The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Controversy on TV in the final between River and Estudiantes: after the fights on Star+, the AFA evaluates initiating legal action

2024-03-14T20:35:44.084Z

Highlights: Argentine Super Cup final between River and Estudiantes was broadcast on streaming platform Star+. The AFA and rights owners Torneos SA objected to the use of Star+ and demanded that the game be shown on traditional cable channels. The broadcast was a record audience, with 27 million viewers. The match was a spectacle that had almost no flaws in terms of organization, writes Ruben Navarrette. "The advantage of doing things well. The Argentine Super Cup passed and River Plate was exactly just another star"


For the organization led by Chiqui Tapia and the rights owners, the match should not be broadcast by streaming. In addition, there were complaints from users about poor image quality, cuts and delay.


The

Argentine Super Cup

played between

River and Estudiantes

in Córdoba will be remembered for Rodrigo Aliendro's goal on time and Martín Demichelis' crazy celebration but also for a circumstance that everyone suffered, fans and not so much, who wanted to enjoy the final on television .

A controversy that is already in the hands of lawyers and that involves

ESPN

, its streaming platform

Star+

, the company

Torneos SA

and the

AFA

.

When a couple of days before the final, ESPN announced that it would be seen exclusively on Star+, Torneos SA, which markets the audiovisual rights, released a statement warning that their agreement with the sports network of American origin was for it to

be broadcast by "the linear signals available on cable operators"

.

That is to say, Torneos demanded that ESPN not show the final through its streaming signal but rather do so through one of its traditional channels, either the released ones (such as ESPN, ESPN 2 and more) or ESPN Premium, through which They issue those acquired in the so-called

Football Pack.

That was on Tuesday afternoon, almost 24 hours before the duel at Kempes.

There was no response from ESPN, but rather the position was to continue promoting the event

"exclusively on Star+"

, a phrase that was repeated insistently from the videographs, and by each of the hosts and panelists who alternated on the grid. time.

In the midst of the uncertainty of that same Wednesday when no one knew where the game would go, Tournaments seemed to resign themselves but warned that the episode would surely have consequences in the legal departments.

The AFA tried to intercede until the last minute so that the game could be seen on cable, and

the next day it cut its teeth against ESPN

by launching a statement that announces what could be a war over the negotiation of television rights.

Clarín, for its part, consulted Torneos SA and the company limited itself to answering that

"the issue is in the hands of the Legal Department

. "

The pixelated and glitchy match

Beyond the comings and goings, a game was played, and many people wanted to watch it and didn't know where or how.

There were also those who suffered from the Internet's own failures,

frozen or pixelated images, some dropped connections due to the rains, and the disastrous "delay"

that causes the radio transmission (the always efficient radio) to arrive between one and two minutes before, with what that implies for any true soccer fan.

Social networks were the epicenter of popular annoyance

, which went from surprise at not seeing the game to anger over the deficiencies of the service.

A real shame because what was experienced in Córdoba, with both fans, was a spectacle that had almost no flaws in terms of organization.

*There is a clear play in the River Estudiantes*



Star plus absolutely out of nowhere:pic.twitter.com/EX1VfZ42Wq

— Licha IFC (@barradelrojo7l) March 14, 2024

In the United States, something similar happened with the NFL:

people protested when they discovered that there was a playoff game that was going to be broadcast on

Peacock

, a streaming platform that belongs to the NBC network, which in turn has part of the rights. league television.

The "subtle" difference is that the contract was public, it was signed seven months before and in exchange for 100 million dollars, and it included as a section that the game in question would be seen on traditional cable in the cities to which both teams belonged.

The

broadcast was a record audience, with 27 million viewers

.

The advantage of doing things well.

The Argentine Super Cup passed and River added another star, and not exactly just another star.

The AFA statement against ESPN

"The Argentine Football Association informs that the transmission of the final match of the Super Cup played yesterday between the clubs River Plate and Estudiantes de La Plata carried out exclusively through the “Star+” platform constitutes a clear breach of the agreement. for the organization and operation of the tournament signed with the company Torneos y Competencias SA".

"In this sense, and in view of the journalistic publications that appeared in the days prior to the event, on March 11, 2024, said firm was formally notified in order to arbitrate the means for an adequate distribution of the match, under warning in case of failure to take legal action."

"The Super Cup is a final belonging to an official AFA tournament. No Argentine football competition was broadcast solely and exclusively on a platform like Star+, to the detriment of distribution on linear TV signals, with the harm that said decision brings to viewers, spectators, participating clubs, sponsors and even the Association itself".

"That is why the information was submitted to the AFA Legal Management with the purpose of evaluating the corresponding actions in order to defend the rights of the House and Argentine football in its entirety."

Source: clarin

All news articles on 2024-03-14

You may like

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.