Sports Television Programming

Every year, less and less people pay for cable. These people are known as “cord cutters.” Some are doing it for financial reasons, others because they simply don’t watch that much television and would rather purchase OTT services, such as Netflix and Hulu. But what about sports programming? Sports programming is meant to watch live and in order to watch live sports,  you need to have cable. I think that no matter what, sports will always stay relevant to the consumer because the concept of watching sports live on television will never change. Specifically ESPN, which serves as a monopoly in the sports TV network industry, is what is leads most of the male demographic (18-49 year olds) to keeping their cable channel packages.

If you are a sports enthusiast, would you pay for cable if you couldn’t watch ESPN? According to a Sports Illustrated article, most people wouldn’t pay for cable if they couldn’t get ESPN. In the article Jon Wertheim says “Just under 100 million cable homes get ESPN in their cable package; before selling a single commercial unit, the network earns around $7 billion annually in subscriber fees. Still, how many consumers would voluntarily pay for ESPN? In conjunction with a 2004 renegotiation, one cable carrier surveyed its consumers and found that one-third of them would drop their current carrier if it didn’t offer ESPN.” How else do you watch sports programming and news? ESPN serves as a monopoly by being the only cable network to provide sports games and news. Even though NBC Sports is one of their cable competitors, people go to ESPN due to their reputation and sports properties.

Right now I pay for cable and the only times I use it is to watch sports or late night entertainment shows such as a program on ESPN, NBC Sports and The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon. But that’s as far as my cable watching goes. Otherwise, I watch Netflix to watch all other shows. The trend for other programming genres has shifted as cord cutters are causing ratings to decline. However, sports programming has seen an increase in ratings and viewership. According to a Nielsen report, “While the rise in time-shifted viewing largely altered viewership trends for most program genres, live viewing remains the standard for sports. According to TV data from Q4 2015, 95% of total sports program viewing happened live. In 2015, there were over 127,000 hours of sports programming available on broadcast and cable TV and 31+ billion hours spent viewing sports, which is up 160% and 41% respectively from 2005.” These findings have been key for sports programming networks because live television has seen a decrease in viewership year after year.

2015 Nielsen Report. 

This increase in live sports programming viewership came from many angles. One being the increase of Fantasy sports participation. According to the Nieslen report, “Fantasy sports participation is a key way fans have used digital platforms and technology to enhance their live TV viewing experience.” In particular there was a 72% increase in Unique Audience for PC in 2005 and a 163% increase in Unique Audience for smartphones cross top daily fantasy sites. This is true for myself as well because this year was my first time joining a fantasy football league. Being that I got very consumed by my fantasy football team, I found myself watching games live that were relevant to my fantasy football team, even if I had not previously planned on turning into that particular game. I usually wouldn’t watch any other games besides New York Giants but due to my participation in a Fantasy football league, I watched many other games live which contributed to the increase of viewership for that particular live sports program.

2015 Nielsen Report. 

The future of sports programming is selling its rights to OTT content and even social media companies. This can be seen through a recent deal between Twitter and the NFL. According to Sports Business Daily, “The NFL went with Twitter for its "Thursday Night Football" streaming package, because the league is "intrigued by Twitter’s mobile capabilities, and Twitter is already a popular medium for sports fans," according to Ben Volin of the BOSTON GLOBE.” The NFL wants to make an international fan base and they thought the best way to do this is by streaming with Twitter because people don’t have to sign in with their cable provider. According to the Boston Globe, “The deal comes on the heels of the NFL’s experiment last October in which 15.2 million fans tuned into Yahoo to watch the Bills and Jaguars play in London at 9:30 a.m. Eastern time. The NFL has other streaming deals — Verizon customers can watch Red Zone Channel and certain games on the NFL Mobile app on their phones, while CBS, NBC, and Fox allow fans to watch games on mobile devices once they sign in and authenticate through their cable providers — but Twitter’s Thursday night package will be the only truly free stream of NFL games throughout the world."

This is a change in the sports programming industry but I think it’s in a positive direction for fans, not so much big name networks in terms of ratings. But this is a great way for people to access games wherever they are around the world.

No matter where you are from, sports unite people together and will always be more meaningful when watched live, unlike other types of programming genres. I think that the future of sports programming will be available on other platforms but the concept of it being live on cable won’t hurt as much as people may think. How do you envision the future of sports programming? Do you think that sports will be available live in the future on television or will streaming on OTT channels and other platforms takeover?

Works Cited

Master, Stephen. “Year In Sports Media Report 2015.” Nielsen. February 2015.

Sports Business Daily. “Twitter’s Reach To Psorts Fans, International Presence Seen As Key In NFL Streaming Deal.”           http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2016/04/06/Media/Twitter-      NFL.aspx?hl=cord%20cutters&sc=0. April 6, 2016.

Wertheim, Jon. "As More Viewers Cut Cable, What Will Happen to Sports?"As More      Viewers Cut Cable, What Will Happen to Sports? Sports Illustrated, 17 Dec.     2014. Web. 10 Apr. 2016. <http://www.si.com/more-sports/2014/12/17/future-     cable-sports-tv>.

Volin, Ben. "NFL’s Twitter Deal Is a Nod to the Future - The Boston Globe."NFL’s        Twitter Deal Is a Nod to the Future. Boston Globe, 5 Apr. 2015. Web. 10 Apr. 2016. <https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/football/2016/04/05/nfl-twitter-deal- nod-future/99C3WnsUu29ZXSAaKr1GKN/story.html>.

Are Athletes Good Role Models?

Are Athletes Good Role Models?

The term role model is defined as “a person whose behavior, example, or success is or can be emulated by others, especially younger people”.  Growing up we all had that one athlete that we really wanted to be.  For me it was Michael Jordan, I loved the way he flew around the court but what I loved most about him, was that he always won. This was before the age of social media and gossip bloggers.  In reality we knew very little about the men and women we worshipped.  Now with 24- hour news cycles and our sports obsessed culture we have uncovered a horrible truth; athletes are not all good people.  Some of them are actually horrible people, who are just very physically talented. So this begs the questions, knowing all we know about athletes why do we still see them as role models?  Would you want your future kids idolizing an athlete?

Athletes may have money, fame and take up a significant amount of your screen time but underneath some of their squeaky-clean images, the media finds ways to make good people villains. For example, LeBron James is a great role model, but the media paints a totally different picture. He grew up in a very rough neighborhood, to a single mother but continued to chase his dream and is now giving his community something he never had.  But everything he does is under such a small microscope, that he gets a bad reputation.  A New York Daily News article talks about how it has become a huge news story that LeBron James un-followed the Cavaliers twitter account and has been sending out ‘cryptic tweets’, supposedly about his teammates (Healy 2016).  This is such a non-story, but because people are so obsessed with LeBron, they make a big deal about every move he makes.  This intense scrutiny has seen LeBron accused of being a non devoted self-centered diva, who screwed his hometown and is the reason his teams have issues and don’t win championships.  This always made me wonder that if Michael Jordan played in the same era as LeBron James, would he be viewed the same? In retrospect, the “mistakes” LeBron has made to earn this reputation, pale in comparison to his peers.

           

Another reason to question athletes as role models is the culture of sport itself.  When we turn on the TV to watch sports we are not looking at a group of choirboys and girls. We know too well, cheating (in both senses of the word), drug and alcohol abuse and violence are ingrained in the culture of professional sports. From Ray Rice and Greg Hardy to Alex Rodriguez and Lance Armstrong, once the golden boys of their sport are now nothing more than pathetic, disgraced former stars (Mendes 2014).  These athletes are prime examples of physically gifted individuals who never deserved they fame they got. Meanwhile, you have kids who are wearing their jerseys, buying their products and emulating their styles.  Is that really something you want to be apart of or want your kids to be?  This just further shows that athletes live a rock star life that knows no true limit and because of their money and status, they believe they can’t get in caught and if they do, they won’t get in trouble.

