UEFA Euro 2008 on ESPN/ABC

Re: ESPN - Good or Bad for Soccer, Part II

What does UEFA consider free to air? Would ESPN or ESPN2 fit in that category? I can't see 8 matches on ABC itself.

Any idea on when the winners would be announced?

Anything to keep Euro 2008 off of Setanta or PPV works for me.

 

Re: ESPN - Good or Bad for Soccer, Part II

It would be nice for ESPN to get the rights. Usually when the US isn't involved they don't care but if ESPN gets them then I don't have to spend like $150 on that Setanta package again...

 

Re: ESPN - Good or Bad for Soccer, Part II

If true, it seems a bit preposterous on part of UEFA to come up with this new requirement. I can understand FIFA, but UEFA requiring terrestrial rights in places like USA, Canada, Australia?!?!?! Who do they think they are?

I know, I know. This would be great from the perspective of fans in this part of the world. But does UEFA (a regional body, as opposed to FIFA an international body) really think it has so much clout that they can demand terrestrial rights in regions it doesn't even govern? That would be somewhat akin to NFL demanding terrestrial rights in Germany, and MLB demanding terrestrial rights in Japan and so on.

Sorry, I realize this post is not directly related to the thread. Feel free to move this discussion to another thread if deemed necessary.

 

Re: ESPN - Good or Bad for Soccer, Part II

I heard Setanta was going after the Euros. Very interesting..... I hope there is a major bidding war.

 

Re: ESPN - Good or Bad for Soccer, Part II

ABC certainly has room to take on the Euro, but Euro is not the World Cup. It's appeal to the American audience is minimal.

In this country, Euro has been on only one terrestrial TV platform before: SIN, Univision's predecessor. That's how I watched the Euro in 1984 (when SIN's satellite transmissions of 2.5 hours cut off when Denmark X Spain went into penalties. That was pre-internet age so there is no other way to find out the score). It makes more sense for Disney to sub-licensethe the 8 games to Univision instead of putting them on ABC.

 

Re: ESPN - Good or Bad for Soccer, Part II

Yeah, I agree. "UEFA requires 8 matches on free TV" or else what???? What can they do? Take away our free Champions League? Oh wait... we don't have that to begin with.

Anyway, this sounds like a rule that is targetted at UEFA nations, not the USA.

I just hope that ABC and ESPN don't end-up with the entire Euro 2008 package. Keep it on PPV (at least the majority of matches) and let us get proper coverage (read: British-feed) of this tournament.

 

Re: ESPN - Good or Bad for Soccer, Part II

And if anyone wants to do a study on why soccer isn't popular in the U.S., this could be Exhibit 1, a supposed soccer fan who doesn't want the sport to ever get off the ground here.

 

Re: ESPN - Good or Bad for Soccer, Part II

Good lord, that's a dumb idea.

 

Re: ESPN - Good or Bad for Soccer, Part II

We'll see how dumb it is when it becomes a reality.

Some would say having a baseball announcer broadcast European soccer games while having the TV screen cluttered with baseball scores during each match, is dumb.

Don't let the existing football fans down, Setanta. Up your price if you have to. Real fans will have no issues with paying $200 to watch the most competitive international tournament in football.

 

Re: ESPN - Good or Bad for Soccer, Part II

Fixed

 

Re: ESPN - Good or Bad for Soccer, Part II

Yes, let's leave soccer to "real" fans, i.e. fans who pass BocaFan's definition, whatever that may be. Let's not do stupid things like grow the game, which airing the match on ABC or ESPN might do.

And I have a huge issue with paying $200 for an international tournament, so I guess I'm not a real fan.

 

Re: ESPN - Good or Bad for Soccer, Part II

Setanta always have the Euro rights, they had the last 2 Euros on PPV for that $200 package that everyone is talking about with British coverage.

If ESPN do get the Euros, let's hope they make Derek Rae announce since he does Champions League, which is the other European thing ESPN shows, so naturally he'd be first choice right?

I don't want to hear Marcelo Balboa messing up player's names and saying "Look, this is what you have to do....that was a good foul....etc...."

 

Re: ESPN - Good or Bad for Soccer, Part II

Well, that's just it. I don't believe that showing this tournament on ESPN/ABC will grow the sport in America.

So the next best-thing is to have all the matches available to us LIVE and broadcasted properly, which ESPN/ABC isn't capable of.

 

Re: ESPN - Good or Bad for Soccer, Part II

true, I don't see how ESPN could/would air every match live like they did with the World Cup....

 

Re: ESPN - Good or Bad for Soccer, Part II

Euro 96 was carried pretty much entirely LIVE on ESPN + ESPN2 combined together. Nothing was on ABC back then though. This is probably the first time I'm hearing of a Euro competition on (terrestrial) ABC.

 

Re: ESPN - Good or Bad for Soccer, Part II

Well, it will be on in bars and restaurants that show ABC and ESPN as a matter of course.

Euro 2004 got a lot of play in my area thanks to Portugal hosting. Think some of those people reading those stories might have actually watched the final if it was on TV? Nah, no chance of that.

You must hate the CL broadcasts then.

So you prefer that the broadcast be catered to you, even if it means 99.999% of the country won't see it.

Yeah, that's brilliant.

 

Re: ESPN - Good or Bad for Soccer, Part II

Why not? What else is on besides baseball?

If they can do it for the World Cup, they can do it for the Euros. It's the same time frame.

 

Re: ESPN - Good or Bad for Soccer, Part II

And how many people are in the average bar at 9:00 in the morning? Or even at 3:00p?

It was on TV.

You must have been in Little Portugal. I went there for the final. Had no problem finding a bar showing the game for free (apart from drinks & food).

It's not about "hate". I would still enjoy watching Euro 2008 even if ESPN did it. But I prefer if Setanta does it (either the $15/month channel or the PPV channel). Just like I prefer to watch a CL game on Setanta than on espn2.

I got some disturbing news for you: a negligible %age of the country will see it even if its on ESPN.

But with Setanta, anyone who wants to watch it, can. That's what is most important thing, not whether joe 6-pack is more likely to stumble upon a match while channel-surfing because its on ESPN.

IF ESPN gets exclusive rights, I assure you they won't show every match LIVE.

Yeah, but they won't get anything close to the same ratings. Hence, they won't have the same budget to cover it, nor will the matches get the same high-level of priority (say if a baseball game conflicted with a Euro 2008 match).

In other words, the tournament wouldn't get the same treatment as it would if it was on Setanta.

 

Re: ESPN - Good or Bad for Soccer, Part II

I personally do not want to see the European championships on espn if the . European championships are on espn then. The main announcer will probably be Dave O' Brien I doubt very much that ESPN will use the BBC announcers or whoever is doing the game. Also I doubt that theywould show every game. I get the feeling that with ESPn they would show selected matches, preferably on the weekend, becuase the USA is still too focused on the more "american" sports.
If the USA is not participating the american public tends npot to take it seriously, so that the only people watching would be us football fans. I would rather have it on Sentanta or Pay per view. I would not mind coughing up $100 for the tournament for BBC and British announcers.
SimonT

 

Re: ESPN - Good or Bad for Soccer, Part II

I liked the Setanta package I paid for in 2000 and 2004. You get every game, along with pre-game/half-time/post-game analysis from REAL analysts that know what they are talking about. Well worth the money and in 2008 I look forward to buying it again.

 

Re: ESPN - Good or Bad for Soccer, Part II

Thread split from the ESPN Bashing thread