The Routinization of Media Events: Televised Sports in the Era of Mega-TV

Introduction

Bill Shankly, the former manager of Liverpool’s football team, claimed: “Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I don’t like that attitude. I can assure them it is much more serious than that.” For many individuals, because sports events are much more than a game, they invest extensive efforts and make great sacrifices to be part of the story. This explains why sports events and broadcasts consistently attract huge audiences. The classic communications theory of media events (Dayan and Katz 1992) addressed sports broadcasts from a narrow perspective, based at the time on their relatively small share of all media events. As a result, the majority of articles since published on sports broadcasting focused on specific “confrontations” (Weimann-Saks et al. 2020). The current paper adopts a view of sports broadcasts as a continuous sequence of media events that create an important—and sometimes unique and rare—opportunity for broadcasting organizations to compete within the systemic challenges of contemporary, diverse, and multiple-screen viewing. This article proposes a reconceptualization of media events theory that is aligned with the contemporary media world and suggests several research directions for those studying the media events phenomenon.

Media Events and the Challenges of the Contemporary Media World

Katz and Dayan’s media event theory has become one of the most well-known and cited theories in communications research (Scannell 2018; Sonnevend 2018), distinguishing between ordinary, routine media viewing, and singular, outstanding occasions that they termed “media events” (Hepp and Couldry 2010). Media events are effectively a break in routine media broadcasts, their dramatic nature enthralling large audiences (Dayan and Katz 1992).

Dayan and Katz (1992) further described media events as a genre that can be conceptualized at the syntactic level (a break in routine), the semantic level (a unique, ceremonial event), and the pragmatic level (an event that causes large audiences to assemble for celebratory viewing). It is this combination of meanings that accounts for the singular nature of media events (Hepp and Couldry 2010). Live broadcasts of major sports events regularly operate on, and engage, viewers on all three levels.

Dayan and Katz (1992) also distinguished between three categories of media events: contests, conquests, and coronations, with subsequent researchers suggesting additional categories (Mitu and Poulakidakos 2016). Weimann (1987), for example, discussed terror attacks as media events; Liebes (1998) proposed to expand the original categories to include unscheduled events, typically catastrophes; others focused on categories of wars (Liebes and Katz 2010; Wark 1994) and political protests (Sumiala and Korpiola 2016). Hepp and Vogelgesang (2003) also discussed media events that are not broadcast live (such as the finales of reality shows), that they termed popular media events.

When they developed their theory, Dayan and Katz correctly defined the audience as passive viewers unable to intervene in the media’s content (Vaccari et al. 2015). Today, however, media viewers’ involvement in broadcasts is facilitated through social media, granting viewers the power to magnify media events’ impact (Cunningham and Eastin 2017; Lin et al. 2014), an antidote of sorts to the multiplicity of alternative contents on (and beyond) social media, challenging traditionally televised media events (Hepp and Couldry 2010).

Finally, at the deepest level media events (are designed to?) generate social integration and transform masses of viewers into an audience by creating and reinforcing symbols (Dayan and Katz 1992, 15). Whereas ordinary media contents are viewed passively and indifferently, they claimed, media events evoke excitement and attention. Through the drama and uncertainty inherent in games and competitions, sports broadcasts have always elicited a broad spectrum of emotion. Yet the increasing incorporation of technology into sports in general, and specifically into sports broadcasts, reinforces the “golden aura” that surrounds them, rendering the viewing audience’s experience even greater than that of the spectators (Mitu 2016). However, such a “routinization of halo” would seem to be paradoxical. This will be explored in the Discussion section, among other aspects of the media events theory, in light of the much-changed sports media environment.

No social science theory can stay unchanged forever, especially in a dynamic environment. The changes in the field of communications have prompted numerous research projects in order to redefine/refine the theory. Special issues on this topic published by Communications (in 2017) and Media, Culture & Society (in 2018) joined a host of books and papers, all concurring that the new technological reality, and especially the multiplicity of media platforms, constitute a genuine challenge to the theory. The fact that individuals can easily create and publish quasi-television content (UGC) on YouTube, TikTok etc., ostensibly constitutes an alternative to powerful, centralized, classic media organizations (Moens et al. 2014).

Moreover, content posted on social media frequently infuses significance, meaning, and symbolism into contents appearing on legacy media, enhancing and glorifying its heroes by diffusion (Mitu 2016)—all the more so in the world of sport. Two examples: whereas sports events accounted for 1.4 percent of US television scheduling in 2015, they contributed close to 50 percent of all television-related conversations on Twitter (Nielsen 2016); more than one half of the ten highest earners on Instagram are sportspeople (McCarthy 2019).

