I was just reading a post elsewhere about how the US Open Cup is not getting the press it deserves. Someone also offered the opinion that the lack of television coverage makes it nigh impossible for anyone to even care, which made me wonder.... Why doesn't US Soccer have its own cable channel? There's plenty of material to report on, plenty of games, plenty of pundits, plenty of programming to fill a schedule. Every major sport has its own channel, why not soccer? I think its time.
NO NO NO NO NO. Do you think it's free to run a cable channel. lol cmon now They just have to keep announcing that the usoc is a CCL qualifier. Put it in big bold letters: CCL QUALIFYING. And it is currently getting the press it deserves.
What's cheap have to do with this? You gotta spend money to make money and it is a worthwhile investment. Media coverage is what makes sports in this country go round. What makes you think the USOC has enough coverage? It's a 100 year old tournament, 3rd oldest of its type in the world, and Americans barely know about it. It deserves a bigger platform.
It doesn't deserve a bigger platform as long as they don't stress that it's a CCL QUALIFIER. But hey, in lieu of the cash to market this, you yourself can go on social media and remind people that this is a CCL QUALIFIER they cannot miss. Univision mentions it a bit, so they do their part when they do cover it.
When you're an established and fully-mature US sport like football, basketball and baseball, you can afford to monetize demand with league-driven networks and out-of-market packages. Soccer's not at that point yet, and therefore, should continue to make as many matches as accessible to the general audience as possible (MLS should stream all out-of-market, non-nationally televised games for free). Which is why I think NBC's new pay service for Premier League matches is a step back in their coverage.
Completely disagree ... ESPN2 essentially MADE "alternative sports" and "extreme sports" when there was nothing but an underground for them. They were legitimized by the coverage. If nothing else, soccer mimics the exact arena that "X-Games" sports populated in the early 90's. Your dad had a skateboard (soccer ball) and even skated with the kids in the neighborhood (kicked the ball around the block or at school) but he grew up (many secondary school kids have to give up soccer to play HS sports). All of a sudden he's an adult with a kid and he sees "half pipe" on TV (MLS) and says "holy hell that used to be a lot of fun" ....
I don't know how many people would care more about the USOC if they knew it was a CCL qualifier. The 2016-2017 CCL wasn't on TV in English. I'm assuming it got low ratings in 2015-2016. Other than MLS, what would this channel show? What competitions could a new channel outbid other channels for?
US Mens and Women qualifiers, including youth teams, friendlies, NWSL, NASL, etc. I mean the sky's the limit. Also, even though it would be the USSF channel, doesn't mean they have to keep it strictly to the USSF. They could put in bids for any soccer matches: Gold Cup, Copa America would be ideal. This isn't even including the number of talk shows, classic matches, etc. that they could include in programming. They have a ton of material out there. For me, this would really be taking the bull by the horns and really promoting the sport.
A new channel couldn't show classic matches without permission from ESPN, Fox, or whoever showed the game originally, and I don't think a new channel would want to spend money on buying the rights to classic games. From games played in the last ten years, what classic games would get many viewers? There are two Gold Cups (2007 and 2013) won by USA, the late goal against Algeria in World Cup 2010, and the Women's World Cup 2015 Final. If you included draws, you could add in World Cup games against England and Portugal. What else? When Fox lost the Premier League and had no European competitions that play every week left to show, Fox Soccer Channel was eliminated. If the only competitions that play every week (excluding the offseason) are the NASL and NWSL, a channel won't get many viewers. When the NWSL or NASL makes their next TV contract, would they want to be on a new channel? If the USSF made a channel and bought the rights to every Gold Cup game, they would risk showing Mexico beating USA in a Final. Does anybody know of an FA in any country that made a TV channel?
