**4.3 1970-1990: Interdependence during the monopolistic era**

characterized by similar constraints and features.

During the 1970s and 1980s Channel 1 took full advantage of its monopoly in the Israeli television market to avoid paying for sports' broadcasting franchises almost completely. Until 1976 the channel did not compensate Maccabi Tel-Aviv at all for the broadcasting of the team's European matches. Between 1977 and 1985 the payment was fixed at \$7000 a year, although Maccabi won two European titles during that period. Only in 1985 did the payment rise to \$35,000 a year, and to about \$100,000 two years later (Maariv, July 27, 2001). Seemingly, under such minimal compensations the team should have preferred to prevent the broadcastings altogether. A large portion of the team's yearly budget was then based on revenues from selling tickets, and the broadcasts could have jeopardized this source of income. Why then did Maccabi choose to allow the broadcasts?

interference in broadcasting contents (Zuckerman 1999). The Israeli Public Channel is

The answer lies mainly in the reputational realm. The main advantage of the exclusive television broadcastings was in building Maccabi's local name and providing it with an aura of a national team. This happened similarly to what Whannel (1992) describes in the British case. During its monopoly years, until the 1950s, the BBC broadcast various "national" events, which were connected to the state and to royal institutions. Among these were the soccer Cup Finals, the Derby horse race and the Wimbledon tennis tournament. Interestingly, some of these events received their national labeling only *following* their BBC broadcasting. In other words, the placement of these specific sports events in the channel's broadcasting schedule conferred upon them with a special meaning for the British public. It reconstructed them as events of emotional and national significance.

A similar process took place in Israel. The broadcasting of Maccabi Tel-Aviv's basketball matches on the Public Channel began in an age when statehood was still a primary principal of Israeli society (Horvitz & Lisak 1990). It therefore provided the games and the team with an aura of statehood. The games were promoted as national events, and Maccabi became "the national team". This positioning provided the team with wide public support and a relative advantage in its competition with the other Israeli basketball teams. Unlike the major sports events in Britain, which are guaranteed to take place every year, regardless of the participants' identity, the European league games became a national event only when Maccabi Tel-Aviv participated in them. This led many to believe that there is a public interest in Maccabi winning the local league (a pre-condition for participation in the major European league at the time). And so, as Nevo (2000) notices, following the demise of the Israeli labor party, in the late seventies, Maccabi became the representative of the new Israeli center-bourgeois statehood.

Channel 1 on its part also had a clear interest in the games becoming a national event. The construction of a sport match as a national event defines this match as a central and important event, which must be watched. The process is two-way: while fortifying the sport event's status, it also reinforces the television channel's position, as the authority with the power to distinguish between the "national" events and the "regular", less important ones

Symbiosis and Exploitation in Sports-Media Interrelations:

The Israeli Case of Maccabi Tel-Aviv Basketball Club and the Public Channel 349

market. Within a short time, the ratings of the new lively Channel 2 far surpassed those of the old and jaded Channel 1 (Zuckerman 1999). During the following years, the Israeli television market continued to widen. Many additional cable channels, satellite broadcasts

The communication revolution has marked a new era in the broadcasting of sports events in Israel. In 1990 Channel 1 was the sole customer for the product of sports competitions in a market of many suppliers. With the launching of cable television, the television market opened to competition. One of the cables' pivotal channels was the Sports Channel, which soon demanded quality sports material. The launching of the Sports Channel brought both a quantitative (much more sport was now broadcast) and a qualitative (the broadcastings became much more professional) revolution to Israeli televised sports. Channel 1 found itself competing for contents that up to now had been free or almost free of charge, if only it chose to broadcast them. One by one it lost the broadcasting franchises of the central sports events: the Major soccer and basketball leagues, European soccer leagues, and the America basketball league (the NBA). One of the main assets to which Channel 1 chose to cling at all

