What is ESPN's motivation for its poor coverage and portrayal of the NHL, and is hockey somehow undermining their bottom line?
Also - Do they consciously underfund their hockey coverage, and populate their NHL commentariat with hacks in an effort to make the sport seem ****** to casual fans?
I don't have ESPN but whenever I come in contact with it leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
It's worth considering that maybe ESPN is blasting hockey so much lately because the NHL is critical to the growth of NBCSports... and with Comcast behind NBCSports, there's a lot of potential for growth.
How much of that revenue is because of Canada in terms of merchandising and the Molson deal?
The NBA reaps similar lopsided benefits with what might be an even smaller number of highly profitable franchises (Celtics, Lakers, Heat, Bulls). And the Molson deal I don't believe counted toward 2011 revenues since it was in legal limbo until this summer--but if it did, to answer your question, it would be about 1.8%. For comparison, nearly 25% of the NBA's revenue comes directly from ESPN and TNT.
The NBA reaps similar lopsided benefits with what might be an even smaller number of highly profitable franchises (Celtics, Lakers, Heat, Bulls). And the Molson deal I don't believe counted toward 2011 revenues since it was in legal limbo until this summer--but if it did, to answer your question, it would be about 1.8%. For comparison, nearly 25% of the NBA's revenue comes directly from ESPN and TNT.
The fiscal year ends/begins in October, so Summer '11 revenues should have been factored. The Molson and Coors deals were huge...record setting to be exact, for the NHL. If the Molson sponsorship deal was only 1.8 pct, than what made up the rest of the 15 pct in total revenue increase?
Ad revenue in Canada, corporate sponsorships and TV ratings in Canada is playing a huge role in the yearly increase in revenue. It sure aint coming from the American teams....16 of the 30 NHL teams lost money last year..It went up to 18 this year. Guess how many were US-based teams.
Quote:
(Reuters) - The National Hockey League said on Tuesday that it was heading toward record revenue of almost $2.9 billion for the season due to large gains in sponsorship revenue and advertising on the North American sports league's TV network and website.
I only watch ESPN for two things. The X-games and the Little League World series. Those things don't happen til mid to late summer, so I don't expect to see hockey coverage anyway.
ESPN is a joke of a network. Around 13 or so years ago they stopped caring about actually reporting sports and instead switched to hype, popularity based topics (sensationalistic topics), and anything else that would make the bottom line grow. They're not in the business of covering sports like they so pride themselves on (snicker), they're only in the business of making money off of casual fans.
Put it this way, they're not a sports network anymore - they're purely a marketing firm.
They don't care about hockey nor highlight hockey (which is a sport - kind've contradictory to what ESPN claims to showcase) because they don't have the TV contract with the NHL. They got butthurt after their low-ball offer to the NHL received the response of "shove it where the sun doesn't shine." Their coverage before the lockout was sub-par and severely lacking anyways.
On the flip side, between the NHL Network and NBCSN, hockey is absolutely thriving and has never had the amount of coverage that it does now. The NHL is a perfect example of how meaningless ESPN was / is to their success. It's a sport where you either like it or you don't and it's very rare that a casual fan in the USA turns into a hardcore fan purely due to how vast and popular the other sports are.
You could argue that if ESPN did have the contract with the NHL that there would be more casual fans, however I argue that there is more coverage of the NHL now than there ever has been. Where would the NHL fit into ESPN's time slots? Which contract with which sports league would ESPN be willing to give up? Would those spots be primetime throughout the week or would they take up the time slots given to bowling, women's pool, or the WNBA (as in, on Sunday afternoons and the occasional weeknight for a mere few hours)? They obviously wouldn't ditch the NFL, MLB, NBA, NASCAR, or any of their college sports because those are their largest audiences. Compared to the current coverage of the NHL Network and NBCSN, ESPN wouldn't come close to matching or be anywhere in the vicinity of the coverage that the NHL gets now.
Last edited by The Leviathan: 03-25-2012 at 07:04 PM.
Simply a matter of ESPN catering to its contracts (NBA, NFL, and MLB) and of the NHL being #3 or 4 in popularity out of those sports (hence it gets less attention to begin with).
__________________ CanadianHockey________ __ __________Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada
Simply a matter of ESPN catering to its contracts (NBA, NFL, and MLB) and of the NHL being #3 or 4 in popularity out of those sports (hence it gets less attention to begin with).
This is easily a fact that gets overlooked.
Most people just say how it's the 4th popular major sport, but this is a huge reason why. ESPN has contracts with NFL, NBA, MLB, NCAA, Soccer, etc. Basically every sport EXCEPT NHL.
I haven't watched ESPN since the lockout so I really don't care about their stupid grudge against hockey because they sucked at covering it before they lost the contract.
Agree with the first part, strongly disagree with the second. ESPN's coverage of the NHL throughout the 90s and early 2000s was fantastic.
As long as the stadiums are filled and the fans are supporting the teams, I could care less about how much coverage it gets. The community is the most important thing.
I don't know how much relivance this has to the topic but I listen to the Dan Patrick Show pretty much every morning and I consider one of the best sports casters in the business, the guy is just absolutely amazing. In any case, he left ESPN because he had serious problems with the way it was being run and managed and being as insightful and talented as he is, it was easy for him to get a better gig elsewhere. When he left ESPN that networks credibility in my eyes took a serious nose dive. I haven't actually tuned in to ESPN in I don't know how long and in fact, I don't even know what channel it's on.
ESPN is venturing further and further away from credible media and far closer to the Sports version of TMZ or MTV.
Long story short, who cares?
Accept that hockey will be an American niche sport whether it is because of fighting, or network grudges, or shoddy coverage, or poor reputation, or lack of minority involvement, or expenses needed to participate, etc.
Be proud that you're the part of the community that enjoys hockey and the community that refuses to accept ESPN at face value.
Basically, be proud that you have the ability and mental capacity to think and choose for yourself.
Last edited by Chris Shafer: 03-25-2012 at 07:52 PM.
ESPN's lack of hockey coverage has absolutely nothing to do with the sports popularity, or lack there of, and everything to do with the fact that the NHL left them in the last TV contract negotiations.
Women's basketball and MLS get comparable coverage. Neither one of those is even remotely close to as popular as hockey in the US>
ESPN's lack of hockey coverage has absolutely nothing to do with the sports popularity, or lack there of, and everything to do with the fact that the NHL left them in the last TV contract negotiations.
Women's basketball and MLS get comparable coverage. Neither one of those is even remotely close to as popular as hockey in the US>
Agreed, I just don't get how ESPN will cover the WNBA over the NHL. I've seen more WNBA highlights on Sportscenter than the NHL not too long ago.
ESPN totally sucks. I'm a football fan first and I want nothing to do with anything ESPN does. I watch Monday Night Football, that is it. I ignore their pregame, postgame and all their insiders. Seriously, ESPN is not a good sports network.
