San Diego was the top rated Market for the W.C. final. Miami was the only current expansion marked in the top 10. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/sd-sp-world-cup-tv-rating-fox-sports-20180716-story.html Interesting that none of Cincy, Nashville, Sacremento, Atlanta, Seattle, or Portland made the top 10. Wonder if there is still a divide between MLS fan and wider soccer fan.
It could mean that the tech saavy hipsters of Portland, Seattle, Atlanta, Sacramento, Nasvhille & Cincinnati were watching the game on their laptops or smart phones. IMO, broadcast T.V. ratings no longer carry as much validity as they once did.
I'm curious to know how they count things like Hulu Live and Sling. I haven't had cable or satellite for years. Every game I watched was on Hulu Live TV (or DVRed on that platform); About a quarter were watched on my TV and the rest were on my phone because they happened while I was teaching a summer course.
It’s a Cup final on network TV on a sunday. Do you really think a material number of young nerds are choosing to stream the game instead of just turning the TV on? I don’t. But I also think ratings don’t matter either.
That's kind of the point of being a cord cutter.. They can't "just turn the TV on" because they don't have cable and, in many cases, don't have an antenna to watch broadcast TV... Now, the question is, how many actually did stream it vs. go to a bar or not watching it at all.
The final was not on cable. It was on the network. Also ratings are stupid because it relies only only homes which agree to participate in their inane process. I’ve never met a single person that has agreed to be a part of that process. Ratings tell me nothing about how popular a sport is. Also there are plenty of “tech savvy” (whatever that means) people in Miami where ratings were good. I don’t think using a tablet prequalified someone to be tech savvy.
That would be why I included the antenna part of my comment. "Cord cutters" are people that don't have Comcast, Time Warner, Dish, etc, etc for television. If they watch TV, it's off the internet..
I agree a lot more people are watching "TV" via streaming and since soccer demos tend to skew younger it probably has a bigger impact here than on other sports. But as others pointed out there are plenty of "cord cutting hipsters" in the other markets, including myself, well the cord cutting part not the hipster part. So I don't think the difference in numbers was significant enough to make a huge impact on the rankings.
Sacramento resident here, cord-cutter since 5ish years ago(?), watched the world cup almost exclusively through Hulu, with the exception of watching some games at a local bar/restaurant. They need to develop a better way to track these ratings, it's already a worthless statistic given modern viewing habits.
My understanding is that its actually easier to track who watches via apps than TV's precisely for the reason that they include allowing to track usage data in the ToS for all the apps (basically if you watch you are opting in). So app streaming is included in these numbers.
Glad this thread finally went off topic. I, once, was privelidged to be a Nelson ratings user. Little box on top of the tv. Left the tv on soccer all the time and walked away from it. About 20 years ago.
I'm still trying to figure out how World Cup ratings - especially when the USMNT was not involved - correlates to MLS support.
It doesn't. Many if not most U.S.-based soccer fans regard MLS (correctly) as a minor league and prefer to follow professional teams based in Mexico, England, Germany, Spain & Italy. Of course, that's the same problem that teams based in Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium, Chile, Argentina, Brazil and they deal with the problem and attract local support & interest. MLS teams based in Portland, Seattle, Vanouver, Toronto, Montreal, Salt Lake City, Atlanta & Orlando excite board-based local passion but almost all of the rest do not. In Washington, D.C., the Post omited all mention of MLS championships won by D.C. United in the lead up to the NHL Capitals winning the league championship and ending the championship drought since the Washington football team's last NFL championship in the early '90's -- and that's extremely consistent with the opinions of almost all Caps, Skins, Wizard & Nats fans.
Great point, which again leads to my question. What is the end game of MLS expansion in it's current form? I am not as pessimistic as Roger Noll on the field of schemes podcast about MLS folding in 10 years. But there is a strange dichotomy of clubs where there is significant broad based support for some and total indifference for others. Cincy and Nashville and Sacramento will be part of the former. Miami, Phoenix, Detroit and San Diego are more open questions. I think there is more upside today for those markets than even 10 years ago but how much and can the expenditures be justified in the long run. And I believe Mr. Noll about MLS banking primarily on expansion fees in lieu of GREATLY burgeoning media demand (which I dont see greatly changing) in the short term DCs problem is partially due to terrible on the field records but it really does lack media buzz in what is otherwise an excellent soccer region. I would be willing to bet that NY teams, Dallas, Houston and San Jose are facing similar lack of interest for various regions. Another question, how similar is MLSs media profile to MLB? It's easy to draw NFL comparisons given Garbers background but because MLS interest is so local I wonder how similar media demands and revenue would be to MLB at least on a team/market basis.
In an alternate reality that involved drastic cuts, the MLS could not only survive, but flourish with every team that entered the leave after Toronto , but also include both LA teams and SKC as success stories. If the OGs weighted it down that bad, I’d hate to see it, but you could fit San Jose, New England, RNBY, Dallas, Houston, Columbus, Colorado and salt lake and still survive comfortably. Luckily I don’t think said alternate reality ever occurs, but after 28 you gotta consolidate and focus on fixing the issues with the elder statesmen first and foremost , because a lot of them are in bad spots in a lot of ways
I'm curious to see what happens in Columbus if the rumored local ownership comes through. The Save The Crew folks have gathered a list of nearly 10k potential season holders for the new owners to use. If this happens and is truly the turning point that it could be, it should raise expectations. Another way to look at it... Why does Cincinnati bring in over 20k for USL and Columbus struggle to get 15k? Not just this year, given Columbus' issues. The cities aren't that different. Did the team in Cincinnati tap a unique market or is there a dormant market waiting to be exploited in the legacy cities?
You realize that Columbus and Cincinnati are two completely different cities. Prague and Dresden are actually closer. Birmingham and London are about the same distance. The fact that two cities are in Ohio doesn't make them twins separated at birth.
The fact that they were founded at about the same time and had similar population influxes makes them twins, with the caveat that you look at the metro area, not just with the city limits. More or less, I-270 for Columbus and I-275 fir Cincinnati. Birmingham was barely populated when the Romans captured London. It would take too many words to enumerate the historical differences between Prague and Dresden. The short answer is one was German (Saxony), the other wasn't. So, most major US metro areas are more similar than different. Success or failure of enterprises in them more based on the individual actors than differences in populations. The difference in success in Cincinnati and Columbus are a result of differences between ownership, not something inate about the cities.