Info about the 2010/2014 World Cup TV rights

[wufc]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2005-10-25-hiestand-nba_x.htm

Going from $0 to over $50 million with 3 major competitors vying for the WC must be a good sign.

[Pablo Chicago]

The requested document was not found.

[wufc]

The requested document was not found.
Fixed

[joebloe888]

First of all, going from $40 million to $50 million (not zero to $50 million) for a package of 2 Men's World Cups (assuming that the 2003 Women's World Cup TV rights were worth very little if anything) isn't that big a jump when you factor in inflation.

Second of all, I wonder who will be willing to pay a big rights fee for English-language US TV rights to MLS on a stand-alone basis.

Nothing has really changed with regards to US English-language national TV for MLS, whose ratings have been stuck at around 0.20%, or 200000 households, for the past 4 years.

The "Freddy Adu" effect from 2004, which gave MLS a slight ratings bump on ESPN2, is gone in 2005.

--

The only thing that has changed: more sports channels are now in business, forcing the networks to scrape the bottom of the barrel for ratings.

0.20%, which would have been bad for ESPN2 a few years ago, is now considered acceptable outside prime time. Many of the new "entertainment" products that air on ESPN2, namely ESPN Hollywood, Quite Frankly with Stephen A. Smith (airing at 6:30-7:30pm ET no less), and Cold Pizza, are all stuck in the 0.15%-0.25% ratings range.

With poker TV ratings fading and fading FAST (down about 15% across the board in 2005 compared to 2004), ESPN has to find something else that will stick.

One can also argue that FOX Soccer Channel needs to have MLS during the summer months so that it doesn't fall completely off the radar now that GolTV exists as a competitor.

--

The World Cup US English-language TV rights bids from Disney (ESPN/ABC) and NewsCorp (the various FOX outfits) make some sense.

The bid for US English-language TV rights from NBC Universal doesn't smell right unless NBC U also wants Spanish-language US TV rights for Telemundo.

The World Cup on USA Network? CNBC? MSNBC? Bravo? I just can't see that happening.

[Pablo Chicago]

$50 million for the 2010 WC is a bargain considering Univision paid $150 million for the 2006 WC.

Which makes me curious. Does anyone know what networks in other countries are paying for 2006 WC rights?

[wufc]

First of all, going from $40 million to $50 million (not zero to $50 million) for a package of 2 Men's World Cups (assuming that the 2003 Women's World Cup TV rights were worth very little if anything) isn't that big a jump when you factor in inflation.
You got some good points, but ABC/ESPN didn't pay anything for the 02/06 packages, MLS just bought it and gave it to them for free. Now the networks are willing to actually pay for it.

[dmike]

Second of all, I wonder who will be willing to pay a big rights fee for English-language US TV rights to MLS on a stand-alone basis.


What im wondering is how MLS went from paying $40 million for this same rights to all of a sudden shifting to getting PAYED for this rights. Its a role reversal which is really confusing me. Someone break down what's going on???

[joebloe888]

$50 million for the 2010 WC is a bargain considering Univision paid $150 million for the 2006 WC.


Univision paid $150 million for US Spanish-language rights to a package of the 2002 and 2006 WC, the 2003 WWC, Confed Cups, U-17s, and WYCs (U-20s). $50 million was allocated for the 2002 WC and $95 million was allocated for the 2006 WC, with the leftover $5 million spread around the other events.

Even though Univision made some money on the 2002 WC on a stand-alone basis, it either broke even or it actually lost money (depending on which accounting method you use) when the "opportunity cost" of lost revenue due to pre-emption of highly-profitable late night and early morning news programming was taken into account.

Univision should be able to make money with the 2006 WC, assuming that the production and transmission budget will be on the order of $10 million. 8 national sponsorships at around $10 million each, plus another $25-30 million in local advertising revenue from Univision owned-and-operated stations, will pay all the bills. The "opportunity cost" due to program pre-emptions in 2006 won't be as high compared to 2002 because the programming to be pre-empted will be mid-afternoon talk shows and B-grade novelas rather than news programming.

[joebloe888]

What im wondering is how MLS went from paying $40 million for this same rights to all of a sudden shifting to getting PAYED for this rights. Its a role reversal which is really confusing me. Someone break down what's going on???

MLS paid $40 million for the 2002 and 2006 WC rights in English because 1) NO US TV network wanted them after the 1998 USMNT fiasco and 2) because the only way MLS was able to get TV time on ESPN2 starting with the 2002 season was to bundle MLS with the WCs.

Now that SUM/MLS believes that MLS will be able to get a rights fee for English-language TV rights to MLS (even though ratings for MLS have been stagnant for 5 years, MLS TV rights are now worth something because there are too many sports channels chasing too few products that can deliver 100000 males ages 18-35), SUM/MLS no longer has any need for the US English-language TV rights to the WCs.

That opens the door for the networks to bid for the US English-language TV rights to the WCs on a stand-alone basis.

[dmike]

MLS paid $40 million for the 2002 and 2006 WC rights in English because 1) NO US TV network wanted them after the 1998 USMNT fiasco and 2) because the only way MLS was able to get TV time on ESPN2 starting with the 2002 season was to bundle MLS with the WCs.

Now that SUM/MLS believes that MLS will be able to get a rights fee for English-language TV rights to MLS (even though ratings for MLS have been stagnant for 5 years, MLS TV rights are now worth something because there are too many sports channels chasing too few products that can deliver 100000 males ages 18-35), SUM/MLS no longer has any need for the US English-language TV rights to the WCs.

