By Adrian Musolino
January 20th 2010 @ 2:20am
Related coverage
The media dictates the popularity of sports in Australia
Australia's Lleyton Hewitt reacts to a point win as he plays Marcos Baghdatis of Cyprus in their third round Men's Singles match at the Australian Open tennis tournament in Melbourne, Australia, Saturday, Jan. 19, 2008. AP Photo/Dita Alangkara
We often assume media interest is a barometer of a sports’ popularity. If it’s not at the forefront of priorities for newspaper editors and newsroom producers, then it must not be important and entertaining enough to warrant sufficient media and public interest.
But that logic, in my mind, is flawed.
Rather, it’s the media that is dictating the popularity of various sporting codes and events in Australia.
As an example, observe the current sporting focal point in this country – the Australian Open tennis.
In The Australian, Patrick Smith has written about tennis’ dwindling popularity, and while I fervently disagree with his opinions on the game’s entertainment value, he touches on an important note regarding the media’s role in the popularity of the sport at this time of the year.
He writes: “The Australian Open remains sustained only by a media that frets about what can fill its pages, what to kick off the TV sports news. As with the Sydney-Hobart yacht race, who really gives a damn? If the AFL and rugby league seasons could spread deeper into summer, tennis would be played out merely on the backcourts of the media and public consciousness. As it is, soccer is striding into this holiday vacuum of truly relevant sport.”
What he describes as a “hyped-up fortnight” will dominate the headlines and primetime free-to-air coverage to an extent that few other non-Indigenous sports can do.
There’s no mystery as to why this is so.
Tradition and habit are powerful forces, and many of us have grown up with the Australian Open tennis on Channel 7 each January. It’s ingrained in Australia’s consciousness.
Most of those thousands who tune into Seven’s night sessions won’t follow tennis through its convoluted season, rather it’s a yearly tradition to jump on the tennis bandwagon (to steal a popular phrase from football).
In light of what some, such as Smith, think of the game, there’s hardy been a suggestion questioning why the Australian Open is afforded a fortnight’s worth of prime-time television coverage, despite the fact that Australia hasn’t had a genuine Australian Open contender since the pre-Bec Hewitt days.
It seems set in the sporting constitution of the Australian sporting media that the Australian Open and tennis are guaranteed their spotlight each January.
Other sports would kill for such assurances, let alone such airtime.
What this example proves is how the media dictates the popularity of each individual sport. Without Channel 7’s coverage, for example, would tennis be the main talking point for so many Australians each January? It’s highly doubtful.
Their extensive coverage is not the result of a huge public demand for tennis or an indicator of its popularity rather it is the cause of that interest.
It typifies the power of the media – a concept we Australians should grasp beyond just sports, particularly to understand the agendas and fiscal factors at play in media organisations.
It should also act as a lesson for fringe codes that bemoan their own lack of coverage. They need to do a better job catering to the media in its various forms, so one day they too can hope to entice the sort of free-to-air coverage afforded to tennis.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(95)
Mr cheese said | January 20th 2010 @ 4:42am | Report comment
I don’t know that I completely follow your argument on this, Adrian.
In England, we have tennis for 2 weeks a year: Wimbledon. It’s 2 weeks of feast followed by 50 weeks of famine. There is a bandwagon of sorts, but you cannot hold a gun to anyone’s head. If people watch Wimbledon on BBC TV, it is because they think it’s good. Andy Murray’s matches last summer got around 12 or 13 million. That’s about 20% of the population, and he isn’t even English !
Isn’t it possible that you have something a little similar down in the colony ? Non-tennis fans will become obsessed for a fortnight and then they will disappear for 12 months. Look at the viewing figures for the NRL and SoO etc. The players’ behaviour has been reprehensible BUT the fans are addicted to the sport. That’s why you still get good ratings for RL.
I am pretty much on the side of the media, I’m afraid. Over here, we have a one-sport culture. Most of the sports coverage goes to football. I don’t necessarily like that, but the newspapers would put a lot of Rugby League on their pages if they found a big audience. There is no big audience for RL in England. C’est tres simple !!!!!!!!!!!!
MyGeneration said | January 20th 2010 @ 6:34am | Report comment
So, tell us, how is the tennis rating for 7 at the moment? “Without Channel 7’s coverage, for example, would tennis be the main talking point for so many Australians each January?” Yes, because Channels 9 or 10 would pick it up in a heartbeat! You may as well argue that cricket’s popularity is due to Channel 9’s coverage, rather than it’s history. Didn’t cricket still rate well when Australia were rubbish in the 80s? Don’t you think some discussion of player participation numbers would be relevant to this discussion? What is the viewing audience for tennis on FTA and cable during the rest of the year?
This is a slipshod chicken-and-egg argument with little evidence supplied and, yes, flawed logic. What’s your agenda here, Adrian? Is this really about tennis, or are you trying to build an argument for the “real” popularity of, let’s see, curling, badminton?
Mister Football said | January 20th 2010 @ 6:53am | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Redb said | January 20th 2010 @ 7:10am | Report comment
yeah, Adrian loaded the gun but failed to fire the bullet himself.
Marshall said | January 20th 2010 @ 10:56am | Report comment
I saw no mention of soccer. Think it applies to all codes. Look at what losing free to air tv did to the NBL.
MyGeneration said | January 20th 2010 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
So how did the NBL lose free to air TV, and why didn’t being on free to air TV make it more popular in the first place? Why does the argument being applied to tennis here (that media drives popularity) not apply to the NBL when it was on free to air? From memory, the NBL’s popularity was already waning while it was still on free to air. It certainly never used it’s media presence to make itself a permanent part of the sporting landscape.
AndyRoo said | January 20th 2010 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
My memory of that time was a little vague but I do remember them reforming the league by booting Geelong and the Tassie team which in hindsight seems silly because their exactly the type of markets the NBL has a good chance in.
Al said | January 21st 2010 @ 8:24am | Report comment
Do you do anything except for bashing “soccer” and talking up the great Australian game (or should that be shame)?
Redb said | January 21st 2010 @ 8:31am | Report comment
I think we know who is bashing a sport.
Redb said | January 20th 2010 @ 7:12am | Report comment
The media no doubt manipulates to suit but make no mistake it serves one interest – readers/viewers. If you dont give them what they want they soon drift away.
Punter said | January 20th 2010 @ 7:51am | Report comment
The amount of media attention in Sydney given to AFL is way in advance to the interest shown to this sport in our fair city.
I’m sure Channel nine news in Melbourne don’t lead with RL news in their bulletin, yets Channel 7 & 10 in Sydney sometimes lead with AFL stories & really the interest is just not there. So yes the media is agenda driven as per what I think Adrian is saying here.
Redb said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:01am | Report comment
Seeing as both Ch 7 and 10 hold the AFL TV rights that is not unusual.
All media that owns a TV rights promotes its codes above others, check out Ch 9 Wide World of Sports for all the stories on the NRL on a supposed national TV sports show.
In a wider sense newspapers at least aim to give their readers what they want, sometimes they lead them in a certain direction and dramatise, but if the AGE or Herald Sun simply decided to stop publishing AFL stories and printed only NRL stories their readership would plummett.
I’m not that interested in the tennis, go every second year or so but rarely read a story about it. In today’s AGE there is about 6 pages of tennis in the sport section, didnt read a word. But obviously someone is interested.
Redb
Simmo said | January 20th 2010 @ 10:59am | Report comment
“Seeing as both Ch 7 and 10 hold the AFL TV rights that is not unusual.
All media that owns a TV rights promotes its codes above others, check out Ch 9 Wide World of Sports for all the stories on the NRL on a supposed national TV sports show. ”
You’ve inadvertently agreed with the gist of Adrian’s piece
Marshall said | January 20th 2010 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Exactly. As a follower of netball, I noted how Fox Sports stopped putting articles about the trans Tasman comp on their site. Just a small example of how the media influences a sports popularity as I’m sure that’s impacted their web traction as that’s Australias most popular sports site.
Redb said | January 20th 2010 @ 11:09am | Report comment
Simmo,
It’s a no brainer that if a TV station has the rights it will promote above others, but the article talks the meda dictating which sports are popular in a general sense.
It’s more of a chicken and egg argument.
There is no doubt AFL footy was popular in Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth before TV got hold it, in fact that is precisely why they did want to televise it.
Redb
Anthony said | January 20th 2010 @ 10:48am | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Springs said | January 20th 2010 @ 10:54am | Report comment
AFL has one game a fortnight in Sydney, NRL usually has around 8.
The Link said | January 20th 2010 @ 11:04am | Report comment
What’s your point? More people in Sydney go to Rugby League games on a weekend than AFL games. And you don’t need to go to a game to want to watch TV or read about a sport, this is all the media care about.
If the Swans crowds are such a barometer of support in Sydney, why are the TV ratings pretty low?
The Swans do well with crowds in Sydney, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into media coverage cause that’s not the sole driver for why people watch TV or read a paper.
Punter said | January 20th 2010 @ 11:25am | Report comment
Anthony, I’m a football fan & would love to see a higher media attention on the A-League. But living in Sydney & being in Pubs, offices, beaches etc, this is an NRL town. I hear about the footy teams around the traps, I hear very little of the A-League or the AFL teams or discussion.
Most sports fans in Sydney can tell you who should or should not be in the NSW state of orgin sides & why, which of the Morris bothers are better finishers, most Sydneysiders would struggle to tell you what position Adam Goodes plays or why John Alosi is out of the Sydney FC team.
Michael C said | January 20th 2010 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
a lot of Melb based AFL fans lose track of where Goodsey is playing – - he’s a traditional ‘utility’ who may just as easily be in the Ruck, playing midfield or key forward.