That’s also not to say that some athletes can’t be great on and off the field.  With the culture of sports and the lens the media shows them through, this creates a perfect storm for athletes to be viewed negatively. But for every stupid athlete there are many who are doing great things. According to a Forbes article, when Heavyweight Boxing Champion Lennox Lewis made a great contribution to young people’s perception of what is embodied in true masculinity when he said on a public service announcement that “Real Men Don’t Hit Women” (Steinberg 2013). There are many great athletes who we should want our kids to be like, people who break barriers and stand up for what is right while also succeeding in their field.  They may not be able to help your kids through tough times but at least they are setting a good example of something to strive toward.  Are there enough of these athletes in the business to outweigh the bad ones?

I think to answer this question you have to ask the athletes themselves.  Do they view themselves as role models? The answer to this question comes from none other than Charles Barkley (a former NBA player and current NBA broadcaster) in a television ad proclaiming, “I am not a role model.” *see link at bottom*
In this commercial he emphasized that athletes’ ability to make baskets or catch touchdown passes has nothing to do with being a role model. That is, having sporting ability doesn’t automatically qualify a person to be a role model. Telling kids to look up to someone they can’t become, because not many people can be like we are (Smoll 2015). In an article by Todays Parent it says, “Barkley may have ruffled some feathers years ago, but he was accurate with his statements that athletes aren’t role models for children” (Mendes 2014).  Rather, Barkley believed that’s a job for parents. I agree and would include teachers and coaches who spend a huge amount of time with kids and influence their upbringing and future success.  Kids need to have role models they can interact with on a daily basis and have a meaningful relationship with (Steinberg 2013). This is why parents, teachers, coaches and other adults should be the primary role models in a young person’s life. The posters on the walls can’t talk back to kids and give them any meaningful tips on how to navigate life. The relationship between an athlete and their fans is skin-deep—limited to sound-bytes on television and carefully crafted PR images (Mendes 2014).  

Whether or not you think athletes are good role models, I think the point is clear: athletes have an incredible opportunity to use their celebrity power to positively influence the next generation, I just hope they make the best of it.

Works Cited:

Healy, John. "LeBron James Unfollows Cavaliers on Twitter." NY Daily News. N.p., 22 Mar. 2016. Web. 09 Apr. 2016.

Mendes, Ian. "Why Athletes Should Never Be Role Models for Kids - Today's Parent." Todays Parent. N.p., 19 Sept. 2014. Web. 09 Apr. 2016.

Smoll, Frank. "Are Athletes Good Role Models?" Psychology Today. N.p., 20 Apr. 2015. Web. 09 Apr. 2016.

Steinberg, Leigh. "Why Do We Make Athletes Role Models?" Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 20 Jan. 2013. Web. 09 Apr. 2016.

Links:

I am not a role model video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMzdAZ3TjCA

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/coaching-and-parenting-young-athletes/201504/are-athletes-good-role-models

http://www.todaysparent.com/blogs/the-good-sport/athletes-never-be-role-models-for-kids/

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/lebron-james-unfollows-cavaliers-twitter-article-1.2572594

http://www.forbes.com/sites/leighsteinberg/2013/01/20/why-do-we-make-athletes-role-models/ - 3ea350536273

Social Media in the Sports World: a Positive or Negative?

            Sports are a lively hood for many people. They are able to watch their favorite teams on television, but what has made the experience even more advanced is the development of social media. Most players and even coaches are active on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. These outlets allow sports figures to open the door to their private lives and give their fans an inside look at their daily lives. The problem that has developed over the years is that social media has made things too personal for players and coaches. We have seen icons like LeBron James get in trouble for voicing their opinions that range from the state of their team to their political opinions.

The scandal with LeBron James started when he unfollowed the Cleveland Cavaliers on his Twitter account. When James was asked about why he unfollowed his own teams’ account he replied with a stubborn, “next question” response (Healy). The whole reason why this was so controversial in the eyes of the media was that James did the same thing right before he announced he was leaving Miami in 2014. James certainly has a right to unfollow whomever he desires, but he also has to realize that he is a professional athlete and when he uses social media, he is accepting that his personal life will be unmasked. Not only did his actions make LeBron look unfaithful to his own team, but also it made the team as a whole feel as though their best player was not fully devoted to the Cavalier organization. Although Twitter is a great tool to reach out to fans, an important question to ask is whether athletes should have certain boundaries on social media so it does not interfere with their team’s chemistry etc.?

