No love for tennis from U.S. viewers
With no American in the men's quarterfinals at Wimbledon, viewers in the U.S. are passing on TV coverage of this year's championships. Host Bob Moon asks commentator Diana Nyad if tennis has an image problem?
Roger Federer of Switzerland plays a backhand during the Men's Quarterfinal match at Wimbledon in London. (Clive Brunskill/Getty Images)
More on International, Europe, Sports
TEXT OF INTERVIEW
Bob Moon: You could say "that's the way the ball bounces," but Americans haven't been paying as much attention this year to the men's quarterfinals playing out at Wimbledon right now.
The most likely reason: All eight quarterfinalists ended up being from Europe.
For a look at the effect of that on the business of sports in this country, we turn to our own Diana Nyad.
Hey Diana. It's finally summertime and we've got some things going on out there.
Diana Nyad: We've got a lot of tennis going on and it's exciting in my book.
Moon: So, we're heading into the men's semifinal tomorrow. How's Wimbledon doing? Are a lot of people watching?
Nyad: You know, in Britain they're watching -- or they were until Andy Murray lost, because he's the new big hope in Britain -- but the American television ratings are just abysmal, Bob; they're rating under about a million people per match. If you compare that to not that long ago, McEnroe, Borg's days, they had about 8 million people, so we have come down a lot in terms of TV fans watching tennis.
Moon: So what's going on here?
Nyad: Americans -- we've proven it through the years -- need an American to watch. So Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are now the two great players of the game in the men's side and one's a Swiss, one's a Spaniard. They are brilliant and we don't like 'em that much because they're not American.
Moon: Let me get you into the audience numbers a little bit.
Nyad: OK.
Moon: How do they compare, for example, to golf just a few weeks ago -- the U.S. Open.
Nyad: Well, of course, there's golf with Tiger and there's golf without Tiger. Of course, it was that sudden death playoff, it was watching Tiger hobble around heroically on his knee...
Moon: It was exciting stuff.
Nyad: It was exciting and the ratings turned out by the final day, the sudden death day, 13.7, which is a little over 14 million people. That's 10 times who's watching Wimbledon.
Moon: Well, you mention Roger Federer. He's a magnetic personality. Why can't he draw the same way Tiger Woods can?
Nyad: Well, number one, we mentioned the American thing -- it's not his fault. Number two, he is marketed as a suave upper-class gentleman. I mean, the big advertisement that's running all through Wimbledon this year is Roger on his private jet. He shows up in that cashmere sweater and that's just not relatable, whereas Tiger, we know he makes vast amounts of money, but climbs into a middle-of-the-road Buick, he's always with kids popping a golf ball on the end of his club and beyond that, golf worked very hard to get its image away from that country club elite status and it was the businessman's game, that's where all the deals of America were made, the public courses proliferated. And so even though we know it costs a lot of money to play a round of golf even at a public course, it has this image that it's come down a notch off that whereas tennis, you know back in the 70s, it was Billie Jean King and Jimmy Connors and Chris Evert, all came out of public middle-class courts, but it swung the other way once they retired and became again -- and Roger Federer represents it -- the untouchable, unrelatable country club sport again.
Moon: OK, so how does that image translate into money for tennis?
Nyad: The elite insiders don't think tennis is hurting. Roger Federer doesn't walk around after winning so far $40 million in prize money... he doesn't think tennis is hurting.
Moon: He's not hurting.
Nyad: He things tennis is doing just fine, thank you very much. It's that everyman audience, it's that Super Bowl audience that tunes in the day of the big game who don't watch football all year. That's what football counts on. Well tennis can't draw that crossover audience, that everyman audience. It's just not there right now.
Moon: You're telling us that tennis could learn a few things from golf?
Nyad: I do, at this moment I do. I think tennis could break it down and become that public courts game again, but they're going to need someone besides Roger Federer to lead the way.
Moon: Diana Nyad, thank you for joining us.
Nyad: Bob Moon, thank you very much.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From Menlo Park, CA, 07/08/2008
I would like to agree with most of the above comments about how wrong the TV powers-that-be are in assuming that the tennis fans in the US will only watch American players. The incredible athletes we watch compete in a one-to-one sport are admired for their virtuosity and sportsmanship, regardless of nationality. Wimbledon's two finals (women's and men's) displayed tennis as a worldwide sports attraction. We need more extensive coverage, including doubles, and the realization that this is a sport played by many of us, not just in youth, but throughout our lives. The role models, such a Federer and Nadal, teach a behavior that we could wish would be emulated throughout our country.
From San Diego, CA, 07/08/2008
I thought this story was way off when I first listened to it; the epic final we just witnessed couldn't have proved my point better. If the American Everyman requires sports heros who use steroids, host dog fights, have famous public divorces, or interfere with female Hotel employees, then Ms. Nyad is correct: Roger Federer is not for Him. If, on the other hand, one is interested in seeing an athlete pour his guts out in a spectacular 4+ hour Wimbledon final, and follow up the resulting loss with the grace of true gentleman, then perhaps Mr. Federer still retains some small appeal.
