ABC and the USSF split ways (reportedly)

[SoFla Metro]

Originally posted by eric515


We need to find a place that will actually pay us to go on the air, not the other way around...regardless of how little they offer (within reason), because getting paid is always better than having to pay... Unless of course, the network that is paying you reaches 10 million homes and you have the opportunity to pay to get on a network that reaches 150 million homes.

Then I'd pay, but that's just me.

[Red Star]

Originally posted by FootyMundo


I'm not sure I see anyone "pressuring" ABC. ABC apparently doesn't want the product.

I think we may be looking at this from the wrong angle. USSF now has a product that is marginally "hotter" after the WC. USSF wants better terms from the broadcaster. ABC (possibly due to the lack of meaningful games in the immediate future) doesn't want to change the relationship, hence a split. USSF can test the market, ABC will watching to see if they can swoop in later on their own terms. Viewed from this perspective it is step one to a bidding war for the rights to USMNT broadcasts. IMHO it would not have to be a good deal to be better than the present one.

[Frank Cunha]

NBC try to get Soccer not to long ago, so don't be surprise if NBC goes after the USA coverage.
United States Soccer Federation most have something under there sleeve.
We know how bad NBC treat the support, boycotting Soccer of the Los Angeles Olympics etc, but they had made inquires lately that they are interested on televising some USA Soccer games.

[Frank Cunha]

ABC always make the same mistake, they help the Olympics grow for decades and then they let NBC come in and take it away.
The last 15 years ABC is been there for Soccer, the good and bad days, and know they will to let somebody come in and take all the work done, don't make sense.

[moreno]

Well with the upcoming summer games on NBC in 2004, it might be good for USSF to go with NBC, we could get some live games instead of the crap we got from Sydney, assuming that is that the US qualifies and that the USSF has any say over the Olympic team at all.

[seahawkdad]

Just because USSF and ABC may not be working together doesn't necessarily mean that MLS isn't still working with them.

After all, it was only back on March 5th that ABC and SUM announced their working relationship:

--With the new agreement, SUM© and ABC/ESPN have formed a unique partnership in the areas of television production and sales. The two groups will work together to produce the MLS and World Cup matches while SUM© will oversee advertising and sponsorship sales for the entire soccer package....

"Soccer has been an important part of ABC Sports' long tradition, so it is gratifying that the next three World Cups and MLS will continue to be an important part of our schedule," said ABC Sports President, Howard Katz. "We look forward to the future with our partners, ESPN and Major League Soccer."

So I'm not sure what exactly has changed from ABC's point of view, unless MLS is now an integral part of the USSF. It's Uncle Phil and SUM who have the rights to the MLS broadcasts and the men's and women's world cups, not USSF.

What ABC doesn't get are other broadcasts of national team games. So, as others have pointed out, those get to be marketed to other outlets.

Anyway, it gets rid of the ability of local ABC affiliates to pre-empt some (but, unfortunately, not all) soccer, doesn't it?

[eric515]

I thought the USSF was the controlling body of MLS?? Or there is at least some connection between the two??

Anyway, obviously, I don't want the USSF to move to the Outdoor Life Network just because they will pay us. But if GE/NBC offer to pay for the games, and maybe even take on an MLS schedule, then see you later. NBC during summer reruns would be ideal for a possible mid-week national game...or maybe even a return of "Monday Night Futbol". :)

MLS and USSF need a network that sees it as an important part of its programming, and will promote it as such, not just as Saturday afternoon pre-SportsCenter fodder!

Plus, this would take at least Jack, if not Ty, out of the loop.

[SoFla Metro]

Originally posted by eric515

MLS and USSF need a network that sees it as an important part of its programming, and will promote it as such, not just as Saturday afternoon pre-SportsCenter fodder!
I'm not sure that network exists at this time.

[chayes]

Originally posted by seahawkdad

So I'm not sure what exactly has changed from ABC's point of view, unless MLS is now an integral part of the USSF. It's Uncle Phil and SUM who have the rights to the MLS broadcasts and the men's and women's world cups, not USSF.



Nothing changed on ABC's point of view. They offered the same deal that they had been working in all along. USSF wanted more.

I think this is more of an issue of USSF looking for a better deal than ABC dropping soccer.
The USSF is coming off a very strong WC with ratings to back up coverage and ABC offers the EXACT SAME DEAL? USSF has every right to bolt and find someone who will pay... Maybe NBC, maybe Fox, who knows...
They've got to strike while the iron is hot and now is no better time.
If all else fails and there are no better deals, they go back to ABC with the same one. Nothing lost, nothing gained.

But the potential for a new deal where a network acutally pays (gasp) for the rights is something the USSF absolutely has to explore now.

Kudos to them!

[monster]

Originally posted by eric515


It doesn't matter anyway, FOX has boreball during the summer on Saturday's. I really don't want to get bumped for it just like we did on ESPN.

I think the USSF, MLS, SUM, etc. should pitch it to NBC, since they have virtually no pro league sports coverage outside of Arena Football. They also have PAX, which already carriers WUSA, and they have MSNBC, CNBC, etc.

I would even suggest AOL/Time Warner...assuming their finances stay stable. Their stable of Networks includes WB Affiliates, the new AOL Sports Network (formerly CNNSI), TNT, TBS, etc.

We need to find a place that will actually pay us to go on the air, not the other way around...regardless of how little they offer (within reason), because getting paid is always better than having to pay...

Dude, NBC has a dearth of sports for a reason. They don't want 'em.

[Damon_D.]

what games does the USSF own the rights to, friendlies and qualifiers right?

So since not all the games are on weekend afternoon, especially the away games, they and we will need a partner with cable channels to show the primetime and late night games (ex: ESPN2 & ESPN for non weekend afternoon games), since I doubt a broadcast network will show a US friendly or qualifier in primetime, or even in the afternoon.

NBC has CNBC and MSNBC, but they're news / financial channels and don't usually show sports except for PGA senior tour and Olympics.

So thats why I think Fox is the best option, hopefully they're interested. Fox has FX, regional Fox Sports Nets, and FSW, in addition to the Fox network for weekend afternoon games. Come on Rupert and David Hill.

AOL Time Warner wouldn't be bad either, although the WB broadcast network doesn't show sports. But TNT or TBS can show all the games if they have the contract.

[cachundo]

Damon, your hunch is correct. IMG/USSF bought time on ABC/ESPN this calendar year to televise 16 men's & women's matches - friendlies for the most part.

Sponsors, TV contracts next on USA's (USSF) agenda (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/cup2002/2002-06-26-usa-next.htm)
by Steve Woodward
USA TODAY (6/26/2002)


Hopefully it's just ABC, not Disney, that will not renew the IMG/USSF time-buy. Hopefully, a time-buy with sister networks ESPN/ESPN2 will happen in 2003.

[eric515]

Originally posted by monster


Dude, NBC has a dearth of sports for a reason. They don't want 'em.

That is where you are wrong...what they don't want is to pay the exorbitant (sp?) amount the leagues are charging. They offered bids for both the NFL and the NBA when their contracts ran out, but they got out bid. They weren't going to get in a bidding war with CBS or Disney. Considering that it is debatable whether or not the other networks even turn a profit off of these absurdly priced packages, I would say it was a good business move.

Now, when they were offered Arena Football, they took it, because it is a relatively inexpensive sport, that is growing in popularity. Soccer has a much higher participation rate, and now has a few players with name recognition. By comparison to the NFL and NBA, the USSF of MLS could be had for relative pocket change, much like Arena Football.

I actually haven't thought about CBS...what summer sports do they have?? I know they have SEC and NFL Football during the fall, but it seems like the MLS could get a fair amount of time there. Who is CBS owned by, and do they have any sister cable networks that could show prime time games??

[PSU92]

Originally posted by eric515


That is where you are wrong...what they don't want is to pay the exorbitant (sp?) amount the leagues are charging. They offered bids for both the NFL and the NBA when their contracts ran out, but they got out bid. They weren't going to get in a bidding war with CBS or Disney. Considering that it is debatable whether or not the other networks even turn a profit off of these absurdly priced packages, I would say it was a good business move.

Now, when they were offered Arena Football, they took it, because it is a relatively inexpensive sport, that is growing in popularity. Soccer has a much higher participation rate, and now has a few players with name recognition. By comparison to the NFL and NBA, the USSF of MLS could be had for relative pocket change, much like Arena Football.

I actually haven't thought about CBS...what summer sports do they have?? I know they have SEC and NFL Football during the fall, but it seems like the MLS could get a fair amount of time there. Who is CBS owned by, and do they have any sister cable networks that could show prime time games??

Through Viacom CBS has relationships with UPN, TNN, the MTV Networks, etc.

[ChuckA]

Wouldn't this mean the USOC, also? That tournament is run (ahem) by the USSF, right? So, couldn't they negotiate those games as well into the contract. I know that FSW is showing some of this years matches, including the semi's and the finals. And, they showed them last year as well.

[monster]

Originally posted by eric515


That is where you are wrong...what they don't want is to pay the exorbitant (sp?) amount the leagues are charging. They offered bids for both the NFL and the NBA when their contracts ran out, but they got out bid. They weren't going to get in a bidding war with CBS or Disney. Considering that it is debatable whether or not the other networks even turn a profit off of these absurdly priced packages, I would say it was a good business move.

Now, when they were offered Arena Football, they took it, because it is a relatively inexpensive sport, that is growing in popularity. Soccer has a much higher participation rate, and now has a few players with name recognition. By comparison to the NFL and NBA, the USSF of MLS could be had for relative pocket change, much like Arena Football.

I actually haven't thought about CBS...what summer sports do they have?? I know they have SEC and NFL Football during the fall, but it seems like the MLS could get a fair amount of time there. Who is CBS owned by, and do they have any sister cable networks that could show prime time games??

I don't understand how I can be wrong when I said the same thing in fewer words. They want special events, not sports leagues.

Also, convenient of you to leave off the fact that they are in AFL as a partner, basically taking a $20 million stake in the league based on franchise sales instead of paying a rights fee.

That makes this USSF deal completely different from the Arena deal. There is no fanchise-based revenue deal to tie it around. This seems to be a strict difference of opinion over whether the product is worth a rights fee or not.

For all those espousing Fox or NBC or CBS based on one comment in SBJ, I just wonder where these networks have been in the past.

Sure, you can say the World Cup piqued their interest, but would you rather have a broadcaster (Disney) that has other outlets to show the game and has been involved with the sport for several years for better or worse? Or do you want a Johnny-come-lately who might get distracted by the next shiny bright light and completely give up on the sport?

[monster]

Originally posted by ChuckA
Wouldn't this mean the USOC, also? That tournament is run (ahem) by the USSF, right? So, couldn't they negotiate those games as well into the contract. I know that FSW is showing some of this years matches, including the semi's and the finals. And, they showed them last year as well.

Fox got the deal in 2000 but I cannot for the life of me find anything indicating how many years it was for.

[eric515]

Originally posted by monster

Sure, you can say the World Cup piqued their interest, but would you rather have a broadcaster (Disney) that has other outlets to show the game and has been involved with the sport for several years for better or worse? Or do you want a Johnny-come-lately who might get distracted by the next shiny bright light and completely give up on the sport?

Herein is where the problem lies. What other network would have a sports network on par with ESPN?? There isn't one, even FOX...even after AOL/TimeWarner get AOL Sports up and running, they still will never compare to ESPN.

The network I want is one free of too much scheduling conflicts with baseball, football, hoops, etc. but also has a good cable network system that will show some prime time games, etc. I don't know if it really exists.

The biggest problem I have with ESPN is that they have so many sports on there, that soccer gets lost in the fray. They have every major pro sports league, and that doesn't mean we get any benefits by association.

As for the Arena/NBC deal...I wasn't aware of all the details, it just seems to support my theory that NBC is not in the business of duking it out financially with the other networks for high-dollar sports. Hell, I would even go to NBC for free if the other conditions of the contract were the same as the current deal. As long as they promoted the league better than ESPN, let MLS share in ad revenues, and gave it a few weekly time slots, with at least one evening game.

[JMoney418]

Well...I dont even think USSF cares if they get a huge rights fee. Anything will be an improvement. How bout NBC pays a small (if any) fee of like $1 mil or so a year for the next 3 years (until the next Cup). It might not be worth it now, but once the latter stages of qualifying comes round, NBC will be happy. In exchange, NBC pays the money to produce to show, with live commentary and studio coverage. As long as USSF doesn't have to pay anything...we're good. But doesnt this suck? You would think ABC would want to monopolize the soccer in this country...

[Minnman]

Originally posted by eric515


Herein is where the problem lies. What other network would have a sports network on par with ESPN?? There isn't one, even FOX...even after AOL/TimeWarner get AOL Sports up and running, they still will never compare to ESPN.

The network I want is one free of too much scheduling conflicts with baseball, football, hoops, etc. but also has a good cable network system that will show some prime time games, etc. I don't know if it really exists.

The biggest problem I have with ESPN is that they have so many sports on there, that soccer gets lost in the fray. They have every major pro sports league, and that doesn't mean we get any benefits by association.

As for the Arena/NBC deal...I wasn't aware of all the details, it just seems to support my theory that NBC is not in the business of duking it out financially with the other networks for high-dollar sports. Hell, I would even go to NBC for free if the other conditions of the contract were the same as the current deal. As long as they promoted the league better than ESPN, let MLS share in ad revenues, and gave it a few weekly time slots, with at least one evening game.

Aren't we confusing something here? This discussion isn't about MLS; MLS has an agreement with Disney that runs through 2006.

This discussion is about USSF matches (US men's and, maybe?, women's national team matches - except in the the 2003 and 2006 World Cups, of course). Sounds like the USSF-ABC time-buy deal expired and the USSF wants a better deal. Commence negotiations.