I'm starting this topic because of something I just read by Mr. Epsomraver regarding Fulham's lack of focus by the media.
This has come up in other threads and we may have even dedicated a thread to this topic at one point but I am curious what other supportes theories are on why Fulham don't receive more coverage and love by the media at large.
Are we too small a club to bother?
Is it because of our unique chairman?
Is there something historical in the lack of love we receive?
Is this just a myth?
Interested to read what others think as I don't think I ever fully understood it.
I think that we are still deemed to small to be of interest to the masses. Our Europa league exploits of 09/10 caught the attention of the media and made the nation sit up and notice but everyone loves a fairytale.
It does frustrate me sometimes - particularly when we've put in great performance or had a big result but at the end of the day (or the beginning in fact) there is more news than you could shake a stick at on this site.
Possibly our chairman is a factor, he has few friends among the establishment in this country, and none in the media I suspect
Myth. Half of the sports journalists are Fulham fans! Every club outside of the top four, Spurs & Liverpool think the same.
Sarah Brookes 089.gif
Relatively speaking, we are small, unremarkable and unfashionable.
When we do something amazing then we do get the headlines. I remember there was something of a media love-in during our last Europa League campaign.
Quote from: Mitch on October 01, 2011, 02:54:42 PM
Myth. Half of the sports journalists are Fulham fans! Every club outside of the top four, Spurs & Liverpool think the same.
Why do we get such poor coverage then?
There is more demand for bigger clubs so it's only natural that they would receive more coverage. I mean, how many Fulham fans do we actually have?
Media have to sell papers and skysports have to sell skysports and we represent a very very small percentage of the market.
I imagine fans of teams like Wigan, Blackburn and Bolton grumble about the same thing.
I think the fact we have players that actually behave themselves on and off the pitch doesn't help either
Quote from: epsomraver on October 01, 2011, 03:11:23 PM
Quote from: Mitch on October 01, 2011, 02:54:42 PM
Myth. Half of the sports journalists are Fulham fans! Every club outside of the top four, Spurs & Liverpool think the same.
Why do we get such poor coverage then?
Less fanbase, less people watching ergo less reason to. Less money from advertisers etc.
Being a club amongst many in London means we are part of a pot with bigger clubs. The national media is based in London so that is why we only have a small percentage of the coverage. Smaller clubs outside the Capital tend to have papers and local news dedicated to them. Brighton for instance will have a large local coverage that bleeds into the national media.
Quote from: Mitch on October 01, 2011, 02:54:42 PM
Myth. Half of the sports journalists are Fulham fans! Every club outside of the top four, Spurs & Liverpool think the same.
I think this is true. Certainly outside the top 6. Our global support is pretty small and they cater for the masses.
It does still annoy me occasionally but then I remind myself that the same is true of my music, film & reading choices and don't feel so bad about it.
Does get on my neves I must admit...but will always go for the underdog:
Fulham as opposed to the dog trackers
Arthur Lee as opposed to Hendrix
The Specials as opposed to Madness
Ovett over Coe
Do revel in being the undervalued.
We are the whites
Myth, and a bizarre one, too.
Small fan base, little interest to the neutrals, largely boring games. I don't think we're ignored any more than other teams of our size are. As noted above, we actually have a fair few people in the media who like us, and loads of journos have a soft spot for us, too. There's plenty of coverage - I wonder what people actually want. (and when we did something interesting they were all over us)
We were the flavour of the week not so long ago. No one gives a rats outside of SW6.
It pretty much says it all when a statue of Michael Jackson gets more exposure in the news than the fact we made the first final in the Europa League and played more matches in Europe than Manchester United. :034:
Quote from: finnster01 on October 01, 2011, 11:32:36 PM
It pretty much says it all when a statue of Michael Jackson gets more exposure in the news than the fact we made the first final in the Europa League and played more matches in Europe than Manchester United. :034:
Ah but maybe Michael Jackson is more well known than the Europa League and more likely to make news section as whole rather than the sport section sadly providing it with more coverage.
I can't speak for England, since I don't live there, but the Premier League is sold world-wide on the basis of its star franchises and personalities. That's why you see a disproportionate # of jerseys belonging to a few clubs and why, when someone discovers I follow the Prem he immediately says "Manchester United, right?"
Fulham is a solid character actor, supporting the stars on the world stage. And we all know who the stars are. Me? I'd rather be Denholm Elliot than Laurence Olivier any day.
I made a comment to my wife last Thursday, there we were kicking off at 6pm, tv program starts at 5.30pm, so i was looking forward to match build up from so called pundits, and what do they do? they spend 25 minutes talking about Stoke who were not playing until after Fulham had finished, it was suddenly like oh Fulham kick off in 5 minutes better mention them.
