Posted by proposal 1/27/2026
(No spoilers please!)
And the followup: https://www.sbnation.com/c/secret-base/21410129/20020
reads something from the comments instead
never reads original article submission
leaves satisfied
Basketball is similar as the action is very much confined to the video frame.
Non-US sports like Australian Rules or Gaelic football are an in person spectacle. They're free flowing (like ice hockey), constant action, and the ball can move 50+ metres up/down or across the field in a few seconds so you need to see the player movements off the ball. There's also something about a very large arena with 100,000+ spectators and a constant murmur of sound that can erupt in a moment.
I played it in school and have always enjoyed it casually, but I attended a game with a friend who was very into MLB. He pointed out many interesting defensive and offensive moves through the innings. Some were straightforward, like the runner on second base edging forward to steal. Others were less obvious, like outfielders tightening inward since the batter was likely to bunt. There was always action and information from multiple places on the field, once you knew what to look for. It was fascinating, and I’ve always much preferred in-person attendance since.
It’s impossible for a single screen to capture all these things, so a TV broadcast director makes calls to show one camera or another, and has to sacrifice the subtler stuff so they don’t miss a pitch or a throw to first etc.
Football, on the other hand, absolutely much better on TV if you want to follow the action. It happens in a small area of the field so it’s easier to show on a screen, you are seated much farther away, and the mud-brown ball is difficult to follow when it is hundreds of feet distant. The main fun of being there is social IMO.
I'm still not a fan of the game, but I can see why those who are, are. I enjoy it a lot more when I go with someone who is seeing a lot more to each play.
To each their own, of course. But you might be surprised at how intellectual a game American football can be. It's not mere brutality, as it can appear.
Football is actually really really weird for a spectator sport and, I think, is generally presented very poorly. 80% of the game is deciphering opposing formations to determine what they each are predicting the opposing formation is about to try to do.
Baseball - I like it in lots of forms, too. But I think a good radio announcer can get you most of the fun out of a critical at bat narrating.
It feels like what we’re shown on tv is a very narrow slice of what’s going on. We see the ball moving down the field but have no idea what the coach or quarterback is doing. Somehow it’s still an incredible watch though.
No idea if it's true or not
The commentators, particularly for the Aus/England Ashes series were always better with the likes of Agnew and the now retired Blofeld providing much better commentary.
And just like killer apps of other technologies there were supplementary instruction books: https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/a/chris-schenkel/...
Seems like it plays well with vertical video orientation too.
football as a televised spectator sport? trending down. it's not dead, but where growth is measured, it is not good. the cultural thing this guy is talking about in the article, it's going away. fewer and fewer people every year value the aesthetic experience he is describing.
TV ownership? trending down. they've never been cheaper for a reason. trend for TV production since peak TV? down.
football as a gambling product? up. okay, do you see what i mean by bad growth? football mediated as betting stats on apps? up. draftkings, polymarket, ESPN fantasy app ARPPU? up. ESPN streaming app ARPU? down. comcast? hated, down, everyone is cheering for it to go down. do you see?
there is no way to talk about specific instances of football (and stadium sports') cultural weaknesses without sounding really cringe. maybe just, "who cares?"
As someone who's been analyzing video content industry trends for a few decades now, I just want to let you know you've reached some incomplete or misleading conclusions based a variety of category errors and assumptions. Traditional living room televisions are just one way of consuming video content. And "over-the-air broadcast" is just one way of distributing video content. Assuming broadcast television viewership shrinking also means less video is being created and consumed is like assuming music consumption is down because CD sales are down or the printed word is dying because fax machine sales are down.
The reality is quite the opposite. Video content creation, distribution and consumption are all growing at very high rates and have been for a long time. The industry puts a lot of effort into reproducible, audited measurement and has developed deep understanding of how viewership has shifted and multiplied across video consumption platforms, consumption modes, and distribution channels - ranging from streaming long-form to social snacking. While it's true that broadcast television is shrinking and traditional living room TV sales are down, far more video content is being created, distributed and consumed today than ever before, and not by a little - the growth trends are explosive regardless of how we count: viewers, views, hours, titles, revenue or reach. All the metrics measured across the entire video content lifecycle reflect the same incredible growth.
I suggest you focus on the myriad ways video content can be bad, is getting worse or has negative effects on kids, culture or human progress. But arguing video isn't growing is neither accurate nor necessary to support your point.
Do you have sales or survey data to support this claim? I’m willing to believe individual households might be less likely to purchase TVs, but my understanding is that manufacturers are producing as many or even more screens than ever, though that might be for commercial or business use. Incidentally, it’s efficiency from this scale that allows manufacturers to sell televisions at such low prices, not a lack of demand.
