• 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

SBD: NBCU Favorite to Win U.S. Rights to EPL, starting in 2013-14

umfan said:
What's EPL? Upon hearing what it is, almost all of them will decide they don't care.
Click to expand...

Yep, that was me. It mattters not to most of the nation where, or even if, this airs. For the die hard fans, I presume they'll find a way to watch their soccer matches.
Click to expand...

It is already possible to watch soccer matches online from anywhere in the world free of charge. The quality of the broadcast varies a lot and, of course, each broadcast tends to be in the language of the host but if you are a diehard soccer fan you can watch 24X7 and then some.

Baseball has already fallen out of favor with most Americans and remains a big deal only in some big cities having teams. The recent World Series, which used to consume the entire nation, was beaten out by sitcoms which could have been watched any time.

Soccer is perhaps the ideal kids game but once reaching the professional level (or even at the high school level) it is a dull, repetitive defensive contest. Not the sort of game that will win converts. Four of my five kids played soccer through their mid-teen years and not one of them cares enough to watch a match today. Soccer will eventually grow in viewership, particularly among Latinos, but it will be a very long time before it ever approaches more than a niche audience.

My .02. YMMV
 
I don't think the comparision to tennis or golf is fair. Yes, these sports have limited audiences, but they are higher income audiences. Where is the research that says soccer audiences are high income?

As one poster pointed out, most of the increase in soccer support within the US has come from people who migrated here from Mexico and Central America where soccer is a much bigger draw. Generally, migrant populations aren't higher income.

It may make sense in a generation or two when these populations have assimilated and are average or high income, but as of now, the allure of soccer remains very limited in this country.
 
Mitchell H said:
An excellent summary of the Premier League deal with NBCSports, and its context within the TV sports world, from Awful Announcing:

http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2012...remier-league-rights-beginning-next-year.html

As it makes clear, the EPL is "America's soccer league of choice," and the ramifications for ESPN and FSN, as well as NBCSN, will be quite interesting to follow.
Click to expand...

I saw an awful lot of fluff in that linked article. To claim that EPL is "America's choice" seems a lot like the old Dallas Cowboy's claim to being "America's team" and we all know how that turned out. I am not Latino but I live in a huge Latino geography and can tell you those fans turn out by the hundreds of thousands for Mexican teams but much less so for the MLS teams without Latino stars.

Americans, in general, don't give a whit about European sports. This is shown in spades every Olympics. Sure, there are always a little niche audience for cycling, F1, motocross, soccer and rugby but it is just that, a niche. With Lance Armstrong gone cycling will fall through the floor. F1 is not shown live because of the time differences and will always command a small audience because of that and also because it is not the most exciting form of racing. Motocross, rally, rugby - none are more than an occasional Saturday afternoon syndicated form of entertainment. EPL is a league with several outstanding teams and the rest fillers - much like a NASCAR field. The best teams will draw viewers and the rest won't but the best numbers will still be very small. How NBC justified over $200M to carry the EPL is astounding but is probably more of a reflection on their continuing desperation to find programming that will work. There is a reason NBC is a bottom-dweller.
 
Like anyone is really Jonesin' for that exciting Man U vs Arsenal match ::)
 
$83M a year seems an absurd amount for this programming. I thought Comcast was imposing fiscal discipline on NBC.

A better approach would have been, IMO, in highlighting the MLS games they already have rights to.
 
tested said:
Hate to burst your bubble.. but I suspect 90% or more of the American sports audience will ask a simple question when they see a headline like this: What's EPL? Upon hearing what it is, almost all of them will decide they don't care.

Just being realistic. Soccer is not a ratings draw in this country unless team USA is involved or it's on a spanish-language network.
There is a small but VERY vocal group that love soccer who will find this deal to be a VERY big deal. Perhaps that small group's vocal support and willingness to do extraordinary things to see the sport will be enough to make such a deal worth NBCU's money. I just don't think that's likely.
Click to expand...

Bingo. I have no clue what an EPL is. Now that I know, I'm even less interested.

Soccer + America = zzzzzzz.

G
 
EPL has a big following in the Northeast and Chicago - but I agree $83M is way too much - EXCEPT NBC will try to get their rate with MSO's higher.

I was in London last weekend working Pats-Rams and honestly the only people who cared about the NFL in the UK were in the stadium.

I really thought NBC would make a run at MLB but they were not interested. FOX and ESPN were blindsided by the NBC bid and walked away. FOX does have the World Cup starting in 2018 and 2022.

NBC will use this to pimp the price to MSO's along with Olympics coverage. That is how they will make the 83M back.



umfan said:
$83M a year seems an absurd amount for this programming. I thought Comcast was imposing fiscal discipline on NBC.

A better approach would have been, IMO, in highlighting the MLS games they already have rights to.
Click to expand...
 
Fenway1912 said:
NBC will use this to pimp the price to MSO's along with Olympics coverage. That is how they will make the 83M back.
Click to expand...

