Support NeoGAF

[Squirrel Killer]

Which is why I opened my initial response to you by saying the point isn't that Americans need or want ads but that Broadcast won't push the sport without a more lucrative monetization model.

I find it hard to believe that NBC, which paid $83m/yr for its first EPL deal and is paying $166m/yr in it's current deal after a threatened rival joint bid from ESPN and FOX and airs about a game a week OTA (tune to your local NBC affiliate this Saturday at 10:30a ET for Crystal Palace v. Liverpool,) or Fox, who paid ~$400m for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup US TV rights (and later extended the deal to include 2026 for an unknown amount,) aren't "pushing the sport" and don't have a lucrative monetization model.

 

[Jest Chillin]

I find it hard to believe that NBC, which paid $83m/yr for its first EPL deal and is paying $166m/yr in it's current deal after a threatened rival joint bid from ESPN and FOX and airs about a game a week OTA (tune to your local NBC affiliate this Saturday at 10:30a ET for Crystal Palace v. Liverpool,) or Fox, who paid ~$400m for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup US TV rights (and later extended the deal to include 2026 for an unknown amount,) aren't "pushing the sport" and don't have a lucrative monetization model.

Now you're reaching hard for out of context numbers.

If they were pushing the sport, it wouldn't be on the peripheral. They would run more than one game a week. They would run it at a half decent timeslot (7:30am PST on a Saturday is awful). We've already established (and it's blatantly obvious that) the WC and Olympics are outliers.

Quoting some rights purchase numbers means exactly zero in this conversation. Especially when those games are aired on Cable Nets that aren't going to meaningfully grow the audience.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Now you're reaching hard for out of context numbers.

If they were pushing the sport, it wouldn't be on the peripheral. They would run more than one game a week. They would run it at a half decent timeslot (7:30am PST on a Saturday is awful). We've already established (and it's blatantly obvious that) the WC and Olympics are outliers.

Quoting some rights purchase numbers means exactly zero in this conversation. Especially when those games are aired on Cable Nets that aren't going to meaningfully grow the audience.

"Out of context numbers!?" You said they couldn't monetize soccer, I'm saying hundreds of millions of dollars says that they can.

"On the peripheral!?" 7:30a PT is when EPL games are played at the latest.

"Cable Nets!?" Despite that since you dismissed basic cable as "The Ocho," I've been focusing on OTA distribution? Ok, I get what this is now.

 

[Jest Chillin]

"Out of context numbers!?" You said they couldn't monetize soccer, I'm saying hundreds of millions of dollars says that they can.

"On the peripheral!?" 7:30a PT is when EPL games are played at the latest.

"Cable Nets!?" Despite that since you dismissed basic cable as "The Ocho," I've been focusing on OTA distribution? Ok, I get what this is now.

Paying a ton of money for the rights to air them on Cable Nets, which does not grow the audience meaningfully for reasons I've already stated doesn't represent a push to grow the American audience. And half of the goal there is simply denying competitors the content.

It doesn't matter if it's the latest they play LIVE as a real attempt to grow the audience would be looking to expose the games to a NEW audience that wouldn't realize or care if it was tape delayed.

You can throw whatever cute subtitle on your posts that you'd like. Even with your micro focus on this aspect of the discussion, it's relation to the overall topic means that your position isn't well supported.

Bottom line is that your argument that there are games being aired right now so Networks are monetizing them does not mean that doing so meaningfully grows the US audience nor does it mean that Broadcast networks are making good enough money from it's current monetization format. And all you've done for the past several posts is try to ignore the context of the broader topic in the OP so you can stomp your feet and scream "But it's on tv already so it's fine"

 

[allan-bh]

MLS has potential because of immigrants (and their american sons). I can't see the average american enjoying soccer, simply doesn't fit in the sports culture of the country.

It's like NASCAR with oval races of hundreds of laps. Americans love it, most people outside of U.S. find extremely boring.

 

[Seraph_Nicholas]

The Sounders are crazy popular around here. I see more Sounders gear than Mariners (which, sure, it's the mariners, but still), and quite often I'll see someone wearing a combination of Sounders and Seahawks merch. I think it might be worth investigating how that cross-pollination came to pass, but I suspect the answer is 'Seattle was hungry for a winner for a long time, and then got two for a bit.'

 

[Dartastic]

I really like it when people try and claim that the game is too soft for them. MLS is definitely not that.

https://twitter.com/TotalMLS/status/791832166619615232

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Bottom line is that your argument that there are games being aired right now so Networks are monetizing them does not mean that doing so meaningfully grows the US audience nor does it mean that Broadcast networks are making good enough money from it's current monetization format. And all you've done for the past several posts is try to ignore the context of the broader topic in the OP so you can stomp your feet and scream "But it's on tv already so it's fine"

My argument is not "there are games being aired right now so Networks are monetizing them," my argument is "the hundreds of millions of dollars media conglomerates are willing to spend on soccer per year is prima facie evidence that they have found a monetization scheme."

As for who's position is well supported, all I've done for the past several posts is post things that are actually happening in the real world. All you've done is speculate. You haven't cited anything that supports your position that (as best as I can tell) that the reduced monetization opportunities available in soccer means that the media conglomerates aren't "pushing" soccer (even though they clearly are pushing it, although perhaps not as much as you personally think they should.)

 

[Jest Chillin]

My argument is not "there are games being aired right now so Networks are monetizing them," my argument is "the hundreds of millions of dollars media conglomerates are willing to spend on soccer per year is prima facie evidence that they have found a monetization scheme."

As for who's position is well supported, all I've done for the past several posts is post things that are actually happening in the real world. All you've done is speculate. You haven't cited anything that supports your position that (as best as I can tell) that the reduced monetization opportunities available in soccer means that the media conglomerates aren't "pushing" soccer (even though they clearly are pushing it, although perhaps not as much as you personally think they should.)

The evidence is apparent in the fact that the US doesn't watch or support Soccer anywhere near the level they do other sports except for during the Olympics and the World Cup.

The evidence is apparent in that networks have tried previously to dip their toes in Broadcast coverage of soccer and found it wasn't worth the time slots.

Showing that they're spending a ton of money on rights really doesn't mean anything. Networks and Studios pay out the ear for rights all the time that don't turn out to be fruitful, be it sports leagues or IPs. And it's a fact that cable nets don't reach as many viewers as broadcast does, else major sports wouldn't be clamoring to be aired on broadcast (MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL) when there are so many Sports dedicated channels.