MANCHESTER UNITED’S league meeting with Leeds United at Old Trafford on Wednesday night was the latest fixture to raise the issue of how football is broadcast on TV in Britain — what football is shown, how much of it and the cost to fans.

Despite being on a Wednesday night, the game was not broadcast on TV in Britain.

This was due to it being rearranged from September 17 last year and not initially scheduled for broadcast as it was a 3pm Saturday game.

This status remained for the rearranged date as neither Sky nor BT had picked it for broadcast (which itself is a strange decision given the historical size of the fixture and the rivalry).

The reason 3pm kickoffs are not shown on TV in Britain is down to the much-needed blackout that runs from 2.45pm to 5.15pm on Saturdays.

This blackout is designed to prevent a decline in attendance further down the league pyramid, which the clashes with high-profile games on TV at this time would cause.

That time slot is left open for fans to support their local clubs. Man United fans could watch Trafford FC, for example, or any number of non-League clubs in the Manchester area.

These lower-league clubs rely heavily on gate money and spectators through the turnstiles to remain afloat, and crowds at the games to retain links with their communities.

Broadcasters were unable to retrospectively pick up the Man United v Leeds game for television coverage as they had not chosen it initially.

This high-profile, now midweek fixture not being shown on TV led to understandable anger from fans.

It costs over £1,000 per year to legally watch the football being shown across the various TV channels in this country, and in cases like this, fans feel like they aren’t getting value for money from their costly subscriptions.

At this stage in the growth of football broadcasting, it is worth asking the question: should the game be seen as a TV programme?

Many of us want to see all the football on TV, but is that good for the game? Should it not fundamentally be about participation at local events for the two teams and the spectators?

From the onset of the Premier League in the early 1990s and onwards, Sky have been able to attract football fans to pay their subscription fees by offering a package that was not necessarily cheap, but was increasingly less expensive than going to all of a team’s games in person.

The rise in ticket prices coupled with the availability of Sky, and later cable TV, meant many fans, and especially families, could afford the TV package but not matchday ticket prices and associated expenses such as travel.

It saw football steadily move from being a weekly live event where supporters would meet up with friends at the game, to something that would in many cases be watched at home or in the pub.

Attendances remain high at the top level, but the matchday dynamic at the top of the league pyramid has changed.

It has become a more sanitised, marketable product designed to please TV companies, sponsors and advertisers, with match-going fans regularly at the bottom of the list of stakeholders to consider.

Awkward kick-off times, rearranged fixtures for TV, and lack of public transport reinforce the idea that supporters are an afterthought at this level of football.

So while TV can help fans follow their team, it can also be of hindrance to those who want to go to the games.

It is now widely expected and regularly demanded that all matches be shown on TV. Even if this might not be a healthy state of affairs for a game that grew as an outdoor participation sport for players and spectators, it is one that has been driven by the cost of TV subscriptions meaning fans rightly expect more for the increasingly large sums of money they are asked to pay.

Gone are the days when you only needed to pay for Sky to get all the football. Now you need subscriptions to BT Sport, Viaplay (formerly Premier Sports), Amazon, La Liga TV and, if you want to watch Major League Soccer you will now need a subscription to Apple TV+ — a separate subscription to the standard Apple TV+ package at that.

The growth of football as a TV spectacle is not all negative. Watching football on TV can itself be a communal experience, especially for high-profile games or big tournaments. This is more evident at international level, most notably for big tournaments when games are played abroad.

Even on location at these international tournaments, especially at World Cups, many games are viewed via television, whether on a small TV in the corner of a street cafe, or a large event-organised fan park.

Most of the top-level football people consume, regardless of the league, the setting or the location, is via a screen.

From lazy Sunday afternoons watching whichever games Sky Sports have deemed “super” for their long-standing Super Sunday programme, or European games on a weekday evening, football being on TV has become part of the game, and in turn, can support local businesses such as pubs and clubs.

While it is understandable, given the costs of subscription fees, for us to expect all of the football to be on TV all of the time, the demand for all matches to be televised might not be good for the game.

During the past 30 years, football has gradually become more of a TV programme, a serial drama or an ongoing soap opera, rather than a local community pastime.

Though it can feel like we want all of the football on TV all of the time, maybe we don’t need it, and the real enjoyment of the game, at a lower cost to ourselves and of more benefit to the community, lies elsewhere.

As is often the case, this alternative can usually be found further down the league pyramid.

At the lower, local, non-League level, fans and families can benefit from a more enjoyable matchday experience, being closer to the action, and feeling like they are part of a community rather than a consumer.

Meanwhile, the clubs make more of the money they need to stay afloat thanks to the extra people through the gates and matchday income.

TV brings lots of money into the game at the top level, but almost all of that comes out of the fans’ pockets, whether directly through subscriptions or indirectly through advertisements aimed at them.

It is therefore right to push for better value for money from these subscriptions, and this includes expecting more games shown, but for the increasingly disgruntled supporter, there is an alternative away from the commercialisation of the game as a TV product.

Maybe it is time to cancel the TV subscriptions altogether and turn to that alternative.