The Lakers organization was another team that recently found themselves in the news due to social media. The Lakers rookie point guard, D’Angelo Russell recently taped his teammate, Nick Young confessing to cheating on his fiancé Iggy Azalea (Video below). Russell and Young were in a hotel room on the road when Russell taped Young without his permission. The video was leaked anonymously online and even though Russell claims that he didn’t know how it happened, there were rumors that Russell briefly posted the video on his Instagram before taking it down. Russell commented about the release of the video and saying he didn’t know how it came out, “It wasn't something for everyone else to see. It was for my eyes, his eyes only. That was it” (ESPN.com). Whatever the case may be, Russell still put his teams’ chemistry in jeopardy by the power of social media. After about an hour online, the video became viral and everyone around the Lakers organization lost a lot of trust in Russell. Byron Scott (coach of the Lakers) said about Russell, “He’s such a kid”, “You’re 19 but sometimes I think you’re 14” (Dwyer). After watching the video, many people believe that social media was actually used positively in this instance because Russell’s video exposed Young’s disloyalty to Iggy Azalea. On the other hand, in matters like this, others believe that Young’s disloyalty is between him and Iggy only and no one else, which is a fair argument to make.

 Youtube: "*Leaked/Full Vid* D'angelo Russell Secretly Recorded Nick Young Admitting He Cheats On Iggy Azalea"

One sport that we see as a significant part of our U.S. culture is American football. As of a week ago Twitter and the NFL agreed to a deal that would allow Twitter to stream Thursday night NFL games. The NFL is hoping the move “helps the social media group connect with new audiences” (Urbain and Lever). Twitter is a major platform for fans to express themselves about live games, which is why Twitter thought the partnership would be beneficial for both parties. As opposed to the LeBron and D’Angelo Russell mishaps, this recent news definitely shows how social media can be used in a positive way. Twitter is paying $1 million a game, while other companies like Yahoo have paid upwards of $17 million for single games (Frier, Moritz, Soshnick). The investment for the NFL seems to be well worth it, but is this a positive for social media, or is it going to far outside its original model? 

Overall, we see that social media can play many different roles in the sports world, but which  side (positive or negative) weighs heavier on the industry?

Work Cited

D'Angelo Russell Apologizes for Nick Young Video Fiasco." ESPN. ESPN Internet

Ventures, 31 Mar. 2016. Web. 09 Apr. 2016.

Dwyer, Kelly. "Report: Lakers Angry at D'Angelo Russell for Taping Convo with Nick

Young." Yahoo Sports. N.p., 30 Mar. 2016. Web. 09 Apr. 2016. 

Healy, John. "LeBron James Unfollows Cavaliers on Twitter." NY Daily News. N.p., 22

Mar. 2016. Web. 09 Apr. 2016.

"*Leaked/Full Vid* D'angelo Russell Secretly Recorded Nick Young Admitting He

Cheats On Iggy Azalea." YouTube. YouTube, 30 Mar. 2016. Web. 09 Apr. 2016. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEqJ2RAmuko>.

Soshnick, Scott, Sarah Frier, and Scott Moritz. "Twitter Gets NFL Thursday Night

Games for a Bargain Price." Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 5 Apr. 2016. Web. 09 Apr. 2016.

Urbain, Thomas, and Rob Lever. "Twitter Wins Rights to Stream Thursday Night NFL

Games." Yahoo Finance. N.p., 5 Apr. 2016. Web. 09 Apr. 2016.

Should College Athletes Get Paid?

                 If anyone uses any social media outlet such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or Snapchat, you would’ve seen something or someone mention the game-winning-buzzer-beating shot in the NCAA National Championship game for men’s basketball that happened last Sunday. Junior forward, Kris Jenkins, made the remarkable shot to cap off the end of a truly “mad” March. Kris, along with the video of his shot, are all over social media. He’s receiving the attention that a professional athlete would receive, yet he’s considered just an amateur. The big difference between an amateur and a professional: the money.

