Live data from Hacker News

Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

latimes.com

61–70 of 115 posts

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#61

Whenever I think it might be worth it to finally go watch an NFL game live, and I start looking at those ticket prices, I start to question if it's worth it or not. Then I get to the seat view simulator and instantly close the tab because holy hell are the "affordable" NFL seats absolutely terrible to watch a game from. Can you even see the player numbers let alone the names? I guess you need to be a big enough fan t…

Live football far exceeds football on TV for watching play development and execution. TV can't resist the closeup, which precludes you from seeing tne entire field of play, the defense being run, the matchups...you're missing a lot on TV. That being said, I don't live in a city having an NFL team so I have to travel. Add in elevated ticket prices and I don't typically make it to more than one game per year.

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Baseball is killer in-person but it's also pretty nice to just have on TV. There is nothing else like the tension of a critical at-bat. 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.

Football is just a really complicated sport; one reason I think it’s popular is that it’s fun on a visceral physical individual level (“Wow, look at that run/block/hit/kick”) for ‘beginners’ watching and is also intellectually engaging as you learn more, “wait, how did they shift the secondary just now??” 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…

I recently watched Brockmire with Hank Azaria, and thought it was funny how the actual game announcing were just mere interruptions to whatever else he was talking about at the time. Which is pretty much how I find watching sports at a bar when there's multiple screens with multiple games and people you're with not actually into any of it.

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#63

This guy is not totally wrong but he is also way off about pretty much everything even just simple basic facts. He writes "Michigan Stadium, the third‑largest sports venue on earth." which is not even remotely true. Michican Stadium isn't even in the top 5 of venues in the US never mind globally[0]. And thats if you just take capacity counts at face value and don't try to include places that have huge standing room c…

You’re technically correct, but

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.

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#64
post #4

I think of football as one of the killer apps for tv. Baseball is one for radio: baseball is almost always better over radio; there’s lots of space to do something else at the pace of most baseball games.

that may be. but that's like saying, "XYZ is a killer app for vinyl" haha. 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 reaso…

> football as a televised spectator sport? trending down.

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.

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#65
post #39

I’ve only ever seen Klosterman do friendly interviews. I think his work would improve if it was challenged more.

He's kind of on the 3rd or 4th act of his career...I think he started on sports, really made his name in music/pop culture, moved on to be New York Times Ethicist for a while (!) and is back to sports. IMO he asked good occasionally hard questions of pop stars. One thing I love about him is at heart he is a true superfan of the disciplines he covers so is not a "critic" per se, but that may steer things more toward the positive because of that. He helped me realize many things about music I loved growing up in the '80s that I couldn't quite articulate at the time.

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Baseball is killer in-person but it's also pretty nice to just have on TV. There is nothing else like the tension of a critical at-bat. 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.

I went to a ball game to watch a buddy's kid throw a first pitch. I didn't know that there was more than one first pitch. We sat around talking after their first pitch and it was already the 3rd inning before I realized the game had actually started. I must have missed the "play ball" announcement.

Every MLB game I've ever been to has had that happen lol. 3 'first pitches' and then the actual start of the game happens with absolutely zero fanfair, so it's very easy to miss. In general they announce very little audibly about the actual game, it's a very different experience from watching on TV.

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that may be. but that's like saying, "XYZ is a killer app for vinyl" haha. 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 reaso…

> football as a televised spectator sport? trending down. 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 c…

> 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.

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.

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> football as a televised spectator sport? trending down. 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 c…

> 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. 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.

> the oscars audience is shrinking

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.

Post reply on HN