Soccer United Marketing

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

  1. jaykoz3

    jaykoz3 Member+

    Dec 25, 2010
    Conshohocken, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Fox does barely anything with the Bundesliga. NBC has to do a lot with the small number of sports properties they do have rights to. Also, ALL of their properties are behind a subscription service as well. Take a look at the PL Content available on cable TV vs what they offer on NBC Sports Gold...........same goes for their other properties as well, which BTW you have to pay a premium for. i.e. it's $70 for the PL, and an additional $80 if you want to watch Rugby.

    ESPN+ includes all of their content for $6/month. They have a ton of Serie A coverage, and soccer coverage in general. Including high light shows, etc. ESPN has way too much content to cram everything onto 4 TV channels.

    What's your evidence to support this opinion?
     
  2. Patrick167

    Patrick167 Member+

    Dortmund
    United States
    May 4, 2017
    Empty stadiums.
     
  3. jaykoz3

    jaykoz3 Member+

    Dec 25, 2010
    Conshohocken, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So it's SUM's fault that the USMNT has sucked the past 2 years? Americans like to watch winners after all. Also the AO and Sam's Army members are likely much older now and have greater responsibilities then traveling all around the country for US Friendlies.

    For what it's worth the Summer International Club friendlies didn't sell all that well this past year either (not marketed by SUM). Perhaps the Soccer market is saturated? Perhaps the regular availability of games on TV/Streaming platforms makes it an easier decision for people to decide to not attend games?
     
  4. Patrick167

    Patrick167 Member+

    Dortmund
    United States
    May 4, 2017
    USWNT games don't sell out either. They are winners. They are marketed by SUM also.
     
  5. jaykoz3

    jaykoz3 Member+

    Dec 25, 2010
    Conshohocken, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Really? That's all you can come up with? You're grasping at straws. We're also talking about the Men's national team here. Outside of the World Cup, the Women's National Team isn't a big draw.

    You can have the best marketing, advertising and promotion money can buy, yet if your product sucks people eventually will stop buying it. Again, the US is over saturated with soccer coverage on TV and streaming platforms.
     
    rocketeer22 repped this.
  6. Patrick167

    Patrick167 Member+

    Dortmund
    United States
    May 4, 2017
    You say all these things then ask me to prove they are wrong. Why don't you explain why the three time Women's WC winners are not a big draw? How can a team that can get on Good Morning America not be able to draw? Are they marketed correctly?

    How do we know any of the teams are marketed correctly? That ticket prices are set correctly? That USSF and SUM want to even maximize fan numbers?

    You have total blind faith in SUM, I don't know why. But if I had a product to market, and after 18 years, nobody was buying that product, I would change marketing agencies.
     
  7. jaykoz3

    jaykoz3 Member+

    Dec 25, 2010
    Conshohocken, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    They won the World Cup.............yet nobody, not even their sponsors was willing to pay for a victory parade. Were it not for the Evil organizations MLS and SUM there wouldn't have been a parade in their honor.

    Not blind faith. People are buying the product too. There might not be as many at the gate as you believe there should be, yet people are still attending the games. The money from media and TV is greater then it has ever been. People are quick to forget that the 2002 World Cup would not have been televised in English in the US were it not for the creation of SUM, and the subsequent purchase of the US Soccer rights from IMG, who did NOTHING to market the team. That wasn't that long ago.............
     
  8. Sebsasour

    Sebsasour Member+

    New Mexico United
    May 26, 2012
    Albuquerque NM
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #84 Sebsasour, Apr 22, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2019
  9. truefan420

    truefan420 Member+

    May 30, 2010
    oakland
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  10. truefan420

    truefan420 Member+

    May 30, 2010
    oakland
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Idk if we will ever know the real reason but their argument makes perfect sense. SUM doesn’t want them playing the game there to compete against the MLS viewership and if does happen they want their cut. That company is their competitor. Why make it easy for them.
     
  11. skim172

    skim172 Member+

    Feb 20, 2013
    #87 skim172, Apr 22, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2019
    Relevent is a sports and entertainment company, set up by Stephen Ross, current owner of the Miami Dolphins. They're the organizers of the International Champions Cup.

    USSF's authority to sanction soccer matches is given to it by federal law. The Amateur Sports Act of 1978 granted the US Olympic Committee power to designate a national governing body for each sport - for soccer, it was the USSF. The motivation behind the act was to prevent sports organizations from doing whatever they wanted - specifically, the Amateur Athletic Union, which governed the US Olympics teams at the time, was accused of doing some idiotic things, such as banning women from track. The Act granted designated national governing bodies governance over a specific international sport, in exchange for accountability.

