Is the East Coast Bias Deserved?

Over the last five or so years, one of the most trendy things to complain about is ESPN’s East Coast bias – that is if you don’t live in the East Coast.  The complaint is that ESPN and other major sports media carry more Red Sox, Yankees, Mets, Celtics, etc games than say, Dodgers, Royals, Padres, or Memphis Grizzlies games, and similarly provides them with preferential coverage.  If you live on the East Coast, and get to see more coverage of your teams, this alleged phenomenon is great.  If you live elsewhere, it is understandably annoying. Surfing the Internet yesterday, I came across the following chart, showing the top 10 cities in terms of adults watching baseball on TV.  The northeast accounts for 5 of the top 10 markets, with Boston, Hartford, Providence, New York, and Portland all among the top 10.  The mid-west is also well represented with Chicago, St. Louis, Detroit, and Minneapolis among the top 10.  California?  No where to be seen.  In fact, the whole West Coast?  No where to be seen.

Thus, that leads me to the old chicken and egg question.  Do these markets watch more baseball because they get the supposed preferential treatment, or does ESPN lead with those teams because they have the most interested & passionate fan base, and lead to the greatest ratings?  The second scenario seems like the more likely situation to me.  People in these areas of the country have baseball and sports more engrained in their blood and in their lives.  Following sports is more of a way of life in New England, than in other parts of the country.

ESPN’s recent expansion to LA, including daily live SportsCenters from that studio is likely an attempt to geographically diversify their offering to drive more people to watch their shows.  It will be interesting to see if that change leads to this list substantially changing over the next several years , indicating that the first scenario suggested above is more likely to be the driver of MLB viewership – time shall tell.

Share/Save