NBCSN needs to get on cable systems first. My cable company offers NBCSN on its very highest tier, costing an extra $30 per month.

NBCSN and CBSSN will never be viable competitors to ESPN if they aren't on the same cable tier.
 
I saw today, November 4th that DirecTV has moved NBCSN from Channel 603 in the sports lineup to Channel 220, near ESPN's channels and all the Major League channels (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, Golf, and Tennis).
 
Not to beat a dead horse on the topic, but here's some added information on NBC's plans for the EPL (or BPL - Barclays Premier League - if you prefer):

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/...-English-Premier-League-broadcast-rights.html

As far as planned coverage, I think the salient points, including plans for games on the over-the-air network itself:

"Miller confirmed what NBC chairman Mark Lazarus told Sports Illustrated's Richard Deitsch on Sunday: that approximately 18 to 20 games will be shown on NBC's over-the-air network. Miller also said that "the bulk of" the games will be on the NBC Sports Network.

"NBC has not yet determined how it will distribute games not televised on a given matchday. Miller would only say that "there will be a package that will be put out there so that Premier League fans will be able to see those games," and "nothing will be on tape." "

While it is true that the EPL's average TV ratings in this country are nothing compared to other major sports, I think it' s a mistake to underestimate the number of followers the league has. Now, as to whether or not it will justify the price NBC paid, that story has yet to be told.
 
Mitchell H said:
While it is true that the EPL's average TV ratings in this country are nothing compared to other major sports, I think it' s a mistake to underestimate the number of followers the league has. Now, as to whether or not it will justify the price NBC paid, that story has yet to be told.
Click to expand...

Back when my boys were youngsters (early 80's) I functioned as a soccer dad, coach and official. We heard, almost constantly, about the coming popularity of soccer and how in the near future it will overtake other major sports in this country.

Bull!

Although soccer has seen a renaissance in youth programs up to and including high schools it remains a virtual non-entity at the college and professional levels. And there is a reason. As skill levels and strength of players (and yes, including females) increases it becomes a defensive game. The ball is kicked back and forth with the occasional sprint (dribble) by one side or the other and unless one player fouls another there is no break in this action. A few times per game, if you are lucky, one side will manage to put the small ball into a huge net past a goalkeeper who flails away in huge leaping gestures and the announcer will shatter his tonsils out of sheer surprise.

Back when hockey was first being introduced to the American TV audience outside the realms of the Original Six teams one of the biggest complaints was the low scoring (in comparison to basketball, baseball and football). 1-0 games were common and Americans wanted to see more offensive scoring. With the merger of the WHA and NHL a bunch of fleet-footed offensive skaters came into the league and suddenly the game took off.

But soccer is not hockey. The "laws" (yes, laws, not rules) of the game are very difficult to change with all the international bodies that must approve. Because soccer is already the world's most popular team sport it is unlikely they see a problem. If the USA doesn't fawn at the soccer alter so what? There are literally tens of thousands of other places where it is unchallenged. And the American TV market is crowded with other, vastly more popular sports - in this country at least.

Unless and until the Latino hordes who have immigrated into the USA recently give American soccer the support it needs the game will go nowhere. Even though a huge number of American kids played soccer as children they do not follow it in adulthood. To play soccer is one thing. To watch it, even at its highest skill levels, is boring. It's just the way the game is played.
 
landtuna said:
Back when my boys were youngsters (early 80's) I functioned as a soccer dad, coach and official. We heard, almost constantly, about the coming popularity of soccer and how in the near future it will overtake other major sports in this country.

Bull!

Although soccer has seen a renaissance in youth programs up to and including high schools it remains a virtual non-entity at the college and professional levels. And there is a reason. As skill levels and strength of players (and yes, including females) increases it becomes a defensive game. The ball is kicked back and forth with the occasional sprint (dribble) by one side or the other and unless one player fouls another there is no break in this action. A few times per game, if you are lucky, one side will manage to put the small ball into a huge net past a goalkeeper who flails away in huge leaping gestures and the announcer will shatter his tonsils out of sheer surprise.

Back when hockey was first being introduced to the American TV audience outside the realms of the Original Six teams one of the biggest complaints was the low scoring (in comparison to basketball, baseball and football). 1-0 games were common and Americans wanted to see more offensive scoring. With the merger of the WHA and NHL a bunch of fleet-footed offensive skaters came into the league and suddenly the game took off.

But soccer is not hockey. The "laws" (yes, laws, not rules) of the game are very difficult to change with all the international bodies that must approve. Because soccer is already the world's most popular team sport it is unlikely they see a problem. If the USA doesn't fawn at the soccer alter so what? There are literally tens of thousands of other places where it is unchallenged. And the American TV market is crowded with other, vastly more popular sports - in this country at least.

Unless and until the Latino hordes who have immigrated into the USA recently give American soccer the support it needs the game will go nowhere. Even though a huge number of American kids played soccer as children they do not follow it in adulthood. To play soccer is one thing. To watch it, even at its highest skill levels, is boring. It's just the way the game is played.
Click to expand...

