2.28 million tennis fans watched the women’s final between Angelique Kerber and Serena Williams on ZDF television on Saturday. A success – or sobering figures, as some think? Ultimately a question of expectations.
A comment by Florian Goosmann
In the short term, the Mainzelmänner vom Lerchenberg have grabbed the Wimbledon finale, thanks to a sublicense from the rights holder Sky.
Industry service DWDL certainly spoke of a success: 2.28 million viewers were present on average, with a market share of 13.6 percent (at the peak more than 3 million and more than 20 percent). The biggest competitor: the simultaneous World Cup match for third place between Belgium and England, which attracted 8.53 million viewers on ARD (market share: 52.7 percent).
Nevertheless – or precisely for that reason – I also say: the tennis figures are good. Not because of the odds themselves, because from a sporting point of view Angie Kerber would have earned more especially in Wimbledon, the favourite tournament of former tennis Germany. But from the experience of recent years. And the corresponding expectations.
Apart from football and winter sports, hardly any sport gets top ratings, which is largely due to the fact that hardly anything else has been broadcast on the major channels since the titans and spectator magnets of other sports such as Henry Maske (boxing), Michael Schumacher (Formula 1) or Boris Becker (tennis) are no longer active. But how can you win sports fans – besides the hardcore fans who are already on all stations?
In order to generate broad interest in other sports and to have long-term success with them, one would have to prove staying power, which even the public-legal, educational mission or not, does not have. Because even there, the short-term quota plays an important role despite the GEZ fee, even if one does not want to admit this publicly. By their standards, special interest channels often have more success, also thanks to their perseverance (and partly inexpensive rights packages) – think of the Darts World Championship on Sport 1, which reports new records every year, by the way without German participants in the final rounds.
What surprised me: “Only” 190,000 viewers attended this year’s Kerber finale on Sky – many Sky customers apparently watched ZDF despite their subscription. Was it the co-commentator Barbara Rittner there? Ultimately, it’s a pity, because what the pay-TV broadcaster did for two weeks with great competence and passion was great tennis!
For comparison: Kerbers Wimbledon-Finale 2016 watched 350,000 spectators (exclusively) on Sky, the final of Sabine Lisicki in 2013 came even on 600,000 spectators. However, there was no major football event at the time, and the smiling glamour girl Lisicki had leased several BILD headlines during the week in the rest of the summer slump. Kerber, and she can take that as a compliment, has been convincing mainly in sports for years.
Good odds, bad odds – the sad truth is: King football rules the world, sports fans themselves must look for the provider they trust. The good thing is: If you want to watch tennis, find it. Thanks to Sky, DAZN, Eurosport and Co. more is currently being broadcast than during the tennis heyday of the 1980s and 1990s. And that a World Cup match between Belgium and England (and probably also a friendly match between FC Bayern and SC Rumpelhausen) will attract many more spectators than a Wimbledon final by Angelique Kerber? Should (unfortunately) not surprise anyone anymore.
After all, the dramatic end of the Wimbledon semi-final between Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, which ZDF had not actually planned, also attracted 1.55 million viewers (market share: 12.7 percent). A small, fine success, which shows that good sport can certainly find its fans – if it runs.