-
Website
http://www.epltalk.com -
Original page
http://www.epltalk.com/spain-italy-most-watched-match-so-far-and-other-espn-euro-ratings-news/2516 -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
These numbers are meaningless? My friend I don't think so. What they tell us is there are plenty of people who are more than happy to watch the match from the comfort of their own home without being ripped off by beer prices, and tasteless overpriced food.
By the time it's all said and done, bar numbers don't add that much to the overall rating by the time it's all said and done.
Also, the last time I checked, the Nielsen Ratings ONLY COUNTED HOUSES, not bars/pubs/clubs/whatever the hell they are called today. If you want to start the 'official bar numbers', by all means do us all a favor and do so.
And let us not forget, advertisers don't give a rats behind about how many are watching from the local establishment. They care about who's actually going to watch the commercials. ESPN does as well because it's how they set their advertising rates.
Fred: weekends in summer tend not to draw high viewership anywhere, mostly because a lot of people take the opportunity to get away from the TV. Even the weekly NASCAR race (which was part afternoon/part prime-time) the same day just managed to get 6 million viewers.
Keep in mind the Italy-US match in 2006 World Cup got an extraordinary rating: over a six on ABC and a 4.5 on Univision. Also last year the very same weekend the Gold Cup final between Mexico and the US was watched by close to 3,000,000 homes on Univision. Not sure about FSC and I actually was in Mexico for the match.
International soccer in June works and has for a number of years now, but it does not correspond to good numbers for the EPL, Serie A, etc in the middle of winter when the NFL, NCAA Football, NCAA Basketball, NBA, etc are all in progress.
Sunday is critical for soccer in America. A doubleheader on a major American network
on a Sunday afternoon. It's the summer and a holiday week upon us, but good #'s mean a lot on Sunday, so get your family and friends to tune in.
A couple points.
It's critical on the Euro front, but not so on the MLS front.
In 1999 ABC showed 13 MLS matches. This year they will show two.
MLS in 1996 still averaged more fans a game than it does in 2008.
The quality of play in MLS circa 1996 was arguably better than in 2008. Sure 2008 is better than 2003 but that simply tells you the dip between 1996 and 2003.
MLS is in business largely because of the marketing of the Mexican National Team, probably in reality on of the most popular sports teams on American soil, here in the states. Shrewd and smart dealings by SUM/MLS to make partnerships with Barca, Mexico and the Bundesliga is keeping the league afloat. The league itself is not doing well. The TV ratings tomorrow while families are at church or enjoying themselves in other ways will bear that out.
The 1999 reference may not be a good one. In today's US media market major sporting events are now on cable only! So, ABC reducing it's # of MLS games is only a market trend. In 1996 or even 1999, I hardly knew what the Copa America was about, and didn't we all in the US have a bad hangover after the 1998 World Cup train wreck by the US. Euro 04 was know and followed by hardcore fans in the US only, I had to search the net for outlets then, today at work I just go to ESPN360 and almost all my local lunch spots are showing the games.
We all would like the MLS to compete with the European leagues, and if 4 hours of live soccer coverage on Sunday is a hit, ESPN will be willing to invest more in soccer coverage both local and international. TV has made a number of American sports, the NFL and NASCAR to name two big examples. The NHL being a minor sport on the American sports scene is due to it's lack of TV exposure. For those of you who have never seen a NHL game in person, you are missing something. Thus, the critical nature for Sundays coverage.
You are so wrong on so many levels.
1) For the first time ever(beginning with 2007), ESPN and all other TV networks started paying MLS.
2) Shirt sponsorships started in 2007.
3) If the league is financially weak, as you so suggest, we wouldn't be building soccer-specific stadiums.
4) Attendance averaging 16,500 is not peanuts. That even surpasses the 1996 inaugural season.
5) Stop your comparisons with the 1996 season: inaugural seasons in any new sport or new sporting event almost always start on a high note.
6) Went from 3 owners to over 12 now.
