-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Are the networks showing the soccer World Cup live?
- Thread starter BMR
- Start date
English commentating is tucked behind the paywall that is ESPN but throws ABC a game or two when there are games on Saturdays.
During World Cup local stores with just an OTA t.v. set-up are all tuned to Univision for the matches whether they understand Spanish or not. Univision gets a lot of eyeballs that aren't usually watching them any other time of year because they broadcast World Cup in the clear without the need for cable.
Coverage is about as non-existent as you would think. I mean there are people talking about it but as soon as an NFL story breaks or someone pitches a no-hitter World Cup talk goes to the back page.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Cable is hardly "tucked away". Except for real football, played on a gridiron, most, but not all, national spectator sport coverage is on cable networks. Soccer coverage over here is about the same as soccer interest over here, almost nil. Soccer is one of the most popular participant sports in the US, but that's because if you're on the pitch playing soccer, then you have a good excuse to not have to watch it. American municipal governments love building soccer facilities because they're so economical. You don't have to worry about adding bleachers because no one wants to watch the matches.
Thanks. One more question. How do ABC show the games, as regards fitting in commercial breaks? In the UK, when the commercial channels show a soccer game live, they show each 45 minute half without commercial interuption, then pack as many adverts as they can into half time. Do ABC do the same?
Yes, the presentation on ESPN and ABC is similar to how ITV would present a game. Half time is loaded with commercials, but also includes some analysis originating from a large ESPN studio within the International Broadcast Centre in Rio. Games are never interrupted by commercials while the clock is running.
As to the question in the title of this thread, all World Cup games are aired live in the United States on either ESPN or ABC (English), Univision (Spanish), or ESPN Deportes (normally a Spanish version of ESPN, but for the World Cup, they are broadcasting the games in Portuguese using ESPN Brasil feeds). During the four days of the group stage when two games were played simultaneously, ESPN2 (English) and Galavision and UniMás (Spanish) were used to ensure live coverage of both games in English and Spanish.
This World Cup has generally been getting excellent ratings that have been higher than any previous World Cup. The three group stage games involving the United States all got over 10 million viewers on ESPN alone. That's quite remarkable considering that two of the games aired on a weekday prior to prime time. Here's a link to a page of TVbytheNumbers articles regarding World Cup ratings.
Last edited:
For another look at how soccer is perceived (somewhat tongue in cheek) see Ann Coulter's column here: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-06-25.html
I'm sorry, that is just utter tripe. I didn't come here to start a soccer vs football debate- I actually quite enjoy watching what we call 'gridiron' or 'American' football, when the time difference doesn't get in the way. And I'm not as soccer mad as some Brits either. But to say "Individual achievement is not a big factor in soccer." is just crazy. Never heard of Pele?
I could go on to refute each of the other points in that article. But it's a lovely day in central England, and my mountain bike is calling.......
Does "utter tripe" in Britspeak mean total lack of sense of humor? Perhaps you do not realize who the author is (a blithering conservative idiot is the description most would give her) and the blog was supposed to be satirical. Most people reading it on this side of the pond thought it was hilarious. You see, every time the World Cup rolls around we in America get bombarded by the very few who think we should subscribe to soccer as our national sport too. Each year the promises of impending popularity are made and each year the popularity dwindles, except for soccer parents and their offspring. In America, soccer has always been a kids game (and a good one) and except for our 12-or-so million Latino immigrants, it will remain so.
BTW, my oldest son played on an elite soccer team about 18 years ago that was trained by one of Pele's ex-teammates so I do indeed know who Pele was.
Sorry, my fault. "utter tripe" means "utter rubbish" or "utter nonsense". I forgot it was a UK only expression. We would also use "utter tosh" and "utter codswallop" to mean similar. I think she's talking crap, basically.
Was I suggesting that? No. I was merely asking how much coverage the tournament was getting over there, since the USA are doing quite well. I then went on to ask how the networks were covering the tournament in terms of advertising.
Both perfectly reasonable questions, surely, and in no way suggesting soccer was in anyway superior to gridiron football.
