Good or bad?.....I don't know. It does mean big money for FIFA and hopefully a bit more soccer on the Mouse's channels, but in all reality probably not - lets not kid ourselves and get carried away. It also means that a channel like FSC probably won't be able to carry the next few U-20 and U-17 WCs (unless they pay the Mouse). http://www.fifa.com/en/media/index/0,1369,110918,00.html?articleid=110918
I do think that this is a huge deal. The cross-marketing of FIFA means more visibility for soccer in the US. It also means that we have some mainstream sports execs in the US spending real money on soccer - which should hopefully give the mainstream sports writers who are naysayers some pause. (At least over time.) To me this means that the 'club' is beginning to accept soccer as a real deal.
this link has a bit more info: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/soccer/11/02/bc.soc.wcup.ustvrights.ap/index.html Univision is paying $325 m, and ABC/ESPN $100 m.
Yea, but you have to remember that Univision transmit to all the Continent 36 countries in all, plus USA and Canada...
Here's the Fox link -- same info I think: http://msn.foxsports.com/soccer/story/5046782 I can't say this is HUGH for soccer, but it is very positive. $100M is a big chunk of change, and ABC/ESPN will be looking to get a good profit out of it. To that end, they will PROMOTE the games. IMO, it's more important that ESPN now has the English rights to the Confed Cup, U-17 WC and the U-20 WYC. If they show these events (or at least the US games in these events), then we are talking about a MAJOR stride forward in US soccer.
This should be the busiest thread on bigsoccer. The most important part of it, was the talk about MLS getting rights fees.
Actually, this was leaked a week ago, it just went under the radar. It's huge news, and the coverage and money involved can only get better in the future.
Impressive, someone should show this article to people when they try and say soccer and MLS are failing.
Undoubtedly, some will believe that since the $100M was for several events, the Mouse still hates MLS.
This could be really stupid, but maybe the Mouse bought all these FIFA tourney rights to start a new soccer theamed ESPN Channel or an "ESPN World Sports" Channel to compete with Fox at some point in the near future. I know they would have to get some rights from some of the leagues Fox currently has, but you never know. Maybe they have a broader strategy.
Seems like alot to pay seeing as SUM only spent $40million for two WCs. I mean, it's serious money, but the money is going to FIFA. Personally, I'd be happier if MLS got $100million from ABC/ESPN. What they really need is to be on tv as much as poker is. I mean, there are more poker stars in the public consciousness than there are soccer stars!
how did I know poker would be injected... to the point of the thread: I think this is a huge move in the right direction. Nobody plops down that kind of money without thinking of the return. advertising , more exposure , my evil plot is working out as planned I'm lovin' it
just wait till ABC begins their ESPN soccer channel, available only through DISH network or DIRECTV.....that way they can show all the games on 1 channel that nobody gets...and profit off other shows and recoup their 100 million.
I agree! How much $$$ will the MLS get in profits from all of this? Supposedly, the only reason the USA was awarded the World Cup in 1994 was so the USA would get in line with the rest of the world and get a league(MLS) going and in place. I remember the USSF made 50 million dollars out of the 94 WC in profits and Sunil Gulati loaned some money out to the MLS. That doesn't seem like all that much today (at least in terms of professional sports)but it was an incredible amount or surplus money back then. I don't know if the MLS made or got any of that money but I'll bet they would love to distribute $100 million in either player acquisitions or in contribute towards building more SSS stadiums. From my calculations that's around 8 million per team!