Jump to content

Qatar 2022


arwebb
 Share

Recommended Posts

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I hope you realize how much you're in the minority on that one. Very few people in this country will bypass NFL and college football games for World Cup games, even ones involving the United States, as opposed to Tunisia against Saudi Arabia or something like that.

Absolutely right. Real sports fans couldn't be further away from Baron's point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a FIFA decision about the under-17 World Cup tells us – and reminds us

FIFA’s Under-17 World Cup, featuring a bunch of future pros and about to start this week in United Arab Emirates, has concluded that the best way to make sure stadiums are not empty is to simply give the tickets away.

FIFA announced today that all remaining tickets can be had at no cost.

There may be an important lesson here. There is but one reason an organization chooses to give away seats: the things simply are not selling.

That could be a reminder of FIFA’s enormous risk in putting a World Cup in Qatar (in 2022, that is). In case you haven’t heard, that’s been a bit of a mess. Soccer just may not be popular enough in that part of the world. (UAE sits just across the Persian Gulf from Qatar.)

Or is the lesson something different? Is this just a reminder of something we already know, that big-time sports live and die in many ways on stars.

The FIFA under-17 World Cup will include plenty of future stars – but they aren’t stars yet. Drop a tournament with a bunch of unrecognizable names into pretty much any land, and this is what you are likely to get, a tough sale.

Source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak to the situation in other countries, but I can assure you that if the World Cup moves to November-December, it is going to get buried in this country behind the the NFL. And Fox will do their best to either wiggle their way out of that contract and/or perhaps even try and get out of it entirely. I know US television rights aren't as big to FIFA as they are to the IOC, but it's still a big investment that Fox would be getting screwed on, so they have a right to be pissed. Whether or not FIFA compensates them remains to be determined.

The US still paid FIFA for tv rights most $$ than any other country. By the way, Telemundo paid (+$610 million) more than Fox (+$400 million).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US still paid FIFA for tv rights most $$ than any other country. By the way, Telemundo paid (+$610 million) more than Fox (+$400 million).

Do we know that for sure? I haven't seen a lot of figures from other countries. Also, keep in mind.. that's the total Telemundo and Fox paid for BOTH the 2018 and 2022 World Cups (not to mention the 2015 and 2019 Women's World Cup as well). So divide that in half to get what they're paying for 2022.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we know that for sure? I haven't seen a lot of figures from other countries. Also, keep in mind.. that's the total Telemundo and Fox paid for BOTH the 2018 and 2022 World Cups (not to mention the 2015 and 2019 Women's World Cup as well). So divide that in half to get what they're paying for 2022.

We all know how expensive tv rights are in the US. Other than Brazil, I don't see any other major TV network from other country paying more than the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. Americans and Canadians don't really find any excitement in a ball being passed back and forth for ninety minutes.

This is a non-sequitur.

Baron argued that Americans will just "tape" (does anyone tape anything anymore?) the NFL and NCAA so that they can watch the World Cup and therefore a November/December date is not a problem in the US.

I'm saying that American sports fans are absolutely going to watch the NFL and NCAA (not to mention the lineup of fall tv shows) and it will drain some of the World Cup viewership. Viewership would definitely be higher in the summer when there is much less competition. The only competition comes from the MLB and it's mid-season in a long season. As for non-sports viewing options, just about everything else is in re-runs. Fox has good reason to oppose winter dates for the World Cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. Americans and Canadians don't really find any excitement in a ball being passed back and forth for ninety minutes.

Ahh yes, this stupid and pointless argument once again. It has been dis-proven plenty of times over that Americans don't care about soccer, especially when it comes to the World Cup. We will never have the love affair with the sport that most countries in Europe and South America have, but it couldn't be further from the truth that Americans don't find soccer exciting. Anyone who still believes that is a fool.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh yes, this stupid and pointless argument once again. It has been dis-proven plenty of times over that Americans don't care about soccer, especially when it comes to the World Cup. We will never have the love affair with the sport that most countries in Europe and South America have, but it couldn't be further from the truth that Americans don't find soccer exciting. Anyone who still believes that is a fool.

I don't think there is any proof to that argument. Sure there is a growing audience for soccer in the United States, but are people watching USA-Jamaica game because it's exciting, or because the team happens to have the Stars and Stripes on its chest?

As for baseball being the only sport competing against the World Cup in its normal spot, this is untrue. Both the NBA Finals and Stanley Cup Finals take place during the first week of the tournament, and golf has it's US Open during the World Cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expanding on my point, I may sound like an idiot, but it's an honest question. I don't think Americans truly appreciate the excitement of the sport that people in Europe and other parts of the world do, and are just watching the games because the US is playing. This is discounting American citizens who have may have immigrated from or have relatives from a soccer-mad country, and counting only the casual fans who are a crucial demographic in coverage of both the World Cup and the Olympics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any proof to that argument. Sure there is a growing audience for soccer in the United States, but are people watching USA-Jamaica game because it's exciting, or because the team happens to have the Stars and Stripes on its chest?

