ESPN's WSOP Monopoly Must End

As recently as 2007 ESPN aired 10 of 55 WSOP events, comprising HORSE, Omaha, Stud, and multiple forms of hold 'em. In 2008 they aired 7 of 55 events, including HORSE, Omaha, and multiple forms of hold 'em. This year they only broadcast two of 57 WSOP events, both no-limit hold 'em. ESPN simply isn't covering the WSOP any more. The solution is simple: end their monopoly on WSOP broadcasts. Let ESPN broadcast whatever it wants (the Main Event gets the highest ratings, and it's the only event they've broadcast every year), but let others bid to broadcast the other events.

Everyone would benefit from this solution. Harrah's would get more airtime for the WSOP. ESPN would get more people interested in watching the Main Event. Poker would garner new fans. We'd get to watch the events we want to see, like the $50K HORSE. Games other than no-limit hold 'em would gain in popularity. Remember the early years of the poker boom when every poker show explained hold 'em at the beginning (Celebrity Poker Showdown's explanation started with "it's a simple game really...")? People would learn other games from TV (PLO is regarded as most likely to succeed) just as they once learned hold 'em.

Companies like Windy City Poker Championship and Heartland Poker Tour produce competent broadcasts on a shoestring compared to what ESPN spends, and manage to make profits without even being on national channels. If they can do that, there's no doubt that every single WSOP event could be broadcast profitably on a national channel. There are plenty of national TV channels with young, male audiences that would be excellent venues for poker on TV. ESPN is the most popular one, of course, but Spike, G4, Versus, and many others fit the bill as well. If necessary, the shows could settle for late-night time slots like Poker After Dark did.

There's another reason that ESPN's WSOP monopoly should end: as I've written about extensively over the course of several years, I believe the company with the contract to broadcast our most important event is the worst major poker broadcaster. Not only would we likely get better WSOP broadcasts from companies other than ESPN, but we'd probably also see improvements at ESPN due to competition and the comparison with different broadcasting models.

ESPN's broadcasts this year were pretty much the same as always (other than the Ante Up For Africa event, which may have been a new low), so I won't provide a full review. A few things that I did notice this year, however, all frustrating:

• The hole-card cam created the poker boom back in 2003, but ESPN seems to have forgotten that: for many hands they choose not to show the hole cards until the players turn them over.
• They're the only broadcaster I've ever seen get the "show only one player's hole cards" hands backwards.
• There were the usual array of errors, suggesting that Norman Chad and the people who review his work don't understand poker: mixing up 4- and 5-bets, getting the breakeven probability on a 3:1 decision wrong (it's 25%), etc.
  

I've previously suggested a couple of ideas for the WSOP that I think bear repeating:

• Film a cash game. The entire poker world is in Vegas during the WSOP each summer, and the biggest cash games are already taking place. Why not film one? There's plenty of evidence that cash games are more popular than tournaments (e.g. downloads, forum posts, poll, poll). The show could either be a "WSOP Cash Game," or another company could produce it without using the WSOP brand.
  
• If ESPN is going to follow the early and middle tournament (the worst part of their broadcasts: they don't screw up the final few tables as badly), follow one player at a time through the tournament, ignoring everything else. It's a model that's never been tried before, but deserves a chance. As it is, ESPN doesn't show anything long enough for us to get to know and root for players, see how a table plays, or even follow the course of the tournament. Replace the soundbites that they pass off as "compelling stories" with an actual compelling story: the progress of one player through the tournament, allowing us to get to know and root for him (and also allowing us to follow table dynamics plus the changes in the tournament: rising blinds, the bubble, etc.). If ESPN used this model I'd guess they would have followed Phil Ivey on one of their hole-card-cam tables (they run two) this year, and they would have had a blockbuster on their hands when he made the final table. Regardless of how featured players fare, however, I believe this model would help solve the basic problems with ESPN's early-mid tournament coverage. I previously wrote out my best arguments for this model, so you should read that if you're interested in hearing more about the idea.
  

Don't miss any poker on TV: sign up for our weekly newsletter or subscribe to our feed.