read the whole marc connolly aritcle in 9/11's usa today online. (don't know how to create a link). what i really like about this article is that it closes with a rather encouraging statement from a nonmls source. "Such efforts are the latest signs the league is maturing in its pursuit to leapfrog the break-even point and become a sustainable major sports league, says Dean Bonham of the Denver-based sports marketing firm The Bonham Group. "The reality," he says, "is that we have a sleeping giant that's going to awake in the next decade in this country — that's Major League Soccer."
The S.A.R.S. outbreak turned out to be nothing short of a massive coup for MLS/SUM. Potentially $500,000 extra per game in advertising and host broadcaster! MLS/SUM paid $40 million for the WC rights through 2006. Given the US's strong showing in WC 2002 and the potential larger interest in WC 2006, SUM should profit from this deal which was a far flung notion when it was first brokered.
Great article. On the tv side, there's still obviously a lot to work out: Hopefully they'll earn the full $8-10 million of ad revenue, but it's still unclear. I also hope MLS/SUM doesn't muck up the production values of the telecasts. We Americans aren't known for the quality of our soccer broadcasting. Lastly, it's lovely to hear someone - in this case Dean Bonham of the Bonham Group, a sports marketing group - be so bullish on MLS. Interesting that his firm is based in Denver, where what's his name is allegedly buying the Rapids and is even willing to put up a SSS. Clearly some people see A LOT of potential in what's happening out there with soccer and MLS.
Yeah this is some incrediable news MLS HQ has proved to be very savy when it comes to SUM. Very impressive that at least in relation to the WWC and WUSA that MLS essentially was flexing some muslce. I imagine the price that they set for whatever rights weren't exactly a token offer. Very very savy move, if only they could find the same sort of way to get a Champions World type set off to pay for them this much finacially. Because then you have a situation where when Gaber says, 'what's good for socer is good for us,' and not have it br bs
Fingers crossed Now if only we can get the Men's team to Germany (can't forget that step) and have them scheduled for some afternoon games.... ....gotta think that the US Men in the WC (insert Queer Eye reference jokes here) would pull in strong ratings during the summer re-run season. The critical part now is to get a good production out - nothing will help their cause more than catching the excitement and watchability of these games, and nothing could knock 'em down farther than putting out games that look like crap (well, maybe the US pulling a Portugal would do it).
ummmmm, no one wants Uncle Phil and his peeps to score some dollars from the last-minute move back here more than me...... HOWEVER, I think it would be optimistic to say that this WWC will garner more interest than the last. I don't think I'm breaking any new ground by pointing out; a) they'll be competing with baseball stretch run, college football and the National Felon.. I mean Football.... League season. b) a big ol' chunk of the audience from the last time around (little kids) are going to have to get up five days out of the week to go to school. That was not true last time. c) there won't be the same novelty factor. d) if they loose short of the final, it's going to be a big bummer for soccer in general and women's soccer in particular in this country. It's safe to say that the organizers themselves realize the difference from last time around, and the biggest sign of that is moving the final from the Rose Bowl (Cap = many, many thousands) to the Home Depot Center (Cap = high 20's). I'd say full-on sellouts at U.S. games, a couple of sellouts in games not involving the U.S., and a mention or two on Letterman (as opposed to the gushing he did last time) would be great.
Good points, Golazo, but he was talking about THE World Cup, the one in 2006, not the Women's World Cup.