No, my position is that when you sell something, the person buying it has a plan for making more money than they paid for the product. What the hell do you think NBC is doing? Giving to charity? No, they invested 167 million to purchase broadcast rights. Then, they invested millions in a studio, a marketing campaign, and set up time slots to showcase EPL games. In fact, they've gone so all-in with the EPL that you can watch more EPL games with NBC in the USA (because they also offer an extra EPL package in addition to their primetime programming) than you can with Sky or BT Sport. Is SUM underpaying for USSF rights? Perhaps. I don't know what their deal is. The fact that I don't know what their deal is, means that the rights to the USSF might be worth anything from 30 million (in which case SUM is paying fair value) to 300 million (in which case SUM is vastly under-paying). Maybe only the WC/WWC rights are what SUM would like to have, and they don't care about the Gold Cup, or SheBelieves, or whatever. Maybe SUM values the venues and branding and merchandising more than the 0.2 ratings that English-language broadcasts get. Maybe SUM doesn't care about the USSF whatsoever, and they just want to be able to control USSF branding in order to continue to market the massive Mexican fanbase and hold partido moleros. I don't know. And until we see hard numbers on what things are actually worth, like if there's a bidding process next time, or if they itemize the value of the USMNT/USWNT/NWSL TV/sponsorship/marketing deals, then we won't know.
Plus, part of the appeal of the Prem games is there's literally nothing else on TV when most of them are on. It's been a long time since the MNT played "Breakfast at Foxboro".
Thats misrepresenting slightly. If Sky or BT could show the 10am Eastern games they would. They are prohibited by law from doing so
It's just something that I read in an article about EPL soccer in USA. IDK if it's true or not, but it speaks to the fact that NBC Sports has bet heavily on EPL soccer being worth a helluva lot of money in the American sporting entertainment landscape.
Yep. You can see more games in the US and outside the UK. They are prohibited by law from showing games at that time in the UK. No league is allowed to be broadcast, including foreign ones.
Ah, so it's more of a UK issue than an issue where the US/outside world consumes more EPL soccer. Makes sense.
This is a report on the letter Alejandro Domínguez, president of CONMEBOL, addressed in reply to Carlos Cordeiro and his proposal to have a joint Copa de las Americas in the USA in 2020, a proposal that came with a promise of $200 million revenue: "We have received the invitation to a 'Continental Cup - 2020 Edition' and from the organization I represent, we manifest our surprise and preoccupation when you try to hold such competition during the FIFA dates corresponding to June and July 2020," wrote Domínguez. From then onward, he made some clarifications: 1) There has been no approval and no calendar set for such a competition by the FIFA, a condition necessary to move forward with the proposal; 2) Your invitation mentions that such 'Continental Cup' doesn't intend to replace the Copa America. However, right there you propose to play the 2020 tournament in the same period in time when our national teams are participating in the 2020 Copa America, which is obviously impossible; 3) It's remarkable that your invitation arrives right after that, in January 2019, the CONCACAF (confederation to which your federation belongs) had rejected our own invitation to participate in the Copa America 2020. The economic and sporting conditions were similar to those you propose in your letter; 4) The Copa America is the oldest national team tournament in the world, and one of the most watched, due to its high level, given that many of the best soccer players in the planet take part in it. As you know, for the 2019 tournament the USSF and the FMF were invited to take part. However, sadly from our point of view, and without giving specific reasons, neither accepted the invitation; 5) CONMEBOL, the organization of which I am president, has the quality of the game as its main priority, not making money out of it. Because of that, and for the reasons and inconsistencies noted above, I must inform you that it is impossible for the CONMEBOL and its member associations to accept your invitation; 6) To show that we indeed want to unify soccer all over the Americas, and under the prestigious name of the Copa America, once again we invite your national team to take part in the 2020 tournament of the Copa America, requesting to please have a definite answer by March 11th of this year [2019 --the letter from the USSF arrived in February and was replied to right away]; 7) Furthermore, I want to make use of this opportunity to mention that the accounting for revenues and administrative costs for the Copa America Centenario (tournament played in the month of June 2016) are still on hold and have not been finalized yet. In addition, the last reports we have received once again are inconsistent with the account status shown to us previously, reason why I request your intervention in person so that, through your direct involvement, we can finally proceed to close them definitely within the next 15 days. https://www.republica.com.uy/el-neg...-conmebol-rechazo-a-eeuu-con-dureza-id699210/ From all I gather in the South American press, the CONMEBOL associations had to wait over a year longer than they expected to get a final account of the money from the Centenario, and that is the main reason they don't want to organize another tournament with CONCACAF in the USA. They are open to have CONCACAF teams go to South America, though. PS: The CONCACAF once again declined the invitation to Copa America 2020 in March, so now the invitees are Qatar and Australia, it seems.
