ESPN Signs New Nine-Year Agreement with Tennis Australia to Continue Exclusive Live Coverage of the Australian Open

[Lozo1016]

https://espnpressroom.com/us/press-...clusive-live-coverage-of-the-australian-open/

ESPN and Tennis Australia have signed a nine-year agreement – 2023 to 2031 – for continued exclusive live “first ball to last ball” coverage across ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPN+ for the Australian Open, tennis’ first Major of the year. Action from Melbourne will be comprehensive, with every match from all 16 courts – all singles (including qualifying), doubles, juniors, wheelchair and legends. The agreement continues ESPN’s longest professional sports programming relationship – since 1984. The 2023 Australian Open takes place next January 16-29.

Figured this was relevant news since so many of us were upset with the way ESPN handled broadcasting the Aussie Open this year.

 

[coolcamden]

Barf.

 

[Kralingen]

Lol, awesome. 9 more years of misinformed, disinterested commentators, incoherent TV scheduling, and of course, 9 more years of 24/7 coverage of Coco Gauff.

 

[intrepidish]

Lol, awesome. 9 more years of misinformed, disinterested commentators, incoherent TV scheduling, and of course, 9 more years of 24/7 coverage of Coco Gauff.

I can't imagine why someone in the US interested enough in tennis to be on this board wouldn't have ESPN+ which does cover the slams well or possibly a VPN if a little more tech-savvy.

I have my problems with ESPN but I must point out that a lot of tennis coverage around the world is every bit as partial and nationalistic, if not more, in terms of the commentary.

 

[LeungD]

9 more years of Chris Fowler

 

[Kralingen]

I can't imagine why someone in the US interested enough in tennis to be on this board wouldn't have ESPN+ which does cover the slams well or possibly a VPN if a little more tech-savvy.

I have my problems with ESPN but I must point out that a lot of tennis coverage around the world is every bit as partial and nationalistic, if not more, in terms of the commentary.

I have my ways though perhaps ESPN+ is the solution, I should try it out. I’m specifically referring to them cutting away from riveting matches to show Seb Korda warming up or 30 minute segments on Djoko’s deportation…

It’s weird because I really have no issues with their US Open coverage. And can accept homerism very easily. Something is just off about their AO coverage.

 

[pj80]

Did the rise of Alcaraz contribute to this decision?

 

[TopspintheTerrible]

This is good news if you’re a tennis fan in the US….

 

[LeungD]

Did the rise of Alcaraz contribute to this decision?

Yes. Charlie will be YUGE in America.

 

[TopspintheTerrible]

I can't imagine why someone in the US interested enough in tennis to be on this board wouldn't have ESPN+ which does cover the slams well or possibly a VPN if a little more tech-savvy.

I have my problems with ESPN but I must point out that a lot of tennis coverage around the world is every bit as partial and nationalistic, if not more, in terms of the commentary.

The other option in the US is paying $100 for Tennis Channel Plus. And even if you do spend the $100, you still need to pay for cable to access the main feed.

ESPN+ is $6 or $7 and gives you access to most of the courts. Although you still need cable to access some of the show courts.

 

[intrepidish]

The other option in the US is paying $100 for Tennis Channel Plus. And even if you do spend the $100, you still need to pay for cable to access the main feed.

ESPN+ is $6 or $7 and gives you access to most of the courts. Although you still need cable to access some of the show courts.

Yea TC+ is indispensable in the US if you want the French unless you want to use unreliable streams online or level up and use a VPN for France TV which covers all the courts with high quality streams which I personally use myself as a French speaker. For those complaining about ESPN cutting away or focusing on American players, please enjoy the main feed of France TV and see that it's not just ESPN with this particular fetish.

 

[Sudacafan]

https://espnpressroom.com/us/press-...clusive-live-coverage-of-the-australian-open/



Figured this was relevant news since so many of us were upset with the way ESPN handled broadcasting the Aussie Open this year.

More people were upset about the way the AO handled certain matters this year.
Grand Slams continue to upset in Wimbledon this year too.

 

[LeungD]

VPN+Eurosport=AO+RG+USO

 

[TopspintheTerrible]

Yea TC+ is indispensable in the US if you want the French unless you want to use unreliable streams online or level up and use a VPN for France TV which covers all the courts with high quality streams which I personally use myself as a French speaker. For those complaining about ESPN cutting away or focusing on American players, please enjoy the main feed of France TV and see that it's not just ESPN with this particular fetish.

I tried watching RG using streaming sites a few years ago and after about 20 minutes bought TC+. Considering you get pretty much every ATP/WTA tourney, it’s not a terrible deal. I prefer TennisTV but it’s not worth it to have both imo.

 

[Robert F]

I take this as good news.
ESPN has some issues covering tennis but not unique to itself--showing US fledglings over great matches, spilt screening during key points, only showing Big 3 and Serenam matches early on that can be snorefests.
But, overall I like their commenting team.
I used to dread TC coverage, but their team is much better now, but they do a lot of the same things I mention above.

I think for long term tennis popularity it is important for ESPN to have a presence in tennis, and until hearing this news thought ESPN was on its last legs with tennis.

 

[MeatTornado]

I can't imagine why someone in the US interested enough in tennis to be on this board wouldn't have ESPN+ which does cover the slams well or possibly a VPN if a little more tech-savvy.

