Either the case is thrown out, or we never see the real numbers and it's settled behind closed doors with both sides claiming total victory. I feel like the latter happens 99.99 percent of the time.
In this day and age its kind of weird to allude to the idea that Spanish-speaking viewership is irrelevant or does not create revenue.
Try to catch up, the Spanish-language ratings for Champions League, were thrown out there to try to rebut the fact that the English ratings for US-Chile were the highest single-game English language ratings for any game since the men's World Cup final. So after 627 posts we've established that even if some here won't watch the women's World Cup, a hell of a lot of people are watching...
Here is what seems to me like the final summation (although I'm sure that it won't be): Many people here don't want to watch the Women's World Cup, and they definitely have the right to do (or not do in this case), what they want to. Many people here (including me) do want to watch the Women's World Cup, and we definitely have the right to do what we want to. What none of us has is the right to tell the others what they ought to do. Case closed? Probably not.
Personally, I hope that they can compel an audience to continue to pay attention to them after the world cup. Not to their social justice causes (which don't build a market for their product), but to their professional league. Best case scenario: USWNT wins the cup, carries the interest into their professional league, makes piles of cash, and provide lucrative careers for one another and those who come after them. Before Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, the NBA broadcast games on tape delay. After Michael Jordan, the NBA became a massive market for players and salaries have risen ever since. The USWNT want all of the benefits of a lucrative sports marketplace without putting in the work to make it happen.
The more likely scenario is that the USSF is refusing to comment now because they know that discovery will be very good for them and the women are merely using this as a PR stunt.
Exactly. Again, they have more activists than fans and they seem to like it that way. They cater all of their appeals to Twitter mobs and female journalists.
Tried to give it another chance yesterday. Tuned in just in time to see the Marta goal. Heard the Commentators on Fox Sports say she is the all time leading goal scorer surpassing Klose and she should have celebrated with a Klose flip (or something silly like that, I am paraphrasing here). Immediately laughed out loud and turned off the TV. (That brings my grand total of watching the tournament to about 15 minutes.)
Haven't watched WWC (except for couple highlights), but i watched our GC opening game last night on FS1, watching pre-game show host beats watching any WWC game so far:
Turns out, she hosts post-game show "Fox Soccer Tonight" where they discuss WWC as well: https://www.sportsvideo.org/2019/06...ams-for-2019-fifa-womens-world-cup-in-france/ In light of that we might start watching WWC after all.
She's pretty talented. I was surprised when she interviewed a player in Spanish once. I think it was for Champions League coverage.
She speaks 4 languages, was presenting Ballon d'Or a few years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Abdo
Abdo is only hosting post-game show. Pregame shows have a bunch of talking heads, only three of them are worth watching - Taft, LeBlanc and Unkel: Rob Stone Jenny Taft: Eni Aluko Kate Gill Ariane Hingst Alexi Lalas Karina LeBlanc: Heather O’Reilly Kelly Smith Christina Unkel:
They don't care much, but is not "whatsoever" https://www.forbes.com/sites/veroni...-with-womens-world-and-copa-america-cups/amp/
The money flows to Fifa first. That and other reasons is why comparing WC ratings is silly, but lots of the lawsuit claims are silly.
For friendly and qualifying matches yes, but not for tournaments, even the gold Cup tv money, concacaf gets the money and then pay out the Federations.