7) On-field playing is on a higher level than in any other year in the past.
8) The league is growing as more teams are joining MLS.
etc...etc...
So many other points to discuss, I don't have enough time to get into.
Believe me when I say; MLS is steaming ahead with no concern whatsoever for folding.
I respectfully disagree. Why is it that USL-1 clubs have had shirt sponsorships for years from companies with much bigger brand recognition than Amigo Energy or Xango?
I hope MLS succeeds, I really do. But the best way to keep the league afloat would be to cut loose the DPs which will eventually bankrupt the league, focus more on player development, lower the number of internationals per side (it's pathetic when Pat Noonan and Nate Jaqua have to leave MLS to get their fair market value, but foreign players who other than Blanco and Becks add little in terms of production that Americans cannot get seven figure salaries. Do you really think C. Lopez is any better for KC than Josh Wolff was for instance, or that Gallardo is any better for DC than C. Gomez- who is argentine but a guy our league found, not paid big $$$$ for or B. Olsen have been?)
MLS was on the right track until a few years ago. Now overexpanding and over paying for players hasn't increased interest. 16,500 is less than we averaged in 1996, and I submit those figures aren't real. Doubleheader games (like Brazil in Foxboro) and free tickets spike that number. The quality is better than five years ago but I would argue based on our results against mexican clubs in big matches it is worse than from 1996 to 2000.
USL senses an opportunity. Stay tuned for developments on that front, but USL doesn't see itself as a second division as much anymore, and things may be shook up in the next 3-5 years. Maybe it doesn't happen, but it may. Don't be shocked if some major changes occur on the club side of the domestic landscape.
--The U.S. Soccer Development Academy finals will be broadcast on ESPN2 and ESPNU. Seven of the eight placement matches (four each in the U16 and 18 brackets) will air on ESPNU on July 18 and 19. The U18 final will air on ESPN2 at 8 p.m. July 18.
For the first time ESPN and US Soccer are putting youngsters, and development in front of us. This to me is much bigger than anything the Euros or MLS can do for the long term success of our national team program. Thank you ESPN!
MLS is seen as a "socialist" product. Owners don't really own teams they own a share of the league and teams aren't encouraged to step out and sign good young players because they don't keep the transfer fee: the league does. I know Red Bull is really miffed at the whole Jozy situation. No ownership group or team is really allowed to step out of the model or conformity forced on them by the league office. No commentator can do so also and information is controlled the way Pravda and the Politboro controlled the flow of information in the old Soviet Union.
In USL, teams can spend what they want and sell players on. Scouting has brought some real international gems to USL/A-League clubs the last several years.
I think MLS' DP rule should have been sunset after one year. Now no emphasis is put on developing players and simply put the league wants to buy players to bring $$$$ in to expand and make the initial investors all of whom have lost lots of money in the 12 years the league has existed happy. So that's why we've gone from 3 to 12 owners.
I hate to agree with Kartik also on the finances. It's fishy to say the least and I also suspect the SUM events are what are balancing the books.
This all having been said Kartik's wacky views on the state of the national team make it tough to take his side in a debate of any kind. But here on MLS he in sadly right.
Soccer has come a long way in the US and I hope tomorrow's viewing figures will reflect that.
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/22825103/vp/25411...
"i get it, its an entertaining sport. weird, it didnt finish 0-0. its unamerican. how can you end in penalties, its like deciding the NBA finals with a free throw shooting contest. they are pussies who dive. america isnt good at it. soccer fan in america is too snobby. ill never get it"
The funny thing is with Rome it is an act. Around the time of the 1994 World Cup he was talking it up because the final was SoCal and with his west coast bias it was something he could claim LA had an NY or Chicago didn't. So he either turned a blind eye to then to his hatred of the game or "developed it" later to get ratings.
For instance, the claim that 1996's talent is arguably better than today's. One couldn't possibly hold this opinion unless one were *only* looking at the top 10-20 players, about 1-2 per team. On that level, it's debatable, but once one looks at entire rosters for the whole league, it's clear that teams are much better today.
