23 http://spartacus-educational.com/Ftelevision.htm
24 (Smith, 317)
channel Sky Sports was able to buy the rights because they were less limited to a budget then a public service broadcaster that is funded by the government. When eventually competitors of Sky Sports also bid for the broadcasting rights the prices went up more. By founding the Premier League, the clubs raised their income out of broadcasting rights, and they found a way to raise the market position of English football. A consequence of this was that the market almost directly blew up, and football on free-to-air channels became less available since then.
Sky Sports was the first network to obtain the rights of the live matches and they still own it since 1992, which was the start of the Premier League26. Sky
Sports is a satellite pay channel that started broadcasting via the Astra 1B satellite that serves the UK, Germany and Ireland. The launch of that satellite in March 1991 opened up broadcasting space for Sky Sports, and because
transmission was done by satellite, terrestrial regulations did not affect the network27. Because Sky was not made available free-to-air they didn’t have to
provide public service, and by only being available with a subscription their income model is different from licensed fee channels (BBC) and commercial channels that get their income from advertisement (ITV).
While they struggled in the beginning, they used the Premier League to become well known and sufficient28. The reason for the struggle is that satellite
viewers need to have receiver dishes at their homes to receive the signal. The main reasons for British consumers to buy these dishes are films and sports, but because films could also be rented and watched at any time sports became the most important reason. The unpredictable moments make sports popular, and when a sport isn’t watched live, the moments aren’t unpredictable anymore, killing the suspense. Because of the importance of liveness in football, and the fact the Premier League is of cultural importance in England, British consumers were persuaded with the Premier League to buy receive dishes. Sky Sports used the glamor of the Premier League to lure consumers to watch satellite television and to buy subscriptions. In this way Sky Sports benefited from the technological developments in satellite television in the UK because they didn’t have to ask the government for full accessibility, and they weren’t obligated to provide public service. By becoming the first pay channel in the UK their income model was
26 (Cowie, 623)
27 (Williams, 382)
28 (Williams, 384)
different, and they were able to pay more for broadcasting rights, for example for the Premier League. Like in the US technological developments affected the economical institutional situation. Transmitting through satellite gave Sky Sports the opportunity to become a pay channel, and by earning money from
subscriptions Sky Sports was able to pay more for broadcasting rights then public service or commercial channels. The economical situations of consumers
changed while they had to pay to see content, and television networks needed to pay more for broadcasting rights, making the football clubs earn more from it. The technological development of satellite television directly caused a change in the economical situation of sports in the UK.
While before only very important matches were broadcast now all matches are. On the one hand live Premier league matches are never available anymore free-to-air, on the other hand there were just a few matches broadcast live before 1992. By paying a subscription fee all matches are available, so the availability of live football went up, but only available when paid for it. When Sky Sports
obtained the rights in 1992, it was predicted not advertisement but subscriptions of a pay channel would become the new earnings model in the broadcast of live football29. Partially this was right, because in Europe since 1992 most live football
is only accessible with a pay channel subscription. On the other hand some televised football, mostly highlights, remains free-to-air in terms of public service. Here you can see a splitting of the broadcasting rights between highlights and live coverage. In the UK the law says the Premier League highlights have to be on a free-to-air channel, while live coverage can be shown on any channel. First of all this has to do with the culture in Europe. Compared to the US, governments in Europe interfere more with the media. Where in the UK and in the Netherlands the highlights of their national football league have to be on a free-to-air channel the US doesn’t have such laws and restrictions. This means the fact if a network is a free-to-air channel or a pay channel is not important if they want to obtain broadcasting rights for highlights or live matches. In Europe this is the case because governments want to provide public service and the highlights of their national leagues are considered public good. This public good should be
accessible for everyone so it has to be shown on a free-to-air channel. In the US this is not the case, there all networks can obtain broadcasting rights for
highlights and/or live matches if they pay the price for it.