That opens the door for the networks to bid for the US English-language TV rights to the WCs on a stand-alone basis.

Ya but 18-35 males??? since when does MLS market to this demographic??
Unless the MLS is about to shift their marketing and rework the league to attract new fans. I still don't see how any network would want to pony up cash.


That opens the door for the networks to bid for the US English-language TV rights to the WCs on a stand-alone basis.

See you just confused me more. What I understand from what you just wrote is ESPN/FOX can now bid on just the WC leaving the MLS aside. Unless the MLS ALREADY has those WC rights and ESPN/FOX will bid for them and pay MLS this time. right??

[szazzy]

One would have to think that whoever buys it will advertise it more than what is currently happening, for the sole fact that they have something of their own invested in it.

[texgator]

One would have to think that whoever buys it will advertise it more than what is currently happening, for the sole fact that they have something of their own invested in it.
Are you referring to MLS or the World Cup? I assume you mean MLS coverage. They will only advertise as much as they would for any property that gets them 100,000 18-34 yr old males (if that's what MLS gets, I'm trusting Oliver's numbers on this), which isn't all that much. But, yes, there might be some more promotion then they've been getting from ESPN.

[szazzy]

Are you referring to MLS or the World Cup? I assume you mean MLS coverage. They will only advertise as much as they would for any property that gets them 100,000 18-34 yr old males (if that's what MLS gets, I'm trusting Oliver's numbers on this), which isn't all that much. But, yes, there might be some more promotion then they've been getting from ESPN.

I was actually referring to the World Cup. It's been advertised in the past, but holds nowhere near the event status it should yet. The same holds true for MLS, but I'm guessing the the World Cup has the potential to get Olympic-style coverage within the next 2 to 3 Cups.

[texgator]

I was actually referring to the World Cup. It's been advertised in the past, but holds nowhere near the event status it should yet. The same holds true for MLS, but I'm guessing the the World Cup has the potential to get Olympic-style coverage within the next 2 to 3 Cups.
Again, it will recieve the promotion it deserves based on ratings. If it continues to garner 1% of viewers then it will only receive that much promotion. Promotion costs money, you could argue that having to pay $50 million will sap away much of the promotion budget since the ratings probably won't be all that much better than 2002 or 1998.

[szazzy]

Again, it will recieve the promotion it deserves based on ratings. If it continues to garner 1% of viewers then it will only receive that much promotion. Promotion costs money, you could argue that having to pay $50 million will sap away much of the promotion budget since the ratings probably won't be all that much better than 2002 or 1998.

Only Lamar Hunt would invest 50 million+ dollars in something, then not advertise it. It might have to be viewed as a loss leader for a network trying to make a move, however, someone will eventually give the World Cup the coverage it deserves.

[texgator]

Only Lamar Hunt would invest 50 million+ dollars in something, then not advertise it. It might have to be viewed as a loss leader for a network trying to make a move, however, someone will eventually give the World Cup the coverage it deserves.
I actually think we already get the coverage. All games will be televised in 2006 on channels that roughly 90% of the US gets in their basic TV package (i.e they don't have to go out and spend extra over their normal monthly bill to get the programming). That's pretty damn good.

[szazzy]

I actually think we already get the coverage. All games will be televised in 2006 on channels that roughly 90% of the US gets in their basic TV package (i.e they don't have to go out and spend extra over their normal monthly bill to get the programming). That's pretty damn good.

It has gotten better, but that doesn't mean we can't aim higher. I still hear more hype about the Ryder Cup than the World Cup. The games being on is great. How they're produced, advertised, the content, all of that means a great deal to selling an event, and the perceived status of that event. Mainly, I'm hoping this '06 World Cup can vaunt at least a few of these American soccer stars like Adu, Donovan, Beasley etc. to be truly mainstream in America, and capable of drawing attention outside of soccer. I think that's the next logical step.

[DAGSports]

What I have doubts about is how MLS is going to get the best deal it can get without also holding the WC rights. Seeing as those are worth up to $50 million right now, it would continue to give MLS and US Soccer better negotiating leverage to get the number of games desired and some of the best unoccupied timeslots.

[geohiller]

The new news here is the contention that MLS will be able to get a rights fee for the next national TV contract! :D

If you look at the previous threads on this topic, the perspective of MLS ratings at 0.2 was always that it wasn't enough to justify any network paying a rights fee to MLS.

Now, however, Oliver is saying that with a more fragmented Sports TV universe, MLS ratings at a consistent 0.2 looks far better, enough even to get serious interest for a rights fee.

As I said, big news! And I have learned to trusts Oliver's instincts on these kinds of issues. Whether you like him or not (and his predictions have often been wrong, whether posting as SoccerTV, daCFO or JoeBlow888), he has unique insights into the Sports TV marketplace.

George

[MasterShake29]

First of all, going from $40 million to $50 million (not zero to $50 million) for a package of 2 Men's World Cups (assuming that the 2003 Women's World Cup TV rights were worth very little if anything) isn't that big a jump when you factor in inflation.

No, that's not a huge jump, but encouraging nonetheless.

However, those rights were packaged with MLS games for a combined zero, right? So in other words MLS games went for -$40 million. Thus, isn't getting any kind of positive rights fee a huge development?