[mildavw]

"...there may be no activity that draws closer public scrutiny that the public knows less about"

I agree that this quote may be a bit hyperbolic given, say, politics and Hollywood. But otherwise, the article is spot on.

I played football through high school and what television repackages and sells is a manufactured narrative based on a tiny sliver of the game. I loved playing the game, and I enjoy watching games on TV. There is very little overlap in the way one engages with the sport between those two experiences.

While playing, and for years afterwards, I couldn't understand why people watched it on TV. Eventually, though, I started to understand and enjoy the TV version. Decades later, I read some pieces by Nate Jackson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Jackson) which pulled me back into the player mindset and the thesis of this article was stark and obvious once again.

[nine_k]

My favorite comparison of participatory sports vs spectator sports is with sex vs porn.

Either kind can be enjoyable, but what's most interesting for a spectator is often not what is most interesting when being inside the action. Hence the action tends to turn towards acting, showing off, and of course creative camera work.

[regulation_d]

Do you feel this has changed at all with the way games are broadcast? I feel like with the advent of HD and SkyCam, I spend more time analyzing the play calling and keeping track of what's going on in the trenches.

[mildavw]

Do you mute the announcers? They're the ones constructing the narrative. And of course, the replays and camera angles are a huge part of the production too. So yes, it has changed with more technology: the virtual l.o.s. and 1st down lines, better slo-mo, more cameras. It's all part of the package to tell the story.