World Cup Rights Won By Fox And Telemundo
by Dave Clark on Oct 21, 2011 8:08 AM PDT
in US National Team, World Cup and Other International Soccer
Email
PrintIn what is a fairly stunning move Fox has won the rights to the English language broadcasts in the USA of all FIFA events from 2015-2022. This will include the signature events of the 2018 World Cup in Russia and the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, as well as the 2015 Women's World Cup in Canada and the 2019 Women's World Cup which has yet to be awarded to a host nation. There are also reports that NBCUniversal's American Spanish platforms headed by Telemundo won the rights for Spanish language coverage within the United States. In both cases this is a shift from the long time holders. ESPN had the English rights, while Univision had Spanish.
NBC recently reached an agreement with MLS for a new three year deal to carry the the League on both over-air and cable. Many had thought this was going to be a bit of leverage towards FIFA and a shot at the World Cup. Instead they will have as their top soccer property for the foreseeable future will be the American league. ESPN has already issued a statement that they remain committed to all of their soccer properties, to include MLS. Both the ESPN and NBC MLS deals run through 2014.
For a network that has subjugated the sport of soccer to one of the deepest of cable options, or tape delay in an era of instant news to win future rights to the World Cup must mean that the contract value was substantial. Fox has recently bumped some of their coverage of the UEFA Champions League to their main network, but the ratings struggled and coverage featured several of their NFL experts attempting to get up to speed. Now, their first major event is 4 years away, so assumptions of how they will cover things are too early.
Signs though are not positive. FoxSoccer routinely calls games from a studio in LA rather than live (see CCL, Serie A, others). Surely, they would not do this for the World Cup, but for the less followed events such as the U-17 and U-20 versions it would seem certain. Their coverage of women's soccer will be a very intriguing event. This is a network that gained initial fame through "Married with Children" and that still routinely uses sex to sell their female contestants on their reality programming. Again, Fox has 4 years to figure out how they are going to do something they have yet to do - treat soccer like a major sport.
The impact this has on coverage of MLS won't be known for years. The domestic league will no longer have a natural connection to World Cup broadcast coverage in English. On ESPN MLS is clearly second or third fiddle among soccer coverage. The dreams of MLS on NBC helping generate higher ratings and greater interest should be unaffected by this change in World Cup coverage for 2018/22. In the short term MLS is on two English language networks that already treat the league better than Fox. In 2015 it is completely unknown who will have the rights. That will be determined by the ratings and TV landscape after MLS is actually available on a broadcast network for a handful of games a year.
Soccer in America's future is not bleaker because of this news. It is merely unknown. With three years remaining on World Cup and MLS rights on more familiar sports properties the near term is fairly bright. What the future holds is just unknowable. Seven years ago did you think you'd be watching the NFLRedZone on your phone?
60 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
DISGRACE!
Rupert Murdoch treats objects like women man!
Jokes aside, I’m really concerned they’ll barely cover the women’s game and the U-20/U-17 tournaments.
--
"You live and learn. At any rate, you live." -Douglas Adams
Managing Editor of Dynamo Theory
Yo si le voy, le voy al naranja!
strahan has a pretty good
“GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLL” ha
"It's magnificent to be in Europe, and this club - a club like Tottenham Hotspur - if we're not in Europe.... we're nothing. We're nothing." - Bill Nicholson
Gah!
I hate Faux everything! I was so hoping for NBC so I wouldn’t have to get cable. Might just have to go to the bar with a radio to watch games and listen to decent announcers. Or start learning Spanish again. This is a sad day for American soccer. :(
If we are trying to be optimistic...
Because FSC is available in fewer homes than Versus, it’s possible that more qualifiers will show up on FOX than would have shown up on NBC. And as far as I can tell, ESPN never put any of the qualifiers on ABC, so there could potentially be more games available over-the-air.
Well they have started using Fx for sports
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Yeah last cycle FX aired some of the UCL knockout stages.
Follow me on twitter@PrixFixeOnline
Staff writer for Managing Madrid
by Timm Higgins on Oct 22, 2011 7:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I dunno...
