Like Wimbledon, US Tennis Open TV Ratings in Decline
Updated with 2008 ratings: Viewership fell again, but with the rain delays and rescheduling of the finals its hard to compare the 2008 results with prior years.
Like Wimbledon TV ratings, the ratings for the US Tennis Open have been in long term decline, but while the decline might have something to do with the decline in US men's tennis the 2003 Andy Roddick win didn't help matters.
Complete US Tennis Open TV Ratings, 1972-2008:
| YEAR | NET | TELECASTS | HH Rating | HH Share | # of HHs (million) | # of Persons (million) | WINNERS (WOMEN/MEN) |
| 1972 | CBS | 3 | 4.4 | 14 | 2.846 | KING/NASTASE | |
| 1973 | CBS | 2 | 5.3 | 17 | 3.516 | COURT/NEWCOMBE | |
| 1974 | CBS | 5 | 5.1 | 17 | 4.192 | KING/CONNORS | |
| 1975 | CBS | 4 | 6.6 | 23 | 5.532 | EVERT/ORANTES | |
| 1976 | CBS | 4 | 6.2 | 20 | 4.741 | EVERT/CONNORS | |
| 1977 | CBS | 5 | 5.7 | 20 | 4.174 | EVERT/VILAS | |
| 1978 | CBS | 5 | 4.8 | 15 | 4.757 | EVERT/CONNORS | |
| 1979 | CBS | 5 | 5.0 | 15 | 4.309 | AUSTIN/MCENROE | |
| 1980 | CBS | 5 | 5.8 | 17 | 5.610 | EVERT-LLOYD/MCENROE | |
| 1981 | CBS | 6 | 5.8 | 17 | 4.701 | AUSTIN/MCENROE | |
| 1982 | CBS | 6 | 5.1 | 16 | 4.242 | EVERT-LLOYD/CONNORS | |
| 1983 | CBS | 8 | 5.0 | 14 | 4.211 | NAVRATILOVA/CONNORS | |
| 1984 | CBS | 9 | 4.5 | 12 | NAVRATILOVA/MCENROE | ||
| 1985 | CBS | 10 | 4.8 | 14 | MANDLIKOVA/LENDL | ||
| 1986 | CBS | 8 | 3.7 | 11 | NAVRATILOVA/LENDL | ||
| 1987 | CBS | 9 | 3.6 | 11 | 3.170 | 3.990 | NAVRATILOVA/LENDL |
| 1988 | CBS | 7 | 4.2 | 12 | 3.800 | 5.320 | GRAF/WILANDER |
| 1989 | CBS | 8 | 3.8 | 12 | 3.500 | 4.640 | GRAF/BECKER |
| 1990 | CBS | 8 | 4.0 | 12 | 3.700 | 5.070 | SABATINI/SAMPRAS |
| 1991 | CBS | 7 | 4.4 | 13 | 4.020 | 5.490 | SELES/EDBERG |
| 1992 | CBS | 9 | 3.2 | 10 | 2.950 | 3.950 | SELES/EDBERG |
| 1993 | CBS | 9 | 2.6 | 8 | 2.420 | 3.090 | GRAF/SAMPRAS |
| 1994 | CBS | 9 | 3.0 | 9 | 2.830 | 3.740 | SANCHEZ-VICARIO/AGASSI |
| 1995 | CBS | 9 | 3.2 | 9 | 3.040 | 3.980 | GRAF/SAMPRAS |
| 1996 | CBS | 13 | 2.5 | 7 | 2.410 | 3.050 | GRAF/SAMPRAS |
| 1997 | CBS | 13 | 2.3 | 7 | 2.270 | 2.810 | HINGIS/RAFTER |
| 1998 | CBS | 8 | 2.3 | 7 | 2.250 | 2.640 | DAVENPORT/RAFTER |
| 1999 | CBS | 13 | 3.4 | 9 | 3.440 | 4.480 | S. WILLIAMS/AGASSI |
| 2000 | CBS | 9 | 2.8 | 8 | 2.886 | 3.651 | V. WILLIAMS/SAFIN |
| 2001 | CBS | 10 | 3.0 | 9 | 3.171 | 4.052 | V. WILLIAMS/HEWITT |
| 2002 | CBS | 7 | 3.0 | 8 | 3.179 | 4.160 | S. WILLIAMS/SAMPRAS |
| 2003 | CBS | 10 | 2.0 | 5 | 2.099 | 2.628 | J. HENIN/A. RODDICK |
| 2004 | CBS | 9 | 1.8 | 5 | 1.968 | 2.383 | S. KUZNETSOV/R. FEDERER |
| 2005 | CBS | 10 | 2.1 | 6 | 2.367 | 2.990 | K. CLIJSERS/R. FEDERER |
| 2006 | CBS | 11 | 2.0 | 5 | 2.186 | 2.753 | M. SHARAPOVA/R. FEDERER |
| 2007 | CBS | 10 | 1.7 | 4 | 1.941 | 2.383 | J. HENIN/R. FEDERER |
| 2008 | CBS | 15 | 1.6 | 4 | 1.831 | 2.213 | S. WILLIAMS/R. FEDERER |
Data does not include telecasts in August for the years 1974-80. The 2002 data excludes rain delays. The data for 2006-2008 is Live+SD, data for earlier years is Live viewing.
