Yahoo Sports 
The U.S. TV issues the CFL faced in 1982 are familiar, but the landscape’s changed
Decades come and go, but some CFL issues remain the same, and that's the case with the league's broadcasts south of the border. This is particularly illustrated in a new piece by Dom Cosentino that appeared on Deadspin Friday (thanks to Ray Marcham for passing it along). Cosentino's article examines how NBC picked up some CFL games during the eight-week, midseason NFL players' strike in 1982, but really, a lot of the quotes in it could easily describe the state of the league's U.S. broadcast deals today (and in particular, how the recent NFL lockout in 2011 contributed to the CFL finding more prominent airtime south of the border). Here are some examples.
The value for the CFL in U.S. TV deals:
The decision to carry CFL games on U.S. networks was greeted enthusiastically by both the CFL and by the network. Gaudaur has always felt that U.S. exposure is essential in helping the CFL recruit players. While the all-sports ESPN network has been carrying the game for two seasons and had built a respectable following, the NBC coverage promised to bring the Canadian game into more U.S. homes than ever before. As for the networks they were only happy to pick up the only real professional football being played in North America at the time. The fact they were picking it up for a bargain $50,000 a game made it even more attractive.
- Pat Hickey, CFL Illustrated, 1983 (cited in Cosentino's piece).
From the CFL's perspective, there's plenty to be gained from this deal. There's undoubtedly some money involved, but the larger goal may be having their product visible to fans south of the border. There are still a good number of Americans interested in the league, and the ongoing uncertainty over if there will be a 2011-12 NFL season may motivate even more American viewers to check out the CFL's product. NFLN has a reasonably wide reach and a demographic of primarily hardcore football fans, which makes considerable sense for the CFL to target. Moreover, as the league found last year, having their product on NFLN also serves as a way for players' friends and families to see their games, and it can be an excellent recruitment tool to attract prospective players as well.
- me, on the expanded NFLN deal in 2011.
The CFL as an alternative source of football during strikes and lockouts:
During the strike, NBC and CBS had to do something about that giant hole in their Sunday afternoon programming schedules. Then, as now, the NFL was a cash cow that delivered huge ratings. "It's an insatiable audience," veteran play-by-play voice Don Criqui told me over the phone. "Management was looking for football." And the executives at NBC, which at the time carried AFC games on Sunday afternoons, hit upon an unconventional idea: Why not replace the void left by the NFL with live telecasts of the Canadian Football League?
"We were trying to fill that gap," Dick Enberg, NBC's lead NFL play-by-play man in those days, said in a phone interview.
- Cosentino, on the 1982 deal.
This could work out very well for the NFL Network as well. If the NFL lockout carries over into the start of their season, all of a sudden they'll be quite short of programming; much of the network's content is highlights, analysis and news, and there isn't going to be a lot on any of those fronts without a NFL season. They'll still have documentaries, player rankings and such, but live football content is a nice break from that, and that can be particularly advantageous when there isn't much else available in the way of pro football. Also, the costs on their end are minimal, as they're just picking up TSN's feed.
- me, in 2011.
Why the CFL isn't going to replace the NFL's massive ratings in the U.S.:
"I think what it proved is that people want to watch the NFL, they want to watch the top college teams," [NBC executive Mike] Weisman said. "Just throwing football on the air didn't necessarily satisfy an audience even when there's no football as competition." ...
"It's always in the back of your mind that somehow I'm not watching the best at what they do," Weisman said. "It was hard to make heroes—the CFL or the XFL—who, you know if they were any damn good, they'd be playing in the NFL. At the Olympics, you make heroes of this kid from Romania or this kid running from Texas because you know they're the best in the world. But when you see people at events that don't necessarily encompass the best players, you think, 'Why do I give a shit about this guy?'"
- Weisman to Cosentino on the 1982 decision.
Unlike most sports TV rights deals (including the CFL's northern television deal), this isn't really about revenue for the league or even growing the fanbase, though. It's long been suggested the CFL's income from U.S. broadcast deals is minimal to nil, and while reaching out to existing and new fans in America can be valuable, that's hardly the primary goal here.
What really matters to the league is improving their ability to attract talented players from the U.S., and a solid TV deal south of the border is crucial for both the present and the future of player recruitment. Current players are much more likely to be happy in the CFL and seek to stick around if their families and friends at home can easily watch them play, and that also boosts the profile of the league, putting it on the radar for future prospects. Thus, the success or failure of a U.S. TV deal for the league isn't measured by how much they get paid or how many people watch the broadcasts (although that latter metric's necessary to maintain good American TV deals going forward); it's about if the deal will allow the league to keep its current players satisfied and potentially aid them in recruiting new ones down the road.
While there are plenty of similarities over the years, it's notable that Cosentino's story is about the failure of the CFL's U.S. broadcasting deal in 1982 (which partly was about the games televised turning into blowouts, but also was partly about the league's low profile south of the border). By contrast, the CFL's television deals south of the border have only gotten better and better recently, going from minimal NFL Network coverage in 2010 to expanded NFLN coverage in 2011 to the higher-profile NBC Sports Network in 2012 to an impressive combination of ESPN2, NBCSN and ESPN3 this year.
The difference is in the networks chosen and in the scope of the expectations. No one is expecting the CFL to be a replacement for the NFL any more, and the 1982 failure is part of the reason why. However, it is still an interesting source of live football and one that does have an American fanbase (albeit a smaller one); that's why it worked on ESPN during the 1980s and 1990s, back when that channel was still small. Trying to sell it as NBC programming was a jump too far, though, as at its heart, the CFL's a niche sport stateside.
With today's profusion of sports channels and digital services such as ESPN3, there's more and more room for more niche programming, though, and the CFL can fill some of those slots very well. The issues remain largely as they were in 1982: the CFL wants southern exposure not for money or for fans, but to keep existing players happy and recruit new ones, while U.S. viewers aren't going to turn in en masse for an unfamiliar brand of football, even if there is an NFL stoppage. However, the same set of issues that made southern CFL broadcasts a disaster in 1982 has turned them into acceptable U.S. niche programming today thanks to the expansion of the sports media landscape. While the issues haven't changed much, the landscape has, and that's good news for the CFL.