If you compare the situation of the UK to the situation of the US the trends towards commercialization are the same. In the US the clear situation with three networks changed when ESPN entered the market, and the prizes went up. In the UK the introduction of pay channels blew the market up. Technological
developments (cable and satellite television) affected the economical situation. The difference is that in the UK highlights of the Premier League and important global events are still available free-to-air by law. Therefore in the UK there’s a strong difference between free-to-air channels and pay channels, making clear what content is on public service broadcasters and commercial channels and what content is available on pay channels. A consequence of this is that the government has to pay for expensive broadcasting rights if the BBC wants to air it. In the US this is not the case while the market is open and commercial and pay channels can air all sports, as well live coverage as highlights. An example of the UK situation is the FIFA World Cup of Football, while it should be available on a free-to-air channel according to the British minister of sports because it is considered public good. Because the price of the broadcasting rights is too high for a single public service broadcaster the BBC and ITV share matches of the World Cup to cut the costs of broadcasting rights30. It shows the BBC is losing
terrain when it comes to providing global sports events. The BBC is seen by the UK government as the most important media institution of the UK, and in their opinion the BBC should still air the most important sports programs. However, because of commercialization broadcasting rights are getting too expensive to justify the expenses of tax money, and the BBC will have to share more sports with commercial competitors31 in the future.
This is also the case with the highlights of the premier league, BBC’s
showpiece when it comes to sports broadcasting. In the UK still most highlights of sports are on PSB’s, and live broadcasts are on pay channels like Sky Sports. But it makes no difference if a sport or an event is shown on the BBC or ITV in terms of accessibility because a channel that provides public service is granted full accessibility throughout the UK by the government. That’s why it’s getting harder for the UK government to justify the expensive costs of the highlights of the Premier League. Other commercial channels that provide public service can also air it by law, so why let the government pay for it? While the BBC still airs Match of the Day and the FIFA World Cup for example, the debates are getting fiercer. If
30 (Rowe, 392)
the BBC will lose all the major sports seems unthinkable now, but the process has already started.
Commercial channels earn mostly from advertisement and the higher the price for broadcasting rights the higher the price for advertisement, so they can adjust their budget to the content. At the BBC this is not the case while the government restricts their budget. Thereby pay channels earn money from subscriptions. Compared to the US the splitting of (live) sports broadcasting rights are clearer divided between PSB’s and pay channels. Mostly highlights are accessible for free, while live coverage is watchable with a subscription. Because of this especially pay channels broadcast live football in Europe, because they can afford it to buy the rights. This process started when the technological development of satellite television enabled channels to become pay channels, which changed the economical situation of sports television in Europe. This model of free-to-air television and pay channels is also applied in the Netherlands, but there are major differences.
1.3 Sports Television in the Netherlands
In the Netherlands there’s also a public service broadcaster such as in the UK. The difference is that in Holland there are multiple broadcasters airing on the same channels. United, the broadcasters are known as the NPO and the
broadcasters are divided into several subjects mostly differing in believe (religion), political viewpoints and/or public service goals (education, news, sports). The NOS is the broadcaster that’s engaged with sports in the Netherlands. The NPO has three channels and the government decides the distribution of airtime between the broadcasters; the programs are made or bought by the broadcasters themselves. The government gives direction in what programs should be available in terms of public service, and can decide to fund or decline it.
Before 1989 there were no commercial channels in the Netherlands, and there were even no other channels than the NPO. Since the introduction of commercial channels the same debates started as in the UK. If commercial channels are also free-to-air they can also broadcast sports, even if it’s considered public service according to some. In that case the government doesn’t have to buy expensive broadcasting rights while the content is still
available for everyone. The difference with the UK is that commercial channels in Holland are not obliged to provide public service, even though they are
accessible free-to-air. This makes the Dutch case comparable, but also different from the situation in the UK.
The public service broadcaster NPO has to show sports by law, but with budget cuttings since 2013 sports are left out more and more32. When the Dutch
government thinks the sport or event is public good it should be on a free-to-air channel like in the UK. When in 1989 commercial channels were introduced the NPO was not the only free-to-air television platform anymore. Therefore
competition between the NPO and commercial channels for the broadcasting rights started and the prizes went up. Because the government funds the NPO people discuss the need of the government paying for expensive broadcasting rights while a commercial channel can also air a sport or an event. With the highlights of the Eredivisie, the Dutch football league, this discussion was fiercest in 2005 because the Eredivisie is seen as public good and the NPO broadcast it from the start33. A new channel Talpa outbid the NPO and the question was if the
government should overbid Talpa. Eventually budget cuttings in other programs left the government no choice then to let the highlights of the Eredivisie go to a commercial channel. They couldn’t cut other programs and raise the budget of football in terms of public good anymore.