However – interest on a team by team basis – if you chuck the Swans and SFC into the general pool – - then, where does a Swans story rate vs an Eels story vs a Manly story vs a StGeorge story?? Likewise in Melb, MVFC, will lose out to Collingwood……but, might not vs North Melbourne. It’s not code vs code – - it’s club vs club, because – we know that certain clubs are deemed more newsworthy than others.
Punter said | January 20th 2010 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
Michael C, what about Melbourne Storm story up against a Melbourne AFL club team?
Michael C said | January 20th 2010 @ 3:59pm | Report comment
Punter -
at various times Storm do quite well thankyou very much – because, for their regular locked in coverage – it guarrantees a preview article each week, (fluff piece or not), and on radio SEN they have ‘locked in’ segments – - which is more than individual AFL clubs have.
How it balances out compared to each AFL club in Melbourne across the board – that’s hard to know and would vary greatly on any given week. In general – i.e. during H&A season – Storm will be nowhere near Collingwood.
The off season is probably the bigger indicator.
However – there’s a big difference b/w the H-S printed paper and the website – the ’sports’ homepage far more often carries a Storm thumbnail than even ANY AFL related thumbnail.
Check the H-S sports homepage vs the DT sports homepage. The DT looks like a virtual NRL homepage. The H-S one, looks like they’re deliberately tying to cater to non-AFL types in England!???!!!
Al said | January 21st 2010 @ 8:29am | Report comment
It is worse in Melbourne, there is almost zero coverage of the A-League or the Victory except for pay TV. Since the AFL took control of SEN, they no longer broadcast Victory games (except on their digital channel which is probably accessibly to 3 people), there are hardly any highlights in the mainstream news sports reports and sometimes not even mention of the scores of any games. The only time however that coverage will be ample is when a soccer “riot” (usually consisting of a 14 year old girl sneezing too loudly) is reported as “soccah violence” by the AFL run media in an attempt to further tarnish the sport and libel its supporters (again).
For the Victory to be getting crowds of 20,000+ without any positive media backing whatsover is impressive.
Redb said | January 21st 2010 @ 8:36am | Report comment
What rubbish. Melb Victory get mentioned in sports report on both Ch 9 and 10 in the news.
The AGE sponsor Victory ensuring a steady stream of articles and the Herald Sun now sponsor Melb Heart.
Victory are one just 1 club with 10 other AFL clubs , all with similiar size (except Ess, Coll & Carl) regular supporter bases.
AFL club membership – 400,000
Victory membersip – 20,000.
That’s 20 to 1. The media would be crazy to ignore those numbers and they don’t.
ItsCalledFootball said | January 20th 2010 @ 4:48pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Australian Football said | January 20th 2010 @ 11:27am | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
BigAl said | January 20th 2010 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
. . . KB – different name, same old game !
Australian Football said | January 20th 2010 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
BigAl said | January 20th 2010 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
Really ! – well it’s all not that important…
BTW speaking of paying attention, my moniker is BigAl not Big Al ! has been for years, – and you havn’t got it right once !
Australian Football said | January 20th 2010 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
Ah but yes, BigAl is grammatically incorrect… Big Al is much better, but if you wish …
BigAL sorry BigAl, got it..!
simon said | January 20th 2010 @ 7:26am | Report comment
While it’s hard to argue that the popularity of a sport is entirely due to the media (and so I think Adrian has probably overstated his case), there is no doubt that without the media, there would be far, far less interest in that particular sport.
This also aplies to AFL and NRL BTW.
While the media would only ‘back’ a sport because they think there is a significant market for it, it is also true that it is in the media’s interest to make that sport bigger than it is.
This is why it’s so important for a sport to be on FTA TV.
Sam el Perro said | January 20th 2010 @ 7:57am | Report comment
If it didn’t rate, it wouldn’t be on TV. Simple.
Marshall said | January 20th 2010 @ 11:06am | Report comment
Yeah but it’s not hard to get things to rate, is it? Look at reality tv. Australian television is a lot less cut throat than American and so we rarely see ratings bombs. We have a lot fewer choices for one.
Lazza said | January 20th 2010 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
The Summer non-ratings period is different. They need programming, any programming, to fill the void and if it gets a ‘pulse’ in the ratings then that will do. Cricket gets plenty of coverage during Summer but the Ashes in England are on SBS during the Winter months.
Michael C said | January 20th 2010 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
and the AShes gave SBS their best ratings for the year. (at least to that point in time). SBS paid a commercial rate for them….and SBS also broadcast the Soccer World Cup.
actually some slightly better presenters might’ve improved figures more so!!
Here we go – a link Ashes smashes SBS records from back in 2005.
“SBS last Sunday posted its highest rating ever as England defeated Australia in a thrilling climax to the second Test at Edgbaston.”
“That night, between 7.15pm and 9.30pm, the broadcaster grabbed 1.12 million viewers. Between 9.05pm and 9.10pm, SBS’s audience swelled to just over two million.”
The impact for SBS was summed up by Les Murray:
Murray said the Ashes ratings had lifted SBS’s year to date average overall rating to 5.6 per cent.
