Soccer United Marketing

Discussion in 'USA Men' started by Patrick167, Mar 20, 2019.

  1. Master O

    Master O Member+

    Jul 7, 2006
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    US Soccer doesn't even try to promote friendlies. They just want as many of the away teams' fans as possible to show up and pay top dollar for it.
     
    btlove, STR1 and Patrick167 repped this.
  2. puttputtfc

    puttputtfc Member+

    Sep 7, 1999
    Agreed and please understand it was not a personal dig at you. Trusting Garber's word when money is involved is naive at best.
     
  3. Patrick167

    Patrick167 Member+

    Dortmund
    United States
    May 4, 2017
    Taylor Swift is more popular than Jenny Lewis. So, simple economics would have us expect TS to play in bigger stadia with higher ticket prices than JL.

    The Mexico NT, we are told, are more popular than the USMNT. So, we would expect that Mexico would play in bigger stadia with higher ticket prices. They sometimes play in bigger stadia but their ticket prices seem to be lower.

    SUM is either incompetent or something else is going on. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. It could be the FMF prefers less revenue and more fans and they have directed such. Meanwhile, the USSF prefers more revenue and doesn't care about how many fans are there. Why would they prefer that though?

    And what about the USWNT? They are now suing because SUM doesn't market their games even equally to what SUM does for the Men, much less Mexico.

    I always hear Jay Berhalter is doing a great job and in line to become CEO. But he is in charge of all this and attendance and buzz and everything is down compared to when he took over. Even before Couva, it was down; so that is not a reason.
     
    btlove, STR1 and adam tash repped this.
  4. adam tash

    adam tash Member+

    Jul 12, 2013
    Barcelona, Spain
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    can anyone who is not physically present at these "official meetings" have a lot of sway behind closed doors?

    is physical presence at a meeting the exclusive determinant of power and access to what happens at a meeting???????
     
  5. Baysider

    Baysider Member+

    Jul 16, 2004
    Santa Monica
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    I'm not saying this is appropriate for the USSF mission, but the pricing doesn't seem inconsistent. I would expect that the average income of individuals in the US that root for the MNT (on average, more likely to be first generation immigrants) is lower than those who root for the USNT (who stereotypically are middle to upper-middle class). So you have lots of people who want to see a game but at a lower price.
     
  6. #1 Feilhaber and Adu

    Aug 1, 2007

    [​IMG]

    Sheeple!!!
     
  7. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    This sounds dismissive of the potential for conflict of interest. Even if they exist across all sports, does that mean that

    a) it's not a bigger issue for the USSF
    b) it shouldn't be managed carefully?

    Good governance requires that where CoI exists, it should be dealt with in as transparent a process as possible and I think it's pretty evident that USSF does a very poor job of providing that transparency. Simply having conflicted parties outside of the room isn't much of a CoI policy but, to be fair, I know that Shearman & Sterling drafted the CoI policy and I trust that firm. That being said, there is a huge hole specifically built into the policy (https://cdn-s3.si.com/s3fs-public/download/us-soccer-conflict-policy.pdf).

    No Person shall act in any manner which causes him or her to have a direct or indirect interest in or relationship with any outside organization or person that might affect (or that might reasonably be understood or misunderstood by others as affecting) the objectivity or independence of his or her judgment or conduct in carrying out the duties and responsibilities he or she has in connection with the USSF's activities. For purposes of this Policy, “outside organization” shall not include any constituent or affiliated member entities of the USSF provided such Person holds elected office in or is directly employed in a full-time capacity by such outside organization.

    Another part of it states: "As discussed above, the special nature of the USSF's business may create situations where potential conflicts exist and/or are unavoidable."

    Is the SUM relationship truly "unavoidable" in today's media environment? Maybe decades ago but now I have severe doubts on that.

    I'm sure that well-paid litigators can use this document to provide cover for USSF to do as they please but I am surprised that reasonable posters don't even acknowledge the potential for impropriety (in spirit rather than legality).
     
  8. Patrick167

    Patrick167 Member+

    Dortmund
    United States
    May 4, 2017
    Simply, USSF is a non-profit organization for a reason. But is it really non-profit if all its officers are simultaneously involved in a for-profit corporation with an exclusive and non-bid relationship with USSF?

    But, besides the COI, SUM is just handling marketing terribly. Why are we putting up with the COI, even if it is only an appearance, for horrible marketing?
     
  9. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    When the SUM relationship was founded, I can see how board members thought it was beneficial and IIRC, there were no competing offers as the sports media environment was very different.

    Furthermore, I could see how USSF thought that doing a deal that ensured that the then-nascent MLS league survived was beneficial to American soccer.

    The world is very different now both in term of sports media and the power differential between USSF and MLS. Therefore, the relationship between the two should be looked at quite differently.

    TLDR, we should thank SUM for helping US Soccer in its developmental years but it’s time to move on
     
  10. Patrick167

    Patrick167 Member+

    Dortmund
    United States
    May 4, 2017
    I don't buy the mythology of the founding of SUM. But I agree that it is not necessary anymore. It is really just a way to subsidize MLS owners and with expansion fees at what they are, no longer necessary.