1996 also drew better only for about 6 weeks of novelty effect and pent-up demand for soccer. MLS's attendances are much firmer and predictably stronger today.
Funny thing is, the top USL team, Seattle Sounders, is leaving that league and hopping into MLS starting next season.
The Toronto USL franchise shut down two years ago when Toronto FC joined MLS.
The owners of two other USL teams, Portland Timbers and Vancouver Whitecaps, are courting MLS and getting ready to start the paperwork for joining MLS within 2-4 years.
Ditto for Montreal!
So, why in the world would these USL teams jump over to a weaker league(MLS)??
This isn't the NASL.
Your typical of someone who is in love with MLS. I want the league to succeed but am realistic. As someone who saw my team contracted and have found much of the other spin coming from the league office to be questionable I take a more open view.
Truth be told I like MLS quality better than USL. Who wouldn't like a first division over a second division? But I think USL is more proper business. Umbro owns the league and we have an actual idea of its finances. MLS is so secretive about things and as someone said above they aren't exactly friendly to journalists about stories and issues related to the league.
Sure this isn't the NASL. I've said before many times that MLS was so adverse to any association with the NASL that they ignored all the positives of the NASL (like team nicknames, the value of high priced foreigners in their prime) and now have begun to repeat the mistakes of the NASL like blatant over expansion and over paying for players.
Do you really believe bringing Marcello Gallardo (who I do happen to like as a player) has done anything to increase attendance? What about the other non Blanco/Beckham DPs? What is the real attendance like when you take out doubleheader games and 4th of July fireworks shows?
Why did MLS and Don Garber rip South Florida as a soccer market publically repeatedly until they decided they wanted back in down here and then started making excuses about the failure of the Fusion. Perhaps we didn't schedule enough doubleheaders like New England and New York have done for 13 years to satisfy the league the first go round.
Again I want MLS to succeed but to simply assume everything they do is right and USL is a garbage second division is not responsible. I do know as I have told you that some USL owners in decent sized markets (not the ones in Seattle or Vancouver obviously, and Charleston and Rochester are not part of this discussion because those markets are too small for first division football) have decided to stay put and see what changes USL brings the next few years. I've been told this by people as close to the situation as possible. Perhaps they are making a business mistake. I even told one person that his boss was making a stupid mistake before thinking it over myself and realizing MLS may have financial issues 3-5 years down the road and sticking in USL for now if Nike comes through rather than paying the franchise fee for MLS may be a good thing. Again it may be a mistake and as you correctly point out USL has issues with its management structure and stability. But I am merely saying their are two sides to this story.
MLS had opportunities early in its history that they blew. I think anyone objective would agree with that. The assumption in Europe was MLS would be a player pretty quickly and that the quality of the league would improve rapidly which it did not. No one, least myself expected to see the likes Danny Califf and Nate Jaqua have to flee MLS because the league isn't willing to pay our own mid level domestic players what they can make overseas. That in itself is a disservice to the US Soccer culture and its continued development.
Keep the posts of any length coming, bro......................
The reason USL can attract owners is that it doesn't require an upfront commitment, but here's the nasty surprise--RUNNING THE TEAM STILL DOES. This is why many, many teams come into USL, and many, many teams also go out.
Including Tampa's old ASL team.
As to what can be done, it would be a better plan for MLS to hire 2 or 3 well known names to attract the causal fan, ie: Beckham, who will attract fans when they are playing and TV attention. Put them in key markets. Top 3 media markets, will do. Have the league pay for them or somehow share their costs. Spend your money on keeping the mid-level American's who are are going to Europe, ie: Beasely, Bradley, Howard, etc. home. In this way you have headliner names(limited) but a solid base of Americans to draw in the average fan.
Becks is feeling low with many of his mates competing in the Euros but today is a day for him to rekindle his interest and learn once again why RFK is MLS' best venue.