Too little, too late. I know I'm in the minority but I like JP and I also think Kyle Martino is a really good analyst. Waldo in the booth is gold and while I tire of Sullivan's schtick with the goofy pronounciations and all the factual errors, I think he makes good observations about the game and balances Waldo well. I also like Brian Dunseth as a sideline guy (and as an analyst). But for too long they subjected us to such crap. First there was taking over the local leauge feeds and not sending a crew to the stadium, then it was crappy overall production and then forcing clowns like Kneepads Miles on us and just a general bush-league feel to the production for many, many years. I agree that this year they've taken some major steps forward. But given all the resources that Fox Sports has and never used on FSC, it's always been disapointing how bad the FSC productions have been. For a while we put up with it because it was better than nothing but MLS has matured past the better than nothing stage but FSC didn't grow enough to keep up. I hope NBC hires some of FSC's better soccer talent. But I also look forward to the major upgrades in production quality and leaving a lot of the bush-leagueisms of FSC's productions behind.
I wonder when we'll hear the $$$ behind this? And before anyone says anything - the CBA is still in effect, so don't expect big salary budget changes. Maybe a bigger SUM payment to owners and DP slots, but not a change to the budget.
This is interesting: Garber added: “The key thing for us relates to 2014, this three-year deal allows us to align all our TV relationships to end concurrently at end of ‘14 season and provides us with a potential opportunity to have more exclusive relationship with a broadcaster. Way to early what plans will be three years from now.” http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/m-l-s-and-nbc-sports-announce-new-tv-deal/
Based on what we know now, this sounds like it will be a good deal for MLS. But I wonder what it means for FSC. They don't have MLS; they don't have the U.S. national team; they don't have the World Cup and they now have competition from ESPN for Premier League broadcasts. Are three or four live games a week between the Premier League, the Champions League and England national team games really enough to support an entire channel? There are already plenty of days when FSC shows no live soccer at all; taking away 35 games a year during the European offseason isn't going to help that any.
More WPS and USL games? They also could go for NASL. I know ESPN Deportes shows some German league games, I wonder if FSC could go after that league, many Americans play in Germany. Good point
Just a reminder that FSC still has the CONCACAF games, so if you want to watch those on the TV, you'll need to retain FSC..
This is why the existence of Fox Soccer Plus always left me a bit baffled. Why the need for a second all soccer channel when they still have plenty of time to show soccer on the first?
And the FSC deal was supposed to be around $6-7 million, right? Upward! This news is just simply great, plus that added quote from Garber about working this so it coincides with the completion of the ESPN deal shows that the league could be a good posion in 2014 to make some really good money.
With all their TV contracts expiring after 2014, I would imagine MLS would be in a good position to get more lucrative contracts then, assuming that things go well on NBC Sports.
Seriously. Someone's always going to complain, I guess. If you're interested in broadcasts becoming more widely available and viewed, you're going to have to put up with some popularization, esp. the failures. (Like Michael Strahan's bit on football vs futbol before the Champions' League final.) It's a sign you've made it. Even MLB fans have had to put up with scooter the talking baseball.