Last year’s result was an overall share of 5.1 per cent.
But Murray said he didn’t think Nine would be too upset over SBS’s success, having passed up on the rights for the series.
“I don’t think they’d be heartbroken,” he said.
“Their ratings are still high and they’re still winning.
He said it was a harder decision for Nine to broadcast the series.
“In order to put the cricket on they would have to be certain that the cricket is going to outrate their existing programs,” Murray said.
“We always knew that the cricket would outrate our existing programs, so for us it was an easy decision.”
MattRusty said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:20am | Report comment
The same argument can be used for the Spring Racing Carnival, Valentines Day and Xmas.
It’s ingrained in our culture – good luck trying to change that. I think the lesson for the ‘lesser codes that bemoan’ is, create an event people want to be involved with and the media will latch on to it (not the other way around).
M1tch said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:25am | Report comment
No doubt, the media has sports they want to promote and some they dont..I think we all know which Sports the media loves and media loves to criticize.
Michael C said | January 20th 2010 @ 11:29am | Report comment
well – we do know that there are Media companies with ownership conflict of interest (eg News Ltd ownership stake in NRL and of clubs past and present)
we do know that there are media sponsorship of clubs/codes etc – such as the Age and MVFC and SMH and SFC,
we do know that Sports bodies write in contractual obligation (contra) into broadcast deals – such as AFL with Ch7 and Ch10,
and we know that media has an interest in cross promotion of their own sports ‘content’,
HOWEVER – look at the cricket for example – the domestic T20 is on Foxtel. You don’t see much discussion of this ‘competing’ form of cricket on Ch.9 Test Coverage. It’s all cricket – - but, it’s in direct media competition.
Likewise, Ch.10 will only promote footy (AFL) that it has rights to, fair enough. And Ch.7 will only promote footy (AFL) that it has rights to. Other than the ‘code’ specific ‘preview/review’ programs……..ahh….but even there, Ch.10 ensure that their offerings of Before the Game and the 5th Quarter are saturday specific – - thus only promoting the AFL matches that occurred on their (Ch 10s) day of coverage.
What IS odd – is the example of Channel 9 running AFL shows such as the Footy Show, the Sunday Footy Show, TAC Cup Future Stars and the like – when, they don’t have the current broadcast rights. As we don’t see (or do we in Sydney – I wouldn’t really know) Ch7 or Ch10 pushing RL content in NSW/QLD.
At the end of the day though – we know the media recognize that there’s nothing better than a good scandal, beat up, cross code warfare etc etc. Far, far easier to sell than a cute fluff piece about someone doing charity work and improving their 2nd efforts.
kick,clap,kick said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:35am | Report comment
The amount of media attention in Sydney given to AFL is way in advance to the interest shown to this sport in our fair city.
I’m sure Channel nine news in Melbourne don’t lead with RL news in their bulletin, yets Channel 7 & 10 in Sydney sometimes lead with AFL stories & really the interest is just not there. So yes the media is agenda driven as per what I think Adrian is saying here.
Spot on Punter…..but when they forked out the big cash for something & find that it gets flogged in the ratings by 30yr old movies ,you can’t blame them for trying to get people interested……sadly forcing it down the throats of uninterested people just turns them off more.
You can guarantee that if 7or 10 buy the RL rights,then in Qld & NSW,AFL will get a massive reduction in news time…comparible to its popularity in those states.
Mick said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:41am | Report comment
Alot of the media belong in the world is flat school & if you travel far enough you will eventually fall of the edge which Patrick Smith thinks the Aust Open should be
ohtani's jacket said | January 20th 2010 @ 10:14am | Report comment
God forfbid Australia could host a sporting event that Australians aren’t successful at. That’s so un-Australian.
Redb said | January 20th 2010 @ 10:26am | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Robbo said | January 20th 2010 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
Redb – I think OJ was being sarcastic.
Republican said | January 20th 2010 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Tennis, according to recent stats compiled from the ABS I believe, rated it the number one sport in Oz, taking into account a broard criteria including knowledge of the game, participation levels, read about and attendance of.
Certainly it is a sport that has a proud history here having always been very accessible compared to many countries arond the world, however Australians do not fare so well these days, competitively i.e.
Despite this, the fore mentioned criteria indicates it maintains a very high profile in this country, pipping Swimming last year for the number one possi which is no mean feat, since Swimming has assumed this status consistently for just about as long as I can recall.
Cheers
Lazza said | January 20th 2010 @ 11:49am | Report comment
I’ve never believed that there has been a decline in the popularity of Tennis. We’ve just had nothing to cheer about because we don’t dominate like we used to. Our Davis Cup team is now a yo-yo team, always in danger of being relegated to the “2nd Division” of world tennis.
As many have pointed out, this is due to the fact that world tennis is far more competitive than it used to be. In the past only a few countries produced world class players but now that the Europeans and Sth Americans are involved it’s much more difficult. Like all global sports we have to get serious with funding elite academies, proper junior coaching and career paths if we want to succeed.
