HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » International » United Kingdom (Group) » BBC and Superbowl.

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:54 PM

BBC and Superbowl.

Anyone notice BBC24 bigging up the Superbowl yesterday, telling us what a global phenomenon it is? I can't help but think it's because they're showing gridiron on BBC2. This was part of the deal.

And yes 111.5 million people watched it last year. In context 650 million watched the Manchester Derby. Gridiron has a long way to go.

20 replies, 4491 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Bad Dog (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 02:44 PM

1. Baseball, hockey and basketball are much bigger than football globally

Not to mention soccer. The fact that its players suffer from high rates of brain damage will keep football a predominantly (and hopefully declining) American phenomenon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 04:00 PM

2. I was at the football match on Saturday.

I was in the section of the crows Yoshida was celebrating the winning goal too. It was quite a heady moment.

?w=600&h=336

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 05:02 PM

7. I root for Les Bleus

Which makes me a bit of a patron saint for lost causes. Their best player (Benzema) has been suspended for aiding an extortion effort aimed at one of his teammates (I think he's far more stupid than evil). The Premier League is great because it is so global; I can pretty much keep up to date on French players there. Martial has emerged as one of the top young players at Man U, e.g. I hope Pogba winds up there so I can see more of him, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 05:59 PM

10. I know all about lost causes.

I support Southampton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 04:07 PM

3. You mean a TV channel said its sport is popular? I'm shocked.

If 650 million really did watch Man City v. Utd, then it's more popular, per capita, (nearly 10% of the global population) outside of the UK than inside (eg 4.4 million peak in 2012). Which seems unlikely.

Take 'global viewers' figures with a truckload of salt: http://www.givemesport.com/543088-did-chelsea-v-manchester-city-really-attract-a-bigger-audience-than-the-super-bowl . The '650 million' is the number of people who could watch it. And it comes from the Premier League. I can't help but think it's because they make money out of telling people they're popular.

And the 111.5 million figure for last year's Superbowl is the US figure - which actually will have to have some basis in reality, because that's one network selling ads, and the buyers are going to want auditable figures for that.

I expect the World Cup does beat the Superbowl. But it's laughable to think that the world is that interested in City v. Utd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 04:21 PM

4. The Premier League is popular throughout the World.

An estimated 650 million television viewers worldwide watched the Man City-Man United blockbuster at Etihad Stadium yesterday, City’s home ground.

A staggering stat for a club game, which Man City won 1-0 to edge in front of their bitter rivals on top of the EPL table with just two rounds to go.

City hasn’t won the title for 44 long years, while United has worn the crown for 12 of the 26 years Sir Alex Ferguson has been in charge.

Taking the 650 million as read, as there are no foolproof methods of accuracy, that makes a club game the world record holder of viewers for a non-international sporting event.


http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/05/02/manchester-set-a-club-television-audience-world-record/

And if you consider that source a bit too partisan, this is what Wiki has to say.

The Premier League is the most-watched football league in the world, broadcast in 212 territories to 643 million homes and a potential TV audience of 4.7 billion people, often on networks owned and/or controlled by 21st Century Fox (which owns about 39% of BSkyB in the UK). The Premier League's production arm, Premier League Productions, is operated by IMG Productions and produces all content for its international television partners.

The Premier League is particularly popular in Asia, where it is the most widely distributed sports programme. In Australia, Fox Sports broadcasts almost all of the season's 380 matches live, and Foxtel gives subscribers the option of selecting which Saturday 3pm match to watch. In India, the matches are broadcast live on STAR Sports. In China, the broadcast rights were awarded to Super Sports in a six-year agreement that began in the 2013–14 season.[104] As of the 2013–14 season, Canadian broadcast rights to the Premier League are jointly owned by Sportsnet and TSN, with both rival networks holding rights to 190 matches per season.

The Premier League is broadcast in the United States through NBC Sports.[106] Premier League viewership has increased rapidly, with NBC and NBCSN averaging a record 479,000 viewers in the 2014–15 season, up 118% from 2012–13 when coverage still aired on Fox Soccer and ESPN/ESPN2 (220,000 viewers), and NBC Sports has been widely praised for its coverage. NBC Sports reached a six-year extension with the Premier League in 2015 to broadcast the league through the 2021–22 season in a deal valued at $1 billion (£640 million).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_League

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 04:42 PM

5. Well, yes, that's the point - the 'estimated audience' is always 650 million for every game

because that's the potential audience. The similar 'estimated audience' for the Ten O'Clock News in the UK is about 60 million. Because about that number of people could watch BBC1.

"Taking the 650 million as read, as there are no foolproof methods of accuracy, that makes a club game the world record holder of viewers for a non-international sporting event. "

That's the point. It's obviously not true. People are not that interested in Manchester City. They are a recent fad, after some money was injected. We're not that interested in it in the UK, let alone the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 04:52 PM

6. Read the Wiki article

The potential audience is actually 4.7 billion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 05:06 PM

8. 4.7 billion is the total who did watch for all games

The source for that Wikipedia figure is The Times, which said:

"The Premier League is the most-watched football league in the world (its TV audience is 4.7 billion)".

