What Will Be The Effect On U.S. TV Rights Of The Awarding Of The 2018/2022 FIFA World Cups?

Qatar (which stays on Standard Time all year) will be 7 hours of Eastern DAYLIGHT Time. Same time as Greece or Turkey and only 1 hour ahead of Central Europe during the summer.

(Moscow is usually 8 hours ahead of Eastern Time except when the clocks on both sides of the Atlantic are out of sync in March and late October/early November.)

==

World Cup 2010 has proven that having World Cup matches in any city in Europe, Middle East, and Africa will result large TV audiences in the U.S. Russia and Qatar will both work.

One would still expect Comcast to bid at least $1 billion for U.S. media rights in all languages, including English (for Versus, Universal Sports, CNBC on weekends, and the final on NBC) and Spanish (56 live matches on Telemundo with 8 overflow matches live on mun2.)

ESPN, Inc. (Disney) and Univision will have to decide whether they want to get into a bidding war against Comcast.

==

I do NOT expect NewsCorp to bid for U.S. media rights to the World Cups (unless NewsCorp were to swallow up Univision in the next 2-3 years, which I don't believe will happen.)

NewsCorp may end up with the rights only in smaller markets in Asia where ESPN STAR Sports (which is managed by NewsCorp) does not encounter local bidders with deep pockets.

 

Nope

 

I think the likelihood of the FIFA WC not being shown live in 8-12 years is 0. The demand for it will only be higher by that time. Besides, they did show the matches live when it was in Japan/South Korea, during a time when the WC was about as popular as Scrabble tournaments and Major League Putt-putt.

 

The west coast will finally get to sleep in and watch games without an alarm clock.

 

The rights fee will still be healthy. I do think there is at least a slight chance that ESPN or Comcast may be able to convince FIFA to make the English-language coverage cable-exclusive (plus satellite). Besides having seen the college football and basketball national championships air at least once on cable by then under the contracts signed this year, we may see both the NBA and Stanley Cup Finals make the switch too in the coming decade. This would give ESPN and Comcast fuel for their arguments that even the Final on cable is a viable business proposition for both themselves and FIFA.

 

How so?

 

I think Disney has more money than God and will bid up the rights. Comcast/NBC took a bath on the Conan O'Brien bailout, lost a ton of money on the Olympics, and has not seen the purchase of the World Championship Sports Network (now Universal Sports) turn into Actual Revenue.

Cripes, they have to rely on Kathie Lee Gifford and a Scrabble hand for their late morning ratings.

 

but by then they'll probably be a vertically integrated content giant that's blocking Netflix and Viacom and moving NBC to a cable channel. When will the TV rights go on sale for 2022? 2016? That's eons of time.

 

We got eons to talk about this. Why talk now?? I mean we could even CBS or FOX in the mix of WC Rights a decade later.

 

I wouldn't assume that kickoffs will be much later in 2014 than they were in 2010, at least not for the knockout rounds. Probably 13:00, 15:30, 18:00 (Brasilia time — EDT +1h), with most games involving big European teams having the early kickoffs (except for Spain's — they like to stay up late over there, especially in summer). Knockout rounds probably 13:00 and 16:00.

At most we'll get something like 15:00, 18:00, 21:00 during group stages, which means 2pm, 5pm, 8pm EDT.

 

Expect FIFA to sell the U.S. media rights to World Cups 2018 and 2022 all at once, sometime between 2012 and 2014 depending on economic conditions.

FIFA knows that Comcast/NBCU (Telemundo) wants to bid against Disney/ESPN and Univision.

 

Did I miss something? where on earth people are getting the idea that Comcast/NBCU (Telemundo) will make a run at any World Cup event?

I have looked everywhere, and I do not see proof of that. NBCU sees no value on soccer period. NBCU and Comcast will have to start now to build a good reputation as a soccer leading provider in the United States. Telemundo is not considered a good platform for international soccer. At least Univision has been doing this for over 30 years.

The infrastructure needed to broadcast a World Cup even is not build withing a short amount of time.

But the must important thing of all is that the people behind this even needs to know the game, the business and have a great understanding of what the people want.

Take a look at all the effort ESPN/Disney has put Behind the WC events. One may say that it has taken several decades to get it right.

I will hate to go back to trials, experiments and lack of vision with another poor WC event. Many have forgotten: Argentina 78, Spain 82, Mexico 86, Italy 90, but I have not.

WC Broadcast in this country started to get decent coverage in 94, but does who were able to speak Spanish or had access to a 10ft satellite may have since it since 86.

Many of us remember Argentina 78 being broadcast on radio, and taped delay several hours or days later.

Comcast/NBCU have no experience in this type of events.

The World Cup is not the Olympics. There is only one sport and 32 countries competing to win the ultimate title. The are no Judges involve(referee errors do not count).