    The USMNT v Chile friendly drew 10X the audience on TV than the DCU v OC game last Sunday.
     
  11. Patrick167

    Patrick167 Member+

    Dortmund
    United States
    May 4, 2017
    The recent deal for ESPN+ to stream US Open Cup games was brokered through SUM. Of course, we have no idea what kind of deal was made money wise. So, we can't assess if SUM was competent or not. But we can surmise that Cordeiro is ok with using SUM for new deals. Candidate Cordeiro talked about the conflicts of interest and such, but President Cordeiro is either ok with it or not running things.
     
  12. Master O

    Master O Member+

    Jul 7, 2006
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's typical politician rhetoric: rail against conflicts of interest, then benefit from that same conflict of interest once he or she is in power.
     
  13. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    The SUM contract runs through 2022 so it's to be expected that they manage this. There's nothing new to see here AFAIK.
     
  14. Paul Berry

    Paul Berry Member+

    Notts County and NYCFC
    United States
    Apr 18, 2015
    Nr Kingston NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The details will be in the annual report. I wouldn't be surprised if there's zero revenue.
     
  15. jaykoz3

    jaykoz3 Member+

    Dec 25, 2010
    Conshohocken, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Getting ANY TV money for the USOC would be an improvement over what they were getting...............which was nothing before.
     
    2in10 and An Unpaved Road repped this.
  16. Paul Berry

    Paul Berry Member+

    Notts County and NYCFC
    United States
    Apr 18, 2015
    Nr Kingston NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think just having the games on a single, professional platform is of great value.
     
    2in10 repped this.
  17. Patrick167

    Patrick167 Member+

    Dortmund
    United States
    May 4, 2017
    From what I understand, the SUM contract never included the USOC. So, this was something separate from that. They had something new they had to market and they just handed it to SUM.
     
  18. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    I get the issues with SUM and potential conflicts of interest, but yeah if they can get anything in exchange for the Open Cup, they at least are decent at negotiations. This isn't an event that is going to start a bidding war. Just getting it on TV where the few people who care can actually watch the games is a step in the right direction.
     
    jaykoz3 and adam tash repped this.
  19. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    That wasn't meant as a criticism of the Open Cup, by the way. I personally love open tournaments and really never understand why it has never become a bigger event.
     
  20. Patrick167

    Patrick167 Member+

    Dortmund
    United States
    May 4, 2017
    They are not going to be on TV, just streamed for a subscription fee. The GA cup is streamed for free for example.

    Who knows what could be done? Nothing is ever done in the open. I know people like to talk about corruption, but I'm more concerned that SUM is incompetent. Stadiums are empty; TV revenue is a joke. Why anyone would assume the max was received or even looked for for the USOC is hard to understand.

    If the bar is simply that games are streamed? That is sad. Is the bar simply that some fans go to USMNT games? That at least someone shows them on TV? Then I guess SUM is not incompetent.
     
  21. An Unpaved Road

    An Unpaved Road Member+

    Mar 22, 2006
    Club:
    --other--
    ESPN doesn't even do all that much with the Serie A rights outside of streaming so I'm not surprised if they don't think the Open Cup is TV worthy.
     
  22. jaykoz3

    jaykoz3 Member+

    Dec 25, 2010
    Conshohocken, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Seriously? What exactly was the USSF doing to market the USOC for the past 20+ years???? SUM is a marketing agency. The USSF was clearly in over their head in terms of marketing the USSF. Why the hell not let the agency that's giving you $30M+ a year to market your properties a shot at putting some life into the Cup
    Disney is trying to grow their streaming platforms. ESPN+ is on the fore front of this strategy. Serie A games are shown on the ESPN family of TV networks.


    I don't get all of the hubbub about the USOC being on a "Subscription Service" seeing as in order to watch ESPN..............you have subscribed to some sort of service anyways!!!

    The GA Cup is youth teams...........NOT pro teams. Completely different audiences, both in age and size.

    Business negotiations are not done in an open public forum either. Even if the USSF negotiated their own deals do you honestly think they'd let all of us be privy to the negotiations?
     
  23. An Unpaved Road

    An Unpaved Road Member+

    Mar 22, 2006
    Club:
    --other--
    I know but in terms of TV coverage and marketing it seems like much less of a priority for ESPN compared to what NBC does with the Premier League and Fox the Bundesliga.
     
  24. Patrick167

    Patrick167 Member+

    Dortmund
    United States
    May 4, 2017
    You can subscribe to ESPN, most people are. You will not see the games. I was responding to the claim the games will be on TV, they won't be.

    My contention with this whole thread is that SUM is incompetent. But Cordeiro must not agree. We won't know until deals are made through an open bid process.

    USSF is a quasi- govt agency, not a business, and it would be in their own interest to be more open in how they award these things. But they aren't, contrary to what Cordeiro said when running.
     
  25. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    I'm a chord cutter, TV means internet streaming and chrome-cast anyway. So my outlook is skewed.
     

Share This Page