Expanding on my point, I may sound like an idiot, but it's an honest question. I don't think Americans truly appreciate the excitement of the sport that people in Europe and other parts of the world do, and are just watching the games because the US is playing. This is discounting American citizens who have may have immigrated from or have relatives from a soccer-mad country, and counting only the casual fans who are a crucial demographic in coverage of both the World Cup and the Olympics.

Here's where that argument seems bogus to me..

North America is home to the best basketball league in the world, the best hockey league, the best baseball league, and the best pro golf tour. Maybe even some other things I can't think of. Never has this continent been the home of great soccer. The history of the NASL being what it is, for a long time people assumed that soccer would never work here.

The issue isn't (and has never been) that the game is too boring and uninteresting to an American audience. It's that the best soccer football is played somewhere other than the United States. So of course they'll appreciate it more in Europe and South America because they have the best players and most knowledgeable fans. It's just like how folks in Europe think that baseball is boring and football is stupid because they don't have what we have here.

Yes, there's a point to be made that Americans get more into soccer when they see that USA logo, but that's true in a lot of countries. As noted by Rob, there's a fairly decent-sized audience for Premier League games and other leagues are finding their way onto U.S. television. Plus, a lot of games where Americans have shown interest, either on television or games held here (think `84 and `96 Olympics or `94 World Cup), don't always involve team USA. So I think the moral of the story is that club soccer is not and may never be a huge deal here in the United States, but it has never been nor will it ever be because Americans don't find soccer exciting enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some of that growth of the sport can be attributed to how much ESPN and NBCSN are promoting the game on their networks with radicle expanding coverage.

But to expand on what you said Quaker about American football being boring to Europeans, could the same logic not be applied to soccer in America?

You hit the nail on the head with the fact that the MLS does not have the best quality of soccer in the world, and I agree 100% with you that this affects Americans true appreciation for the sport.

*rapid not radicle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some of that growth of the sport can be attributed to how much ESPN and NBCSN are promoting the game on their networks with radicle expanding coverage.

But to expand on what you said Quaker about American football being boring to Europeans, could the same logic not be applied to soccer in America?

You hit the nail on the head with the fact that the MLS does not have the best quality of soccer in the world, and I agree 100% with you that this affects Americans true appreciation for the sport.

*rapid not radicle

Well, there's a reason ESPN and NBC (and don't forget Fox) are so heavily invested in the sport of soccer. Again, would they all be doing that if soccer wasn't exciting enough to sell to an American audience that's already pretty well saturated with other sports?

MLS has some very solid fanbases in cities across the city. Seattle in particular I've heard treats the sport very enthusiastically (maybe not quite on par with Europeans, but close). It's hard to break into the mainstream here where we already have a lot of prominent sports leagues. But soccer has been trending upward for quite some time now. I still feel like MLS will continue to be a niche sport for a while to come here, but I can assure you that come World Cup time next summer, there will be A LOT of folks in this country (and not just foreigners and ex-pats) who think soccer is very exciting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there's a reason ESPN and NBC (and don't forget Fox) are so heavily invested in the sport of soccer. Again, would they all be doing that if soccer wasn't exciting enough to sell to an American audience that's already pretty well saturated with other sports?

MLS has some very solid fanbases in cities across the city. Seattle in particular I've heard treats the sport very enthusiastically (maybe not quite on par with Europeans, but close). It's hard to break into the mainstream here where we already have a lot of prominent sports leagues. But soccer has been trending upward for quite some time now. I still feel like MLS will continue to be a niche sport for a while to come here, but I can assure you that come World Cup time next summer, there will be A LOT of folks in this country (and not just foreigners and ex-pats) who think soccer is very exciting.

Quaker is right. His is a more accurate way to view the situation. American networks have no vested interest in increasing the popularity of soccer. They're not on a mission to do so. They're on a mission to make money and please advertisers. They wouldn't increase their coverage if the audience wasn't already there. This is not a "chicken or the egg" situation. The fan base comes first and the increased coverage follows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Minor lol what are you an idiot?

Compared to WC? Yes. See the IOC executives crying because the WC would affect their event. You're are from Canada so your insult doesn't surprise me that much. And people say I'm too aggressive here. If I reported all the insults ignorant users threw at me, you'd be all banned.

But I don't like to resort to undemocratic solutions. I'll respect your right to lack proper manners, Mr. Intoronto.

If you read the technical report you will see that the England bid was stronger than Russia. The Executive Committee ignored the reports.

Chicago was also much stronger than Rio, if you read the technical report you'd know. rolleyes emoticon.gif

Technical reports means very little nowadays.

BTW, Mayne-Nicholls, despite having an Anglo-surname, is actually a Chilean citizen. ;)

WTF is Mayne-Nicholls? I meant the newspaper. The royal press still crying.