Household
Ownership
Rate 2011 2020 2023
-------------------------------------
TV Set ~99% [3] 96% [3] 88% [1]
Smartphone 35% [2] 85% [2] 90% [1]
[1] https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/ces2024-smartphone-ownersh...[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/
[3] https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2020/nielsen-estimates-121-...
Entity 2016 Rev 2024 Rev Nominal Real (Adj)
---------------------------------------------------------
Netflix $8.8B [5] $39.0B [6] +341% +229%
NBA $6.5B [3] $11.3B [4] +74% +30%
NFL $14.0B [1] $23.0B [2] +64% +22%
Inflation --- --- +34% [7] 0%
i didn't say the NFL made less money, because i'm not stupid. i'm trying to describe a secular trend so i'm comparing the revenue growth in different media companies. looking at this table, a simple way to interpret this is, kind of obviously, netflix isn't really about presenting on TVs per se, they make a media platform, which performed way better than the NFL did, almost 10:1, which is really reinforcing my point no? for every 1 dollar someone gives NFL, consumers give Netflix 9. see? to me that is a trend going down, even if to you, it is a trend going up. depends what your benchmark is!another POV: other people do a better job at making NFL content than the NFL does, which is what you are saying your son is consuming. and listen, honestly, ask him if he or his friends bet on football...
[1] https://www.footballscoop.com/news/report-nfl-rakes-14-billi...
[2] https://www.sportspro.com/news/nfl-revenue-2024-financial-ye...
[3] https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/2016/10...
[4] https://www.sportsvalue.com.br/en/nba-teams-surpassed-us-11-...
[5] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NFLX/netflix/reven...
[6] https://www.wallstreetzen.com/stocks/us/nasdaq/nflx/revenue
My gut feel is that people are actually spending a lot fewer hours watching NFL games.
Even when I have been at parties where an NFL game was on, the younger crowd were diddling with their phones--generally playing games. No judgment, it's not like phone games are inferior to vegetating in front of the boob tube--but I suspect that while an NFL game may be "on", it's not really the "focus" anymore.
AFAIC, NFL football is almost always the top 99 out of 100 most viewed television programs in the US every year. The Oscars usually manage to claw onto the list and in election years a couple presidential debates make it, displacing a few regular season games. Since your claim conflicts with my current understanding, I just had AI do a quick search of recent credible sources. Here's the summary:
> "The claim that football (American football/NFL) as a televised spectator sport is trending down is not true based on recent data.
>Regular season NFL viewership saw a minor dip of about 2.2% in 2024 (averaging 17.5 million per game), but rebounded strongly in 2025 with significant gains—averaging around 18.7 million viewers per game (up 10% from the prior season in some reports, marking the highest in 36 years or second-highest on record when including updated measurement methods like Nielsen's Big Data + out-of-home viewing). Networks like CBS, Fox, NBC, and Amazon all reported year-over-year increases, with streaming platforms showing particularly strong growth.
> Super Bowl audiences continue setting records: Super Bowl LIX (2025) averaged 127.7 million viewers (up 3% from the previous year), marking consecutive record highs. Playoff games, including wild-card and divisional rounds, also showed double-digit increases in multiple cases. While some earlier seasons had slight declines (often tied to factors like election years or measurement changes), the overall trend since 2024-2025 has been upward, reinforcing the NFL's position as the dominant U.S. televised sport."
Your impression may arise from shifting measurement platform data due to increasing out-of-home, mobile, streaming, DVR, etc viewership. Just comparing traditional old-school Nielsen in-home diary data alone hasn't been accurate for over a decade. Even if we discount recent cross-platform measurement data, the overwhelming dominance of NFL football is also well supported by the audited financial reports of what broadcasters and streamers pay the NFL and further by what advertisers pay for slots. The sheer money being paid dwarfs all other sports and types of television programming (news, drama, comedy, etc). The recent dramatic growth of legalized sports gambling in the US will likely push NFL viewership across all platforms and formats even higher.
the oscars audience is shrinking
all TV broadcast is growing like 1/10th the rate as Netflix did in the past decade. That's my benchmark.
Yes, but NFL viewership is growing.
> all TV broadcast is growing like 1/10th the rate as Netflix did in the past decade.