So the highlights of the Dutch Eredivisie were always shown on the NPO, until John de Mol bought the rights in 2005 for three seasons for €69,9m a season and created the channel Talpa to show the highlights of the Eredivisie. Talpa was accessible for everyone, but it was a commercial channel and they outbid the NOS of the Dutch PSB with 15%34. The NPO has priority when the Eredivisie
highlights broadcasting rights are for sale35, but they couldn’t afford to outbid
Talpa anymore and for the first time the highlights of the Eredivisie were shown on a commercial channel in Holland. Talpa was not an only-sports channel. It also aired TV shows and entertainment programs. With the highlights of the Eredivisie they didn’t have to have a big marketing campaign to get viewers because
millions of people watch the highlights of the Eredivisie in Holland. Instead of investing money in a marketing campaign the viewers would automatically come
32
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/media-en-publieke-omroep/inhoud/hervorming-publieke-omroep
33 (Dommering, 47)
34 http://www.vi.nl/nieuws/samenvattingen-eredivisie-naar-de-mol.htm?
channel=phone
35 (Dommering, 48)
to Talpa to watch the football highlights36. Like networks did in the US before the
rise of ESPN, sports were used to brand the network.
For the Dutch viewers this meant the highlights of the matches suddenly were interrupted by commercials, while the PSB doesn’t have commercials during programs, only between them. Also the order of the matches changed; where the NOS always started with the best-ranked teams, Talpa showed the highlights of those matches at the end of the show. This led to a lot of annoyance and
criticisms of the Dutch viewers, and with a view other reasons this led to the end of Talpa. For one year (2007-08) the rights went to RTL, but after that year the NOS bought the broadcasting rights back and since then the highlights of the Eredivisie are back on the PSB37. Because of this failure commercial channels
were anxious and during negotiations the NOS benefited of that38.
The live coverage of the Eredivisie has other difficulties. Because of the high price of the broadcasting rights, channels have to be pay channels like in other countries to sustain profitable. A problem is that there isn’t a pay channel culture in the Netherlands like in the US. People are not used to pay for television since commercial television just started in 1989. In a 1996 Trouw newspaper article the coming of pay channels in the Netherlands is discussed39. One of their
statements is that the success of pay channels in Holland will depend on the success of the by the Dutch football association KNVB founded channel Sport7 in 1996. The channel started broadcasting live Eredivisie matches free-to-air to evoke interest of viewers and their aim was to become a pay channel after a few months for a monthly subscription of ƒ2, -. Because cable companies refused to ask viewers monthly subscriptions, matches of smaller clubs had low ratings and highlights remained at the NOS the channel Sport7 had a daily loss of ƒ400.000. On the 8th of December 1996, only a few months after Sport7 was launched, it
was taken off the air40. Compared to the UK the football association and not the
clubs sold the broadcasting rights. The clubs did not agree with that, and in a lawsuit the KNVB was told they don’t own the broadcasting rights of the Eredivisie. This is important because eventually the clubs will found their own
36 http://www.volkskrant.nl/sport/-voetbal-pakket-ideaal-voor-talpa~a705981/
37
http://www.volkskrant.nl/sport/van-nos-via-sport7-naar-talpa-richting-rtl-tot-nos~a3298224/
38
http://www.mediacourant.nl/2008/08/eredivisie-terug-bij-nos-voetbal-in-vijftig-minuten/
39
http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/article/detail/2548674/1996/09/10/Of-betaaltelevisie-in-Nederland-aanslaat-hangt-af-van-Sport7.dhtml
40 https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_7
channel to show live Eredivisie matches, namely Eredivisie Live. Compared to the US, Sport7 is comparable with NBA TV or NHL TV, but the difference is in the US the broadcasting rights are shared with other networks. Mostly pre-season and play-off matches are shown in the US creating a whole different dynamic when it comes to broadcasting rights. Also the channels in the US are pay channels making the earnings model different. Where Sport7 was not able to be sustainable financially, the channels in the US get their income mostly from subscriptions. Sport7 wanted to go to a model like in the US, but to let the viewers get used to their channel they wanted to be free-to-air the first few months. Because of the earlier mentioned problems Sport7 never reached the moment of becoming a pay channel and it went into history as one of the biggest TV channel flops in the Netherlands. Also the fact that cable companies didn’t cooperate show that ESPN did a great job in the US by becoming part of the basic package. In the next chapter will be shown why.
