MLS All Star game, Something to the effect of: "We are going to have to move this game over to ESPN2. Another great reason to have the Disney family of networks supporting soccer." Yeah, way to campaign for your job Jack Ass-Backwards! If they would actually treat soccer like something other than a red-headed stepchild, the game wouldn't be bumped for "World News Tonight"! I was pretty pissed off, considering I couldn't be home to watch the game, and set my VCR to record on ABC!! That decision, though there was nothing MLS could do about it, made them look so low-rent, and that is exactly the problem they will have as long as they are forced to buy time on a network. Next thing you know, they'll bump the MLS Cup to show "Heidi"...
you know, you were *almost* onto a good thought for a few seconds. Fact: MLS bought the 2 1/2 hours of time on ABC Fact: the broadcast ran over due to a weather delay Fact: without this being the Disney family of networks, it's VERY possible the last 20 minutes of the game would have never been shown on TV. Now, having said that, are you sure that Jack's comment wasn't more correct than you think?
All of this whining about the switch reminds of my drive home where I stopped by some friends of mine with a 3 year old. The tyke had a hissy fit because he wanted mom to get him some raisins, not dad. It wasn't the raisins he was interested in at all, it was the power to manipulate the situation. Hey. The game was on TV. Get over it. Are you 1) Interested in watching the All-Star game or 2) Interested in getting a soccer loyalty oath signed by Michael Eisner that Disney will henceforth put soccer above all other considerations.
Even if the channel switch was a raw deal (which it wasn't), since when does Jack Edwards make the final decision in programming?
(a) Can you name me another network that has even deigned to return MLS' phone calls, much less offer to put their games on? Didn't think so. (b) I don't know where you live, but usually at 6pm in the Eastern time zone, it's local news, not World News Tonight, and local stations make money off their newscasts. They're the ones who bitch if you run into their time, and their outrage does trump yours. Sorry. I cannot believe they didn't take this into account when they were running around trying to satisfy as many constituents as possible. Leave your number at the beep, next time this comes up, we'll have them get on the red phone and contact you directly for your opinion.
He doesn't make the decisions, he was just trying to make a bull$hit situation look like a gift, and I thought it was making a bad situation for the MLS and USSF look like a gift from above. It isn't. I know, if it weren't for Disney, soccer wouldn't be on ABC, we are so lucky to have them. Whatever. If it weren't for the Disney family of networks holding MLS up over the right to put what amounts to a soccer infomercial on TV, the game would not have been pre-empted. Yes, I understand it is a time-buy...that is the problem. If it were any other All Star game, they would have stuck with it until the two teams decided to end it in a tie! The reason this makes me so mad is because it is the paramount illustration of why the deal with the Mouse sucks. MLS will never get the credibility it deserves as long as they are forced into bad, and extremely confined, timeslots by ABC/ESPN. What's to stop ABC from making this a regular practice... uh, we only want an hour of MLS, so We are going to show the first half of the MLS Cup on ABC, and the rest on ESPN 2. They have the upper hand for sure...that is why MLS and the USSF need to get out there and find a bargaining chip ASAP!!
You know, strangely enough, usually a two and a half hour window is plenty of time to get a 90-minute game in. Just so happens it wasn't Saturday. Money talks. When MLS can actually make somebody some money, maybe then they'll get the "credibility" you think they deserve. Oh, and again, find another network out there. MLS was in play just recently, weren't they? Did they find any takers? And, oh, by the way, I don't think USSF has anything to do with MLS' TV negotiations, nor should they. And, unless you missed it, MLS is locked into the Mouse for four more seasons, so you might just be pontificating for a long while.
Glad to see that it's not just my 4 year old who acts the fool. Think about this story before you go procreate, people. Having kids isn't a Jim Belushi sitcom. I thought Jack was spot on when he said that. Rob Stone's comment about the game that could only be contained by two networks was funny too. They made the best out of the situation. What would CBS have done with it - put us on VH1?
Um. Dude. Is there a bargaining chip store we/MLS doesn't know about? What the heck does this mean? Money talks, male cow excrement ambulates.
Somehow, I'm pretty sure that MLS has bought a long enough time slot the MLS Cup to finish the game. Barring a late fall thunderstorm. I'm sorry you missed the end of the game. But it's really not Disney's fault. They came up with a workable solution that all of the affiliates would agree to. The end of the match may basically have been shown for free by ESPN -I'm sure they didn't sell advertising ahead of time for rain-delay spillovers. Perhaps I should start a thread expressing my outrage with you for not going to the game live, or even watching the game live on TV with friends, both of which would have been more supportive of MLS than taping the game. See? You weren't willing to sacrifice something (whatever else you were doing) to watch the game live on TV - similarly, ABC and its affiliates weren't willing to give up valuable air time for free just because it rained in DC.
If it were any other all-star game, then the ratings for the game would have warranted sticking with it. But it's MLS. So accept the fact that soccer doesn't get the ratings to warrant what you think it deserves.
