Larry Ryan: Could more and more football mean less and less viewers?

As a devout Liverpool man, and no doubt a busy man, Declan briefly considered not watching Reading versus Arsenal in the early knockings of the Capital One Cup, as it was, 12 years ago. But he was rewarded for staying true to his values when the Arsenal won that one 7-5 in something of an epic.

But what was Declan to do, on Tuesday and Wednesday night this week, with all the matches on? And St Pat’s too, out there somewhere behind the sorcery of streaming. Is there a danger, in his perplexion, that he watched no match?

Already, in this house, in the constant battle for use of the big television, dangerous language has crept in such as ‘we’ll have to watch the big one’. Even if the guardian of the remote control, who is competing for access. would argue bigness can be quite loosely interpreted with some of these matches.

But still, when it has been established that some matches are more equal than others, it’s a slippery slope.

TV chiefs have already been wrestling with existential crises around declining viewing figures. And they may eventually have to wrestle with their big one: Could more be less?

But not for a while, judging by the new-look Champions League, with 144 matches scheduled next season to eliminate 12 out of 36 teams. The All-Ireland football championship with severe swelling.

We have been fortunate to witness in action some pretty successful competition formats in recent years. The Two-Qualify-From-Four-One-In- Relegation-Bother structure — let’s call it The Little All-Ireland format — seems to work well. So too the Three-Through-From-Five-Rats-In-A-Barrel format (™Brendan Cummins), as long as standards are even.

But the wider world has gone the other way. The rugby lads put in place some caper with only four of 24 teams knocked out of Europe altogether. Let’s call it the Golden Circle system, where nearly everybody you know is looked after.

But now the soccer crowd are at it. And it’s hard to imagine the world being gripped on matchday 8 of the Champions League, as Bayern push for the precious point that keeps them 17 places above the trapdoor. Jeopardy would seem to be the missing ingredient, with this one.

This, remember, is football’s effort to keep the European Super League at bay. And the Super League was supposedly football’s attempt to stop kids playing Fortnite and Call of Duty instead of watching football. So it remains to be seen if this is the way to reclaim the generation who are not watching every match. Or not watching any matches, as Juventus chief and Super League advocate Andrea Agnelli claimed.

These days the consultants have a model for everything, even the bleedin’ obvious. Especially the bleedin’ obvious. Twenty First Group are, their website tells us, global leaders in “bespoke sports intelligence”, so naturally they have a model for assessing whether fans will watch a match. 

Their algorithm involves weighing three factors: quality, jeopardy and connection. Strong quantities of two or three factors are needed, seemingly, to make a match a compelling prospect.

“The days of perpetual growth appear to be over,” Twenty First warns. “Faced with endless entertainment choices, fans are becoming more discerning in what they choose to watch, and therefore what they are willing to pay for.” 

I suppose we can see this calculation in action at Turner’s Cross, for example, on a given Friday night. Presumably fans remain as connected to Cork City as ever, but when you’re coasting through the First Division, jeopardy is missing, and the quality isn’t through the roof. So crowds are modest this season.

Funnily enough, the Carabao Cup might be the one anachronism that sometimes bucks the Twenty First model. There’s very little jeopardy, since nobody really cares about being knocked out, and the quality is highly variable, but the handbrakes are off, so there is the prospect of unruly entertaining spectacles, even for the non-connected.

There is some good news too, for football, in the Twenty First Group analysis of the TV ‘marketplace’. At least football is predictable, to some extent, unlike competing branches of the entertainment industry, such as movies. Ie: if you throw enough money at football you’ll eventually win, and people will watch. In contrast, just four Best Picture Oscar winners have topped the box office charts since 1980. A pull-your-socks-up shot across the bows of overpaid movie directors and producers if ever there was one.

“In sport, fans are incredibly perceptive and responsive to quality. Unlike in film, the best teams are the ones that win the prizes.” 

However, TV chiefs, in pursuit of their ‘more is more’ philosophy, appear to be parking the ‘quality’ requirement for now, and maybe even 'jeopardy', and taking a huge bet on connection.

Rugby League fans can watch every single Super League match this season, which would be some feat of endurance. Tennis lovers can prod their red button at most of the matches going on at Flushing Meadows right now. Sky are showing 1,000 matches from the English Football League this season.

The model seems to be based on fans being willing to pay if they can regularly watch the team or player they are most connected to.

Maybe we are nearing the end of the floating neutral viewer, just wanting to be entertained. Declan won't be expected to watch Reading v Arsenal any more. But in the longer term, what will it all mean for the teams and players with fewest connections?