With Glazer's purchase of Man U, does any one think or know whether or not we will see more Man U/EPL matches being aired on ESPN or other networks besides FSC? He is a guy with more money to throw around than MLS and I would think he isn't blind to the fact that there are tons of Man U fans in the States (myself excluded) Will he put stronger pressure on US networks to get his newest acquisition in front of more American viewers? Could this be a boost for the game in the states in a few years time or sooner?
All matches shown on TV are part of the EPL collective TV contract and there is nothing Glazer can do to change it....
im not a Man U fan but they are gonna wreck our football, how can they change the name Old Trafford? how can they buy a player just purely to increase shirt sales in another country? he is a lepricorn lookalike and he is going to wreck our football! Ipswich Town against Malcom Glazer Glazer out! and his sons
Ipswichfan4life >>im not a Man U fan but they are gonna wreck our football,<< "Our football" You didn't get the memo? I could have sworn someone gave you the memo... >>how can they change the name Old Trafford? how can they buy a player just purely to increase shirt sales in another country? he is a lepricorn lookalike and he is going to wreck our football!<< I think you need to wonder how "they" could put the team on the open market. You did get the memo didn't you? >>Ipswich Town against Malcom Glazer<< I'm sure Glazer is kept awake at night thinking about the fearsome power of Ipswich Town.... >>Glazer out! and his sons<< Or you will do....what exactly?
There's nothing he can do in terms of having esn show the games here those rights belong to FSC. And ESPN will never show EPL god forbid they stop showing college b-ball and football when the epl games are played. They are showed in asia but never here thats why we have FSC.
so real madrid didn't buy beckham because he is the most marketable football player in the world. oh that's right only americans do bad things when it comes to football. how about every european team who toured the states or Asia in the past five years. Do you think that was to better their team? NOOOOO! It was to sell tickets and shirts and spread the popularity of their club in the US and Asia. MORON!! Get a clue.
You're having a laugh aren't you? This isnt a new Glazer-United trick, its been going on for ages. Roma first stumbled across the phenomina a few years ago almost by accident when they signed Nakata as a squad player and suddenly found a steady flow of cheques trickling under the door post-marked from Japan. Arsenal tried to repeat the trick by signing Junichi Inamoto, but this failed rather spectacularly and so he was shipped across the Fulham within 12 months, and Beckham's proposed new 4 year deal at Real will be financed soley from the fact that his shirt sales globally outstrip the rest of the Real team combined. Amd while we're at The Bearnabeau; that suprise transfer that came out of nowhere last summer when Owen joined Becks at Real? What was the point in signing another striker to a team that already had Ronaldo, Raul and Fernando Morientes? Calculated doesn't begin to describe it. Furthermore, its no different to smaller clubs getting in an aged, worn-out journeyman ex-international as while he adds little technical ability to the team (and his investment value is zero), his name stimulates stagnant shirt or season ticket sales. Thats been going on for generations.
Look, Brits, the market worked. And will continue to work. ManU shares were floated and Glazer bought them. If he does not increase value, he loses his investment. Value of a sports team can only be increased in the longterm by maintaining or improving its on-field performance. More matches on ESPN? No, for reasons given earlier by posters. But also because U.S. cable sports networks such as ESPN don't want soccer to become popular and ManU would pull in many more viewers. Soccer is not as profitable per-viewer as other games modified for TV because there are too few commercial spots.
Wait hold on...it says ur fav teams are USMNT, and ARSEnel.........and here u say "...tons of Man U fans in the States (myself excluded)"...................id like to know what ur smoking.......
Okiebear, don't tell me your going to float that tired old "US media hates soccer" conspiracy theory again.
i hear Man Utd fans have started up their own team now FC United in the regions league or something, lots of their fans are going to watch them instead of a club run by a bloke who has no interest in football. I feel sorry for you Man Utd fans
Actually Man U has its TV outlet (MUTV) and they would appear to have distribution of Man U games. Man U signed an agreement in 2003 with the Yankees and Man U games - including "Classic" games - were shown on the YES Channel (Yankee Entertainment Group).
Yeah becuase all the owners are in it for the love. How naive are you Ipswich? As for FC United? I'm sure that Glazer is terrified of a team put together by spare change. I can't wait to see the hypocrite fanbase's romantized views of owning a team run up against the harsh commercial reality.
Yea actually most not all but lots are in it for the love! buying a football club is not a great investment, you wont recieve as much as you put in to buy the club in the first place. However that man wants to come into a football club and change it totally. No wonder the Man Utd fans want their own team.
i'm sorry anthony, but ipswich4life, is right a majority of teams over here are run/managed by people who love the club. oviously there are exceptions to the rule eg. chavski and wrexham to name a couple. there just isn't the return (financially) in running a football club......or there wasn't until man ure in the 90's. i think it will be only a matter of time until we get back to having "our" game back and the prawn sandwich brigade find something else to watch.... as for FC united.... good luck to 'em. AFC wimbledon have done it and the're only a couple of promotions away from the conference.
I believe the Yankees deal was part of the failed Yankees Nets partnership.... MUTV has no rights to live games whatsoever.......All EPL games are part of a collective TV agreement just like in the NFL......
As said above, he is right. Virtually all club owners here are in it because they love the ego trip of running the club, whether it's in the "saviour" role or just a lust for glory (those kind seldom have a happy ending). There is absolutely no history at all of people buying clubs with the intent of selling them later for a profit. The lack of "investor" type owners is a big reason why people here are at best deeply suspicious of anyone trying to make money off the club. They have been several owners over the last 20 years or so who have made decent profits off their clubs, but every single one of them, bar none, has done so by completely f'ing up the club, asset-stripping it etc.
Regardless of the other owners' supposed love for their clubs and/or disinterest in capitalist investment, there is little to say that the model will not work. The ability to market worldwide, for one, is perhaps more suited to corporate conglomerates than anything else. I am, nonetheless, still skeptical about Glazer's ownership. It seems though that this type of move was inevitable once MU went public, and if any involved were naive, it was the MU supporters and shareholders. Admittedly, I am not particularly well versed in the business side of the Premiership, but it seems that England should be fairly accustomed to "investor" types having a controlling interest in teams. I would be fairly surprised to learn, for instance, that RA at Chelsea or whats-his-name at Fulham were lifelong supporters of the respective clubs they have rekindled.
the rather hideous £500,000,000 debt he's saddled the club with is something slightly more than 'little'. There are a number of clubs on the stock market, but they still always have had the one benevolent owner in overall control, who'd be unlikely to sell to someone who didn't have the best interests of the club at heart. Man Utd's problems were not so much when they went public, but when the family who owned to club at the time sold it on the two racehorse owners, who didn't share that same commitment. At the time they were good friends of SAF, but had a rather public falling out over proceeds of a racehorse. Had that not happened then there would have been much less chance of them selling up, and without them selling Glazer would never have gained control. Neither of those two are in it to make money. They will never get back their "investment".
Malcom Glazer can absolutely get more Manchester United games on American TV. All he has to do is sublicence the games from FSC. He could for example make sure that anytime Manchester United play what would be a PPV game, it gets on FSC, ESPN2, or whatever channel instead.Presuming of course that FSC would sell the games.
No - he can't. The EPL has a collective bargaining position - if they want to show Man U games then they have to buy rights to all EPL football....