Are Tom Brady’s restrictions unfair to viewers? Sports Media Mailbag, Part 1

Welcome to the 39th Media Mailbag for Athletics. Thank you for submitting your questions through the website and app. There were more than 125 questions, so this is part 1 of a two-parter.

(Note: Questions have been edited for clarity and length.)

---

Is it unfair to viewers that Tom Brady has so many limitations placed on him by the league – no production meetings, no pre-interviews, no practices, no criticism of referees, etc.? As a lead analyst, he seems severely limited, which may be part of the reason he’s lacking – at least in my opinion. Why didn’t Fox pull the contract, or why didn’t he put his ownership ambitions on hold so he could go all out for his $375 million gig? – Larry S.

We’ve had half a season with Brady, including several games, since the league approved his ownership of the (Las Vegas) Raiders. How much noticeable improvement have you noticed in his booth performance? (I remain unimpressed.) Does his inability to attend production meetings affect his work or the overall quality of the (Kevin) Burkhardt/Brady stand? – Barry S.

I wrote a piece last month arguing that the restrictions are unsustainable in the long run and predicted that Brady would leave the booth long before the end of his contract. It’s not just the conflict of interest. There have long been conflicts of interest in sports media jobs, including college football analysts still employed by schools. That’s just the modern reality. But predetermined limitations on what you can say leave no solution. It’s unconsciously self-censoring stuff because of the ownership situation. It’s a mess for everyone and especially the viewers. As for performance: I think Brady has improved significantly since the beginning of the year, but he’s not a transcendent analyst. Maybe that’s too much to ask in Year 1. He’s also had some terrible games to call, to be fair.

SBJ’s Ben Fischer has done a great job on the subject of Brady’s broadcasting restrictions and reported last week that the statute of limitations for Brady may be extended after his interview on 20 October with Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes that aired during Fox NFL Sunday. It’s absurd to think that NFL owners would have a problem with a softball interview, but according to Fischer, some owners could take issue with Brady receiving information as a Raiders affiliate and therefore want to “limit Brady’s interaction with players to live or recorded interviews for broadcast only to ensure that the content of their conversations is known publicly, and prohibits private one-on-one interactions before or after the broadcast component.” By the way, Fox has been fine with all of this. They (and I get this part) like being in the Tom Brady business. But I keep saying it: This is not sustainable in the long term.

Why do networks do in-game interviews? They are filled with meaningless platitudes about staying focused and playing harder. The coaches and players rightfully can’t wait to run back to the huddle. The questions are so leading that the interviewee usually simply repeats their substance in response. It reminds me of the nonsense Mean Gene Okerlund used to do with Hulk Hogan. I silence them. Can we make it stop? – Thomas S.

First I will argue Okerlund’s interviews were brilliant and entertaining. The best stickman in wrestling history. But networks do this because more access is ultimately better than less access. They will take you into the game. It’s worth it – and I tend to agree – for one good answer, even if the other 99 are trite.

How much of a difference do commenters make to ratings or revenue? Other than peak Bill Walton paired with Dave Pasch or Jason Benetti, I don’t think I’ve ever picked a national broadcast for the commentators. – Jack M.

Sportscasts don’t increase viewership (maybe Howard Cosell did in his prime due to love/hate watching). The reason you hire quality TV companies like Benetti is because you want your product to appear professional and entertaining. It produces a quality product that keeps people interested and coming back, and advertisers (or subscribers) invest money in your product.

How is the schedule set for the final week of the NFL season? Currently, all games are listed as 1 p.m. ET kickoff, but do certain networks have priority in choosing the matchups and windows in which the games are played? – Harvey C.

Two games are played on a Saturday, and then start times and networks are chosen after Week 17. As a general rule, the most anticipated game will go to NBC in the prime-time window. The window at 4.25pm ​​often sees CBS and Fox each get a prominent game, or a game that has a proven viewership. Last year, the Buffalo Bills and Miami Dolphins met on NBC’s “Sunday Night Football” for a game that decided the AFC East title. That’s the ideal you want – the last game of the regular season matters.

Can women’s basketball continue its ratings in the post-Caitlin Clark era? – Corinne R.

The long-term answer is yes. The sport is on an upward trajectory, producing new stars annually (eg USC’s JuJu Watkins and Notre Dame’s Hannah Hidalgo), and the programming windows keep getting better. But the numbers in the Women’s NCAA Tournament will undoubtedly be down this year because Clark was a once-in-a-generation unicorn. It’s simply not realistic to expect the NCAA women’s championship game to duplicate last year’s 18.9 million viewership for South Carolina’s win over Iowa. But it’s a great sport that will only resonate with viewers in the long term.