Because of the broadcasting rights lawsuit that the football clubs won they own the broadcasting rights of the live coverage of their matches, comparable to the situation in the UK. They sell the rights from time to time to the highest bidder. For a long time most live matches weren’t even available. When Canal+ bought the rights in 1997 they only aired the live matches of Ajax, PSV and Feyenoord, the three biggest football clubs in Holland. This led to criticism from other clubs because their matches weren’t available and they missed income out of broadcasting rights. In other countries the income of broadcasting rights is determined by the position in the league at the end of the season. The higher the position of the clubs in the league, the higher the income will be for the clubs. In the Netherlands this wasn’t the case because not all matches were broadcast live. Whatever the position of a club was at the end of the league the income was determined by the matches that were broadcast live. The three biggest clubs in Holland were the only clubs that were always broadcast live, so they received the most of it.
Because of this unfair situation, and the fact they couldn’t find a new buyer for the broadcasting rights, the clubs decided to found their own pay channel Eredivisie Live in 2008, with possibilities to have a full subscription or just a ‘season ticket’ for one club. In this way the income of the subscriptions and sponsors was distributed fairer, but still dependent on the amount of fans and the ranking on the league table. Eredivisie Live was a new concept where all matches were broadcast live for the first time. Because of several reasons this wasn’t the
success the clubs hoped for. First of all the amount of subscribers were
disappointing. The prize of a subscription was or too high for the content offered or people weren’t used to buy a subscription for live matches of the Eredivisie. Also the price of the broadcasting rights was too high for Eredivisie Live to become profitable. The market seemed to crash, but then in 2013 21st Century
Fox bought the rights for a price of 1 billion dollars for twelve years. Since then a new channel was founded to show the matches: Fox Sports NL41.
Fox Sports changed the price structure of a subscription compared to Eredivisie Live. At Eredivisie Live you could get a subscription for €17,50 a month for everything (Eredivisie and foreign content like the German and English cup), at Fox Sports you pay €17,95 for just the Eredivisie content (live matches and shows around the Eredivisie). If you want just foreign leagues like the German Bundesliga and the English Premier League the subscription is €11,95 a month. Combined there’s a package for €25,- a month. A lot of people thought €17,95 was a lot for just Dutch content. In that way the price increased, because there’s less content for the same price. The difference is that their content of foreign leagues increased a lot. Sport1 (nowadays Ziggo Sport) used to broadcast foreign leagues, but Fox bought the rights of the English Premier League and the German Bundesliga leaving only the Spanish League La Liga at Ziggo Sport (and some less interesting leagues like the Belgian and the Portuguese). The French and Italian leagues are broadcast on the open channel of Eurosport. The case of Ziggo Sport is interesting because Ziggo is a cable provider. They took over pay channel Sport1 during the 2015-16 season and created a free-to-air channel only
available for Ziggo subscribers. They offer multiple channels where only their main channel is available free-to-air to Ziggo clients, and the rest with a Ziggo Sport subscription. Before Ziggo took over Sport1 the channel was a pay channel only available with a subscription, but because the main channel is free-to-air for Ziggo clients more content is available free-to-air. Because of this Ziggo
strengthen their market position against other cable providers because they offer a free-to-air channel with unique sports content, with which they also strengthen their market position against their main competitor Fox Sports. When more football becomes available free-to-air people will doubt if a subscription is still needed. Without extra monthly costs people have access to the French, Italian and Spanish league as well as European competitions (UEFA Champions League on SBS6 and UEFA Europa League on RTL7) and international football between
41 http://nos.nl/artikel/404390-betaaltelevisie-nooit-succes-in-nl.html
countries. For football fans enough free possibilities are available on Dutch television so the subscribers of Fox Sports must be interested in the particular leagues Fox Sports offer, and not just like football. This is why the Dutch league is so important for Fox Sports because the Dutch league is still the most popular in Holland. By obtaining the broadcasting rights of live matches of the Eredivisie Fox Sports still holds a strong market position even though they don’t offer free-to-air football.