Let's note one thing: with the great exception of the women, the US hasn't been good at soccer. Only because of their being in one of the weakest confederations (CONCACAF) they've only started qualifying to every World Cup since 1990. However, to play "association football" requires not relying solely on physical strength. That also is one of the problems with the English variety. Other countries like Spain, Argentina, Brazil and Portugal have developed their brand of "jogo bonito", which is a more attractive style for the audience's perspective. OTOH, the US youth system, for years, adopted the English style, along with a "win now" mentality that plagues the youth game even today. To develop that smooth touch, that great perception, that uncanny ability to break down defenses, that the likes of Messi, C.Ronaldo, Radomir Falcao and Gonzalo Higuain have requires years of quality youth training, teaching and dedication, helped by a given culture of passion for the game. "Soccer" here is merely more of a pastime for middle class parents (the stereotype of the soccer mom) who have disposable income to pay for kids' soccer practices. But it's one thing to play "soccer" but another thing to play "association football". The two may be the same on first view but, on close inspection, are very different. 8)

I will agree with you that this notion that it'd replace one of the established sports here is purely overblown. However, it has its place (despite what haters would say otherwise) in this country. All I can ever ask for is a little respect.
 
Rebecca Lowe Hired As Studio Host

ESPN reporter-presenter Rebecca Lowe "has landed a big broadcasting job in America as the lead host of NBC's coverage of the Premier League," according to Charles Sale of the London DAILY MAIL. Lowe is going to be based at NBC's new headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut "where she will anchor five live games over a Premier League weekend." The highly-rated Lowe is understood to have had more than one offer from the U.S., with ESPN "having been keen to retain her services." Lowe's three-year contract "covers the length of their rights agreement"
Click to expand...

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Global/Issues/2013/03/27/Media/Lowe.aspx

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mo...alipari-tv-analysts-epl-nbc-sports/index.html

http://fangsbites.com/2013/03/nbc-taps-the-uks-rebecca-lowe-as-english-premier-league-host/
 
Fenway1912 said:
I was in London last weekend working Pats-Rams and honestly the only people who cared about the NFL in the UK were in the stadium.
Click to expand...

I began traveling to the UK in the mid-80's and noticed that the only NFL programming anywhere was 30 minutes of highlights late on Sunday evening.

Flash forward to much more recently and you can find live NFL games on TV in a variety of locations (not only the NFL). And, of course, there is an "American Football League" on the continent playing by NFL rules as well.

I have no access to the TV numbers for this programming but it is clear from the general publicity/coverage and the airing of games in pubs that American football does have a substantial following although it pales by comparison to traditional English sports.
 
Nate Wesley said:
stationless listener said:
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Closing-Bell/2012/10/26/EPL.aspx

Sources say NBC's bid would pay the EPL around $83M per year, an amount that would more than triple the $23M per year that Fox currently pays. Sources say Fox and ESPN have been told that their joint bid was not accepted. It is not clear if the Al Jazeera network, BeIN Sport, still is in the running. The emergence of NBC Universal as the clear front-runner in this bidding process comes as a surprise. In the weeks leading up to the bidding process, NBC sources downplayed the company's interest.
Click to expand...

Big, huge news if this thing goes as expected. This also coming at the heels of the Big East's decision not to accept a deal with ESpiN during its exclusive negotiating window with them and go to the open market starting next month.

All of a sudden, with the Formula 1 deal, the possible move of the Dan Patrick Show to NBCSN starting next week, the EPL and possibly some part of the Big East deal going ahead, some day we may no longer view NBCSN as a complete joke of a sports network. Don't get me wrong, with all those things they still have a way to go to threaten ESpiN's dominance but once other sports leagues see that they have other options then things will get more interesting. And this is what ESpiN is deathly afraid of. :)

One organization that should be watching closely is MLS. If Fox Soccer loses the EPL long-term then Fox will be forced to compete for properties that they may not have shown interest in before, like the Big East and MLS. Fox Soccer might get re-branded but "Fox Sports One" will still need content to fill out hours in certain months and this is where college basketball and domestic soccer could help out.
Click to expand...

So which Big East team do you root for, and how long have you been a poster at BigEastBBS? ;)
Click to expand...

The 'new' Big East is going to be a pretty good basketball league. You will have Georgetown, Marquette, and Villanova which were in the NCAA Tournament this year plus newcomers Creighton and Butler were also in this year. Xavier is a pretty good program as well. Providence was in the NIT. They won't be as good as the 'current' Big East... I am going to miss the Syracuse/Georgetown rivalry. But this will still be a pretty good league and not a bad pickup for NBCSN.
 
I believe the AAC remains a BCS Conference this season. That makes this a good deal for ESPN at least for this year.

Unknown how this conference figures into the 'College Football Playoff' that starts after 2014.

The AAC should retain some decent bowl alliances, and are in some major media markets, so ESPN will clean up on this deal.

As usual.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom