Steve Rushin - Soccer Nazi

I still don't see the point here... what's it got to do with the popularity of the Cup? If selling your sole (soul?) gets you more viewers than the NBA finals (according to someone on here) it's probably not a bad deal.

 

FIFA does NOT give rights away for free. If they did, the armed forces in Iraq would be able to watch. The NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, all provide the rights for free to the military. FIFA did not.

Second... MLS signed a multi-million dollar deal. This is hardly selling their "sole" (or do you mean soul?). This is the reason Fox Soccer Channel didn't show any MLS games this year. FSC wanted to show them for free and Garber said no.

Boom, just come out with it. What is your argument? Is it that soccer isn't popular? Is it that nobody cares? What does any of this prove?

The games are on the tele. The games are drawing in ratings galore. Either people are interested or they aren't. I don't turn on NASCAR races just to say that I saw the race.

 

Who said that?  The NBA Finals are telecast on an over-the-air channel-- World Cup on cable.  The Finals are bound to do a bigger number, not to mention the fact that the NBA is rating well this year, too.

Maybe if you added up total viewers for all the World Cup games and total viewers for the NBA Finals games, sure.  But isn't that common sense because there are MORE World Cup games?

It's the NHL that's having a tough time right now...

Baseball ain't so hot, either, outside of the Northeast.

 

It's that common sense thing that gives Boom so much trouble.

 

Any better ratings are all relitive because there is nothing from past World Cups to compare them too. Now that a baseline will be established in 2006 I will be really impresssed if ratings are up in the next World Cup of 2010.

That said I do expect that ratings will be up in 2010  because Disney is a very good multi media  marketer.  Disney will make soccer a huge success in US and FIFA will rue the day they gave the rights away for so little.

 

I think soccer interest has grown, despite MLS. I think Man U is probably the biggest factor, frankly. And again, youth participation will not impact on how many people will follow soccer here. I think the game on the international level is very entertaining, but I also do not cotton to those soccer fans who put the "it's the world's sport, you ugly Americans" guilt trip on.

 

Look zizzer your admirable love for soccer is clouding your thinking. Trust me - you are in over your head on this discussion.

As you insist here is the documentation - most important paragraph plus full link from the Soccer Times which I assume you feel is a reliable source.

http://www.soccertimes.com/worldcup/2005/nov02.htm

Only four years ago, there was a real possibility that only Spanish-language broadcasts of the 2002 World Cup would be available in the U.S. Then, Soccer United Marketing, Major League Soccer's marketing arm, owned by a some league and outside investors, paid $40 million for the U.S. English rights to the 2002 World Cup in Japan and South Korea, next year's World Cup in Germany and the 2003 Women's World Cup, originally scheduled for China but moved to the U.S.

In the existing pact, SUM was essentially allowed to air its games for free on ABC\ESPN while covering productions costs. Both sides would provide marketing and sell advertising with revenues split by an unspecified formula.

 

Boom, again, I don't understand where you want to go with this argument. You bring up World Cup broadcasting rights, but it only serves to demonstrate that soccer has gained in popularity. You bring up the MLS contract and, again, it only demonstrates that soccer has gained in popularity.

Where are you going with this?

 

And if you watch any game - hell, just watch the closing credits - you'll see that Soccer United Media is still in charge of the operation. Your initial claim was that ESPN "scooped them up at the last second" because the group that held the rights went under. Which you're completely wrong on - yet again.

 

Boom, I'm not a frequent ESPN watcher but I don't get the feeling that ESPN has whored this thing out like they do for other things, like Vegas casino motorcycle jumps, or X Games. Anyone can correct me if I am wrong.

 

ABC and ESPN have purchased MLS rights starting next season. Before, SUM paid for them to be broadcast, yes. And now, ESPN shells out, and spanish-language TV has purchased MLS rights for the first time in years. Surely, an indicator of soccer's declining poipularity in this nation.

In addition, your assertion of having no soccer ratings to compare to is beyond wrong. ABC/ESPN broadcast it in 1994, 1998, 2002 and now. Aside from the continued idiocy of some SportsCenter anchors, they push the sport more than any other Englsih-language outlet in the nation. Soccer on ESPN is here to stay.

- EDITED because I"m a nice guy. But honestly, Boom, you can't possibly believe half the stuff you post, in ALL topics.

 

Poindexter, are you going to imply that it hasn't received as much attention as Junction Boys? Surely that couldn't be! Boom feels this has been shoved down his throat!