This is my opinion.

 

The entire executive team that is currently running Telemundo Sports was running Univision Sports during the 1990's. That executive team (Hidalgo, Velasquez, et. al.) has a ton of experience with the World Cup.

NBCU also knows the value of soccer as a cable/satellite TV product. Remember that NBC offered a 100% HD soccer channel (with no commercial interruptions) during the 2008 Beijing Games.

Comcast/NBCU knows the value of the World Cup to Telemundo (56 live matches), mun2 (8 overflow matches plus re-airs), Versus (up to 56 live matches), CNBC (possible live matches on weekends), and Universal Sports (for re-airs).

NBC only needs to air the final match itself in English. The other 63 games don't have to be on NBC. They can be on Versus, CNBC, Telemundo, and mun2.

(Now that Comcast is essentially running NBCU, mun2 is getting a push into English-language cable TV tiers.)

==

Look for Comcast to have to start losing at least $2 million/year to MLS starting with the 2011 season (with a package containing local rights for the Comcast Sportsnets plus national telecasts on Versus.) That is the price of a ticket FIFA will charge Comcast to bid for the U.S. media rights to the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.

 

Unfortunately true, Monopoly is the American way more than any time since Rockefeller's empire was broken up a hundred years ago. ComCast will probably own Netflix by then.....

 

Once again, The Olympics is not the World Cup.

However, The Problem with Comcast getting the rights is not not every cable subscriber will be able to see all of the games, because not all of the NBCUIVERSAL/Comcast channels are in the same packages. So if you have access to MSNBC and Universal channel, you may not have access to USA or Bravo.

The World Cup is one game and many countries competing and must die hard fans want access to every game.

Now, from a business perspective, The World Cup is all about Advertising, and and not subscriptions. That is the reason why Univision paid over $300M for the 2010 and 2014 rights.

That is why I keep insisting that The World Cup is not the Olympics. The Crows are different the passion is different and the approach needs to be different.

Telemundo has never air a mayor international soccer event, and just because you have some people with experience does not mean that you have the infrastructure to do so.

So, I am all for capitalism and all, but the problem with an organization that have no true experience with the World Cup is that they are going to experiment with something they have very little experience with. Remember, that must die hard fans complaint about the lack of appreciation in this country for this game. The World Cup is in the eyes of many the biggest sport event and only comes up every four years.

It took ESPN several years for them to figure out the the bottom line message was a big disruption to many. Univison has been doing this for decades, and in 2010 they almost ruin the game by panning away from a live game to show the stadium during the game.

So imagine what will happen to an organization that has never done this before.

 

The World Cup is all about selling pay TV subscriptions in many parts of the world where "anti-siphoning legislation" does not exist.

Remember that DirecTV Latin America had exclusive TV rights to the 2002 World Cup in most of South America. Only 5 out of 64 games were made available free-to-air. The rest were all on pay TV.

ESPN STAR Sports in many parts of Asia had exclusive TV rights to the 2010 World Cup. All 64 games were on pay TV in those territories. No game was available free-to-air.

TVB in Hong Kong used the 2010 World Cup as a "weapon" to push adoption of its digital TV channels by the masses. NONE of the 64 games were made available on analog free-to-air TV.

==

The U.S. is one territory where "anti-siphoning legislation" does not exist.

The trend around the world (except Europe and Australia, where "anti-siphoning legislation" exists) is for the World Cup to migrate to pay TV, especially most of the group stage games.

==

Telemundo is free-to-air and in HD in many major U.S. TV markets.

If Comcast were to win the rights in the U.S. for 2018 and 2022, one would expect Telemundo to have 56 games live in Spanish with the other 8 "overflow" games going to mun2. English-language coverage can be live on the pay channels only (i.e. Versus with overflow matches on CNBC, USA Network, or MSNBC) with the exception of the final match itself on NBC.

 

do you know how many people complain about NBC's handling of the Vancouver and Salt Lake City Olympics? But they still made money (overall) and the IOC still accepted their checks. Getting the World Cup bid isn't about the passion of the fans, it's about getting eyeballs and selling ad units. Credit to ESPN for pushing it the way they did (which I think they did because of the success of USA in 2009 and that glitzy first game against England in the timeslot that couldn't be beaten.

Just because people don't have Telemundo now doesn't mean they won't have it in 2018. Someone already mentioned Comcast pushing mun2 in English tiers. Things change all the time. Comcast might have an iPad app (or whatever the iPad successor is) for watching games by then.

You said it yourself - ESPN took forever to figure it out. Why won't Comcast take a crack at it?

 

I think a company, if it spends 1 billion on rights, would be more than willing to hire the right people to make the game presentation worthy of the investment. To not do so would be insanity.