Okay, but that undermines your earlier point. The NFL isn't tied to or limited by 'broadcast television'. NFL football is simply 'video content', but not just any video content, it's the hottest video content of all time - no matter how its distributed. Streaming is now the fastest growing distribution channel for video content, so it's also the fastest growing channel for live football video content. Netflix is paying big bucks to stream some live NFL games - with plans to increase next year. And Amazon Prime is already a major 'network' for NFL with Thursday Night Football. Industry analysts report NFL football is by far the single most expensive content/hr for Netflix and Prime and is a major loss leader for both. They're paying the NFL far more than the broadcast rights are worth as a way to 'buy' more of the subscriber growth you find so impressive. Netflix (and Amazon Prime) aren't 'beating' NFL football, they've surrendered and are joining them (at a loss).
Disney Plus tried to bid on NFL streaming rights but NFL is so expensive it's a hugely risky way for streamers to buy viewers, so Disney dropped out and recently did a deal for exclusive US live streaming rights for a much smaller sport than NFL - F1 racing. Bottom line: live sports is the biggest, most consistent driver of video content viewership - and always has been. NFL is by far the biggest video content sport - and always has been. It's been true for over 50 years, from traditional over-the-air broadcast, cable television (in the 80s NFL rights made ESPN the most valuable cable channel), satellite (in the 90s out-of-market NFL games were the largest driver of DirectTV & Dish growth) and now it's a key growth vector for streamers.
Streaming isn't a threat to the NFL, it's the NFL's biggest growth channel. In fact, the real limit on the NFL's future growth isn't distribution at all. It's already so dominant in the U.S, it has no competition close enough to be relevant. The NFL's only remaining limit is, quite literally, the size of the U.S. population. That's why the NFL's been investing huge sums trying to establish NFL football elsewhere in the world. It's their single biggest growth priority - because they're already the absolute, undisputed king of broadcast, cable, satellite and streaming in the U.S.
However, his claim that a spectator would "automatically reframe what she saw into the way it would appear on television" is never supported other than him saying "trust me, it's true, if you don't believe me you are in the minority".
This man has absolutely no idea what he's talking about x)
Nah. A one time purchase of a 77" TV with surround sound was absolutely the better option.
The atmosphere was great, cheering with 75,000 other fans is exhilarating, but I haven't felt the need to go again. Soccer, hockey, basketball, baseball, I've all been to multiple times, the Denver stadiums for them are great, and the tickets and concessions aren't too expensive. Football is the only sport I really follow, but I'll never go to another game. The local high school is within walking distance, and a ticket is $5.
Now that every NFL player wears a tracking beacon between their shoulder pads, there's an unbelievable amount of automated metadata available from a variety of third-party data services. The data can include breakdowns segmented per team, unit, player, drive, down-and-distance, etc and the costs can be quite reasonable depending the depth and sophistication of analysis. There is also some data available free on ad-supported sites or on free-to-join sites, including on fantasy football and sports betting sites who use the free data to attract sign-ups.
I agree NFL is best at home. Hopefully OTA broadcasts remain a thing for a long time to come.
I got the TV specifically with the money I redirected from an NFL tickets budget line.
For an actually interesting topic worthy of your time, check out how 1st down markers are calculated and shown on screen at home. It’s much more complicated than you’d think.
Further, the contention of the article is simply that there are many perspectives to a game like (American) football, and every perspective is limited in some way, not receiving the full information of everything happening simultaneously, and this also applies to any video source. Not sure how that relates to fascism, but somehow it apparently does. Regardless, the contention is just as applicable to soccer (aka the shortened name the brits made for Association Football)
In Melbourne, Australia, Football is again another sport (but it not being called Footy gives it a way).
But I don't know how many times the 14 player scenario happens per game in American Football, is it a lot more?
For something like baseball, you can basically see everything happening in frame the whole time. But for football, the game is so information dense that you can spend hours unpacking the game afterwards to see what was going on. That's why replays and highlights are so much more satisfying. And that's what makes it fun to analyze and or watch videos during the week - you can find all sort of unique or interesting aspects just watching the same play again and analyzing a different personnel group.
It also explains why cameras are everywhere (besides them being just flat out cheaper for high school games, etc). Film study is a crucial part of the game for players - more than in any other sport.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_venues_by_capac...
I ran through the list, Michigan Dome is the third largest sports venue on earth, for team sports, or better yet, the third largest sports venue that everyone in attendance can witness all of the events taking place.
Like the author of the piece we are discussing, I don’t consider auto or horse race tracks to be a singular, contiguous sports venue’, obviously you can fit a ton of people alongside a track that is multiple miles long, the seating areas aren’t always continuous, etc.
The stadiums in India and North Korea are similar to Michigan Dome, all spectators can see the same event occur the entire time it is occuring, auto racing doesn’t really allow this, not sure about horse racing.