A number of factors drove the continuance of the relationship between the two sides. Maccabi Tel-Aviv on its part saw Channel 1 as a home. The team's managers viewed the alliance between the "national team" and the "national channel" as natural. Moreover, the team has always won great respect from Channel 1. The broadcasters and commentators of the games identified with the team, supported it avowedly, and refrained almost completely from criticism. The channel also considered the team's scheduling preferences, and the games were mostly scheduled for prime time broadcast slots. Furthermore, the long years of symbiotic interdependence between the two organizations facilitated the evolution of emotional relations. Still, the main consideration behind the team's decision to maintain the relation was by now a financial one. In an interview with the Israeli journal 'Status', in 1992, Shimon Mizrahi, Maccabi's chairmen, stated that the team had agreed to grant Channel 1 a broadcasting franchise for one year only, in order to retain a maneuvering potential when additional channels were launched (this was just before Channel 2 was launched). In an increasingly competitive television market Channel 1 was forced to substantially raise its

Despite its growing financial stringency Channel 1 was willing to increase the payments in order to maintain an asset that it viewed as a national symbol. With the emergence of the new commercial channels, Channel 1 faced growing difficulties in determining its place and duties in a multi-channel environment (Zuckerman 1999). Its managers saw the broadcasting of Maccabi Tel-Aviv's European matches as a symbol for the duties the channel should now fulfill. This perception is well articulated in the response of Channel 1's

Maccabi Tel-Aviv is Israel's most successful team. Therefore, its natural home is Channel 1. There is nothing we can do about the insane sums we have to pay for the

The criticism over the large payments Channel 1 transferred to Maccabi grew stronger at the beginning of the new millennium. Following a decade during which Maccabi Tel-Aviv did not enjoy a remarkable success in the premier European league, the team improved and

speaker, Yuval Ganur, to criticisms over the channel's massive payments to the team:

and a new general commercial channel (Channel 10) joined the competition.

costs was the European matches of Maccabi Tel-Aviv's Basketball Club.

compensations in order to retain the broadcasting franchise.

broadcastings. (Ynet, July 10, 2001; emphasis mine)

(Whannel 1992). This reciprocity was articulated by Yoash Alroii, the manager of Channel 1's sports department between 1980 and 2002: "We helped in turning Maccabi into the national team, and they turned us into the people's television." (Maariv, April 28, 2004) Miki Berkovitz, Maccabi's most famous player at the time, agrees: "Chanel 1 built itself through Maccabi, and the reputation of Maccabi was built in Chanel 1. . . . The games turned into no less than the national anthem." (Ynet, April 13, 2007). This is a classic example of symbiotic interdependence, where both sides enjoy the alliance and profit from it.

As discussed earlier, symbiotic interdependence often leads to the creation of trust and introduces an emotional dimension into the relationship. This pattern is illustrated by a dramatic incident, described in 'Haaretz' newspaper (July 22, 2003). In December 1982, prior to one of Maccabi's matches in the European league, the team released a press announcement stating that Olsy Perry, one of the team's American players, had the flu and would not be able to attend the game. Nevertheless, a reporter from Channel 1 took a television crew with him to Perry's home. They were surprised to find the player in bed after an apparent drug overdose. However, Channel 1 managers decided to conceal the exclusive scoop. Instead of revealing the true occurrences of that evening the channel preferred to cooperate with the team's cover-up story.

The Perry incident was not exclusive. Dan Shilon, who was the first broadcaster of Maccabi's European matches, described in an interview how Channel 1 played a role in the team's success on the court. Shilon recalls the first broadcast of a game between Maccabi and the Belgian team Liege on November 24, 1970:

Liege had a player named Steven Hirst, who shot remarkably from a certain spot on the court. At the day of the game Tal Brody [Maccabi's former superstar] came to us and asked that we put a spot directly above this point. We agreed, and even changed the spot's position during half time. Poor Hirst could barely score. (Maariv, April 28, 2004)

In conclusion, during the 1970s and 1980s both Channel 1 and Maccabi Tel-Aviv enjoyed cooperation, which issued them both with a substantial composite rent. However, the interdependence in those years was by no means symmetric. During its monopolistic years Channel 1 enjoyed considerable structural advantages, allowing it to hold the upper hand in the alliance. The channel used its monopoly to almost completely avoid payments for broadcasting franchise. The matches received very high ratings (they were often the most highly watched program in the channel's weekly schedule) and helped the Channel to acquire legitimacy. Still, the Channel did not feel committed to compensate the team financially (as was already customary in other countries). Maccabi on its part realized that there were no alternatives. In the absence of a real competitive leverage it had no choice but to allow the broadcastings free of charge. And so, during the years of its monopoly, Channel 1 obtained an exploitive rent side by side with the composite rent it shared with the team.