Michael C said | January 20th 2010 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
the major decline is the number of tennis courts – - too valuable real estate -esp in Sydney where 1000s have been lost (sold off by the churches in many cases to sustain religion!!!).
a bit like Squash didn’t need a decline in popularity – - simply that circuit gyms etc became a better economic proposition and Squash felt the ’squeeze’ so to speak……bit of a pun there!!
Then – in a sense, the ‘decline’ becomes reality but not due a lack of popularity.
as an aside – - I’ve often thought that Aust Footy might get squeezed out because town planners and school yards would see vast ‘ovals’ as a overly luxuriant open space that would be better ‘built up’ around a far smaller soccer pitch. On this basis – footy needs cricket and cricket needs footy…..actually, reminds me, I flew into Sydney yesterday and had a nice view down on Henson Park – a really nice AUst football oval and home of the Newtown Jets, the goal posts are still up, but, there’s some Rugby posts on there presently (could be grid iron for all I know) – and it just makes so obvious the universal benefit of having good facilities at an oval.
Republican said | January 20th 2010 @ 10:35am | Report comment
The media dictates the poularity of everything in our prosaic western cultures.
Do we get the media we deserve? I believe so and in that respect there should be far more deconstructing and scrutiny of what we are fed, including the very corporately dependant culture i.e ‘elite’ sport.
Cheers
Anthony said | January 20th 2010 @ 10:50am | Report comment
The continuous media coverage given to soccer proves how true this article is!
Lazza said | January 20th 2010 @ 11:13am | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Michael C said | January 20th 2010 @ 11:41am | Report comment
but does it??
the hypothetical that AFL and NRL if on would drown out the Tennis Grand Slam…….not so sure about that.
That media drives interest in each individual sport – - – hmm, chicken and egg that one is when talking about something like Aust Football that became hugely popular from the outset 150 years ago in a small city of 70,000 and forced media to cover more than just the social aspect of who captained each side!!!!!! Where do you claim that the popularity is purely a function of the media coverage vs the media coverage being a function of the popularity??
And the Socceroos – - only provide 5 or 6 ‘home’ matches each year, against who knows and at anywhere and anytime of the year. You don’t become a rusted on annual sports calendar fixture under those conditions. Boxing Day test and Syd-Hobart Yacht race are rusted on. Melb Cup 1st Tues in Nov is rusted on, AFL GF, last Sat in Sept is rusted on, Aust Open tennis is rusted on. The Socceroos are not rusted onto the calendar…..let alone, they have a huge disconnect with sports in Australia domestically. If H.Kewell and Chipperfield and McDonald etc were playing every other week in the HAL in ‘prime time’ Aust – - then, perhaps yes, there’d be merit in your argument.
The Socceroos may seem to deserve more coverage – - but, do they actually warrant it?
I’m just waiting now for Adrian to suggest that the Melbourne Cup is overrated and driven by the media.
(because, whilst someone could mount that argument…..a partial pun there – the reality is that certain events carry something that money can’t buy – - and that’s generation after generation of ‘credibility’ and are therefore ‘cultural’ as much as anything else – - i.e. rusted on!!!!).
Lazza said | January 20th 2010 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
It’s just common sense. If you have a huge amount of money tied up in certain sports then you will try to protect your investment. That’s how the FTA networks will always see it and they will favour the sports they have the rights to.
Yes, the Socceroos warrant more coverage. Foxtel is going to renegotiate the contract and pay more because their games are always a ratings winners. The Socceroos got higher ratings than all the AFL/NRL games on Foxtels top 100. The HAL has a long way to go but the Socceroos are much more popular than you would believe from the media coverage.
Michael C said | January 20th 2010 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
“The Socceroos got higher ratings than all the AFL/NRL games on Foxtels top 100.”
that doesn’t really say that much though – does it.
If Foxtel had exclusive rights to AFL/NRL Friday night matches, or finals, or NRL SoO – - then it might mean something,
it’s not as if the Socceroos on Foxtel are up against 7 other matches each round for the code specific audience to be dispersed across.
The HAL has a ruddy long way to go…..an enormous ways to go and domestic T20 cricket is starting to leave it in it’s wake.
MyGeneration said | January 20th 2010 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
“deserve”?
Michael C said | January 20th 2010 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
depending upon your perspective.
I don’t think the Socceroos deserve much more of a domestic profile than what they have in Australia. They in the main are a fairly fluid collection, a bit of an abstract concept – and for a lot of people who aren’t 100% soccer – it get’s a bit confusing as to what is a meaningful match and what isn’t – let alone who is available and who isn’t and just who is the captain anyway???
Whereas the national cricket team is so much more real and accessible to the Australian media and public. Come soccer WC time though – the Socceroos will have their chance to shine brightest, but, then, fade away again until the next critical WC qualifier played at home.
AndyRoo said | January 20th 2010 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
totally disagree with this one.