Correct. The theory is it would drive down attendances in the lower leagues if they could show at that time. There was a Barca-Real Madrid game in the last couple of years where they could only show the 2nd half live.
Frankly, I don't know. I do know that many people believe MLS and Garber are often accused of manipulating many things in us soccer that fall under USSF's jurisdiction. I do not know whether that is true or not and I never made any accusations of that nature. I said follow the money. I also said that what seems like the obvious answer is not always the correct answer. I believe many people feel that MLS and Don Garber is the obvious answer and that is why I said that. I don't know how much you know about this whole thing but I believe I probably know less. My introduction to the whole story began today with a question to me from another poster that responded to a post I made on another thread...I was just trying to make a light hearted comment on conspiracies Elvis and his new career as a music teacher and I didn't have any idea what he was talking about. Perhaps I need to shut up.
Oh it's OK because if Relevant, IMG held USSF TV ratings they would be happy to do at a loss because, you know, that's what sports marketing companies do.
...??? If IMG, Relevant, or Wasserman Media Group can pay more, then USSF should try and get that money. My confusion comes from the assertion that the rights are being sold "for cheap", itself a speculative claim, and that the "true" value of those rights is 3-10 times higher. Now, if it's 3-to-10 times higher because a bidding war would produce a winner that would bid 3-10 times more money, then it's wrong for the USSF not to maximize that bid. If it's 3-to-10 times more valuable because the company could maybe make 3-10 times more money from the using of those rights, then that's totally different. If that ends up being the case, the USSF needs to use that as a data point in future negotiations for more money.
Yeah, you clearly didn’t look into it... at all. Everything is from the filings of this pop up non profit. The $14,000,000 in accounts payable is part of the $190,000,000 they received. You know... that $143,000,000 difference between the 47,000,000 USSF proudly said they received from the Centenario, with much fanfare and what they actually took in. The question you didn’t answer is why is there a discrepancy between the grant of $64,941,000 in the filings and the reported $50,000,000 USSF admits to receiving?
More like, I was invited to visit every famous house in London (Copa America), and then was invited to live, rent free, in Buckinham Palace (World Cup).
Well, the USSF would have to weigh the options and figure out what kind of arrangement gets them the most money and puts the NT onto the most screens. Point is, there should be a bidding process, like there always is for rights to watch leagues/teams play.
Truly astounding! Supports the glassdoor reviews which suggest the Fed is more concerned with $$$ than the game. Beautiful.
Friggin unbelievable that we are turning down playing in Copa America. The competition is so much better. There is only one reason: money and control. Ok. That's two. Sad. Sad. Sad. IT"S NOT ABOUT THE MONEY!
Don't worry about this COMNEBOL stuff guys, Cordeiro says our invitation is still "valid". Crisis averted! USSF Copa America 2020 invitation 'is still valid' despite CONMEBOL rejection - Cordeiro https://www.espn.com/soccer/copa-am...ill-valid-despite-conmebol-rejection-cordeiro "Our invitation is still valid. No doors are closed as of yet," he said via telephone. "We would like there to be an open, honest conversation about ways in which our two confederations can all come together about the long-term viability of an event that we can play in each other's territories over many years. "It's not about what we call it and who runs it. It's about growing the game for our fans and our players. We think there is a significant opportunity here that we want to take advantage of." Everything is fine, it is totally not about the money.
Eh, even if there's a bidding process I have my doubts you'd see much change. Reports of "USSF turned down a higher bid by Turner" would really get the tinfoil flowing.
I found the article very convincing, and disturbing. Managers who treat staff in the manner this article alleges, in my experience, are generally bad at their jobs. In addition, they expend a great deal of energy hiding that fact, to the detriment of their actual job duties. Which would explain a lot. All the discussion about EPL rights and related topics is stupid and off topic. 1. The FMF turned it out down too. I’m sure CONMEBOL Would prefer us and Mexico to Qatar. It is what it is. 2. We tried doing both tournaments in the past and it was a very bad decision. And that’s when they weren’t even concurrent! You joined in 2002, surely you remember that. We turn it down because we have the Gold Cup. The solution is to have an intercontinental championship every 4 years, and I think we’ll get there pretty soon. Till then, not going to CA is obviously the right choice. Experience proves that.
If it weren't evident from my posting history, I'm no capitalist. This is how "selling rights" works. No one "buys rights" expecting that they will lose money.
USSF is a non-profit, right? I wonder if they want to maintain, for whatever reasons, that favorable tax position. I also wonder why, since (or if) they're a non-profit, the deal with SUM is concealed and, further, if there's a way to force them to reveal it as long as they're a non-profit?
I would hope/think so, but considering they've been so close to the vest since forever, I'm not sure they are legally required to disclose the particulars we want.