I don’t see what’s so bad about this. Fox Soccer does their studio stuff from LA? Of course they do. They’re not going to send a studio crew around from Barcelona to Munich to London to Milan every couple weeks. Even ESPN had their central studio in South Africa, and the best part about ESPN is they hired non-ESPN guys (i.e. people who actually knew soccer) to do their coverage. I don’t think we’ll be seeing JP Dellacamera doing the Final just because its on Fox (at least God I hope not). In reality, it’s 5 years until we see what they get a test run with Euro 2016 before WC 2018. They cover soccer better than anyone in the states, I think they’ll get their sh-tuff together.
Fox covers soccer better than ESPN?
Also, Fox doesn’t have the rights to the Euros, ESPN does.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Fox is affiliated with Sky
They could easily use the Sky crews/studio shows. Soccer fans wouldn’t complain. Yet, Fox calls from LA.
by jayw913 on Oct 21, 2011 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree that the future in unknown
But if the past can serve as an indicator then there is reason for optimism with the new MLS/NBC television deal. It wasn’t too many years ago that the NHL received the same kind of second rate status from ESPN that MLS now gets from Fox Soccer (and even ESPN). The NHL television deal with Verses changed all that because the network was willing to make hockey a priorty and promote the league. If NBC/Verses can do for MLS what it did for the NHL then we will have little to worry about.
by Rooselk on Oct 21, 2011 8:55 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
I hate the way that FOX covers baseball
And just in general, I find their sports coverage to be terrible. They change shots every half-second and opt for close-ups at the strangest times. Of course, for the World Cup itself, they won’t be controlling the video feeds, but in all honestly, it seems like any of the bids would cover the World Cup itself in basically the same way. The big difference lies in how they cover the USMNT and the sport in general leading up to the World Cup.
It’s also a big negative for me that their cable affiliate for soccer is only ever available by paying for an additional premium tier of channels. (And they don’t have anything like espn3.com for complimentary internet viewing.) Obviously some of that could change between now and then, but I don’t see FSC making the jump to the standard tier of cable channels any time soon.
Fox does a pretty terrible job on 90% of their programing.
Watching an NFL game on Fox is like having your teeth pulled. They have more comercials, cram more advertising into the broadcasters commentary, and have on the field advertising graphics. Imagine, “This corner kick is brought to you by Tostitos! The best dipping chips around!” They once had their broadcasters doing a book review while a play was happening. Yuck.
by TS6 on Oct 21, 2011 9:19 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Agreed and rec'd, but...
you should see the games in South America. In my country, every corner, free kick, or throw in has the EXACT SAME sponsor thing. For a friendly, it was even pre-recorded, and would go over the commentary. Keeping in mind how many times there’s a throw-in and it goes right back to touch, it was insane. For the world cup qualifiers, the commentators have to say it each time… so every corner is brought to you by Cerveza Cristal (basically the cheap swill), every throw-in by coke (even though I live in the one country where people don’t really drink coke), and I forget who the free kick company was.
You do all the work for us, Honey Badger, and we'll just eat whatever you find.
Whatever the case I'm positive FOX will do an excellent and unFOX like job at covering games being hosted in the former Soviet Union and Middle East.
I mean what could possibly go wrong with their track record.
by Robert on Oct 21, 2011 9:19 AM PDT reply actions 7 recs
I'm going to be cautiously optimistic
I think a big thing that could happen is that by covering such a huge event for a big audience that’s interested, they’ll be forced to step up their game. This could mean much higher quality soccer broadcasts in general from them in the future, not this high school A/V club quality garbage. While it would’ve been nice to have a proven quality provider in ESPN, this could end up being good in the long run.
I remember the uproar when FOX got the rights to broadcast the NFL's NFC games.
They were an upstart 4th network noted for The Simpsons and nothing else. They had nothing in their sports portfolio. All in all, they have been quite innovative and engaging with their broadcasting in the 20 years since.
Seven years is a long time, and I would imagine with the significant investment they’ve made they won’t let it go to waste.