Too much money rides on those TV contracts. Fox is one of the most powerful media outlets in the world. FIFA will have to compensate them somehow. And what about the EPL. It's arguably the top league with the top players. FIFA cannot mandate those clubs to release their players for the WC if they refuse to alter their schedules.

They absolutely can.

Now about the NFL: I don't think fox would lose much in the ratings. Anyways, if the contract says nothing about the date where the WC should take place (and I doubt FIFA would allow this) then they can only cry.

What a FIFA decision about the under-17 World Cup tells us – and reminds us

FIFA’s Under-17 World Cup, featuring a bunch of future pros and about to start this week in United Arab Emirates, has concluded that the best way to make sure stadiums are not empty is to simply give the tickets away.

FIFA announced today that all remaining tickets can be had at no cost.

There may be an important lesson here. There is but one reason an organization chooses to give away seats: the things simply are not selling.

That could be a reminder of FIFA’s enormous risk in putting a World Cup in Qatar (in 2022, that is). In case you haven’t heard, that’s been a bit of a mess. Soccer just may not be popular enough in that part of the world. (UAE sits just across the Persian Gulf from Qatar.)

Or is the lesson something different? Is this just a reminder of something we already know, that big-time sports live and die in many ways on stars.

The FIFA under-17 World Cup will include plenty of future stars – but they aren’t stars yet. Drop a tournament with a bunch of unrecognizable names into pretty much any land, and this is what you are likely to get, a tough sale.

Source

What a stupid writer. Is he seriously comparing a fucking kids tournament to the greatest sportive event on the World? lol.

U17 tournaments always have empty seats. It's an amateur tournament that only hardcore fans care, and most hardcore fans are only hardcore about their clubs, not NTs. So tickets are usually worth very little or just given for free.

btw, I think I just met Captain Obvious:

"The FIFA under-17 World Cup will include plenty of future stars – but they aren’t stars yet. Drop a tournament with a bunch of unrecognizable names into pretty much any land, and this is what you are likely to get, a tough sale."

OH REALLY????? Oh really? OMG! What the **** is his point? If he knows a kids tournament is a tough sale, then why is he bringing this up as an argument against the Arab WC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expanding on my point, I may sound like an idiot, but it's an honest question. I don't think Americans truly appreciate the excitement of the sport that people in Europe and other parts of the world do, and are just watching the games because the US is playing. This is discounting American citizens who have may have immigrated from or have relatives from a soccer-mad country, and counting only the casual fans who are a crucial demographic in coverage of both the World Cup and the Olympics.

How many millions of people are you discounting? Do you realize that you're discounting an US population that would bigger than the majority of the countries in the World?

How about the womans? They are more than 50% of the country, aren't they? Millions of girls love the real football in the US.

Btw, the ENgland vs. USA game on the last World Cup drew much better rantings than the Stanley Cup finals average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many millions of people are you discounting? Do you realize that you're discounting an US population that would bigger than the majority of the countries in the World?

How about the womans? They are more than 50% of the country, aren't they? Millions of girls love the real football in the US.

Btw, the ENgland vs. USA game on the last World Cup drew much better rantings than the Stanley Cup finals average.

Fair enough, you found a hole in my argument

But about your Stanley Cup Finals comparison, that is simply evidence of my point that people are drawn to a game that features the United States. I would like to see ratings compared to the Slovenia- Algeria match for example.

The NHL is also a weak target to attack mrcatra. Everyone knows hockey is far and away the least popular of the four major professional sports in most of the United States, so it isn't much of a surprise that a game featuring the United States rates higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that is simply evidence of my point that people are drawn to a game that features the United States. I would like to see ratings compared to the Slovenia- Algeria match for example.

If you can find the gate attendance stats for such games (i.e, the more minor countries who played) in the 1994 World Cup in the US, I think those figures would significantly match the TV market share of the same games on US TV vs. the Team USA games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now about the NFL: I don't think fox would lose much in the ratings. Anyways, if the contract says nothing about the date where the WC should take place (and I doubt FIFA would allow this) then they can only cry.

MrCatra, let's make a deal here.. us North Americans won't claim to know how much people care about soccer in the rest of the world if you let us be the experts on what will happen with television ratings here.

If the World Cup is held late in the year (i.e. November-December), Fox is going to lose out big time. That's pretty much a guarantee. You put World Cup games up against full Saturdays and Sundays of football (not to mention all the other sports going on then.. hockey, basketball, college basketball all in full swing then) and it's going to buried. As for the contract.. not sure if Fox was smart enough to put in any provisions for when the World Cup is held, but considering that happened with the host country bids, I have to imagine Fox has some language in their contracts about it. Even if it doesn't, I'm sure there were some technical details such as how many hours of coverage there would be, how many games would be on free-to-air television as opposed to cable networks. To clash with NFL and college football means that Fox is no longer able to fulfill their end of the contract. At that point, FIFA would almost be better served to re-open the bidding for that TV contract and there's no way they'd get as much money for a November-December World Cup as they would for one during the summer where there's much less going on in the sports world in the United States and big event programming is much more valuable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...