    This means, among other things, that the USSF has to have Bylaws and Policies that meet federal, USOC, and FIFA regulations. Among them is this "Application Process to Organize International Matches." The process involves an application form, a fee, and a stadium reservation - unless USSF denies the application, it is considered approved after 7 days. The USSF is expected to grant sanction "unless it is decided by clear and convincing evidence that holding or sponsoring the international soccer competition would be detrimental to the best interest of the sport."

    Now, what happened here isn't that the USSF found something detrimental about Ecuadorian football. See, the USSF didn't technically deny the application. Instead, they claimed that the application was invalid because the FIFA Match Agent (the FIFA agent who arranged the match) wasn't listed on FIFA's website. Relevent responded with documents confirming the Agent's license, including direct communication from FIFA itself. 7 days later, when the conditional window was supposed to pass, USSF finally replied - again saying they can't accept the application because the FIFA Match Agent wasn't listed on FIFA's website. Relevent sent them further documents, including an email from FIFA that the license was valid and that they were having technical difficulties with the FIFA website and it shouldn't be treated like an official registry.

    USSF also stated that there are no "exceptional circumstances" in the application to justify the match being played in the US (which is not an actual requirement in the USSF bylaws. It's the opposite - they're expected to grant sanction unless there are exceptional circumstances against approval).

    And then the USSF said they would be following up with the Ecuador FA and CONMEBOL - despite having the written documents of approval attached to the application. In the meantime, Relevent was prohibited from advertising the game, or they'd be heavily penalized. Keeping in mind, USSF sent this letter to Relevent on April 12, and the game was scheduled for May 5 - three weeks later.

    Relevent's argument is that this is all a delaying tactic that allows USSF to circumvent the 7-day conditional window written into their bylaws. They're supposed to grant sanction within 7 days of receiving the application, and they know that their bylaws won't allow them to deny sanction. So instead, they're coming up with nonsense claiming that the application is invalid, so we're all gonna have to wait - presumably until Relevent gives up, or until it's so late that if approval was granted, they wouldn't have any time to publicize or prepare for the game

    Relevent then goes on to accuse USSF of being in bed with SUM and MLS. It's quite long and angry. :mad: You can read the full petition here: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...-ussf/2614596782bc81ca1387/optimized/full.pdf

    Some of the juicier quotes:
    I personally do think the USSF - if not in bed with MLS and SUM - is at least very good friends with them and they're considering moving in together. But, I also wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing was less a case of collusion and more a case of USSF's incompetence and lethargy to do anything.
     
  12. Paul Berry

    Paul Berry Member+

    Notts County and NYCFC
    United States
    Apr 18, 2015
    Nr Kingston NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  13. jaykoz3

    jaykoz3 Member+

    Dec 25, 2010
    Conshohocken, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    How does holding an Ecuadorian League match on US Soil benefit US Soccer exactly?

    Holding international friendlies is one thing, be they be between nations or clubs. Holding a competitive league match is something else entirely.
     
  14. truefan420

    truefan420 Member+

    May 30, 2010
    oakland
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Read the article... It doesn’t have to do with benefiting us soccer. It just can’t be a detriment to the growth of the sport.

    If SUM put together a league game for La Liga and put it in the US (which is being talked about) then it wouldn’t be denied by the Fed because SUM is putting it together. That’s what this is about. SUMs control over the Fed. I’m glad someone is finally trying to take them down. It’s long overdue and will only serve to benefit the national team in the long run.
     
    Patrick167 repped this.
  15. Gamecock14

    Gamecock14 Member+

    May 27, 2010
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Relevent were the same people who tried to bring a La Liga match to the US and were rebuffed by the Spanish FA and Spanish Players Union with FIFA and US Soccer not providing official comment.

    The funniest part about Relevent is the original iteration is basically half of the reason why SUM exists, the other half is that the 2002 WC would not have been on ESPN/english language television if not for Kraft, Hunt, and Anschutz buying the rights and giving them to ESPN.

    As for the current lawsuit, I think Relevent wants to get rid of any chance USSF getting in the way if they find a way to get an official match from Europe to be played in the US. There are five main obstacles (european FA, players union, UEFA, FIFA, and USSF). The first four can be bought with enough cash, the last one is going to be the toughest.

    It's a smart strategy by using Ecudorian clubs. At best they, get proof of concept and a precedent to go back to if USSF ever denies a similar event with another nation. At worst, they get a lawsuit.

    The USSF position is pretty simple, if they sanction this, they can't stop any other match from occurring based on precedent.
     
  16. Paul Berry

    Paul Berry Member+

    Notts County and NYCFC
    United States
    Apr 18, 2015
    Nr Kingston NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Fyi, it was the Spanish FA that kiboshed the La Liga match, not USSF and it was being organized by Relevent, not SUM.

    I don't think SUM would go anywhere near that, not least because it's in direct competition with MLS.
     