Think of it this way: if MLS/USMNT broadcasting continues to be successful, there may be more competition for rights when they come up again in 2014.
Bloggin' at JoePasDoghouse.com
Fox's innovations have to do with some graphical advancements
While also adding attractive weather women, silly robots and laser noises at every possible moment. I’d take Sunday Night Football over a Fox midday broadcast for any game.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Dave Clark on Oct 21, 2011 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Normally I don't mind quirky things but for some reason the robot really gets at me, I hate that guy
by chrisperry1983 on Oct 21, 2011 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions
I'd take the robots over Lalas.
Bloggin' at JoePasDoghouse.com
by J.Schnauzer on Oct 21, 2011 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Didn't Harkes jump ship to ESPN? I'd take anybody over him. But Lalas is pretty bad.
by chrisperry1983 on Oct 21, 2011 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Harkes is a robot.
Bloggin' at JoePasDoghouse.com
by J.Schnauzer on Oct 21, 2011 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
A robot with a nice haircut.
to be fair
Bloggin' at JoePasDoghouse.com
by J.Schnauzer on Oct 21, 2011 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions
Robots will develop feelings
just so they can hate you for saying this.
by blakec on Oct 21, 2011 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
in the same vein
I speak for the robots and they say
“WE… DO NOT… WANT HIM…. EITHER!!!”
by majora999 on Oct 21, 2011 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
ah man, I like Lalas
And not just because he comes on our show…
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Oct 22, 2011 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Basically FOX does everything it possibly can to keep the game from speaking for itself
by ubelmann on Oct 21, 2011 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is generally true of American sports broadcasts
In addition to all the in-game advertising, production crews create a bunch of pre-packaged graphics and features that they’ve worked on all week. They “sell” them to the producer in-game and are considered to have excelled when their stuff gets on-air. That and American producers/directors are obsessed with reaction shots, so instead of timely replays (if any) we get dramatic closeups.
by lemonverbena on Oct 21, 2011 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
That is true in general
But I believe FOX takes it to an extreme.
Fox does splatter the screen with more garbage, no question
Doing that with soccer would not be progress.
by lemonverbena on Oct 21, 2011 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
on-line availability
my biggest is the online availabillity. For both world cups, and many other international games I’ve been able to watch them at work online…. for free!
Maybe this is leading to a bigger plan for FOX. Unfortunately, everyone who has tried to challenge ESPN has failed. I think they’ll figure it out and learn from previous cups and other sporting events.
Agree
This pretty much sucks! Last night I got home from work at 9pm, turned on my XBox and streamed New York vs. Union via ESPN3.
I practically watched the entire World Cup and all the US Nat friendliest at my convenience.
Fox TV steaming service is a paid subscription with crap service etc..
by fcjake on Oct 21, 2011 2:39 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
ESPN3 also calls most non-EPL matches from the studio
If you see a La Liga match in English on ESPN3, it’s called by the same boring announcer that was on the CONCACAF feed for the match at Monterrey.
Roads, Marty? Where we are going we don't need roads....
I think the tv-internet line is going to be pretty blurry in the next 7-10 years.
Just saying…not flying cars run on banana peels but internet and tv stations are going to be service providers.
Nos audietis in somniis, Nos audietis in altum: You will hear us!
I was kinda thinking the same thing
Especially with new TVs/other equipment being internet capable and supporting ESPN3, Hulu, etc. Heck new TV series are coming out for Hulu/Netflix exclusively now. Pretty cool time to be witnessing this media morph.
by chrisperry1983 on Oct 21, 2011 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions
While that may be true
This was said as early as 1994 btw
The idea that behavior by ESPN on ESPN3 should be emulated by the broadcast network Fox is pretty absurd.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Skeptical...
I don’t know why I feel like this is a loss for soccer in the USA and MLS but I do. I was hoping for an NBC soccer juggernaut for the next eleven years.
On a good note, it seems like this will bring Fox in for bidding on the 2014 MLS packages. Increase the bidding, increase the salary budget.