The Dutch league is interesting for Dutch people, and the popularity of foreign leagues is mostly divided between the English, Spanish and German league. The Italian league is not as attractive as it used to be because of financial struggles, making a lot of players leave the Italian Serie A. The French league never used to have a lot of Dutch players and that is one of the main interests of Dutch people watching foreign football. When Fox Sports used to broadcast the Italian Serie A in the season 2014-15 the viewer ratings were that low they
decided to not buy the broadcasting rights anymore. Eventually Eurosport bought the rights of the Italian and the French league showing most matches live on their free-to-air channel.
Ziggo Sport bought the rights of the Premier League for the season 2016-17 and promised to show the most important matches on their free-to-air channel42, showing the yearly shift of content between free-to-air and pay
channels. Concluding about the Dutch case you could say the content regarding football is divided into free-to-air channels and pay channels. At this moment the highlights of the Eredivisie are on the free-to-air channel (NPO/NOS) as well as the highlights and live broadcasts of the French, Italian and Spanish league (Eurosport, Ziggo Sport). The live broadcast of the Eredivisie as well as the highlights and live matches of the British Premier league and the German Bundesliga are on a pay channel (Fox Sports).
Compared to the US and the UK football content in the Netherlands is more available on free-to-air channels, but there’s still content where people have to have subscriptions. The highlights and live broadcasts of different foreign leagues are shifting every season from the open-air channels to pay channels showing the diversity and complexity of Dutch sports television. In the US television viewers cannot choose to exclude a pay channel like ESPN in their basic cable or satellite package, such as in Europe. Thereby the US government doesn’t interfere as
42
http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1052/Premier-
League/article/detail/4200928/2015/12/03/Premier-League-voetbal-naar-gratis-Ziggo-kanaal.dhtml
much with the content shown by networks as in the UK and the Netherlands, where they have a public service broadcaster. Therefore the situation in the US is unique compared to the situation of Europe. In the UK and the Netherlands PSB’s have an important role when it comes to free-to-air football, but because of commercialization it’s shifting more from PSB’s to commercial and pay channels. PSB’s are funded by the government and they can’t outbid channels anymore that get money from advertisement and subscriptions and therefore have a less limited budget. All these processes started with a technological development (cable/satellite television) that made room for special interest (pay) channels. These channels changed the price of watching sports on television for the consumer as well as the price of broadcasting rights, making TV networks pay more and sports clubs earn more. In the next chapter will be shown how online technologies affect these developments.
2. Online Sports and Convergence Culture
In this chapter the development of sports television in the last 20 years will be discussed. It is the time the Internet conquered its place in the media landscape, which affected other media. Like the earlier mentioned technological
developments, online technological developments also changed the economical situation of sports television. The process of digitization of television already started earlier. It’s a long running development of advanced television techniques that according to some scholars started with the teletext systems in 197343.
Other inventions like the remote control and the VCR contributed to the changing televisual experience of the viewers giving them faster access to more
information. These early inventions also can be seen as ‘predecessors of the digital techniques to record, copy, appropriate and share content’44. Eventually
this will lead to online streaming as a competitor for television in the post-network era. A major change that affected the amount of channels that was already discussed was the coming of cable and satellite television.
The difference is that the amount of channels with cable or satellite is not limited. More channels can be added more easily giving viewers the availability of more special interest channels45 like a full-sports channel. Scholars see it as the
end of the network era and the beginning of the multi-channel transition46. It
43 (Bennett, 52)
44 (Bennett, 53)
45 (Chalaby, 354)
46 (Lotz, 8)
means that no longer big networks control the industry, but that multiple
channels on multiple networks all have their share and their target audience. In the US this was clear in the example where the big three networks ABC, CBS and NBC lost their target audience in sports to ESPN, a special interest channel. More channels bring more diversity to a television landscape and therefore the power of a few networks is divided over a lot. For the viewers this means more choice and being less depended on a few networks, giving the viewers more power. Because of this shift of power from the networks to the viewers, networks have to be more inventive to keep viewers satisfied.
