Today, my TV guide shows ESPN2 covering Madrid vs. Besiktas for Champs League. Now, please don't get me wrong. I'll be taping that game, but my gosh, it sure seems like there are at least two far more compelling games for the USA audience. 1. Gers/Man Utd. should have an incredible atmosphere, plus Rangers are unexpectedly top of the group. All around a great game to cover. 2. Lazio/Chelsea has Juan Veron up against his old mates and if Chelsea lose, getting out of the 1st group stage will be looking unlikely. Which would not please Mr. Abramovich. I assume there is some clause in the contract, or is this just ESPN shooting itself in the foot again. I would bet: option 1 above could get double or triple the TV audience of another Real Madrid bore fest. And option 2, while not having the broad appeal of United to bank on, at least has a more interesting plotline than what we are being offered. Does anyone know why this decision has been made? And, finally my apologies if there is already a thread on this somewhere else. I couldn't find it. Its decisions like these that make soccer fans like us here at Bigsoccer say things like, "Hey, I could do a better job with soccer coverage than whoever's in charge of it at ESPN."
It's Real Madrid - Partizan today, not Besiktas. Either ESPN just have Real as their priority, or they can't pick certain games, because I'd think even they realize that Man U-Rangers is a more intersting matchup. But they don't care anyway.
ESPN is following the same policy they will have for ESPN Deportes next year (the new channel will televise the Champions League from the quarterfinal knockout stage forward). Deportes will show clubs with large quantities of South American players on their Champions League dates. However, doesn't Manchester United and Chelsea have just as many South American players as Real Madrid? If this is true, the argument for showing Madrid instead of Manchester United or Chelsea is a poor one.
well real do have ronaldo and roberto carlos as their south americans still, espn has gradually made coverage worse every year - they used to have tuesday and wednesday every match day + semifinal doubleheaders
From SA, United have Forlan, who usually doesn't start, and Kleberson, who is injured. Chelsea have Crespo and Veron, both of whom should start if healthy. And while Madrid have the same number as Chelsea (Roberto Carlos and Ronaldo), they are still seen as more appealing to the ESPN Deportes viewers because of their prevalence of Spanish and Portugese players, and their long history of SA players.
I could be totally wrong on this but I thought Setanta holds all rights to Rangers home champions league games. I can't believe that ESPN would pick Real Madrid VS anyone over a Rangers VS Man United game. Or perhaps they choose David Beckham wherever or whoever he is playing. LOL
Well, think of it. Soccer-unwise programming director asks his underlings: Gotta pick a game for next week. What players do Americans know? "David Beckham." Who does he play for? "Real Madrid." Anybody else they know? "Ronaldo." Who does he play for? "Real Madrid." Anybody else they know? "Umm, not really. Maybe Zidane." Who does he play for? "Real Madrid." Anybody else? "Maybe Figo. Or Roberto Carlos." Let me guess, they play for... "Yep. Real Madrid." Has that Freddy Adu guy signed for them yet?
I'm completly ignorant of ESPN's arrangements with UEFA for Champions League broadcasts, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if their decision to go with the Real Madrid match is a combination of favoritism towards certain popular teams (in baseball that gets you the Yankees/Cubs/Dodgers) and a lack of rights to better games. Both the Man Utd/Rangers and Chelsea/Lazio promise more drama, better atmosphere, and better soccer. And each has enough star-power to draw any American fan who would watch Champions League coverage anyways. If Setanta does have the Man Utd/Rangers game, you'd expect that they could do well off it. perc
My understanding is that ESPN has sold all of the rights to Scottish and English teams CL matches to Setanta. ESPN can make more money selling the rights to Setanta than they can selling commercial time for those matches. Besides, they can then double dip by collecting fees from Setanta and getting advertising from airing the one required match that they have in the UEFA contract.
Haven't you noticed that Americans care disproportionately about coaches? This is about getting ratings in the country's biggest market (NYC) by putting a formal local on the tube. Carlos Queiroz is CLEARLY the real draw here.
Setanta is showing the Rangers-Manchester United game but ESPN is showning the return leg in a few weeks.
Mailrenegade you are spot on, Setanta does hold the rights for them and Septic ooops I meant Celtic and therefore neither of those teams games will be shown on ESPN at least when they play at home. Most of us end up going to the local pub and forking out $10 to watch the Gers games. Since ManU is huge they may get their wish and that return leg will be televised on ESPN. I for sure hope so! And yes whenever the poneytailed Beckham plays his games are televised especially on GolTV which always shows Real Madrid matches on the weekends. Saludos y viva er beti manque lopera! Pichi
Setanta is an Irish PPV provider that televises soccer, rugby and assorted Irish sports to America and Australia. Some events, particularly England matches and FA Cup games are "in-home PPV," which is what movies and the like usually are. Other games are only available to bars, like Champions League and non-England or Euro 2004 matches. I have never ordered PPV but I picked this info up from reading this board. Look for a pub in your area or failing that, there are a few soccer pubs in NYC and in Philadelphia.
ESPN2/ESPN Deportes is going to show Real Madrid in the early rounds unless there is a really good reason not to, such as another notable team needing a win to advance to the next round. Real Madrid sells well in South America (as we know) and also having Beckham pushes the decision as to who to carry for the US/Canadian market over the top.
also remember that espn2 takes espn international's feed... and espn-i was showing rangers-manu and chelsea-lazio tape-delayed after madrid-partizan.
Have any of you read "Gonzo Marketing"? This would seem a perfect opportunity for someone at ESPN to say, "Look, we know the only people watching this soccer crap are those nuts who post at Bigsoccer. So why not just let them decide on which game we show with a Bigsoccer poll." Is Bristol receiving?
I am really amazed that after that many years, posters here (Americans) are still ignorant about how ESPN2 chooses their games. They think ESPN2 chooses a game to maximize ratings and ad revenues, or chooses a game to piss the whole America off... ESPN2 simply chooses the game ESPN Intl. broadcasts in Latin America, no extra live production cost, no extra satellite uplink cost, etc. You are nobodies in ESPN Intl.'s target audience. The telecast on ESPN2 is simply a program filler, fullfilling a contractual obligation (that ESPN2 must televise at least 1 game in this market). You want ESPN to tailor to your needs? move to Latin America, where they show mostly Italian and Spanish teams (8 games per match day), or Asia, where they show mostly British teams, and 7 games per match day. Are soccer fans in the U.S. receiving?
This summer Man Utd. sold out all of their US tour games in a matter of hours. Times change. And, if I move to Latin America, I'm still not going to get to watch the Battle of Britain, I'm going to get Real Madrid vs. The Smog Monster.
What are you talking about? Latin American's menu on 11/4 : 1430 ET: Man U x Rangers (live, ESPN Latin America) 1430 ET: Partizan Belgrade x Real Madrid (live ESPN DOS) 1645 ET: Lazio x Chelsea (delay, ESPN Latin America) 1900 ET: Brugge x AC Milan (delay, ESPN DOS) So how aren't you get to see Man U x Rangers in, say, El Salvador? Americans are getting Man U x Rangers simply because for some strange reasons, they decide to show Man U x Rangers live in Latin America. This is a rare happening. As far as I remember, the last time ESPN showed two non-latin teams were on Match Day 6 of 1999-00 season, when Bayern Munich and Rangers battled for the #2 spot in the first round. If ESPN makes a decision solely for the American market, the game then should definitely not be on ESPN2. Selling the game to Setanta would get better ROI.