About That Basketball Audience of a Billion
“Not since James Naismith first cut the bottom out of a peach basket, perhaps, has there been a more historic basketball game, watched by an estimated worldwide television audience of one billion, including two U.S. presidents gawking from the stands,” the Winnipeg Free Press wrote, not about the Lakers-Celtics NBA finals in June, but about the U.S.-China men’s basketball game on Sunday night.

The count of presidents (George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush) checks out, but the frequently repeated claim this week that one billion TV viewers tuned in world-wide is questionable. There are no truly global TV ratings, at least no reliable ones. And numbers from the U.S. and China — which combined have about one in four of the world’s population and most of those people who cared about the game — suggest just 100 million people tuned in.
The 12-hour time difference between Beijing and New York limited the potential audience. The game was played at 10 p.m. Beijing time so it could be shown live in the morning hours across the U.S. According to AGB Nielsen Media Research, a television-tracking company, about 89 million people in China watched at least part of the game, the average audience was 37 million. That’s more than tuned in for any game played by Chinese star Yao Ming in the NBA this year, but it wasn’t even the biggest audience for an Olympic event that day: Chinese weightlifter Long Qingquan’s gold-medal victory beat out China’s 31-point loss. Meanwhile, in the U.S., the game averaged 11.5 million viewers, “pretty good for a Sunday morning basketball game,” NBC Sports spokesman Adam Freifeld told me.
These TV numbers are estimates, of varying accuracy. In the U.S., Nielsen takes steps to cover the entire country, though some viewers, such as those at sports bars — presumably a small group on Sunday mornings — remain elusive. In China, the Nielsen numbers are based on 14 provinces and cities nationwide. Globally, numbers are harder to come by, with most countries not yet measured reliably. As I’ve written before, claims of TV audiences topping a billion usually are mere hyperbole.
It’s not clear where the estimate of one billion TV viewers originated. It may have been one of those numbers tossed out, casually and imprecisely, and seized upon by sportswriters because it was too good to check; it also lined up with many estimates of world-wide audience for the opening ceremonies, which may have carried greater global appeal. The number was reported without attribution, sometimes as as many as one billion, and at other times as more than one billion. Some even reported the one billion rating as if it had been measured, within hours of the game, rather than a mere prediction.
Mysterious TV numbers abound in the Yao era. Yao Ming’s NBA debut was viewable on 287 million Chinese homes, the Houston Chronicle reported in November 2002. By 2004, that potential audience had morphed into the actual number of people in China who tuned in. And last November, a game between Mr. Yao’s Houston Rockets and his countryman Yi Jianlian reportedly was going to draw between 150 million and 250 million Chinese viewers; I was unable to track down where that estimate originated.
These kind of inflated numbers are announced for every big international sporting event. If they have any credibility at all, they must include everyone who sees five seconds of the game on a television news report. But credibility isn’t really the objective: they are just spin designed to bamboozle people who don’t really get the difference between a million and a billion anyway. I can tell you for sure that the number of people here in the UK who watched the whole of this game would have been less than the live attendance for many Premiership football matches. Almost no-one in this country could care less about this game, which was a mismatch between two foreign teams in a sport that has miniscule following here - and the same would apply to most countries in the world.
They have done their job-newspapers and people who do not or cannot think for themselves have duly reported and repeated the number. In years to come, it will be questioned again butits not like there is a court of appeal for stupid estimates. Self-important groups always inflate the numbers to show that their event or cause was so amazing and important that all of (fill in the blank) turned out for it. This number was invented by someone who had nothing to lose and thought it would be seen as the hyperbole it was (the Winnipeg newspaper, need we say more), or more likely, it came from the IOC and its myrmidons: India wins air rifle gold, all of subcontinent weeps with joy and amazement!
Thanks for this post. Numbers were surely ridiculously inflated, and the 1 billion claim absurd. But there’s also no way that only 87 million people watched the game in China. There are, of course, almost 1.5 billion here and the game was was huge, huge, huge. I would be really curious to see how they arrived at that number, which seems as undervalued as the larger claim seems overvalued. All over China there were little TVs being watched by 20 people tuned in to this.
usa rocks. buti had a question. what time does the next basketball game start. tell me anytime thats on the 13th or later than the 13th
Alan may’ve cracked the case - in China, where everything numbers in the `illions, one TV set is watched by hordes of Chinese. If one guy in the neighborhood get a new HDTV, he typically would invite over a million, or so, of his friends to watch the game on it. So, using the more conservative, Chinese TV ratings formula, if there are 100,000 sets tuned to a show, that number is multiplied by the 10,000 viewers watching each TV, which yields a figure of 1B total viewers.
We don’t care enough about american sports to get near 1 billion.






The Numbers Guy examines numbers in the news, business and politics. Some numbers are flat-out wrong or biased, while others are valid and help us make informed decisions. Carl Bialik tells the stories behind the stats, in daily updates on this blog and in his column published every other Friday in The Wall Street Journal. Carl, who holds a degree in mathematics and physics from Yale University, also cowrites