It’s 6:30pm, Sunday 24th November.
My beloved Manchester United have just drawn away to newly promoted Ipswich Town, and yet my blood pressure has risen to the highest point of the afternoon as musician (or “rock and roll star,” as Sky Sports quipped earlier in the show) Ed Sheeran had gate-crashed the new manager’s post-match thoughts.
To be fair to Ed, getting pissed up at the football and wandering somewhere he shouldn’t is probably the most relatable thing he’s ever done, but the question remains. What the fuck are you doing there, mate?
As unfortunate as Ed’s mistake was (I do believe it was just that – a mistake) I sat there winding myself up about how likely Sky Sports, with twitter like-counters for eyes, thought to themselves: “jackpot!”, and it led me to think about the current state of all things football coverage.
Somewhere in the blur of the last 10 years, sports broadcasters were faced with a choice. What matters more, the product or the reach? Is the most important thing to provide the viewer with the most accurate, informative, or insightful broadcast, or do the numbers involved paint the truest picture of success?
Before you shout at me – numbers and reach are CLEARLY important, but I think this can be achieved without the need for turning a 4:30pm Sunday kick-off into Ant & Dec’s Saturday Night Takeaway. Monday Night Football, for example, continues to be one of the most intriguing broadcasts with mostly brilliant analysis and top guests, whilst remaining interesting and entertaining, but even that is turning increasingly into a forced argument every fortnight of Manchester United v Liverpool combined XI’s.
For me, as someone who tunes in to stupid amounts of live coverage, the most important thing will always be insight and analysis from trusted people, or views from players/coaches directly involved in the game.
This might be a romantic, seemingly prehistoric view, and I might have to get real to the fact that cameos from Ed Sheeran (belated trigger warning for Game of Thrones fans), or Noel Gallagher providing me with in-game commentary is just the way things are now.
Not dissimilar to tabloid journalism, the most important thing is the headline or the attention grabber, and nothing else really matters. Take Sky Sports’ social media for an example of what is important for them during a live show. One look at their feed and it’s filled with ‘Roy Keane said what? :o’ – dull, repetitive, meaningless shite, but it will go fucking nuts on ‘X’. This isn’t a dig at you, Roy, if you’re reading.
I’m not beyond admitting there’s a large sense of “old man yells at cloud” to all this.
Times are changing, and the reality of the situation is these companies have to compete with the rise of the ‘independent’ pundit. Fan channels, podcasts and YouTubers now garner so much attention that instead of competing in ‘traditional’ ways or in manners they’ve always done, broadcasters have rolled their sleeves down and said “oh, how many likes?”.
I have no doubt these companies and the people involved are aware what they’re putting out is largely shite, but it’s what works, and that’s good enough for most.
For what it’s worth, whilst the manner of Ed's arrival on screen yesterday can be interpreted as rude (and he’s since apologised for it), the fact is that Sky Sports would have undoubtedly loved this, because this is the kind of thing that WORKS, not necessarily what is best.
Perhaps it’s me. Perhaps I am not the target. It’s the waves of younger people that broadcasters are fighting with TikTok and YouTube to entertain, and as a result, Sky Sports and TNT Sports now appear to have the same targets as BoringJamesMilner and Troll Football. We, the viewers, must simply sit through the rough draft of what will become their next four days’ worth of 30-second social media snippets.
It's all content, and content has become a dirty word for accepting bullshite because it will reach the most screens.
Likes, shares and comments, baby. That’s the game.
Comments