Yes their is more history behind the Cricket team but it’s not all good. The Socceroos inspire much more pride in me than seeing our cricketers play and while I would have been well and truley in the minority in 1988 I think that is becoming more and more the case.
Your critiques of the football team hold up for all but the most hardcore cricket fan too. Who is the 1 day captain or 20/20 captain right now? which team is Nathan Bracken in?
Crickets meaningful matches seem reliant on the quality of the competition rather than the event, it seems now if we are playing India it’s meaningful but if it’s NZ it’s not. Doesn’t matter what the event is.
Neil
Cahill
Wilkshire
Schwarzer
Ponting
Clarke
hussy
Johnson
Personal choice but I’ll vote for the first lot every time.
Marshall said | January 20th 2010 @ 10:53am | Report comment
The logic is correct. Look how things like Wipeout, Idol, Big Brother rate. They create media identities with no talent yet we help that industry survive by clicking on those stories and buying into their world. They’re not talented or entertaining, yet we watch it. I’m not saying tennis is boring, just that people tend to go along with whatever the mainstream media are pushing.
MyGeneration said | January 20th 2010 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
You’re not talking logic, you’re talking evidence. And the evidence is that purely media created entities like the ones you mention have a short shelf life, unlike the Australian Open which is not purely a media creation, but based on at least a hundred years of history, and a real sporting culture. The Australian Open existed before TV, the programs you mention did not. The comparison has little validity.
Towser said | January 20th 2010 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
Couldnt agree more. Never noticed Australian Idol,Big Brother,Worlds fattest chicken when I stepped of the boat many years ago.
Plenty of tennis courts though & plenty of interest in Australias tennis greats like Rod Laver & Ken Rosewall,John Newcombe.
It stood out like a sore thumb to me because where I came from tennis was not a working mans sport & in fact we(working class plebs)were excluded in past times.
Probably one of the reasons that Poms are weak in tennis.
Refreshing to see that anyone could play in Australia,reflected by the number of tennis courts.
Michael C said | January 20th 2010 @ 11:06am | Report comment
Ahem -
the Australian open tennis is one of only 4 global tennis grand slams.
It comes around as often as the F1 Grand Prix.
It attracts excellent crowds over 2 weeks,
it provides a heap of TV content that rates extremely well,
and it is not a Johnny come late ‘fad’ based on the exploits of others – it is a rusted on part of the Australian sporting calendar.
I can see elements of Patrick’s argument – but, the Australian Open is big irrespective of media, and the media is there because it is big.
BigAl said | January 20th 2010 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
I find Patrick Smith’s attitude towards Tennis & the Aus.Open bizarre !
Somewhere in the distant past he has been deeply offended by Lleyton Hewitt and hence for years now he always refers to him in print as ‘ little Lleyton ‘ – getting a bit tedious and childish IMO.
He now appears to be letting this bile spill out over everything tennis !
The Australian Open is an Australian Sports Icon – end of story !
Republican said | January 20th 2010 @ 11:30am | Report comment
Lazza
One could argue that the media dictate and indeed dominate the prosaic global support that Soccer assumes.
I for one am sincerely bemused by the resignation to this games ongoing world appeal on the part of so many.
Lazza said | January 20th 2010 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
Of course you are bemused because you don’t understand Football or it’s appeal. You assume that everyone around the world is stupid or doesn’t know that other sports exist.
All the English sports that we follow in this country are tiny in comparison to Football in England. They have plenty of choices but prefer Football by a mile. Sports fans around the world have plenty of choices, most have had Pay TV longer then we have, but they prefer Football.
AndyRoo said | January 20th 2010 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
I haven’t taken much of an interest in the recent Australian opens but it’s a world class event. It really needs an Australian to do well to pull me in but to be honest I am not a fan of Hewitt or Tomic. it would be crazy to have a home grand slam not on FTA in prime time. Stacks of countries would kill for a home grand slam.
As too football i would like a bit more space in the sports news for a league highlights but it will come in time, was only a few years ago Fox didn’t cover all the games and now we have to build the schedule around them.
The Socceroos do themselves no favors media coverage wise. If you don’t work for fox it’s hard to get access and Channel 10 were so frustrated with how much access they were given they showed behind the scenes footage of their attempted interview with the Dutch players (prior to Holland vs Australia). They were promised just 3 minutes with Dirk kuyt but didn’t even get that … after about 20 seconds the Dutch pulled the plug (the questions were non controversial topics). The daily telegraph has been frustrated too even threatening a boycott if they couldn’t be allowed to interview players.
Lazza said | January 20th 2010 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
The next round of WC qualifiers are on the anti-syphoning list now so there will be much more exposure in future. Remember, it was only Foxtel that was willing to take a chance with ‘new’ Soccer so they have a right to protect their investment.
In future we’ll have a better balance between Pay and FTA coverage of the sport.
Foxy Loxy said | January 20th 2010 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
The internet is only going to reinforce this principle of only giving coverage to the most popular sports. You only have to look at the Telegraph and Herald Sun news web sites and compare how many posts are being made to specific sports and types of stories to work out what news sells. Unfortunately its soap opera stories about celebrity AFL or NRL footballers. TV news is no different. The media loves the Fevolas & Masons of this world because they attract readers or viewers and that makes money via advertisers.
Forgetmenot said | January 20th 2010 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
Simply put the media uses whatit knows will get the viewers/readers and hence the dollars.
They know that Australians love watching the Tennis as it seems so relaxing in summer, and hence they write about the large range of fairytales (Dokic last year), and heartbreaking losses (Molik last night).
It is like that around the world. Perhaps even more so.
Media organisations also want to ensure that the stories they produce are good for their long term views.
For instance. Foxtel is promotes soccer on almost every sports event (football, rugby, olympics, soccer, gridiron) as they know that if they grow soccer in Australia then they will increase their market share dramatically.
Oh and tennis has huge numbers of players around the country who enjoy watching a few games once a year (as it ismuch more enjoyable to play than watch).
AJ said | January 20th 2010 @ 4:54pm | Report comment
i was thinking of getting fox primarily for the sports channels. having had access to them whilst at work (on mines, every room has fox) I will not be getting for because whilst I enjoy a bit of soccer i simply cant cope with so much of it. i am sick to death of bosnich, robbie and that other bloke. it was nice to have a bit of cricket over the last few weeks. having said that it is understandable that a soccer supporter may feel the same way about FTA, however i feel that soccer is far more dominating of fox then league or football are of their respective broadcasters
Rob said | January 20th 2010 @ 6:51pm | Report comment
AJ as a futbol supporter i definitely feel that way about FTA coverage, Last week despite the top of the table match between SFC and GCU the a-league was still basically invisible on tv.
Yet 10 and 7 found time to spruik the AFL with off season non-stories. I guess thats what they feel they need to do having shelled out so heavily for the broadcast rights. It gets back to Adrians point that with some sports the media is driving the market as oppoosd to responding to it. Fox might be bursting at the seems with futbol but because its a small player it doesnt have the power to influence that the major networks do
Anyway mate, take a break from Fox and get yourself refreshed in time for the WC.
Republican said | January 20th 2010 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
Lazza
If you insist that League and or AFL derive an inflated profile purely on the back of any percieved network bias in this country, then is it not reasonable to make the analogy that Soccer also benefits from the very same, however moreso, given it’s heavy weight global status and the network attention it commands.
League and AFL pale in this respect and that they continue to maintain any sort of status quo over Soccer in Oz, for whatever reason, is quite an achievemnt in itself, considering Soccers global corporate muscle.
Is it also plausible, that Soccer, for all that global status, is simply appealing to the masses as a result of it’s domination of the media? You can certainly argue the old chicken and the egg depending on how far back you wish to go, however you cannot have your pav and eat it too in this respect, when crying ‘foul’ over the so called popular footy codes that exist at soccers expense down under.
Cheers
Football said | January 20th 2010 @ 3:44pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
MyGeneration said | January 20th 2010 @ 4:00pm | Report comment
Not sure what you’re trying to say, but tennis ratings usually increase as the tournament goes on. Last year 2 night sessions (from the 2nd week) ended up in top 20 programs for the year. Obviously a lot depends on how far into the tournament Australian players get as well. Would be surprised if Channel 7 doesn’t top the ratings for the next two weeks courtesy of their Open coverage.
AJ said | January 20th 2010 @ 4:55pm | Report comment
all that shows to me is australias love of crap tv- TT, ACA, 2.5men aaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhh
Redb said | January 21st 2010 @ 8:00am | Report comment
SBS have a good run on Monday nights. Top Gear then Man V Wild.
Foxy Loxy said | January 20th 2010 @ 4:41pm | Report comment
Hey Adrian Musolino — how come no complaints about the so called “Sports” shows and segments on BBC and some of the other Foxtel channels that are just an entire show on soccer? Most of them should renamed.
pimbo said | January 20th 2010 @ 5:06pm | Report comment
“Soccer” isn’t sport?
AJ said | January 20th 2010 @ 6:18pm | Report comment
i think the point being made is that soccer isnt the only sport going around
Foxy Loxy said | January 20th 2010 @ 6:21pm | Report comment
“Soccer” isn’t sport? Looking at some of those alleged “sports” bulletins, its the only sport.
Forgetmenot said | January 20th 2010 @ 5:39pm | Report comment
Most arguments about footballs dominance in the Australian media, can be said about soccers dominance in most of the rest of the worlds media.
Although… i love how in some of the football states occasionally they will do the football news, and then say “…and now to sport”.
Sth Auckland First XV said | January 20th 2010 @ 6:09pm | Report comment
Agree totally with the title of this article.