 

You will think. The problem is that the executive team that are in charge of soccer broadcasting in the United States lack the international knowledge and know how of the sport of soccer. Fox, who has a long history with the game overseas, has a managing team made up of European and South Americans handling their football programming and acquisitions.

Putting and talented team together for the WC will cost a great deal of money. And chances are that they will have to do what ESPN did with the 2010 World cup, they went overseas to get the right talent, but they only pay $100M for the rights.

The last time I check, NBCUniversal lost money on the last Olimpics, which to me has more appeal in the United States than soccer.

Now, I am all for change, but Soccer has a long, and I mean a long way to go in this country. Americans will stop once the US is eliminated from the eliminations rounds, which will translate to lost in viewer-ship.

Remember, Advertising sales will always be stronger than subscription sales, and I can assure you that during the World Cup Americans are not going to go over board to pay for PPV or additional packages to see the World Cup.

In Latin America, is true, Directv had the rights to all of the games, and they sublicense some to local distributors, but all that did was to reduce fan penetration. You see, in Latin America Cable is a luxury and in many cases is un-affordable.

Must countries in Europe have a die hard fan base, and soccer can get the type of revenue that PPV Boxing gets in this country. And in Europe must people go to a big park or a pub to watch their national team play. Plus if I am not mistaken, all national team games are free to the public.

So, my argument is still the same. Americans are not that passionate about the game, and we are still decades away from seeing this beautiful game become popular in this country. I am hopping to be wrong, but look at all of the European games ratings.

So by making the game only part of Pay Tv will limit the viewer ship, therefore limiting ratings. And trust me, all advertisers are looking for eyeballs.

Now, my big argument continues to be that I do not see signs that NBC/Universal/Comcast is about to make this mayor investment.

You guys are talking about a Billion dollars for the rights along, and god knows how much production cost will be in either 2018 or 2022.

That is a big investment, do you really think the US Market will be ready by 2018 and 2022 to embrace this beautiful game. I am not so sure.

It will be nice to know, how much return on investment both Univision and ESPN/ABC got for just the 2010 World cup.

 

Pay tv is currently losing steam right now for many reasons, but the main reason is saturation. Programmers are saturating the market with the same material that cable providers charge for. Some people are arguing that the next generation of viewers are not interested in the old traditional tv model. The future generation are getting their entertainment from video games, and google.

These factors are pushing programmers and distributors to come up with a new business model for the future.

Getting a dual stream of revenue from programming is ideal, but is it sustainable?

We are training people to continue to deal with Advertising and also pay for the content. How long you think this will last?

The current trend is telling us that not for long.

 

There is no compelling evidence at this time to show that NBC/Comcast will bid-up 1 billion for those rights...FIFA has established a great relationship with ESPN in the last few years. ESPN has already indicated that they will atleast match all the hours and resources for WC 2010 during WC 2014. ESPN/Disney will not lose the rights to the World Cup. Yes, the rights fee will go up substantially this time around for the English language rights in the US market.

Because of this global meltdown in terms of economic issues, i don't see NBC/Comcast making such a bid. NBC is losing money, and they have been in bad shape for the last few years (last in terms of ratings among the BIG networks). Yes, Comcast has the money, but they lack the infrastructure and the resources to showcase this event. They have to catch-up with ESPN, and that is going to take time...

I do see these rights going back to ESPN/Disney sometimes during 2012-2014 area.

 

That was my original question, having work at NBC/Universal for several years, I can tell you that soccer is no where in the top brass's radar. As for Comcast, I am not sure, but I am positive that they will make a smart investment, and I do not see winning the rights to the World Cup as a smart investment for them.

Only networks like ESPN can make this type of gamble. They have the resources and the know how, plus the brand recognition that is needed to assure potential advertiser that their investment is in good hands. Univision also has the brand recognition in the Spanish market, plus the know how.

Now, who knows, maybe by 2026 and 2030 we can go back and see if Comcast/NBCUniversal have what it takes to not only compete for the rights, but also assure the american soccer audience that they will too do a good job with a world cup event. Who knows, it can be plausible.

 

I don't think future kickoff times will necessarily follow the pattern of recent history as you describe it (by local time irrespective of the host nation's time zone). Particularly since three of the last four WCs were played in the same time zone, which also happened to be the most important time zone as far as maximizing prime time TV audiences.

The 2008 CL final in Moscow was played at 10.45 pm local time, so there is precedent (albeit UEFA instead of FIFA) for changing historic patterns of kickoff times to maximize television audiences.

I wouldn't be surprised if they kept the same absolute kickoff times as the last couple of WCs, causing later kickoff times in the host nation's time zone. I'd assume daylight lasts in Russia for a long time in the summer hours anyways (which keeps people out and about later), and with Qatar's climate controlled stadia, it doesn't really matter what time they play, one would think.