                  For some years now, the idea of paying college athletes who play big time sports (i.e., basketball and football) has been a hot topic. The NCAA is a billion-dollar organization yet they refuse to pay the athletes because of their amateur status and the fact that they are students first and athletes second. However, the main reason why the NCAA has become so successful is because of it’s athletes. According to Nabeel Gadit, “the NCAA has grown to be one of the most dominant participants in all of sports entertainment. Currently, the market for collegiate-licensed merchandise is $4 billion per year. Increasingly, the success of this industry is attributed to start athletes, who often receive national attention and obtain celebrity status akin to their professional counterparts” (Gadit). Essentially, the NCAA is making all this money because of the athletes yet they refuse to give them any sort of cut of the revenue. Is this fair to the athletes? I don’t think it is but when signing with a university to play a sport, you must sign and state that you are in fact an amateur athlete and you will not receive any sort of payments. I only know this because I’ve signed the form however, some athletes have taken a stand against the NCAA and their own institution.

                  Back in March of last year, members of the football team at Northwestern University actually formed a union which basically meant they were university employees and not student-athletes. Along with the NCAA, this also upset Northwestern University. According to The College Football Writer, “Northwestern believes strongly that our student-athletes are not employees, but students. Unionization and collective bargaining are not the appropriate methods to address the concerns raised by student-athletes” (Fornelli). I think Northwestern and the NCAA will do everything in their power to eliminate this union to prevent the status of these athletes as “employees”. But this action could lead to something bigger. This action may have gotten the ball rolling for more similar actions to happen in the coming future. “Should that happen we would likely see drastic changes to the way college athletics work. Everything from increased value of scholarships, concussion reform, improved medical coverage for athletes, athletes being allowed to accept endorsements, and possibly athletes being paid as well” (Fornelli). As an athlete, all this sounds like music to my ears but I can’t help to ask how this would all work if someday, athletes could get paid?

                  Would only big time sports get paid? Would female athletes receive the same amount as male athletes? How much would athletes get? It certainly is a complicated process to think about. In the article, Here’s Why We Shouldn’t Pay College Athletes, the author raises the question of whether or not, “a $100,000 salary gives the student-athlete a better deal than the $65,000 scholarship?” (Thelin). I thought this was an interesting point because sports will only take a person so far in their life but an education will last a lifetime so what is really worth more? The salary or the scholarship?

                  It’s difficult to say if college athletes should remain as amateurs because of all the attention and money they can bring to a school and the NCAA. But, in near future, will school provide this student-athletes with salaries or just say the scholarship is enough? According to the article, NCAA Is a Cartel and Should Pay Its Athletes, “the University of Alabama allows its student-athletes to receive the full cost of attendance in scholarships, amounts to over $6,000, rather than just the full cost of tuition” (Taylor). The article also states that this is being used as a major recruiting tool for the school. No matter the amount, I think any student athlete would accept any sort of salary or stipend from their university without question.

Works Cited:

Fornelli, Tom. "NLRB Rules in Favor of College Athletes Players Association." College Football

Writer. CBSSports.com, 26 Mar. 2014. Web. 4 Apr. 2016. <http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24501646/college-athletes-players-association-wins-case-at-nlrb>.

Gadit, Nabeel. "An End To The Ncaa's Exploitation Of Former Student-Athletes: How O'bannon

V. Ncaa Highlights The Need For An Inalienable Reversionary Interest In The Right Of Publicity For Former Student- Athletes." Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 30.2 (2012): 347-368. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 1 Apr. 2016.

Taylor, Kristen. “NCAA is a Cartel and Should Pay its Athletes.” KeraNews.org. 17 Mar. 2016.

Web. 4 Apr. 2016. http://keranews.org/post/ncaa-cartel-and-should-pay-its-athletes-new-york-times-author-says

Thelin, John R. “Here’s Why We Shouldn’t Pay College Athletes.” College Planner: Money.

Time.com, 1 Mar. 2016. Web. 4 Apr. 2016. http://time.com/money/4241077/why-we-shouldnt-pay-college-athletes/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX8BXH3SJn0