On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Adam Bowie <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm surprised that they were talking about relatively basic stuff >> since you have to be a bit of a die-hard to stay up late for those >> Sunday night or Monday night games. Of late, UK TV broadcasters have >> tended to take US network feeds of the Superbowl even though the NFL >> makes an international feed available which explains the rules a bit >> more. UK fans are pretty clued up in general. > > So to Adam and the UK members of the list... is the NFL actually > popular in the UK, or are they just filling space in the schedule? > >> The reason UK stations employ these pundits at all, and don't just >> take the US feed is because we're not legally allowed to carry the >> amount of advertising that US stations can. > > Hey, that sort of limitation on profit potential is socialism! > > -- > Kevin M. (RPCV) >
NFL is popular in a minority sort of a way. There's a significant following, and obviously Wembley is selling out (just) each year for the International Series. There's always vague talk of a European franchise, but the sport has a lot of close competitors. There's rugby union which is significantly more popular both across the UK, France, and even Italy to an extent these days (plus the English speaking southern hemisphere). I was at an England v Australia fixture at the weekend and there were 80,000 people there. The north of England favours another flavour - rugby league. Because both these sports are played with less padding, there's a certain attitude prevalent that NFL is played by "softies" because they wear all that padding. Although to be fair, people in the game know that as a consequence, the hits are harder in NFL. The biggest problem with most US sport in the UK is simply the time it's played. Because it's largely timed for evening TV audiences, the Sunday afternoon games aside, most matches take place when Europeans and Brits are asleep. There was obviously an ill-fated European league that lasted a few seasons, and along with the continuous coverage of the sport, there's a significant minority appeal. The UK even used to support a magazine devoted to the sport - First Down. But that closed down a couple of years ago. Whether that was to do with lack of interest or just a generally declining magazine market is a moot point. What I will say is that the NFL is active in promoting the sport. I'm not sure how much they actually get for all those TV fees, but the NFL is active in getting their product on screens. Sky Sports which is the UK premier sports brand covers the best games for UK audiences to watch, even if better matchups are the Sunday and Monday night games. The NFL loves getting its product on the BBC, so for the regular season, even though the BBC is not showing any NFL at all, its website shows plays of the week. I'm pretty certain that the NFL is dishing this out free to them. They also ensure that the BBC is able to show highlights of the playoffs and get live coverage of the Superbowl which they share with Sky. As I said before, both channels end up with the same US network commentaries. ESPN is a smaller player in the UK showing a mixture of UK sport on its main channel along with NBA overnight. Its sister channel, ESPN America shows MLB, college football, NHL and the Monday Night game. It also carries much of the main ESPN US discussion programming: Sportscenter, Around the Horn, Pardon the Interruption etc. And of course we get MLS! (I will at this point admit to heading out to the Red Bull Arena to see the Red Bulls play Real Salt Lake a few weeks ago on a brief NY visit - if only to see Thierry Henry who was a superstar at Arsenal). Along with Channel 4's coverage overnight - which I'm certain is being provided at little to no cost to Channel 4 - the UK-based US sports fan is well catered for. But it's still only a subset of the main sports watching audience. National newspapers that carry substantial sports coverage rarely have anything beyond the results buried away somewhere. Only a significant story like Brett Favre's texting habits might break into the papers somewhere In Brief in the sports section - and of course even that story got no mainstream coverage anywhere. I think that the NFL is doing pretty much as good a job as it can, ensuring that some of their product is available free to air - Channel 4 and the BBC's coverage - since that's the only way to truly develop a sport for a new audience. This is something that English cricket authorities seem to have forgotten, but that's a story for another day, and probably another place. But in the end the US's timezone stymies it all. That's why I always laugh when there are the annual suggestions that the UK hosts a Superbowl. For one thing, it's pretty cold here in January/February too. And for another, it's even colder at 1am in the morning at that time of year... Adam P.S. Of course "socialism" isn't actually a swear-word in the UK :-) In the recent Labour party elections, all five candidates to replace the out-going Gordon Brown proclaimed that they were socialists. More seriously, this is actually a European law that comes from the EU and limits what companies can do commerically. And to be fair, the stop/start nature of the NFL with quite so many breaks and time-outs is a disincentive to UK viewers. Football and rugby's clocks run non-stop. Actually, that's not true for rugby. But the breaks are so short no-one can, or would dare, to take a break. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