Well, imagine it.

I don't have ESPN+, TC+ or TennisTV.

 

[Visionary]

Corruption at its highest level!

Lol, awesome. 9 more years of misinformed, disinterested commentators, incoherent TV scheduling, and of course, 9 more years of 24/7 coverage of Coco Gauff.

perhaps, those commentators can be trained how to spout their views off the air when they are on the air

 

[intrepidish]

Well, imagine it.

I don't have ESPN+, TC+ or TennisTV.

I think you misunderstood; I can imagine someone not having any of those but I can't imagine WHY you wouldn't if tennis interests you enough to join and post here 20,000 times.

 

[Visionary]

I have my problems with ESPN but I must point out that a lot of tennis coverage around the world is every bit as partial and nationalistic, if not more, in terms of the commentary.

There are nationalists and then there are fanatics; Aussie powers are a bit more than just "nationalistic"

 

[Visionary]

The other option in the US is paying $100 for Tennis Channel Plus. And even if you do spend the $100, you still need to pay for cable to access the main feed.

ESPN+ is $6 or $7 and gives you access to most of the courts. Although you still need cable to access some of the show courts.

Could there be a connection there? Board meeting of two parties that agree "you scratch my back, i sctratch yours". The cable and ESPN (win-win)

Monopolizing is not always legal in the free market economies but do we actually have any of such markets in this world?

 

[MeatTornado]

I think you misunderstood; I can imagine someone not having any of those but I can't imagine WHY you wouldn't if tennis interests you enough to join and post here 20,000 times.

Of course I understood, that's why I used myself as an example.

 

[intrepidish]

Of course I understood, that's why I used myself as an example.

Sure but you are still skipping over the why. Why are you interested enough to post 20,000 times here but avoid any of the tennis subscriptions to watch matches?

 

[MeatTornado]

Sure but you are still skipping over the why. Why are you interested enough to post 20,000 times here but avoid any of the tennis subscriptions to watch matches?

It's not like I don't have TV. I get ESPN & Tennis Channel. I watch what's on. And during slams on the off chance that there's a match I really want to watch that isn't being broadcast, a bunch of them are on WatchESPN for free anyway, without needing ESPN+

I love tennis, but I'm not an obsessive that needs to constantly be keeping an eye on what's happening over on Court 17.

 

[tsp_207]

Just use a VPN, select an Aussie network, and go to 9now.com.au and watch AO for free. Don't give these greedy corps your hard earned money. You can do the same for RG with sportTV France I think and BBC iplayer for Wimbledon. USO is the only slam that's not available on free-to-air TV so might have to rely on ESPN for that one.

 

[LetWinner]

9 more years of Chris Fowler

You don’t like Fowler? I honestly like his commentary. His voice is cool and he makes every match he commentate seem historically important

 

[Bubcay]

Lol, awesome. 9 more years of misinformed, disinterested commentators, incoherent TV scheduling, and of course, 9 more years of 24/7 coverage of Coco Gauff.

Just get a VPN and watch it on channel 9 here in Australia. Commentators are always great (Courier, Lleyton Hewitt, Woodbridge, etc..). The whole tournament is on Stan streaming service (need to pay for it) and most of the matches from QF are on channel 9, which is free to air and available on the net..

 

[TopspintheTerrible]

Could there be a connection there? Board meeting of two parties that agree "you scratch my back, i sctratch yours". The cable and ESPN (win-win)

Monopolizing is not always legal in the free market economies but do we actually have any of such markets in this world?

I don’t think so. I mean maybe the French Open is the least watched slam in the US so ESPN didn’t fight TC too much on the rights. I don’t know though.

I do think it’s kinda dumb it basically costs almost $100 to watch full coverage of the French Open in the US. TC should offer some sort of special RG access package for $20 bucks or something.

 

[Visionary]

I don’t think so. I mean maybe the French Open is the least watched slam in the US so ESPN didn’t fight TC too much on the rights. I don’t know though.

I do think it’s kinda dumb it basically costs almost $100 to watch full coverage of the French Open in the US. TC should offer some sort of special RG access package for $20 bucks or something.

French market's tough to penetrate. Those guys have their own ways of doing things. I don't think this is about the US or France as much but Australia, When one network mostly gets to do the job, a degree of control is established there. Just my thought as I saw the networks whitewashing the local population during the AO.

 

[Bubcay]

Just get a VPN and watch it on channel 9 here in Australia. Commentators are always great (Courier, Lleyton Hewitt, Woodbridge, etc..). The whole tournament is on Stan streaming service (need to pay for it) and most of the matches from QF are on channel 9, which is free to air and available on the net..

 

[LeungD]

A channel that only shows Wawrinka? No thanks.

 

[Bubcay]

A channel that only shows Wawrinka? No thanks.

He owns it

 

[marc45]

I can't imagine why someone in the US interested enough in tennis to be on this board wouldn't have ESPN+ which does cover the slams well or possibly a VPN if a little more tech-savvy.

I have my problems with ESPN but I must point out that a lot of tennis coverage around the world is every bit as partial and nationalistic, if not more, in terms of the commentary.

here's a big reason....if you want to sleep overnight, like most people, you have to go to + in the morning which has a time bar on the recorded matches...meaning you ended up knowing who won the match before it's over...my DVR allows me to control that when ESPN/2 covered the overnight