Is Sports Coverage Dying?

Maybe. A little evidence.

When the New York Times announced this week that it was abruptly disbanding its sports department, we true believers reacted predictably and correctly:

The decision was shocking, idiotic and — given the fact that the sports department staffers had been worried that this would happen and were apparently given assurances that it would not — incredibly cynical.

The logic, of course, has been inescapable ever since the Times bought The Athletic, which is an ubiquitous, nationwide sports-writing conglomerate.

(As such, this kind of big, corporate entity has every reason to be slipshod, haphazard and cheap. That has not been the case. In general, the copy coming out of The Athletic is comprehensive, informed and generally excellent.)

But even more reason for newspapers to say: why not let The Athletic do it? Their hard core sports fans are probably already reading it. And if not The Athletic, maybe one of dozens of internet versions that target their favorite team. (Like Blue Man Hoop, which is all Warriors, all the time.)

Why, newspapers can ask, are we trying to reinvent the wheel? Other platforms are giving sports fans what they want. Why should we invest big bucks — traveling to away games is expensive for starters — to do a version of the same thing?

Baseball fans have already noticed the disappearance of printed box scores. And they also complain that last night’s Giants’ game wasn’t in this morning’s newspaper. With deadlines of 3 p.m. — that’s right, the middle of the afternoon — the printed newspaper’s role as breaking news seems as quaint as the idea that we used to let Big League pitchers bat.

We’d like to tell you how often this newsletter comes out, but we have no idea. Safest way is to get a subscription. Click here:

OK, you say, but newspapers have been going digital for eons. How does this change? You can still see the game story in your online subscription.

And that’s true. Here’s coverage of the Los Angeles Times announcement last week, pointing sports fans to their online version.

But the rest of the announcement gets at what we are talking about. As the Sporting Tribune tweeted:

“THIS JUST IN: The Los Angeles Times sports section will no longer have box scores, standings, game stories, TV listings or a daily sports calendar.”

Instead, Sports Editor Limon Romero wrote:

“The printed sports section will take on the look and feel of a daily sports magazine, with a different design showcasing our award-winning reporting and photography.”

Uh-huh.

Sports magazine transformations seem to be all the rage in the print world. The Chronicle announced the same move for the Sunday section months ago. So far I’d say they average one good story a Sunday and then filler.

But writing a game story on deadline? Less likely. Even on internet sites you’re more likely to find “Three Things We Learned From Training Camp.” Magazine-style.

Again, that’s print. Not a growth industry. And sports are not a growth field.

A personal story. When I started writing a once-a-week sports column for the Santa Rosa Press Democrat after over 30 years at the San Francisco Chronicle, it wasn’t long before I contacted the IT people.

“There must be a filter on my email,” I told them. “I’m hardly getting any.”

They were too nice to say it, but . . . entitled much? The fact was there wasn’t that much interest.

And while you can caulk it up to my lousy writing — fair enough — I was later told that sports attracted so few clicks on the SR internet site that if one made the top ten, it would be remarked upon.

Like, “Oh look, even a sports story got a lot of clicks today.”

Granted that’s just my little example. But it isn’t my imagination. Sports coverage has the potential to become the niche-ist of niche jobs.

As it happens, we watch KPIX for evening news in our house. It is pretty easy to get an idea of where sports rates. While it seems there’s another weather report every 15 minutes, sports gets a few minutes once an hour.

Yep, I know. That’s the definition of a small sample size.

So let’s bring this in. I wasn’t kidding about the decline in sports coverage. Or the weather.

A survey cited in the Sport Journal found 31 percent of respondents showed an interest in TV coverage of sports and 72 percent wanted the weather report. The story also tracked a national trend of cutting TV time in local markets, to as little as three minutes per hour devoted to sports.

Wait. It gets worse.

Share this newsletter? Certainly. Click here:

It isn’t that there aren’t still plenty of sports fans. A typical survey finds that just over half of TV viewers watch at least one sports event a week.

But there are problems with that.

First, the regional TV networks that provide your local sports are going belly up. It’s a long complicated story. And it would deserve its own, thoughtful post if I understood the details. But luckily I don’t so let’s move on.

The second problem is the up-and-coming sports fans are neither up nor coming. Members of Gen Z — which is the largest generation in U.S. history — are not exactly rabid sports fans.

From the Morning Consult:

“A recent survey of 1,000 U.S. Gen Zers between the ages of 13 and 25 found that 33% do not watch live sporting events, compared with 24% of U.S. adults and 22% of millennials who answered the same in a corresponding survey.”

The Consult story says although 37 percent of total regular viewers watch “most” of their local teams’ games, only 25 percent of Gen Z said the same. Two out of five Z’s couldn’t name a favorite team.

ESPN Chairman Jimmy Pitaro has said concerns about Gen Z viewers, “is the one thing that keeps me up at night.”

The funny thing is that it isn’t as if they aren’t watching. They’re checking in on Tik-Tok, YouTube and Instagram.

And sports stars, no dummies, are way ahead on this. Steph Curry and LeBron James are Gen Z’s favorite athletes. And Curry and James know it. James’ Instagram account has over 139 million followers. Curry has 53 million.

So, does Gen Z sound like a group of sports-curious fans that will to want to read an in-depth look at the Giants’ bullpen in the future?

Or would they rather skip the middleman and go right to Steph’s latest Instagram video? If they want to know who won the game, they can always call up highlights on YouTube.

Remember, it’s not paranoia if someone is actually out to get you. Ask the sports staff of the New York Times.

This feels like a sea change in the way sports are covered. And it deserves discussion.

Unfortunately, that’s all the time we have. Let’s go to Rusty with the weather.

Contact C.W. Nevius at cwnevius@gmail.com. Twitter: @cwnevius