Jon Wertheim of Sports Illustrated makes a cogent point about how today’s media simply doesn’t understand how people actually utilize the media today.
Please explain to us the economic rationalization of ESPN’s U.S. Open coverage. Specifically, why does the network, without fail, assume that tennis/sports fans always value big names over interesting matches that are well underway? For example, instead of sticking with the third set of a compelling match featuring an American ([Amanda] Anisimova), they switch the beginning of [Iga] Świątek’s third round match against an under matched opponent straight. They cut from [Adrian] Mannarino vs. [ Jiří] Lehečka, a fun match heading into the fourth, to bring us Alcaraz’s Round of 16 match, because god forbid we see anyone but the highest seeds play tennis. Yes, I know I have the option of paying for ESPN+. But why not mix things up and put Alcaraz and Świątek’s on ESPN+? Surely fans would be more likely to pay to see them than Mannarino? Are people really turning off a good match because they don’t recognize or consistently root for the players? Doesn’t ESPN realize that I’d rather maintain my righteous indignation than give the streaming services another red cent?
Taylor Witkin, Malden, MA• Here’s the TV dance. Hardcore fans say, Why are you showing me this blowout involving a star when, say, Jenson Brooksby and Flavio Cobolli are having a gripping battle. The network executives say, You are armed with data showing fans like stars. Why are we airing Cobolli vs. Brooksby when Sinner is playing? Which is TV criticism distilled to its essence. One person likes broadcaster X for her modesty, while another says she is boring and predictable. One person likes the courtside reporter. Another says they are distracting. More doubles! Why are you polluting my Labor Day afternoon with doubles!
Any complaint, as Taylor notes, is met with: Download the app or register for the plus channel, check out our direct-to-consumer option, and you can watch any match, anytime. (You just have to pay for it.)
Here’s my overarching television criticism. Most sports have become niche, tennis included—disintermediation and all. Fewer people pick up a remote control and happen to come across tennis. Fans are there intentionally. For the U.S. Open coverage—never mind the Australian Open coverage at unholy hours—most are hardcore. Treat them like the aficionados they are. The storylines are presented broadly and blandly. (Rafael Nadal retired, but there is a new Spanish bull! The U.S. Open is an asphalt jungle! Something is in the water in Italy. Djokovic is battling Father Time.) Telling the same anecdotes again and again and again? (Alexander Bublik went to Vegas! The dad is Corey, so she goes by Coco! Jessica Pegula is a Bills fan because her dad owns the team!) It insults the audience and seems to me to be a fundamental misreading of media consumption in 2025.
We’re in a vertical world but the media still operates in a horizontal manner. And if this is true of something as simple as sports, imagine how much more true it is of more complicated matters such as economics, history, science, and war.