Here's a realistic look at world sporting audiences. Note that Man Utd. v. Barcelona in the Champions League final, a match that mattered and culminated the most important club competition in the world, between, I reckon, 2 of the 3 most popular teams in the world, got 300 million. It's absurd to think a fixture that happens a couple of times a year, involving a team of mediocre popularity like Man City, would get more than twice that.

http://www.goal.com/en/news/1717/editorial/2012/05/16/3106275/the-most-watched-club-game-in-the-world-how-chelsea-v-bayern

That pointed out the Champions League final overtook the Superbowl a few years ago, and that the 2010 World Cup final got about 700 million. These are figures that are actually believable.

I need to emphasise this: no one outside Manchester gives a toss about Man City. Possibly the nationality of whoever their current owner is, but that's the point - it's a rich man's plaything, not a popular club.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 05:58 PM

9. I'm outside of Manchester

and I have to disagree. When I went on holiday in Crete all the locals I talked to supported Premiership teams. Admittedly none supported Southampton, or Manchester City for that matter, but plenty supported United, and City did mean something to them, even if it was just as Pantomime villains.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 06:07 PM

11. Yes, Utd has support around the world, and City doesn't

If Utd v. Barcelona, another team with a global following, gets 300 million in an important final (which would get a big viewership of people who support neither team), then Utd v. City, in a regular season game, will not get over twice that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 07:07 AM

13. Derby games have a particular significance.

And the 2011/2012 season was particularly dynamic, with City winning the League and United coming second, equal on points but with a worse goal difference. From Wiki.

Manchester City won the title in a tense finale, their first championship since 1968. City's local rivals Manchester United were the early pace-setters, leading the table until October when they drew at Liverpool allowing Manchester City to overtake them. The following week, City increased their lead to 5 points with a shock 6–1 away victory at Old Trafford, which they maintained until December, when they dropped points and their lead narrowed, but City remained in front until March, when a defeat at Swansea City saw them drop behind United. City's bad form continued for the next month while United went on a winning run, so that with six matches remaining United were 8 points ahead of City and the title seemingly decided. However United, then faltered with a defeat and a draw in their next three games, while City won all three to narrow the gap to 3 points. City then beat United 1–0 at the Etihad Stadium to move back ahead of United on goal difference. Both sides won their penultimate matches to maintain the situation.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%9312_Premier_League

In those circumstances I think it's quite feasible that the Manchester Derby would attract a higher global audience than Utd v Barcelona. Having said that I don't want to get bogged down on this, so it might be an idea just to agree to differ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 04:05 AM

12. It's actually Tory policy to push the NFL over here

Along with Major League Baseball and NBA Basketball

http://www.espn.co.uk/american-football/story/_/id/12690535/conservative-party-announces-ambitions-united-kingdom-based-nfl-nba-mlb-franchise-part-manifesto-ahead-uk-general-election
http://www.democraticunderground.com/120453807

I do not agree with this. Rather than importing American sports, the government should be exporting British sports to America. Rugby League inparticular is something I think Americans could really take to.

Also, in the case of Basketball, we already have The British Basketball League, which needs to be promoted far ahead of any American NBA "franchise".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 07:11 AM

14. Thanks for that.

Your link was very informative, and I agree with what you said. This country is too much like America as it is. It all comes down to money, Wembley Stadium is still in the red, and hosting NFL games is a big earner even if it does muck up the pitch for England qualifying matches.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #14)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 08:21 AM

15. Wembley is losing 1 NFL match next season to Twickenham

And I think that one of the teams playing that fixture is due to be relocated to Los Angeles soon in typical NFL fashion

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/american-football/34926299

There's also the NFL's hook up with Tottenham Hotspur to consider here

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000500560/article/nfl-tottenham-hotspur-ink-10year-stadium-partnership

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 11:25 AM

16. I don't know why they bother.

Gridiron never caught on back in the 80s when they started showing it on Channel 4. There was some initial enthusiasm and then it just petered out. There's only so much money knocking about, and while people might pay to see a gridiron match out of curiosity, they're not going to fork out that sort of money week in week out, especially when premiership tickets cost so much anyway. Then there's the cost of the kit, I can't see state schools paying for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #16)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 02:14 PM

17. The chances of a British Joe Montana emerging are pretty much nil

For one thing we don't have America's college system. And the NFL is trying to get followers in Britain from the top down by shifting American teams rather than promoting the sport at a grassroots level.

For another thing, it's a lot easier and cheaper to get involved with rugby.

As to the cost for fans, it costs me half as much to watch Rotherham Titans play rugby union than it does to watch Sheffield Wednesday. It's not only more fun to watch rugby, it's better value for money as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 03:43 PM

18. On that we'll have to disagree.

My father was, and still is, a total rugby nut. He played for Yorkshire under something or other. He was really badly injured and ended up walking with a stick for the rest of his life. A mixture of zealous approval of, mixed with the very real consequences of, rugby, put me off it for life.

But each to his own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #18)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:47 AM

19. As the old saying goes....

Football is 90 minutes of pretending you're hurt, whereas rugby is 80 minutes of pretending you aren't. And in the case of my beloved Rotherham Titans the consequences are that it's the best thing about Rotherham.

http://www.bigissuenorth.com/2015/08/team-works/14128

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 12:26 PM

20. It seems like a really decent organisation.

It's a shame their funding is being cut, but hey, HSBC aren't moving their headquarters to Hong Kong after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread