Not televising Kyle Edmund's maiden title win was a missed opportunity to inspire and engage fans
Kyle Edmund winning his first ATP title on Sunday was a momentous occasion. Not since Greg Rusedski 13 years ago had a British man other than Andy Murray triumphed at a main-tour event.
The significance of Edmund's victory in Antwerp was obvious, as the normally reserved Yorkshireman wept with joy and revealed a hitherto unseen emotional side of his personality.
It was the sort of moment that could inspire future generations to take up tennis and try and emulate what Edmund had achieved.
There was just one problem - no UK broadcaster was showing the match. To watch it, the options were to find a stream (a local Belgian feed proved particularly popular) or sign up to Tennis TV, which costs £9.99 a month or £89.99 for the year.
To do either of these requires internet savvy and/or money, and above all it requires a real passion for tennis that many casual fans simply will not have.
Edmund’s win was the sort of occasion casual observers might well have flicked onto if they’d heard about. They were extremely unlikely to pay for another subscription service on top of their existing TV packages, or wait patiently as their stream buffered on a break point.
This has been a major problem for the ATP Tour this year, which is stuck in an interregnum period between Sky Sports’ abdication, and Amazon Prime’s ascension next year.
At the Shenzhen Open last month, the only place to watch Andy Murray pick up his finest win of the year against David Goffin was a betting site that required a £5 deposit. Given the volume of social media abuse that players receive as a result of failed bets, this felt like a deeply uncomfortable as well as an inconvenient arrangement.
Amazon Prime's more comprehensive coverage will help the situation in 2019, but as the US Open demonstrated there are bound to be teething problems.
And tennis is not alone in suffering from a lack of television coverage.
In fact arguably the greatest sporting feat of this year, if not this century, was not picked up by UK television cameras and was watched by many on a shaky Kenyan feed. Was this really a fitting platform to see Eliud Kipchoge obliterate the marathon world record in Berlin?
Athletics badly needs a global star to replace Usain Bolt, and here was Kipchoge performing a feat of superhuman strength and endurance that only the hardiest and savviest fans could watch.
Golf followers meanwhile were enraged by the online-only Eleven Sports' coverage of the US PGA in August. During the first day, fans were left staring at a frozen Facebook feed, while on the Sunday many missed Brooks Koepka's decisive putt to fend off Tiger Woods when the desktop service cut out.
One only needs to look at the energising effect of the Sky Sports-broadcast Ryder Cup to see what a missed opportunity this was.
It seems absurd that in 2018 it is getting harder, rather than easier, to watch some sporting events. It's a bit like how my iPhone is actually worse at making phone calls than my trusty Nokia 8310.
What this changing sporting landscape reflects is an increasingly fragmented world where the tennis fans can have their services, the athletics fans theirs, and the golf fans theirs.
Not only does this mean punters have to spend more money, it also limits sport to the hardcore and puts a disproportionate amount of importance on those events that are televised – the Premier League for instance.
It's little wonder many in this country think tennis only exists during the Wimbledon fortnight.