  17. jaykoz3

    jaykoz3 Member+

    Dec 25, 2010
    Conshohocken, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Ok..........How exactly does an Ecuadorian League game help grow the game of soccer in the US?
    Relevent is working with La Liga.

    No, this isn't about SUM's perceived control of USSF. It's about johnny come lately's wanting to get a piece of the soccer pie in the US. It has ZERO to do with growing the game in the US, and everything to do with further lining the coffers of rich people off of the game of soccer.

    This is no different then Rocco & Ricardo crying foul, and putting forth an unsolicited "billion dollar TV contract bid."

    Quite ironic that Charlie Stilitano always quotes he's long time friend Giorgio Chinaglia: "It's the money you idiot!" That is all this is about. Ross and Stilitano want to make more money. Now that their Summer Gold Mine is starting to bear less gold they need another revenue stream.

    Also, how exactly does moving away from SUM help the US National Team again?
     
  18. truefan420

    truefan420 Member+

    May 30, 2010
    oakland
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The Spanish FA didn’t fight it the Players Union did but I thought it was SUM pushing it not them so thanks for the clarification.
     
  19. truefan420

    truefan420 Member+

    May 30, 2010
    oakland
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    SUMs interest are their own. Not the USSFs they shouldn’t have the power they do over the USSF. I understand why at point they set it up the way they did but soccer isn’t going to go away. The USSF is better off looking out for themselves and making deals solely in their own interest not the MLS/SUM
     
    Patrick167 repped this.
  20. Paul Berry

    Paul Berry Member+

    Notts County and NYCFC
    United States
    Apr 18, 2015
    Nr Kingston NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    "The Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) has refused to give LaLiga the green light to stage a Primera División fixture between Girona and Barcelona in the United States this season.

    RFEF president Luis Rubiales has written to his LaLiga counterpart, Javier Tebas, to state his opposition to the proposed match in Miami on 26 January 2019, and has sent a copy of the letter to Fifa, world football's governing body, together with a second missive explaining his stance.

    LaLiga must have the permission of the RFEF for the US fixture to go ahead.

    The Federation particularly wishes to know why Girona-Barcelona has been chosen, with its objection to the choice influenced by the Spanish government's unease - given its potential political implications - about two clubs from Catalonia being involved. This is a view shared by Fifa president Gianni Infantino."

    https://en.as.com/en/2018/09/21/football/1537527621_353987.amp.html#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s
     
  21. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    C'mon. This is simple. If fans of Ecuador football watch a game live in the US, they may be more likely to watch other live soccer or MLS. Their kids may be more likely to play soccer as well, supported by their parents.

    I can't think of a reason why it would be bad for the game of soccer in the US. The more the merrier.
     
    Patrick167 repped this.
  22. Paul Berry

    Paul Berry Member+

    Notts County and NYCFC
    United States
    Apr 18, 2015
    Nr Kingston NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's Relevent trying to find another way into the US market. They've used Ecuador as a test case given that the Spanish FA wouldn't allow the La Liga match. If Relevent win this court battle then the floodgates will open. You could have the smaller Liga MX teams playing half their matches on US soil.

    Why can't people just go and watch their local team like everywhere else? Everyone hates owners, federations, the politicking, it's not unique to the US.
     
  23. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    Paul,
    1. What's the downside to having more games in the US? Why don't we let the market dictate where games are played?
    2. What's the problem of having a viable competitor to SUM?

    Wrt your question about watching local teams, soccer has the most global audience and the ability to monetize your [wealthy] fans who may not be local is important to teams, I'd guess.
     
  24. skim172

    skim172 Member+

    Feb 20, 2013
    It might or might not - however, determining this is not actually part of the USSF's job.

    The USSF's bylaws state that their only responsibility is to do the paperwork and formalize the match. They can only deny an application if they can show the match is an exceptional situation that would be detrimental to the sport in the USA.

    In essence, the USSF is like a notary, stamping and making official a contract that has been drawn up by two parties. The notary can't decline to stamp the document because they don't approve of the terms.

    If for some reason Tottenham and Brighton suddenly decided they wanted to play tonight's match in Wichita, then they would need to negotiate an agreement and find and reserve a stadium. Then they would need to get approval from their league, their national FA, and their home confederation - because those bodies govern the two clubs.

    What they don't need is the USSF to weigh in and lend its verdict, because neither club is accountable to them. Similarly, the stadium owners are not governed by the USSF either. The USSF's sole involvement is to double-check the paperwork and give formal sanction according to the bylaws - sanction which can only be declined if there is some major exception, for which the burden of proof is on them. Like, if they could show that Spurs and Brighton were in the US to promote neo-Nazism or something.

    Basically, it comes down to this: There's no law saying foreign clubs can't play games in the US.
     
    DHC1 repped this.

Share This Page