From Herndon, VA, 07/07/2008
I think the author was a bit to fast to say that people didn’t watch Wimbledon this year.
Looks like the Williams sisters final drew the highest ratings for a female final in three years - http://www.tennis.com/news/news.aspx?id=139342
Also looks like the Federer and Nadal final had the highest ratings since 1991 for a match that did not involve an American http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/07/sports/TEN-On-Tennis-Rafa---Roger.php
From San Mateo, CA, 07/07/2008
I think the article is flawed because it only considers two independent variables: nationality and charisma. It lacks at least two other major factors. The regional factor prevalescent of team sports(which drives people to meet for basketball, football games as they identify with a team at the local level) and the sport habits of the average American. In times of overweight and bad eating habits, grabbing a golf club is way easier than spending 2 hours of full motion on a tennis court. I'm sure there are many other missing variables.
From Salem, MA, 07/06/2008
Hmmmm, I was going to say that Diana Nyad's report on the state of tennis in America is all wet, but I see others have already pointed to most of the glaring holes in her story. A couple of things I don't see mentioned, however, are NBC's asinine usage of tape delay telecasts (which negatively impact even what ESPN is able to broadcast live) until their "Breakfast at Wimbledon." In the Internet Age, with information available instantaneously, that's just unacceptable. Surely that has a far bigger impact on ratings that Roger Federer's NetJets ads. But perhaps the biggest point that Miss Nyad missed is that tennis is the just about the only sport in the United States that has shown growth in participation in the last couple of years. That everyman audience of which she speaks is playing the game.
From Monterey, CA, 07/05/2008
I was disappointed that this report completely ignored the women's side of the draw. Commentator Nyad made the arguments that Americans need an American to watch, and that the sport has become too "elitist" for our tastes. Both of these arguments are debunked if we look over to the women's side where the Williams sisters, originally from Compton with far from a stuffy, "country club" image, are about to face off in the finals.
I recognize that these comments were about the men's quarterfinals, but shame on you for completely ignoring women's tennis, as you made gross generalizations about the state of the sport in general.
From Covington, GA, 07/04/2008
Nyad: "Americans -- we've proven it through the years -- need an American to watch. So Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are now the two great players of the game in the men's side . . . they're not American. They are brilliant and we don't like 'em that much because they're not American."
The Wimbledon Ladies' Singles Final includes Venus Williams and Serena Williams. They are Americans.
It seems that Nyad is saying that Americans will watch the Wimbledon TV coverage only if an American male player is present.
Nyad: ". . .you know back in the 70s, it was Billie Jean King and Jimmy Connors and Chris Evert, all came out of public middle-class courts, but it swung the other way once they retired and became again . . . the untouchable, unrelatable country club sport again."
The Williams sisters "came-out" of the public tennis courts of Compton, California. In my opinion, the sisters have continued to make the tennis game touchable and relatable.
Lastly, Nyad informs the listeners that the current Wimbledon TV rating is "under about a million people per match” compared to the McEnroe, Borg's days of about 8 million TV fans watching tennis."
McEnroe-Borg’s days consist of the NBC's "Breakfast at Wimbledon" specials on the weekends.
How does that 8 million weekend viewers compare to the past 10 days of Wimbledon TV coverage of approximately one million viewers per match per day?
From Arlington, VA, 07/04/2008
It's outstanding to me that Federer's dominance could be considered bad for the sport. He's one of the most graceful (in terms of demeanor and playing style) champions I've seen in any sport. Compared to him, Nadal seems like a neanderthal and Djokovic seems like a buffoon. (Blake is very likable but just doesn't seem to be at their level.) Nadal seems ready to knock Federer off the top (should happen Sunday), but I think tennis will be worse off without Federer there.
From Gaithersburg, MD, 07/04/2008
I don't know what Wimbledon you are watching with no Americans, but I am watching one with two American's in the final: Venus and Serena. Women in sports, again, not deemed worthy...
From New York, NY, 07/03/2008
I am so tired of American journalists opining that image of tennis is too elitist for the common man to attract his attention. Tennis players the world-over increasingly have come from modest and distinctly middle class backgrounds.
Correspondingly, interest in tennis is at an unprecedented level worldwide. Is there any coincidence that this has occurred with the decline of American dominance in the sport? Just like soccer, tennis has realized it doesn’t necessarily need America to survive. Ratings for Wimbledon (and other tennis events) may be low in the US, but the tournament or the sport is by no means hurting for either money or viewership elsewhere in the world. Yet the insistence that the world pander to our particularities is one reason that just as with tennis and soccer, the world is starting to realize it does not need the US to thrive economically.
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.