Mick said | January 20th 2010 @ 6:37pm | Report comment
Leyton Hewitt should of stayed playing the local courts in Adelaide instead of trying of taking on the world, that way Patrick Smith might of had some respect for him…….
keeper11 said | January 20th 2010 @ 10:35pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
AndyRoo said | January 20th 2010 @ 10:43pm | Report comment
I will say in leagues defence their is possibly more water cooler interest in who is selected for the kangaroos and in what position than the actual games so the build up is somewhat justified.
Springs said | January 20th 2010 @ 10:57pm | Report comment
Look at the crowds? So what? What other sport is bigger in Sydney?
The NRL when compared with other comps around the world does very well, it is the premier domestic rugby comp of either code. NSW games easily outdraw the socceroos, I’m sure if the socceroos only played the all whites every year for 100 or so years there would be even less support than the kangaroos. League tests have always been well supported… until Super League. Origin has since overtaken, but tests still get large support for large events (44K in Bris when Aus played GB in 2006, as large as the socceroos game in Sydney last year, 50K for WC Final).
Why does the socceroos major WC qualifying games always outdraw the smaller ones? Because the public is interested in the WC, more than the actual socceroos. If the kangaroos competed in a soccer-sized World Cup, interest in them would skyrocket. 0
ItsCalledFootball said | January 21st 2010 @ 12:00am | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Chuq said | January 21st 2010 @ 8:30am | Report comment
“Highest paid footballer – Harry Kewell $9.5 Million per year”
Playing Devil’s Advocate: “But he plays overseas, that shouldn’t count … what about footballers playing within Australia?”
Football wins that too – Top 3 salaries of footballers of any code in Australia:
Robbie Fowler
John Aloisi
Jason Culina
ItsCalledFootball said | January 21st 2010 @ 12:17am | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
poil said | January 21st 2010 @ 1:04am | Report comment
I doubt your figures especially then you argue that they had the highest female participation rate (did somebody forget to include netball?) and the largest average participation (not when they can’t even fill Bruce Stadium). I don’t even think the average Australian has any idea that the Socceroos are playing sometimes let alone Australian sides in the ACL.
Damo said | January 21st 2010 @ 7:57am | Report comment
Adrian has a subjective argument without research based evidence. But I have no doubt that certain codes get hyped by certain ‘news’ outlets and boycotted by others.
But the argument that the media only puts on what the people want is equally subjective
I personally think that English soccer coverage on free to air is way over the top. Where are the masses screaming for that? Surely the Soceroos are more relevant.
English soccer coverage makes as much sense as watching gridiron. Fine if you like it but really not something the masses asked for.
.AFL players breaking their fingernails and AFL coaches moving house seems like code pushing news to me.
My subjective view is that of a free-to-air-starved rugby fan.
MV Dave said | January 21st 2010 @ 8:03am | Report comment
“I personally think that English soccer coverage on free to air is way over the top” Where can you see English football on FTA ?(unless you are talking about 10 second snippets on the sports news). Its only available on pay tv. l’d agree that ALeague goal highlights should be shown on sports news before and if necessary, in place of EPL goals.
True Tah said | January 21st 2010 @ 8:14am | Report comment
I think that Damo was getting at that (i.e EPL coverage does impair HAL coverage).
On Foxtel, EPL gets a hell of a lot more advertising than the HAL.
Jay said | January 21st 2010 @ 8:06am | Report comment
Its not just sport. Look right now given to the coverage over Prince William.. seriosuly, does anyone care that he is in the country – yet the media have been covering him non-stop.
He was in Sydney yesterday and there was not one word from the people at work (especially the girls). Yet when David Beckham was here last, it was crazy. In comparasion, a lot more media attention has been given to him.
I suppose they have their agendas. With new media, however, this will change, as people become more infomred about the avenues to access infomration they want to access (like this site!).
tommy said | January 21st 2010 @ 8:52am | Report comment
to many of the comments- chip on your shoulder?
Damo said | January 22nd 2010 @ 5:50pm | Report comment
to your comment – foot in the mouth?
bever fever said | Yesterday | Report comment
The AGE sponsors the Melbourne Victory soccer team, both the Executive editor David Dick and Sports editor, Alex Lavelle are both poms and soccer fans, from what i have read they seem to give them a extroadinary amount of coverage beyond their popularity.
The two most senior sports staff at that paper are soccer fans, would not know a sherrin from a steeden.
matty1974 said | Yesterday | Report comment
Beaver Fever, your above example sums up the point of the main article, that the commercial media will over emphasise the sport/competetions that they have a commercial interest in.
There used to be a time (before the code wars began to really explode) that i would have taken a greater interest in Aussie rules and rugby league, but now rarely watch any sports show on channels 7,9 and 10, due to overwhelming bias they give to AFL and RL in relation to my preferred sport, football.
I think the commercial media have forced fans to increasingly choose one code, to the exclusion of all others.
Compare the sports coverage of 7,9,10 etc to this mornings ABC (which has no real commercial interests) Offsiders. The main story covered was the A League GF, reflecting that it was the biggest event this weekend, but it also gave time to the 3 other football codes and cricket.