Nielsen TV Ratings Data: ©2008 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved.
I think it has something to do with the fact that tennis players are robots these days. It also doesn’t help that the same 2-3 men win every tournament and 3-4 women win every tournament.
Tennis was good television when McEnroe let loose with “You Can’t be Serious!!!!”.
As someone who plays a lot of tennis and loves the sport, I can tell you that it doesn’t hold the same appeal it once had even over those of us who sleep with our rackets.
Where is Gabby Sabatini with her great smile, or Seles with her grunting?
Federer/Nadal/Roddick…same guy. Different shirt and sneakers.
Bring on Hockey!!!!!!
Tennis is as interest to watch as paint drying. Now if the balls exploded if they were hit too hard, that would be cool.
Funny,
I was tempted to say that about golf.
The only way to make golf interesting on television would be to lay landmines in the sand traps and have exploding balls that detonate if the ball flies past an imaginary electronic line and lands in the gallery.
Nothing like Lacoste, beer, and cluster munitions on a Sunday afternoon.
I change the channel when they interupt my soap!
I think the new crop of tennis players are electric with excitement. The game of tennis is changing. Guys like Nadal – an incredible player to watch with the intensity that he brings to the game – are introducing new types of shot making, new things to do with topspin, and the game is transitioning to something fresh.
The Sampras/Federer/Roddick era of tennis was relatively more boring to watch with its ace& error – driven power game. But the new guys bring a more nuanced game, more intensity, and it’s a joy to watch. Guys like Federer, with his cardigan, his Rolex & private Jet company endorsements made the game seem sort of elite, but some of the newer players like Monfils, Del Potro, Murray, and Nadal, come across as very blue-collar, and again enliven the game.
Sorry if you’re missing it! I can assure you though that there is a sizable population out there enjoying it thoroughly.
One simple thing explains the (not so) small variations in the global decline: when the exciting Agassi (or Courier in 91) plays the final (90, 91, 94, 95, 02, 05) everybody is interested (among tennis watchers), when the boring Sampras (excepted the sympathetic old-Sampras of 01, 02) or anyone else plays the final, nobody cares. Any objections?
Agassi plays the final in 99 and so… high ratings.
uqbar, I’m with you. Past the era of Connors/McEnroe/Agassi US tennis TV ratings have indeed suffered.
Bill,
Interesting to note that when Borg retires after 82, Wimby’s ratings are also in (huge) decline, even if Mc is still here with his spectacular type of game (and character). Different countries, different expectations… or so it seems.
That early 80′s Wimbledon decline is likely caused by TV audience measurement quirks, I tried to explain it a bit in the original post, but I’m not 100% sure of all the changes.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/04/wimbledon-tennis-viewership-1973-2008/4209
I think the rating from 1987 on can be reasonably compared to today’s broadcasts.
OK, thanks for the paper.
Two good reasons for rating drop:
1. CBS really screwed up
2.Resentment against King “dicatorship” giving females pay “equality”, when in FACT, it is an illegal discrimination against men, who play up to 50% more than women.
I would bet that if CBS et. al. aired Shakespeare, Ibsen, Mozart symphonies, Bach Suites or the like the rating share would be quite small as well. It speaks to the taste of the mass audience. That mass audience prefers 15 minutes of actual football shoehorned between two hours of promos, “analysis,” and commercials, punctuated by incessant banter.
There are about 500,000 core tennis fans who watch the bigger events and a few million who watch the slams. The sport itself has never been better as regards depth and skill. Mass popularity is assuredly not the measure of all things. McDonalds does more business than a 3 Michelin star restaurant.
Awful announcers – Mary Joke Fernandez, Mary Noncerebralial and Syrup Mouth End-the-berg as announcer