Sports Media

There are five unique and significant elements that characterize sports event viewing as fundamentally different from other media genres (Gantz et al. 2006): 1—fans’ loyalty to sports broadcasts (Wann and James 2019); 2—shared social experience whose effects persist over time (Onwumechili 2018; Raney 2006); 3—preference for large-screen television over other available alternatives, especially due to its social effects (Rowe 2014); 4—obsession with real-time viewing (Tamir 2019); and 5—active viewing (Gantz et al. 2006). These distinguish sports broadcasts from other types. They are also relevant to media events theory, as elaborated below.

Even with the significant increase in sports content productions (including films, documentaries, and reality shows), live televised sports remains the core of sports broadcasting across the globe (Fortunato 2013; Nielsen 2018b). Indeed, whereas television broadcasting in general has declined over time (Nielsen 2017, 28), televised sports exhibits the opposite trend. In the United States, the number of sports broadcast hours increased significantly from 84,000 broadcast hours in 2010 to approximately 134,000 hours in 2018. Moreover, sports broadcasts continually constitute the vast majority of the most widely viewed telecasts (Wann and James 2019): 86 of the 100 most viewed broadcasts in the U.S. in 2017 were sports broadcasts (Nielsen 2018a). Additional evidence of the growing popularity of sport broadcasts comes from a “secondary” medium: 600 radio stations are dedicated exclusively to sports in the United States alone (Wann and James 2019).

Although modern technologies offer a diverse range of possibilities regarding screens and flexible viewing times, sports fans continue to prefer to watch games on their main television screen. In effect, sports broadcasts have become a significant anchor for classic television viewing (Barnfield 2013; Tamir 2019). In many countries (e.g., US, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Italy, France, Germany, and Spain), well under 10 percent of viewers watched the games on a smartphone or tablet—due in part to the difficulty of following player moves on a small screen, and also by the social desire to physically view the games with others (Rowe 2014). Moreover, sports fans do not typically view events after the fact, and will invest all efforts to view the broadcast live, even believing that their screen presence can affect the game’s outcomes (Tamir 2019). Finally, major sports events are purposely scheduled for night-time or weekend viewing when most people are at home. Other categories of media events (e.g., ceremonies and coronations) are broadcast at all hours of the day, significantly reducing live viewing.

Sport as the Ultimate Media Event

Dayan and Katz’s earlier focus on the Olympic Games, an emphasis continued by other more recent authors, positioned sports media events as a distinct contest setting that occurs infrequently, similar to general media events. A deeper look at sports broadcasts around the world, however, reveals a more complex picture.

Discussion and Conclusion

Media event theory has been central to communications research for thirty years, engendering extensive research in response to the significant changes that occurred in the media sphere in recent years, that is, competition over content production and dissemination, creating a more crowded market than ever. With television’s monopoly over at-home viewing of visual contents being replaced by a flexible, multi-screen, multi-content environment that is accessible on demand, media events have become the main competitive advantage offered by classic, linear television in its effort to retain its dominance and viewership. In this respect, sports events are uniquely suited to television, perhaps more so than in any other time in television history—a rich and stable source of high visibility programing that supports a constant production stream of media events.

Because television has remained “the last bastion of the experience of simultaneous communal viewing” (Whannel 2009, 216), and television viewers continued to view sports events in real time on a large screen, sports broadcasts became a major anchor for broadcasting organizations. Competition among these organizations over broadcasting rights of sports contents contributed to the significant expansion of broadcast sports fields, and consequently, of the total airtime time of sports broadcasts. On a deeper level, the competition effectively created a systematic mechanism of glorifying sports events and broadcasts. The desire/need to attract viewers compelled concession holders to emphasize the singular significance of each event and generate a buzz around it. Although sport is built around a classic confrontation, it contains many other symbolic aspects and elements that almost inevitably transform sports competitions into mega-media events.

For example, the assumption that sport is sublimated warfare or collective aggression is well known in the research literature. Pinker (2011) presented evidence of diminishing violence in the world (and specifically in the western world) over the past several centuries, both in the form of war and domestic violence. Sports provides an outlet and alternative means of release of human aggression, that is, the popularity of sport might increase as peace becomes more prevalent.

Another cause of the contemporary growth in sports events is related to the growing wellness trend in recent years. Modern medical research points to a direct association between physical activity and many positive, health-related outcomes. Indeed, the stronger one’s health awareness, the more one tends to engage in physical activity (Williamson 2016), and interest in professional sport could also increase as a result. The reverse influence is still undecided. Viewing sports broadcasts by young people especially (Lines 2007), can be a motivating factor for engaging in physical activity. Conversely, for others there are health-related costs of sports fanhood (e.g., increased fat consumption, decline in cardiac performance), due to the “couch potato” effect (Sweeney and Quimby 2012).