Well, considering I am currently broke from paying bills, and I had to be at work at 3 on Saturday, I think I had 2 pretty good reasons for a) Not being there live and b) Not being able to watch it live. I am sorry, not everyone lives in the Yuppy dream world you live in where weekends are completely free and plane tix to DC are just a drop in the bucket, Jackass. It's a raw deal face it. I know, MLS' TV deal is not tied in with the USSF. Ratings don't matter though, even with the great ratings the WC got this time around, USSF will still have to pay ABC/ESPN in '03 and '06 to show the WWC and the WC. Even though, Disney now knows there is money to be had from this sport. Unfortunately, it was probably SUM's fault for signing a deal that covers the next WC, otherwise they would have the aforementioned bargaining chip.
Yeah, becauase now all they have is: - the fact that the good 2002 ratings made them money as advertisers paid more for later games, not to mention the fact that new advertisers signed up as the cup went along. - the bargaining power that these ratings will give them with advertisers for the 2003 and 2006 WC's. so yeah, they're sure hurtin. got any other points of wonder for us, Eric?
Actually, I thought that moving the game to ESPN was kind of a gift. I was trying to explain to my 10-year old son (young enough to get excited about the all-star game, young enough to be shocked some people didn't care about the world cup, too young to understand about time-buys) that the end of the game wasn't going to be televised, when lo and behold we hear that the end of the game would be broadcast on ESPN. It was more than I expected from them, although admittedly my expectations aren't that high.
You obviously don't understand how TV works. SUM could have made a significantly larger amount, particularly in '06, by selling the rights fees to a "mid-summer ratings bump" event unlike any other currently available. With the success of this WC, you would have several networks interested, thus the process of out-bidding one another. That is how the NFL makes most of their money, and that is how pro leagues (while not similar to WC at all) sustain themselves around the world (see BundesLiga, Nationwide, SPL, EPL for what happens when you have one fall apart). The USSF could have seen alot more money, and still had a stake in advertising revenues as well. And depending on how much they will have to pay for airtime (and national advertising, which is what this really is, gets expensive) the advertising revenues are, for the most part, largely negated by the pay out SUM is making. So, yes, they may turn a relatively small profit (stressing relative, still in millions), but nothing compared to what they could have made. You should also note that many networks lose money, just so they can have the right to say they are the rights holder for a particular sports event or league. They see the credibility it gives as more valuable than money. But the matter still stands, the ad revenues don't recoup their payout. I would have to say that the same probably will end up holding true with the WC. Especially with fewer commericial time slots. SUM probably understands that they shouldn't worry themselves too much with profit and loss when dealing with soccer and America. The exposure is the most valuable thing. After '06, hopefully that will be over, and they can start sticking their hands out to the networks, not the other way around. It is not a horrible situation right now, and it could have been 100 times better in '06. But, I guess you are satisfied with the status quo.
Eric, you have the advantage of looking at the situation in hindsight. When the existing deal was negiotiated, did you feel that it was a bad deal? I sure didn't, and here's why: There was nothing better that SUM could have gotten. Sure, now that the WC produced higher than expected ratings it's easy to say that SUM has locked itself into a bad deal, but at the same time, how would SUM have known beforehand what they were getting themselves into?
And if the ratings had been crap, where would SUM be now? You take your chances. SUM got a break. It's rare that something works out for you like that.
Like many others I too taped the match and was annoyed by the switch. But no one can control the weather and I was glad to be able to see any of the game period since I recall a time not all that long ago when there was no soccer to be found anywhere on tv on a regular basis in this country. It was just a matter of the needs of the many outwaying the needs of the few. If the ratings for soccer broadcasts approach those of local and network news maybe this could be avoided in the future.
All Good Points - But don't be so hard on MLS. I would suggest that these are all good points being discussed. Actually, I think everyone's a little right. 1. It DOES stink that MLS has to buy its own airtime from ABC/ESPN. 2. Given the above, the last minute scrambling to get the ASG moved to ESPN was decent work and should be applauded as MLS showing some "field expediency" and levergaing their relationship with ABC. Even so, MLS is viewed by ABC as just another media buy so I wouldn't get overly excited about their commitment to Soccer. If they were commited then they would have actually PAID MLS for the rights and sold it to their own sponsors. Given the financial bath they are taking with almost all sports, that is unlikely. 3. All the good points specifically ratings bumps, growing popularity and more sponsors are a direct benefit to MLS. While they have a fixed contract with ABC/ESPN, the extra revenue stream from increased spot prices and new sponsors goes straight into their coffers. Now, if it keeps on growing they can actually MAKE money instead of LOSING money! At that point,you'll start to see ABC/NBC/CBS bidding to carry MLS and US Soccer. They'll let MLS and SUM take the risk until they can buy a pre-subcribed show from them. 4. None of this changes the god awful production of MLS/USMNT... that has to do with who MLS and SUM contract the production to. 5. I still think the All Star Game is rubbish but you can check out my column for that.... www.worldsoccerweekly.com/rants.html 6. Switching to last years ASG during the rain delay was bad... they should have had better contigiency programming such as a complete retrospective of WC2002 (they own the rights so no problems there) or replay the US Portugal or US Mexico match. Hindsight is 20/20 though and I'm sure no one anticipated a 57 minute delay and then a restart. So, in a few years you'll see a major network(s) bidding for the rights to soccer. In the meantime, MLS will stay flexible and buy the airtime at fixed prices and attempt to get the broadcasts fully subscribed. It's part of the growth and building process as Soccer becomes a major televised sport here in the US. Nick Geber Host World Soccer Weekly KMPC 1540 LA Sporting News Radio www.worldsoccerweekly.com