This is a total assumption by myself, and maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but in the case of other nations (I'm speaking where the sport is already #1), other FAs don't have as much of a need to create a specialized channel to promote the sport positively as the FA in the US does. The sport is already #1 in those countries, and its not in as much of a competitive landscape that exists here in the US, where there are dozens of options and soccer is not already the top option for many sports fans. For example, I'm sure the majority of the sports programming on Sky Sports in the UK is soccer. Sky Sports' equivalent in this country is ESPN and its affiliates, and the majority of ESPN's programming is a lot of things, but it sure ain't soccer. The US is a highly competitive sports landscape. And all the major sports are covered by their own channels. NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, Tennis, and Golf. Not only that, but you have major college conferences that have their own channels. Soccer appears to be the only ones on the outside looking in. If we want to look to something to mimic, don't mimic what's happening in other countries as far as their sports programming is concerned, because other countries are in a entirely different scenario. Mimic what you see in your own landscape and environment and move forward. And I guess it depends on how aggressive the USSF would want to be with its programming as to whether or not they would repurchase/obtain rights to classic matches. Keep in mind, you don't have to limit "classics" to USMNT, you could show MLS Cup Final matches. But I feel that this is a matter bigger than the ratings or sponsors or money (although I agree that all these things come into play), this is about the growth of the sports, and the USSF has a vested interest in growing the sport, if their goal is to compete on a global level. I believe a channel devoted to soccer benefits everyone in the long run.
Sky Sports has 7 channels, so they can show a lot of soccer without having a channel being mostly soccer. You have a point that most FAs don't need to make their own channel. I agree with your last sentence, but "long run" is important. There are times where a person or organization has to decide if they're willing to lose money now to make money later. I don't think a USSF channel would be profitable quickly, and it could be placed on packages that most people don't get. It could be placed on the same level as beIN Sports. Fans will be mad if Gold Cups and World Cup Qualifiers are on a USSF channel that people have to pay extra for. To make an analogy, MLS could get better players if every club spent $20,000,000 a year, but even if spending that much money now was guaranteed to have a net gain of money over the next ten years, MLS wouldn't take the short-term losses.
How many people watch the available highlights now? Less than that would watch games. US is still developing the market for such luxuries. The games on Lifetime are welcomed.
Such a channel would probably get the audience that is already following U.S. soccer on a hardcore level. I don't see how the Open Cup will ever gain much overall sports culture traction when MLS clubs mostly treat it as a secondary concern a best.
As a stand alone cable channel doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Not saying there isn't enough content just not enough eyeballs for that to justify the cost of a network. Now as a streaming site or even youtube channel were the USSF becomes the distributor.
^ indeed. Could also be a "sub" channel or "networked" channel much like the SEC Channel is with ESPN or the American Sports Network is for the Sinclair group.
The NHL Network isn't Nielsen rated, so advertisers don't know how many people watch ads. NBA TV and MLB TV get minimal ratings. It's better to appear on general sports channels.
I don't think the USSF controls the rights to enough matches to cover expenses at this level. It only controls US national teams and Open Cup rights. It is probably more profitable at this stage to sell the rights to their matches. Not sure how this would work. I appreciate the idea of cutting out Tlarge cable channels (setting up your own channel as many American college football conferences and professional leagues have done), and I do think direct marketing and viewing through social media is the wave of the future and will eventually be the death of cable and possibly even television as we know it. I don't think US National team matches and US Open Cup would be sufficiently profitable to invest in creating their own channel at this stage.
SEC and ACC have partenered with ESPN, and Fox with Big Ten. Pac 12 went solo, and has got less money than their rivals.
NHL Network is a cable network, advertisers know exactly how many people are watching with far more precision than Nielsen could ever dream of providing. Nielsen can take educated guesses at how many people watched something, but cable companies know exactly who is watching what at all times. There would be value in USSF starting a TV network, but at this point probably not enough value to make it worth it.
This should be the direction they go. Cup games. Best of the USL this week on demand. Nike friendlies. Youth games. MLS game(s) of the week. Dallas Cup. DA playoffs. Upload it all to youtube or a platform of their own making and allow people to watch when they want. Add American highlights abroad and interviews from various players, coaches, team officials. Then create demand by showing/highlighting young up and coming players. The overhead for a streaming service is way cheaper than starting a cable network and reaches a much bigger audience, especially young people who are cord cutters.