Feminism has also had an impact, leading to enormous growth in women’s sports programing and their physical involvement in sports, either individually or professionally—potentially doubling viewership of sports media events.

Compared to when Katz and Dayan theorized about televised media events, today’s home television screens (especially among sports fans) tend to be very large and high-resolution (HDTV, 4K), creating an exceptional sensory experience that, in some respects (e.g., the “feel” of sound, color, and festiveness), comes very close to the experience of spectators in the bleachers, thus adding to viewers’ motivation to view broadcasts at home. In short, technology has significantly reduced the relative advantages of viewing from the stadium compared to mediated viewing. Nevertheless, at least in this regard video technology is a two-edged sword as stadium operators have introduced truly giant screens above the playing field, so that spectators enjoy a hybrid experience: seeing the action live as well as viewing replays with overlaid commentary. Either way—sports broadcasting to homes and video presentation in stadiums—the experience offers far richer stimuli than in the past.

All these factors, and those noted earlier in the survey of the literature, highlight the shifting nature of media events, from a focus on the political arena to the sports arena, with far greater prevalence and emotional, viewing intensity of sports media events. As a result, the impact of the digital age on television viewing habits has created considerable challenges for media event theory with respect to sports and other media events. The fact that many viewers consume contents at varying times, using multiple screens, and engage in event-related discussions on various platforms, raises many questions that were not relevant when Katz and Dayan formulated their media events theory. A reevaluation of that theory is therefore in order, focusing on several substantive questions related to sports media events.

First, how “important” must a sports event be to be considered a media event? In defining media events, how important is the stage in the competition? For instance, is a quarter-final match in the European Football Championship considered a media event? Even at this level, the match could attract an enormous audience. Part of the final selection process toward any championship typically features personal rivalries between stars (representing athletic coronations) or national rivalries with political implications (such as a judo match between Israeli and Iranian competitors, or a pre-Olympic football match between Serbs and Croatians), all important elements that define broadcasts of these matches as media events. On the other hand, games such as these cannot be considered “singular” events; they are part of a larger, sports event broadcast routine. Complicating matters even more, given the identity of the teams and their star players, occasionally a semi-final match might attract greater interest and viewership than the finals! Therefore, the definition of a sports media event cannot be based exclusively on the competition stage, although it is an important component.

A second consideration is the nature and behavior of the audience, that is, its size and degree of involvement. Dayan and Katz noted that media events entail (either entirely or in part) a process that bypasses traditional intermediaries such as commentators. In live events, broadcasters have much less impact on what is broadcast compared to regularly programed broadcasts. On the other hand, Dayan and Katz considered the audience only for its viewership statistics and not its active engagement in the broadcast. This is not to criticize their theory; when their book was published in 1992 social media did not exist; sports broadcast viewers were mainly passive, with the exception of involvement in occasional conversations at work on the following day.

The situation today is significantly different: audience participation during the game (on platforms such as Twitter, Whatsapp, Facebook, and others) has become an integral part of the broadcast itself (with invitations to comment); so too active involvement (Tamir 2020), such as immediately re-viewing the exciting events on the field (e.g., goals, passes, etc.) due to digitized television. Therefore, there is justification to include these and other audience-related factors, such as extensive, simultaneous engagement on social media (either directly for viewing, or indirectly, for social communication and re-viewing) in the definition of a media event, based on forms of data measurement (number of event-related WhatsApp posts, Facebook video shares, video replay at home, etc.).

This will entail future sports media event research to clearly define the measurement criteria of any broadcast so that it could be legitimately (or at least objectively and quantitatively) be included in that specific study. Most such data is usually easily attainable and will enable cross-comparative research between different studies based on the quantitative variables and measures described in their methodological explanations. Obviously, different studies will not wholly agree on such measurement criteria, but at least making the methodology explicit will enable readers to assess whether they agree on a minimum audience size and involvement baseline for defining a sports media event.

A third issue necessitating media theory revision, also related to audience size, is the meteoric increase in “televised” media events that are not broadcast on television, specifically mega-sports events. The phenomenon of cord cutting (disconnecting from classic and/or cable television in favor of annual, internet-based subscriptions to NBA, MLB, or NFL games) raises several challenges to the theory.