But where the multi-channel transition just focuses on television, the rise of the Internet marked a new era; the post-network-era. Nowadays TV is not only watched on a television set, but also on a computer, a mobile device, a tablet and so on47. This is called streaming. The content available on television is made
available on a stream to watch online on a computer or a device. On the one hand it expands the possibilities of television networks because their content is now available everywhere instead of just in front of a television. In that sense it is an advantage for television networks. On the other hand television networks loose the power when their content is watched somewhere else. When a viewer watches a channel on an illegal streaming website the channel looses an official viewer while only TV viewers are calculated. This costs income because
advertisement becomes less interesting on their channel and thereby an advertisement on a streaming website doesn’t bring income to the television network. In that sense it’s a huge disadvantage for the networks. Also channels that are only available with a subscription are streamed online illegally. Viewers then watch the content online so they don’t have to take a subscription at the channel, making the network loose income. Especially when a television device is connected to a laptop, showing the online stream on TV and converging TV and the Internet, the televisual experience can be the same for the viewer and the need for a subscription at a television network diminishes even more.
Television networks needed to act to prevent losing viewers to online streams. The loss of viewers means less income out of advertisement and for pay channels the loss of subscribers is the main concern. The main solution against illegal streaming is to offer legal streams of their content themselves. For
television channels that are available for free it means an extension of free-to-air television. Streams are made available on online TV players accessible for
everyone with an Internet connection48. In this way the network holds the viewers
in their environment preventing them from seeing other advertisements and/or unwanted distractions on the screen. For pay-channels this is the same, except the streaming possibilities are only accessible with a subscription. In this way pay channels prevent losing subscribers to illegal online streaming. The technological development of streaming leads to a different economical situation, because networks can offer different subscriptions; one for television and one for streaming. Also the broadcasting rights market changes, while there are two ways to show content: on television and online. This will be explained later more thoroughly, but again it shows how technological developments affect the
economical situation.
To keep viewers within the television networks environment and preventing them from doing something else an app works even better. With an official app the network has the power to direct the users to the direction they want without distraction from other websites. Thereby the place of an app on a mobile device opening screen for example and the logo of the app reminds users of the
television network, so it is also a form of branding. The shift from television to streaming is already moving on to the shift of streaming on computers to the streaming on portable devices49.
An app can be used for streaming as mentioned, but it is also the place for added information and extra content. Extra content can be news articles, video content, sports statistics and so on. For television networks it is the platform to enhance the televisual experience. Streaming is more a replacement of
television, used to make viewers less bound to a physical place, extra content can also be used when watching television. Next to the television broadcast live statistics, added information, reactions from people all over the world, videos and more enhance the television broadcast50. For television networks this is important
to create an advantage over competitors and online alternatives. A website and/or an app with streaming possibilities and extra content is a tool for television networks in the post-network-era to keep viewers within their environment and/or make them take a subscription for their channels. It is an important factor nowadays because just a television broadcast is not enough anymore to keep viewers/subscribers satisfied.
48 (Holt and Sanson, 162)
49 (Greeg and Ferguson, 245)
50 (Greeg and Ferguson, 246)
2.1 Sports and Convergence
So what is the role of sports in the convergence between television and the Internet? First of all sports and television were always highly related. An important aspect where sport scheduling is based on is the broadcast on television. This is called the media-sport complex that comprehends the
interaction between sports and how it is mediated. For sport organizations this means they have ‘no or little control over the nature and form their sport is televised, reported or covered’51. Sports were adapting to the structured show
times of the television networks to become a mediated event that can be ‘consumed’. Because of that, sports are very appropriate to the traditional television broadcast.