Sucks
This sucks for three reasons:
One, Fox sucks, we can almost all agree on that. And their treatment of US soccer is insanely bad even for them.
Two, the free feeds we had at ESPN for all the games ? I think you can kiss those good bye.
Unless maybe FIFA is selling those seperate…either way bye,bye.
Three, you had to have hoped the NBC and soccer would grow together. You may not like NBC, but they are big and it isn’t Joe Buck or bad gridiron announcers in games you wish were on another station.
I don’t think, like a guy above, this makes FOX care more about MLS and brings them into the bidding. I really think they continue to try to sell foreign soccer in America. This fits perfectly, because they have a US team even.
by Charles J on Oct 21, 2011 11:49 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Water used to be free, too. You just had to pay for the pipe to the house.
Sound familiar?
Nos audietis in somniis, Nos audietis in altum: You will hear us!
Joe Buck...
is on that list of sports broadcasters where I just sit there and think, “Will you please just shut up already?” His only real qualification is his last name.
My fear with Fox is that, for the same justification ESPN used for having Dave O’Brien on the World Cup, will throw Joe Buck out there as the lead announcer.
You do all the work for us, Honey Badger, and we'll just eat whatever you find.
2018 is a long way away
and if you start classes now you should be fluent enough in Spanish to be able to avoid Fox.
by Patrick N on Oct 21, 2011 12:54 PM PDT reply actions 6 recs
Here's how I pictured the broadcast on FOX
Joe Buck: “And Donovan shoots, he scores. We’ll be right back but first, this word about the upcoming season of X-Factor.”
This is great.
I can’t wait to watch Robot Soccer players walking around during every single TV timeout. I love Robots.
Remember that time Arlo called the Vancouver match on FSC?
Yeah, I’m starting to actually hope he does in fact get taken away from us by Fox.
I know we won’t have too much trouble finding a new local broadcaster, but FOX seems to be incapable of finding good national broadcasters.
I met a possum.
Wait I'm a bit confused...can someone clear this up for me.
Would the World Cup games be on FOX (channel 13), or on FSC (channel whatever)? I’m hoping it’s channel 13 so I dont have to buy FSC.
Likely the early rounds will be on FOX or FX
I don’t think FOX are idiots… at least I hope not…
I met a possum.
by s0merand0mdude on Oct 21, 2011 7:44 PM PDT up reply actions
FOX own Sky Sports which is one of the world's largest broadcasters of soccer.
There aren’t going to be robots or a bunch of other tarting up. These people aren’t idiots. I am not a big fan of NewCorp, but man oh man are they good at knowing their audience. Yeah,, there will probably be some annoying things about their coverage but there are annoying things about everyone’s coverage; I mean holy crap, are we forgetting than John Harkes was ESPN/ABC’s go-to color analyst in 2010?
Deep breaths. It’s going to be fine.
by Aaron Campeau on Oct 21, 2011 10:11 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Fox actually doesn't own sky. They are a major shareholder.
They attempted to completely take over sky but that didn’t go over so well in Britain with the whole stolen voicemail scandal. I’m not sure there is any type of link between the two from a sharing content and production perspective. I’d be surprised if there was.
I don't think they have a clue about their audience.
28 year old male with disposable income and most of the people I associate with fit that same type of profile. I don’t watch very much TV but I do watch alot of sports programing and I can tell you without a doubt that I don’t know anyone who actually enjoys watching games on FOX. They have no respect for the game thats being played. They cram advertising down your throat at every turn. They do it because they know they can get away with it, because no one is going to turn off their favorite team even if they have to deal with the advertising. They have a captive audience. So when the World Cup rolls around and the only place you can watch it is on FOX they again have a captive audience. Their current track record with a captive audience isn’t so great.
Its a long way away and hopefully they will get better, but i’m not holding my breath.
Thanks for the feed info!
At home now, back from the bar. Drinking a glass of Fireball with a Ninkasi Total Domination IPA. Girlfriend on the couch next to me. Saw we went up 1-0 while driving home.
by SoundersForever on Oct 22, 2011 9:02 PM PDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanShots on Sounder At Heart
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