It seems this year has brought more MLB broadcaster complaints than any since Joe Buck left. Even Bob Costas took some hits, which was hard for me to believe. Did you catch homerism from Joe Davis (calling lots of Los Angeles Dodgers games for FS1 and Fox, or Costas calling the New York Yankees series with longtime New Yorker Ron Darling? Any chance we’ll ever see Fox or others networks add local TV voices during the World Series again? — No name

I heard no bias from Davis. I’m sure he wants the Dodgers to do well, but national broadcasters make a point of calling games in a neutral tone. Forget about the ethics or anything else – it would simply be stupid business to favor a team outright. I don’t think we’ll ever see local broadcasters added to call championship games because the networks will always want their broadcasters to have the job.

Is there a reason why ESPN doesn’t use Joe Buck and Troy Aikman as much on anything other than “Monday Night Football” (and Aikman occasionally turns on “Sorry for the interruption”). It just seems like a wasted resource. I mean, Buck didn’t even come to talk about the World Series and he’s been called a few times. It just seems strange to me that two of their very expensive employees really just do one thing. – Mark H.

It’s all contractual. Those kinds of hits are built into contracts (say, a certain number of appearances on the ESPN airwaves), and Aikman and Buck had massive leverage at ESPN when they signed. At this point in their careers, they don’t need to make hits on ESPN shows unless they really want to.

AEW has a nice, secure new contract that Warner Bros. Discovery seems to be pleased with. But they just got beat pretty bad by WWE developmental on their own night. How low is a rating too low for WBD? – Benjamin A.

WBD’s approach at this point is to load up on as many second-tier sports rights as they can get, a list that includes Mountain West football, the French Open, the new Unbeaten 3×3 Women’s Basketball League and its acquisition from ESPN of Big 12 football – and basketball games. AEW fits into that bucket. Second tier rights are good. It’s not level I like NFL or NBA, but it builds inventory. I don’t think WBD will be worried even if the linear numbers continue to rise. (I will say, AEW really needs a reboot of some sort with storylines.) This is all part of the larger game for cable companies to preserve WBD programming.

Where is an online go-to source that we can look at to see who these play-by-play and analyst commentators are on every game on TV or streaming? I stumbled upon a college basketball game and had no idea who the play-by-play and analyst were. I think it would be a great service for all sports fans. -Wayne B.

That’s a good question. For the NFL: The gold standard here is 506 Sports, which has coverage maps of every NFL game and all the broadcasters. One tip I have is that most major sports rights venues have a website dedicated to their PR efforts, such as this one for ESPN. You will always find weekly press releases here telling you who is playing the games.

Don’t hold your breath for Australian rules football on the major US networks anytime soon. (Daniel Pockett/Getty Images)

Why aren’t the Fox networks making more of an effort to grow the American market for Australian football? I think it’s a great sport, but FS1/FS2 never show AFL or AFLW replays despite having hours to fill (Canadian Premier League soccer anyone?). – Rowan B.

It is very difficult for sports based entirely away from the United States to break through to major American businesses. You often need a global footprint (eg Formula 1, Premier League) for places to offer decent program windows. While it’s a lot of fun to watch, I can’t see Aussie rules football getting much traction for an American network.

With Rogers Communications’ deal as the sole national television rights holder in Canada expiring after the 2025-26 season, what do you see the next deal being? Is Rogers’ deal with Amazon Prime to cover Monday night games in Canada a glimpse into the future? – Morgan B.

I think Amazon will be a big player in the next NHL deal in Canada, and I have no doubt the league wants it to happen. They wouldn’t have invested significant resources into Monday Night Hockey unless they wanted to go bigger after 2026.

Will we ever see women’s volleyball gain any traction as a televised sport, or is the fall sports calendar too cluttered? In the past month, I’ve seen Purdue sell out 15,000-seat Mackey Arena twice for home games, once on NBC, so there has to be a market. I’ve also seen D1 games played in what appeared to be half-full high school gyms. — Dan. K.

Depends on what your definition of traction is, but women’s volleyball interest is sky high when it comes to broadcast spots. The Big Ten Network has made it a staple of its coverage, and last year we saw the Fox broadcast network broadcast both Minnesota-Wisconsin and Ohio State-Michigan during an NFL week. The AP recently wrote a story that girls’ volleyball has never been so popular in the United States. It’s a boon for the sport.

I have noticed that Fox has removed the out of town ticker from all of their NFL broadcasts and it makes for a cleaner viewing experience. I appreciate getting updates from the studio when someone scores in another game, but I can also follow the scores of other games on my devices whenever I want. Do you have any insight into how/why Fox made their decision? – Marc L.

I sent your question to Fox Sports PR to get some insight. A spokesperson said: “Good point by the reader. And that reader also answered his own question. It’s for a cleaner look and makes the game feel bigger. It will stay that way for the foreseeable future.”

(Top photo of Tom Brady: Patrick McDermott/Getty Images)