Sport on TV: Celebrity preoccupation puts BBC at fault

The men's final atWimbledon may have been a chance to see one of the greatest players of all time chase a record-equalling victory by taking on a home favourite with a winning record in head-to-head match ups, but it was also a chance for the BBC's coverage to do some unashamed crowd watching and celebrity spotting.

For as long as television cameras have had the range to capture faces in the crowd, broadcasters have picked out spectators at sporting events, both famous and not, with the non-famous used to illustrate the atmosphere inside the arena, and the famous used to add glamour. Sunday's final took it to a new level though, with the director cutting to the famous (and occasionally the not so famous) faces so quickly after each point, that we could see their live reactions, as opposed to a replay a few seconds later.

The responsibility of the broadcaster is to show the game first, and the BBC did not miss any of the action, but by cutting away so often and so quickly, viewers were often denied the chance to see how Roger Federer and Andy Murray reacted, what their body language was like after each point. Letting the picture dwell on the court for a moment or two allows the viewer to digest what they have just seen. By instantly cutting away to a reaction shot, the director is distracting and detracting from the experience.

That is not to say that viewers are not interested in seeing who is present, and not just for the gossip. Knowing who is in attendance helps to get a sense of the event, and showing the David Cameron, Boris Johnson and the Middletons is not unreasonable a couple of times per set.

However, it became so frequent during this final, that it began to feel voyeuristic and uncomfortable, as it did for the close-ups of the players' families and coaches. Again, there is some merit in seeing how they are reacting, but when almost every point is followed by Judy Murray or her son's girlfriend, it begins to feel less like a valid journalistic choice, and more like an invasion of privacy. Moreover, it quickly became apparent that none of these people were showing much reaction to the match. They were cheering and clapping, but nothing unusually demonstrative. The BBC was not showing anything that enhanced the public's understanding of the final or the atmosphere.

There is also something seedy in the way that crowd shots are selected. The coverage of Euro 2012, produced in-house by UEFA, became famous for its preoccupation with attractive female fans. Meanwhile how often did the BBC zoom in on the boyfriends and husbands of the top female players, compared to the wives and girlfriends of the male players?

The Euro 2012 coverage was also tarnished by the revelation that the producers had been pre-recording reaction shots to insert into the coverage and present them as live. When Mario Balotelli scored against Germany in the semi-final, one of the defining images was of a German fan in tears. Yet she had been recorded 45 minutes earlier, crying at the national anthem. This sets a dangerous precedent, a broadcaster such as UEFA, that is also the organiser of the event, has a vested interest in presenting a positive image of the tournament.

This entire preoccupation with showing how the crowd is reacting, stems from the need to convey the atmosphere of the live event to fans at home. However, broadcasters are ignoring the sounds of the fans, and that's what really conveys atmosphere. The odd shot of the fans is one thing, but when images of fans, celebrities and family members become so frequent that they are detracting from the coverage of the sport itself, then it is time to make a change.

Highlights of 2009: Murray Wins Under Lights at Wimbledon

The roof would ruin the atmosphere, it would change the nature of grass court tennis, it would make life difficult for the players, Andy Murray didn’t like it either. One dramatic late-evening fourth-round match later, only Murray and a few traditionalists were left grumbling, as a new Wimbledon tradition was born. Murray’s win over Stanislas Wawrinka finished at 10:38pm, with 12 million viewers on BBC television, and many more around the world.

Murray serving under the new roof on Centre Court

The new roof somehow added something to the atmosphere, building a sense of occasion, as the lights lit up the court, whilst the rest of SW19 lay in darkness. We can expect many more of these nights to come, but this will always be remembered as the start, and the All England Club deserve credit for being proactive and forward thinking, something they are not always associated with.

The Top Earners in Sport

Sport Magazine, a free publication distributed around London (and possibly beyond) recently ran a list of the top-earning sportsmen (and they are all men), based on annual earnings, and it made for interesting reading.

1 Tiger Woods - £59.3m
2 Phil Mickelson - £31.6m
3 David Beckham – £26.9m
4 LeBron James - £ 25.3m
5 Kimi Raikkonen - £23.9m
6 Manny Pacquiao - £23.8m
7 Lionel Messi - £23.7m
8 Alex Rodriguez - £23.3m
9 Valentino Rossi - £20.9m
9 Fernando Alonso - £20.9m
9 Shaquille O’Neal - £20.9m
12 Kevin Garnett - £20.7m
13 Yao Ming - £19.7m
14 Lewis Hamilton – £19.6m
15 Kobe Bryant - £18.6m
16 Roger Federer - £17.6m
17 Allen Iverson - £17.3m
18 Vijay Singh – 17.1m
19 Derek Jeter - £16.9m
20 Ronaldinho - £16.3m

Although you would expect many of those sportsmen to be on the list (compiled from Sports Illustrated’s figures), it did hold a couple of surprises, the main one being the dominance of basketball, with six representatives. Kevin Garnett, a difference-making player in the NBA, but not that well-known outside of the sport, and left out of the most recent US Olympic team, ranks above a global superstar in Roger Federer. Given that the NBA has a salary cap, whereas European football does not, it is surprising that there are not more footballers on the list, especially given their international appeal, and one would expect the likes of Ronaldo and Kaka to figure in future lists. Basketball however, is a truly international sport these days, with a strong following in Europe and South America, whilst the NBA is increasingly multinational in its make-up. Indeed, perhaps one would have expected Yao Ming to be higher on the list, given his international profile, and marketability in China and Asia. Nonetheless, the level of basketball’s dominance is startling.