But with the convergence of TV and the Internet sport also shows to be appropriate to streaming and online culture. Victoria Johnson contributes to this debate where she argues sport is on the one hand a stabile product when it comes to mass media but on the other hand fits the characteristics of the post-network era well. Television is still an ideal medium to broadcast sports because live broadcasting is one of the main qualities of television. Sport events that were broadcast live became one of the most popular genres on television. The liveness of these events combined perfectly with the ability of television to broadcast live. Also with ’Televised professional sports, the rules of play are often modified to fit the spectacle of play into the conventional temporal divisions of programming, with regular commercial breaks and so forth. In such cases, the demands of the medium as an agency of consumer culture works in conjunction with the
demands of the medium as a showcase of attractions’52. What White argues here
is that television adjust their programming to a live sports broadcast, but a sport event adapts their scheduling to the television broadcast so the liveness of the event perfectly fits to the live broadcast on television.
On the other hand Johnson mentions sports is ‘well suited to new business practices, media outlets, and modes of viewer involvement that are enabled by the distribution flexibility and technologies characteristic of the post-network era’53. Of all television genres sports is the only one emphasizing and neglecting
the strengths of television networks. Liveness used to be one of the main
advantages of television because you have access to an event when it happens in your living room. But with new media this access is also granted and you don’t
51 (Maguire, 316)
52 (White, 53)
53 (V. Johnson, 116)
have to be in front of a television screen anymore. With your mobile phone, a tablet or just a computer you can also access TV channels and therefore get access to a live event without being bound to a television. The Internet opens up new opportunities for sports broadcasting while there are more channels and distribution forms allowing much more content and live coverage. Also the distribution is made more flexible because there are alternative ways now. For television networks this enables broadcasting multiple matches or events at the same time while they aren’t limited to the amount of channels but can open up streams to broadcast. When used well, the convergence between television and the Internet opens up new opportunities for sports television networks that can be used to replace their brand in the market.
First of all it is interesting to see how television networks used sports before the post-network era to put themselves in the market in a certain way. Sports are attractive to networks because the broadcast of it has relatively low production costs and potentially high audience ratings54, but broadcasting rights
are relatively expensive. It is expensive content to purchase, but when bought most costs are already made and there’s a high success rate. Thereby sports are important content to brand a network. It creates advantages that are attractive to advertisers and viewers. Besides the brand awareness sports is simply a way to attract viewers that are fan of a certain sport or team. These viewers are loyal to their sport or team and therefore loyal to the network that broadcast the content. For advertisers this is also attractive because their target audience is clear, so they know who they reach and where the target audience is mainly interested in. This is attractive to advertisers so they don’t have to do expensive research first. With sports the audience is generally clear so it’s easy for
advertisers to reach the audience as best as possible.
One example Johnson gives is the rise of sports network ESPN. The cable network that fully focuses on sports showed other networks how sports can be used to create a multiple-channel network that also attracts viewers when there’s no live broadcast. A network that also broadcasts other content and isn’t a whole sports network uses sports to ‘produce a desirable audience for advertisers’55.
Also by broadcasting sports a loyal audience is created that identifies the network with sports. This is a form of branding; the brand of the network is placed in the market as a sports network, creating a loyal audience that is attractive to advertisers. ESPN fully elaborated on this by broadcasting sports
54 (Maguire, 316)
24/7. They created a loyal audience that is loyal to the network, and sports fans identify themselves with ESPN because ESPN is known as the authority when it comes to sports television.
A reason for this is that besides live broadcasting ESPN had other content to create a 24/7 broadcast. Extra content is something ESPN used to become the ‘market leader in sports television’56. They made sports documentaries to create
extra content to fill their programming and eventually even a whole new channel called ESPN Classic. Besides it is used to brand ESPN and promote other activities and channels of ESPN57. Extra content is convenient for viewers to see
background stories and footage of highlights they haven’t seen before, but it also creates a form of branding placing the sports network as an authority when it comes to sports. Having an archive can create this authority. It is called the archive because footage and images of historical events create a historical framework that can situate a television network, like in this case ESPN, as the authority on sports past58. In this way the archiving of footage and a channel as
ESPN classic can be used to address sports fans, and it creates audience loyalty. Also sports fans identify themselves with ESPN while it is the authority when it comes to sports. In the case of ESPN the use of sports to place their brand in the market is logical because ESPN is a whole sports network. But because of their strong branding ESPN is known as the authority in sports television and the market leader of sports television showing how well they used sports to put their network in the market in a certain way.