Very true, but soccer is hugely popular on a global scale, and in our increasingly interconnected world, you're certain to hear more and more about the sport in the years ahead:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...ngs-success/hbODgFL5C9ns7VhKFrMwBO/story.html
A few highlights from the article (with my bolding):
"It will be fascinating to discover whether the ratings and viewership for the US-Germany match approaches the record numbers from US-Portugal, which drew a 9.6 household rating (or the percentage of households turned into the match) and averaged 18.22 million viewers on ESPN. It was the most-viewed program — excluding the NFL and college football — in ESPN’s history. And another 6.5 million viewers tuned in on Univision."
"Sports Illustrated media columnist Richard Deitsch suggested that the viewership number for US-Portugal was probably closer to 30 million between ESPN and Univision should all of the out-of-home, probably-bellied-up-to-a-bar viewers somehow be accurately measured."
"The skepticism of the sport tends to skew toward older demographics — the ratings for younger viewers are massive."
Here is the US, ESPN is a very popular cable channel. If you have cable here, you probably have ESPN. Both ESPN and ABC are owned by Disney. If a game is on ABC, it is produced by ESPN and the ESPN bug and graphics are on the screen (with a little ABC) in the corner. It is also being shown live. There is not much of a time difference (at least with the East Coast). Basically, if you want to watch it here, you can't miss it.
I was being sarcastic as well. Having spent a good portion of my working life in the UK I had heard the term before although I have to admit I've yet to hear "codswallop".
And yes, she was "talking crap". That is her specialty but she usually focuses upon politics and not sporting events. Matter of fact, this is the very first writing of hers that actually makes sense to me. Her political lean is just to the right of Adolph Hitler.
There are regions in the US that favor soccer (Midwest around St. Louis for example and Los Angeles and Texas with their huge Latino populations) but overall soccer isn't on the typical American's radar unless their kids play it. I had five kids, 3 boys and 2 girls and all but one girl played it as children. I became involved as a league administrator, referee and finally coach so I am very familiar with the game. None of the kids have any interest in playing or watching any longer and that is pretty typical. At a typical high school football game the stands will be full with students, player's parents and fans. A soccer game will have only the player's parents and a girlfriend or two.
The English-language OTA networks here do not usually televise soccer but there have been one or two games from the World Cup that have made it onto national TV. The games seem to be covered mostly by cable channels. The Spanish-language networks are all over it and cover virtually every game. Fortunately, soccer is a game that can be understood pretty well even though you have no Spanish skills. Obviously the games played by the American team draw the most viewers but I think that is because we just like to see our side win and not because of the game itself. The World Cup could have been a hot dog eating contest and viewers would turn out to chant "USA!"
No offense taken. Although I grew up playing American football and was a fan for a long time my viewing these days is limited to the college game. The professional game is too full of itself to be taken seriously and has many of the same faults of soccer - players feinting injury and gigantic egos.
If you're looking for an analogue to how ESPN acts as the gatekeeper of pay sports, Sky Sports (and particularly the way they surged with Premier League rights in the first half of the 90s) did basically the same thing as ESPN in the late 80s and early 90s.
Except ESPN lost the Premier League -- arguably the league most Americans who follow soccer follow, rather than MLS -- to NBC last year, with both NBC and NBCSN posting more than respectable numbers in their first season. England's FA Cup is Fox property here, and aired on the FoxSports 1 cable channel. So ESPN basically has the World Cup and MLS, period. Not sure who will be carrying Euro '16 here.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
I'm aware of all that. Still, what I said earlier about Americans playing soccer so that they don't have to watch it is pretty much true as of this moment. Things may change, and when they change, they'll be different. But until they become different, they remain the same.
Right, but based on the figures quoted above, a shift in attitudes is already well underway. Otherwise, ESPN wouldn't be enjoying some of its highest ratings in history, with particular success among the younger demographics.
Of course, outside the World Cup, the Hispanic population remains the largest fan base for soccer as a spectator sport, but Latinos are also Americans -- and a rapidly growing segment of the U.S. population at that. (In other words, American sports fans ≠ middle-aged white men.)
So, yes, I would argue that things are already changing. (And for the record, I'm not a soccer fan myself; I almost never watch the sport outside the World Cup.)
Last edited:
Yes they did. And Sky are still doing it to a large extent. Thankfully certain events are protected for Free to Air TV by law- including the Soccer World Cup. I think there would be an outcry here if Sky Sports were allowed to have the rights to the World Cup.
Right, time to switch off the PC and switch on the telly and see how good the USA really are.
- Status