For one, in the era of global internet, should audience share be measured as a percentage of the national or international population? That leads to a second question: which event is worthier of being defined as a media event: one that attracts 50 million viewers within a national population of 100 million, or one that attracts 200 million viewers within a global population of 8 billion? Or perhaps both are worthy, taking into consideration proportional as well as absolute audience numbers? Here too, no definitive answer can be given but researchers should start defining the specific size criteria they are using when studying what they consider to be a sports media event (and not just a “mere” sports event).

This should include a fourth consideration: whether to measure audience size exclusively during the media event itself, or also those views occurring after the event. In an era where fans can easily “home-record” events, the audience share increases significantly if one adds delayed views—and to that must be added the ability to view such events (or major parts) through platforms such as YouTube or Twitter, uploaded by viewers or even the broadcasters themselves.

Indeed, one can predict a not-so-distant future in which television, traditionally defined, no longer exists. This would not negate media event theory, but the above trends creating a new technological and social media environment warrant rethinking the theory.

Fifth, a relatively new phenomenon in sports broadcasting further justifies re-evaluation of media events theory. In addition to classic sports competitions, we are now witness to indirect (or peripheral) sports media events that have the potential of attracting huge audiences and wide public attention that even surpasses interest in the games themselves. One type of such indirect sports event is the broadcast of the new player draft in the NFL (American football) and NBA (North American basketball), whose ratings are on a par with that of actual, major US games. Documentary sports films are another example of indirect sports events. The Last Dance, the recent ten-episode documentary on Michael Jordan and the 1990s Chicago Bulls NBA champion team, is an example of this genre, with unprecedented audience ratings. Although the success of the series can be attributed to its timing (during the coronavirus quarantine) or to its star (Michael Jordan, considered an exceptional athlete and demi-god, by rival players, fans, and the media), it became extraordinarily popular and ignited extensive social media conversations. The Last Dance effectively illustrates the main argument of this study: sports has become the main media event for the contemporary generation, and in the absence of live sports broadcasts, the audience shifts to other (occasionally quasi-live) televised sports events—in the case of The Last Dance, each episode airing on the ESPN cable channel at a specific date, and subsequently open for streamed viewing on Netflix.

Obviously, this would be the most difficult type of program to define as a sports media event, given that it is not in any sense live sports but rather a documentary—and could only be considered a media event ex post facto, based on audience size and public interest. Indeed, it would be useful to conduct a research study comparing audience size of such sports documentaries with non-sports counterparts. Certainly, audience ratings here would have to be measured over an extended time-period, given that streaming channels (especially) enable subscribers to watch the films for weeks and even months after their initial broadcast date. However, such “extension” leads to a semantic issue at the heart of media event theory: by definition, an “event” occurs at a specific time and place. In the case of non-live sports broadcasts there is no “place,” and the specific “time” of initial broadcast is almost irrelevant in an era of delayed or ongoing viewing by a good part of the audience. Thus, it would be useful to determine a “cutoff” date for measuring the sports media event; we suggest when public discourse (traditional and social media) drops beneath a pre-determined threshold.

Sixth and finally, the idea of “aura” or “halo” has to be rethought in light of the vast changes in the contemporary media environment, especially the routinization of media events in almost continual sports broadcasting. In short, the question becomes: can an aura surround sports events that despite their mega-character have become numerous and routine? We think yes.

One reason for this is the fact that many fans avidly follow only one or two sports. Today we live in a world with close to eight billion people—the vast majority of whom have TV sets, and more than three-quarters have smartphones (Statista 2021). Media events theory emerged three decades ago when global television was in its infancy (quadrennial Olympics, British coronation, and the rare mega-disaster) and no one had digital access to international sports events. The idea of “aura” had a specific universal flavor when rare media events were broadcast. Today, the number of media events has risen markedly—most of a sports nature—but the ability of each audience member to choose which broadcast to view means that an aura is still maintained for them (once again: a huge international audience). One can add to this the increasing sophistication of sports broadcasters in magnifying the importance of each sports event, not to mention the far more numerous channels and platforms at their disposal through which they can pump up the audience by promoting and glorifying the sports event.

In such a world, media event routinization should be reclassified as “regularization” in order to neutralize the phenomenon’s humdrum connotation. We eat steak, have sex, take nature walks, or participate in other activities that cause great joy—even awe—despite their “regularity.” Rabid sports fans, and even people who are attracted only to truly mega sports events, can also feel their aura, despite the constancy of viewing.

In conclusion, at its core Dayan and Katz’s media event theory is still highly relevant. Nevertheless, significant changes in technology, society, and communication practices in the past thirty years warrant a reworking of this key theory. The increasing predominance of sports broadcasting—through new types of media, a broadened audience, and novel audience participation practices—constitutes a central factor in such theory reevaluation. The present article has offered several possible directions toward such a reworking of media event theory.