In the post-network era the Internet started to play a role in sports television and television networks needed to figure out how this could be an advantage. As the self declared ‘world market leader in sports’ ESPN was one of the first to react in 1995. Even though they understood the importance of the Internet in sports television until 1999 their webpages weren’t successful. In 1999 they created ESPN.com that also became the brand name for their online
content. Starting with just results and statistics, in 2004 the brand became interlinked with their television broadcast by showing for example results of online polls on television. Also video content became available online in 2004, making ESPN the first sports television network that interlinked their television
56 (Vogan, 197)
57 (Vogan, 202)
58 (Vogan, 202)
and online content59. With ESPN as trendsetter other television networks all over
the world followed soon.
For the extra content ESPN creates they created a new platform to
distribute it to their viewers. While the extra content and the archiving gave ESPN authority, the Internet even enhanced this authority while content got even more accessible, and always available on their website. By placing the by ESPN created content online the network creates extra content to individualize the viewers experience and thereby create viewer engagement with the network. Besides the live coverage of matches extra content is a branding tool to keep viewers
attention even when there’s no live event to broadcast. By creating extra content they fill their programming and create content to show on online platforms, which enhances viewers engagement and direct viewers to their own channels. Also, online is more personalized at ESPN. They created MyESPN where people can create an account on ESPN.com to personalize their preferences. Because ESPN shows a lot of different sports, the preferred sport and sports team can be chosen so the newsfeed on ESPN.com will highlight the chosen preferences60. A television
network uses these personalized experiences on their websites to create an advantage for subscribers. In this way networks can use sports to create brand awareness and create a certain image that gives advantages to the network. 2.2 The Temporal Structure of Sports: Liveness
One of the most important things that changed with the coming of online
technologies and the convergence between TV and the Internet is the temporal structure of sports. Online dynamics change this structure, but the relation between television and sports have always been of relevance when it comes to scheduling sports. When is a tournament or a league held and how are the matches spread out of the day? An important aspect of television that suits sports well as Johnson argued is liveness. Sports offer live moments of
uncertainty whereof the outcome cannot be known before61. This makes sports
ideal for live broadcasts while this offers suspense, surprise and unforgettable moments. When watching reruns this suspense and surprise is gone so with sports it is important to ‘be there’. While not everyone can be there physically, the liveness of TV combined perfectly with sports.
59 (Raney, 185)
60 (Raney, 186)
61 (Wenner, 229)
But as Johnson argued sports television is also very suitable for digitalized media. First of all online possibilities allow sports television to intensify liveness by offering live streams online. People aren’t bound to their television set anymore, but can receive a live broadcast with a computer, tablet or mobile device. This extends liveness because live content is available everywhere. Also it offers more people the opportunity to watch, so it increases the audience. Streaming gives viewers extra opportunities when there are multiple sporting events or matches at the same time. With a TV and a stream, or even multiple streams, viewers have access to more content at the same time extending the availability of liveness. Also extra information can be added during a live broadcast like statistics or a chat box that upgrades the live experience. This added information can be an advantage for viewers that makes them prefer streams over TV.
Second of all non-live broadcasts can be watched online. If networks offer the possibility to watch one of their channels online, the channel is available even when there’s no live broadcast. Actually the broadcast is live but the program showed is not, creating a flexible liveness where the channel is always available online even though the program showed on the channel is not a live broadcast but a rerun or an earlier recorded program. The advantage is the viewers can watch television without a TV wherever they want. Third there’s the circulation of liveness when live broadcasts can be watched back in the form of videos. This re-use can be a full broadcast or be in the form of highlights. It offers convenience to the viewers to not only watch the content back wherever, but also whenever they want. Online technologies gives sports television networks new possibilities when it comes to liveness while the viewers are not or less bound to space and time. A TV is not needed anymore as well as watching the program when it is shown on television. This brings advantages for viewers TV networks can use to create viewers engagement and loyalty. This makes them more attractive to advertisers, showing how important extended liveness can be.
2.3 Temporal Structure of Sports: Scheduling
There are technological and economical interrelations between TV and sports that influence the temporal structure of sports. Television networks and sponsors are getting more important because of their financial support to the sport or team. If a sport or team is not adapting to the wishes of the network or the sponsor their attractiveness diminishes, which eventually will lead to less income. With less
