THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, September 12, 1994 TAG: 9409120145
SECTION: SPORTS PAGE: C1 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Column
SOURCE: Bob Molinaro
LENGTH: Medium: 73 lines
Not long ago, pay-per-view was the enemy. Professional boxing gave it a bad name, asking decent folks to pay $30 or $40 to watch bad heavyweight fights on television.
Forgetting for a moment that anything presented by boxing promoters is to be approached suspiciously, the very idea of charging people admission in their own homes is something to be resented.
At least it was.
But the image of pay-per-view has changed a lot in a very brief time.
Even as late as two years ago, pay-per-view generally was considered a scam, a way to gouge the hard-working American. We've known for some time now that pay-per-view was the future. And we dreaded its arrival.
But we don't fear it so much anymore. And we don't think of it as a conspiracy.
Something has changed, and it isn't pay-per-view. The fan has changed. Mr. and Mrs. Remote Control have changed.
This occurred to me while I listened to complaints about Sunday's TV programming.
Joe Montana didn't make it to Hampton Roads. Neither did Steve Young. The much-ballyhooed meeting of San Francisco and Kansas City - this past weekend's Game of the Year - could not be seen locally without the aid of a satellite dish.
In the voices of those who lamented this development I could hear genuine amazement. You can understand why. We are living in the cable age, a time of 57 channels and unlimited choices. And yet, each Sunday, NFL games are still being doled out as if this were 1974.
For people who don't want somebody else choosing their weekend entertainment, pay-per-view looks like a best friend.
I have no doubt that a market for NFL pay-per-view is already in place. Because of the growth of cable and the proliferation of televised sports, viewers' expectations have risen.
The more choice that is demanded, the more attractive pay-per-view becomes.
It would surprise me if the NFL did not introduce pay-per-view very soon. So long as it were offered at a reasonable price, and each market's home team were not taken off ``free'' television, objections to the idea would be few.
As cable technology improves and the pay-as-you-watch process becomes easier to manage, it is hard to imagine our biggest sports leagues turning down the chance to make more and more profits.
Here's my fear, though: We will take the bait.
As soon as pay-per-view becomes an accepted way of life, our biggest sports will not hesitate to up the ante.
Pay-per-view will give us what we want, but at a risk.
When firmly established, pay-per-view will introduce commercials. You can bet on it. When that happens, we will be paying twice.
The changes won't stop there. Eventually, the Super Bowl, World Series, Final Four, even the Olympics, will be held hostage by pay-per-view.
It is bound to happen.
When it does, those of us who don't mind spending 10 or 12 bucks on the run-of-the-mill TV game will be asked to shell out $50 or more for the privilege of watching a pay-per-view championship event.
When that day comes - and it isn't far off - the sporting moments that define American culture will belong to the rich, not to everyone.
As it stands now, TV is the working man's last link to big-time sports. Pay-per-view would alter this. It would put a price on loyalty.
When millions share in the experience of the big game, sports can work as a unifying force. Pay-per-view, if played out to its logical ends, would throw up barriers between people.
Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it. by CNB