Kevin Garnett of the NBA's Boston Celtics

That Federer is the only tennis player is also surprising, one would expect the list to be dominated by individual, rather than team sports, although injuries to Rafael Nadal presumably prevented him earning more this year. It is also perhaps surprising that the Williams sisters were not a factor. One might also have expected more golfers to figure, but the dominance of Woods and Mickelson makes it hard for others to build up consistent wins, and both also dominate the market in terms of endorsements. It remains to be seen whether Woods’ personal problems affect his ranking next year, although that would involve Mickelson making up a £28m deficit in one year. Finally, whilst it is not surprising to see the top Formula 1 drivers on the list, it is perhaps a little unexpected to see Valentino Rossi figure so highly, despite the fact that he is perhaps the only figure who currently transcends motorcycle racing into the wider consciousness. Indeed, his endorsements more than double his salary of £9.5m per year.

Tiger Woods, believed to be sport's first billionaire

In coming years, Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, Jenson Button, Nadal and the aforementioned footballers might expect to break into the top 20, assuming no hiccups along the way. Other one-off events, notably a much-anticipated fight between Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather might also change the makeup of the list. With Woods’ marketability taking a hit recently, there may be a few more opportunities for other sportsmen with international appeal to maximise their earnings.

Tennis: Andre Agassi

The recent revelations in Andre Agassi’s autobiography have led to some sensational and emotive headlines. There is a lot of anger towards Agassi and the ATP in the media, specifically charges of incompetence towards the ATP for letting Agassi talk his way out of a failed drugs test, and of betrayal towards the player himself for taking crystal meth, lying, and only admitting to it ten years later in an apparent attempt to sell books.

Whether or not this anger exists outside of the media bubble is harder to tell. Agassi has always been one of the most popular players of recent times, far more so than his more successful contemporary Pete Sampras. The reason being that he is seen as having more character, humanity and flair than the ruthless and outwardly more withdrawn Sampras, a man with a far quieter personal life. Whilst the drugs confessions will undoubtedly tarnish his reputation in some eyes, many more will probably be forgiving, recognising that his flaws and honesty endeared him to them in the first place. Furthermore, recreational drugs do not damage the integrity of results as much as performance enhancing ones, which should preserve his reputation as a player.

Had this come out during his career, it would have been worse for his reputation, as he would have faced a ban, and then the prospect of playing whilst that stigma hung over his head. As it is, the controversial confessions are part of the regular post-retirement routine for many sportsmen and women, although this was a more dramatic confession than usual. The story of success, followed by a fall, and then redemption, has always been a powerful one.

What has been more interesting, and has perhaps resulted in more vitriol from the tennis press is Agassi’s claim to hate the sport “with a dark and secret passion”. In a way this is more disturbing for fans of any sport, who love their game and wish they had just some of the talent exhibited by the professionals. For fans, sport is something that offers pleasure and escapism, and they often struggle to understand those who have the privilege of playing professionally, but seem unappreciative. To hear a sportsman announce that he hated his sport feels like a betrayal and devalues fans’ cherished memories of his career. How can they vicariously enjoy his great moments, when he himself did not? That is why some have suggested that Agassi’s claims should have been kept private, that he damages the game by making them public, or even that he is being disingenuous in making them, that it is impossible to dislike something that he was so good at. Whatever the truth, the title of the book, “Open” makes it clear that Agassi feels that it is best shared.

Look a little deeper and it is not surprising that, if his claims are true, he hates tennis. For him, tennis is tied up with a pushy and aggressive father who drove him into the game. Tennis is not the only sport with pushy parents, but it seems particularly prone to them, perhaps inevitably, as alongside golf it is the most high profile individual sport in the world, with no team mates to diffuse attention away from the young player.

Then there is the endless international travel, not sightseeing and relaxed holidays, but long trips to cities where the player only sees the inside of the hotel, the taxi ride to the venue, and the tennis facility itself. There is the pressure: from fans, coaches, and most of all, the player themselves, the fear of the disappointment of losing. There are the huge sacrifices: the hours spent in the gym or on the practice court, the media commitments and drug tests. Above all, there is endless scrutiny on every shot, every word spoken, every action on and off the court. As a top player, Agassi had even less time off than other players, who would exit tournaments in the early rounds, whilst he would have more sponsors who would ask more of him, and would be more in demand from the media than the others. To fans this might all seem worthwhile, but over the course of more than 15 years, combined with a troubled relationship with the game thanks to his father, it is easy to see how it would take its toll.

This is not to judge whether is right to hate the game, or to tell everyone that he does, although he is entitled to think what he wants, but simply to acknowledge that when one inspects the facts, it is not as surprising as it first seems. A good article by Stuart Jeffries this week shows that Andre Agassi would not be the first sportsman to hate his sport, but be driven on by a love of winning. Perhaps in describing his relationship with tennis as hate, Agassi erred. Perhaps love/hate would be more apt. Hating the game and the way it consumed his life, loving the winning and the rewards, but ultimately, only the man himself knows.