The actual coverage of the game remains fairly similar to that of ‘Match of the Day’, with one high angle camera shot used to cover the action. Developments are noticeable when consideration is given to the numerous camera angles and action replays used throughout the coverage, again with particular focus on specific players. The major developments are not in the ways the match itself is shown to the audience, but more how the sport as a whole is packaged for the television medium and delivered to its audience. Without doubt the slick production values of ‘The Premiership’ demonstrate a development in football’s presentation on television.
The real market leader, however, is undoubtedly Sky. Currently holding rights to televise football worth £1.11b, the television arm of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire has dominated sports coverage in Britain over the last decade. The very concept of access to live top flight football being available only through subscription television strengthens the argument that the sport is significant as a television show, a point reinforced by the introduction of 40 pay-per-view games a season in 2000. The fact that not everyone has the access to televised football has been a criticism of Sky; however since the early nineties it has pioneered countless techniques in televised football and played a major part in changing the image and status of the game.
Before the arrival of Sky, analysis of football rarely consisted of more than Elton Welsby’s idle chat with a guest at the end of ‘The Match’ on a Sunday afternoon, but now the deconstruction of the game is expected to be part of football coverage. Machines that can measure the speed of shots, create virtual reconstructions and end offside arguments once and for all are now taken for granted as being part of the Sky studio, and are obviously viewed as a vital part in the packaging of football for an audience. Sky’s Monday Night football affords as much time to Andy Gray deconstructing the previous weekend’s games frame by frame and scribbling frantically on the screen as it does to the featured live game.
Andy Gray himself is arguably as famous for his role as television pundit as his role as a player and his enthusiasm, energy and catchphrases are the embodiment of the exciting and non stop image of Sky. With the interactive service, the company has developed yet another way to view football which will undoubtedly be copied by the rest of the market. The various camera shots available to viewers and features such as ‘fan zone’, in which opposing supporters commentate on games, favour the argument that football’s presentation on television is developing hugely.
Football is not just televised in the form of games however, but also forms the basis of numerous other television programmes. The sport is used purely for entertainment in shows such as Sky’s ‘Soccer AM’, and is used as a basis for soaps, such as ‘Footballers Wives’ and ‘Dream Team’. Although perhaps a seemingly trivial point, the existence of such programmes demonstrates how marketable today’s game is and how television is creating an image of footballer’s lifestyles that is probably accurate is only the slightest fraction of cases.
The study of football’s presentation on television raises some valid points and shows undoubted development of the sports role in entertaining a media audience, however to answer the question fully consideration must be paid to more than just the techniques used to deliver the game to an audience. To justify Steve Wagg’s statement that football’s significance is as a television show, evidence may be needed that the game itself has been directly affected by the medium.
Television has been criticised for damaging the game, Ed Horton describing its moment of arrival as ‘when the cancer set in’ in his book Moving the Goalposts; Football’s Exploitation. However despite this kind of criticism, it cannot be denied that the very image and reputation of football has been affected and boosted enormously by television, particularly since the arrival of satellite broadcasting.
The game hit an all time low point in the 1980’s in terms of attendances, finance and social status. Average crowds slumped to 16.4m in 1986 (Rothmans Football Year Book), disasters such as Heisel and Hillsborough raised warranted safety concerns, hooliganism was common and publicised to the point of moral panic, and the decline in players taking up the game at a professional level hinted at football’s declining popularity. As a result the rest of society was looking down its nose at the sport. The formation of the Premier League gave a fresh face to football in the top flight at least and coincided with the arrival of Sky, who initially tried to americanise the sport with cheerleaders, fireworks and an image of glamour and excitement. The Premier League and its clubs have become worldwide brands and the marketing of British football has undoubtedly rocketed since the early 1990’s. Commercialisation is a huge subject of discussion on its own and there is simply not the word limit available for this essay to consider it in great depth, however the effect of television, and particularly Sky, on the commercialisation of football is surely evident.
There are numerous practical elements of football that, although now taken for granted as being part of the game, have developed with consideration to television. The presence of advertising is now commonplace at all grounds, on kits and behind managers and players when they are interviewed, however might not be as common if it were not for the exposure given to the game by television. For a few seasons in the Champions League, the front few rows of seats at grounds were even sacrificed for the benefit of advertising boards, with companies surely keen to give their brand the exposure to the viewing figures that Europe’s highest club competition guarantees. This hinted at the importance of television advertising over the fans; however this practice seems to have subsided in recent seasons.
Kick off times have recently been the subject of controversy, with the increase of various kick off times all weekend for the benefit of television meaning football is no longer just in its traditional place of 3 o’clock on a Saturday afternoon. The demand for Manchester United to be televised means that many of their games this season have kicked off at noon on Saturday, leading to protests from supporters. It is also worth noting that televised games now kick off at five minutes past the hour perhaps to allow for advertising, a subtle and largely unnoticed point but also one that nevertheless indicates a definite and direct modification of the game for the benefit of television.
The very formation of the Premier League in 1992 is also a good example of the game being significantly affected by considerations to television. The formation of the league came after pressure from the ‘big five’ of Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Everton and Spurs to negotiate their own television deals. A new premier division enabled the top flight clubs to negotiate their own television deals independently from the rest of the football league, a move that has arguably created an ever expanding financial rift between the lower league clubs and those in the promised land of the Premiership. So the very structure of the British game has considered issues raised by television, and other minor effects of television that create the very identity of football are in evidence on match day up and down the country.
It is not just a case however, of television affecting football; increasing ownership of clubs by broadcasters is resulting in the lines between the two industries are becoming increasingly blurred. Football clubs are, as Craig McGill puts it, ‘sexy investments,’ although it would seem that broadcasters are increasingly investing in football clubs for reasons more than economic fashion.
Sky, Granada and NTL are amongst the television companies holding shares in Premiership football clubs including Arsenal, Manchester United, Chelsea, Leeds and Liverpool- clubs who, as they are floated on the stock market, have a legal obligation to consider any offer that is beneficial to their shareholders whether it is for the good of the game or not. (McGill, 2001) Although at the moment broadcasters do not hold controlling stakes in clubs, it is feasible that they hold a degree of influence somewhere down the line. Football clubs may not be mere investments that will be left alone by broadcasting companies according to former Sky chairman Sir Frank Barlow, who stated that ‘clubs are being bought up by TV companies who are gaining increasing power and influence over club matters.’
The bid by Sky to take over Manchester United forced the issue of club ownership into the public eye and highlighted the potential power of broadcasting companies if they were to dominate the ownership of British football. Sky (or BSkyB as the company was called at the time) announced a £575m bid for a 100% share of the club in September 1998, a figure which was later raised to £623m. The bid was met with immediate controversy, Manchester United fans fearing the running of their football club as a money making machine by the infamous Rupert Murdoch. The bid was referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission which recommended to Trade Secretary Stephen Byers that the takeover be blocked, advice that he promptly took. Although the bid was unsuccessful, the issues that it raised are applicable to today’s clubs, where although broadcasters do not hold controlling stakes, they most definitely have their feet under the table. The takeover bid is a case study useful in highlighting the potential results if the lines between the industries of broadcasting and football were to become completely blurred.
The advantages that Sky would have gained, aside from the obvious financial benefits of owning one of the world’s most marketable football clubs, were mainly to do with future negotiations over television deals. When at the negotiating table, Sky would effectively be talking to itself and no other company would stand a chance of buying the broadcasting rights for Manchester United, the club that most others would follow in such a deal to avoid getting left behind. This damage to competition was a major reason for the blocking of the bid, along with the fact that Sky would also be at a natural advantage as a proportion of any bid that it tabled would come back to itself through Manchester United. It was predicted that the deal would prompt a number of similar takeovers to take place between broadcasters and major clubs, widening the financial gap between the elite clubs and those in the lower divisions. It was also suggested that Sky’s influence over practical elements of the game, such as kick off times or scheduling of fixtures, might be used to Manchester United’s advantage.
The funding that television has brought to football has undoubtedly improved the game’s image and made life much better for those at the top. However the results of the well publicised ITV Digital collapse in 2001 highlighted how reliant football is becoming on television revenue. ITV Digital was shut down with the League still owed over £178 million in television rights forcing a number of clubs into administration. Bradford, Leicester, Derby, Barnsley, Notts County and more recently York City and Huddersfield are just a number of clubs who were badly affected by the collapse. It seems that money from television deals is not just one of the means of football’s income, but is becoming the lifeblood of the sport.
Steve Wagg’s assessment of football’s role in today’s society is accurate to an extent. It is clear that football is packaged for the entertainment of audiences, both in terms of the coverage of the sport itself and of the fashionable image that the game carries. It cannot be doubted that to an extent modern day football has been shaped, and will continue to be affected by, the broadcast industry. It is also evident that football’s relationship with television, in a financial sense at the very least, is becoming ever closer.
However to state that the role of a television show is football’s main significance would ignore the countless other social functions fulfilled by football, each of which have the scope for endless discussion. The sport plays a major role in countless issues such as cultural, regional and national identity and escapism from reality, not to mention the game’s roles as a profit orientated business, means of employment and simply a means of leisure for participants at any level. Although many factors may not be possible to measure with any great accuracy, to overlook them would be to ignore a huge part of football’s significance. The amount of time and effort that football supporters commit, the passion that can be seen at any ground every Saturday afternoon, and the countless number of punters that can be found looking for salvation in the bottom of post match pint glasses demonstrate that football is much more than throwaway entertainment. It is doubtful that the Torquay fan that travels to an away match at Carlisle would do the same to catch an episode of ‘Coronation Street’, or get as wound up if Gail Platt’s performance wasn’t quite up to scratch.
As it is professional football that is televised, the focus of this essay has been overwhelmingly on that part of the game, despite the fact that it makes up only the slightest fraction of football played in Britain. The enormous numbers of amateur clubs, not to mention kick-abouts at local parks, which never have a chance of being shown on television, present a major criticism of Steve Wagg’s statement. If football’s main significance was as a television show, there would surely be no reason for the sport to be so incredibly popular at an amateur level. Football is a sport that could survive in some form completely independently from television, and is in a fundamentally better position than the broadcasting companies with which, at the highest level, it is slowly merging. Although it would be a major setback if television were to disappear, it would not mean the death of football, a point well summarised by Craig McGill:
“The television stations need football more than football needs them. If TV went away tomorrow, the game would continue, but the television companies would not get the viewing figures that football brings in without great effort and expense.”
Steve Wagg’s statement raises some immensely valid points and demonstrates that television’s effect on football is evident in many areas. However the claim that the game’s main significance is as a television show is one that is incredibly difficult to prove and is a claim that is, in the opinion of this essay, unjustified.
Bibliography
Books
-
WAGG. S., 1995. Giving the game away: Football, politics & culture on five continents. London: Cassell.
-
RUSSELL. D., 1997. Football and the English. Preston: Carnegie.
-
MCGILL, C., 2001. Football Inc.: how soccer fans are losing the game. London: Vision.
-
DOBSON, S., and GODDARD. J., 2001. The economics of football. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
HORTON, E., 1997. Moving the goalposts : football's exploitation. Edinburgh: Mainstream.
Videos
-
25 Years of Match of the Day, Part 1: The Sixties, 1989. Video Documentary. Produced by Brian Berwick. England: BBC.
-
The Premiership, 2003. TV, ITV. March 17.
