I'm hoping Tommy keels over soon because he said that the US would never win the World Cup in his lifetime. Or was that Seamus?
ESPN also has contracts with other sports leagues too. Most of them are multi year deals. They can't just drop IRL, PGA, LPGA, ATP, MLS, MLB, PBA, and any other league that they have contracts with to show a soccer tournament.
TV Azteca showed the USA vs Canada match, and I am not sure but I think Televisa did too. I know what you all have been saying about the rights and how all that works, but I couldn't help feel sad that I could watch the game in two different Mexican stations(in good quality too) while in the US it was being shown in Telefutura(bad reception and bad announcing)
and given your comprehension of the television industry, no wonder you run your mouth on here like a jackoff so much. For all you monkeys out there, ESPN is not anti-soccer - I mean, see the friggin forest - they are showing a meaningless friendly of the USWNT on national tv. I'm sure SUM will pick up some of the television rights to the Gold Cup in the future, they just lost out on the bid last time around thus, no showing on ESPN.
has no one considered it might be because the womens team are the best in the world? they are rated number 1 and they have won major tournaments i.e the world cup...... thats why they got such detailed and statitstical commmentary by americans one of them being an ex player (female) if espn wanted to buy the rights to gold cup they would outbid anyone. untill usmnt win the big shabang it isnt really going to engender the general public. (or at least another last 8 or 4 finish this coming tourney) nationalism is the strongest way to get people interested in a sport. (or one of) SOOOOOOOOOOOO...... come on usa !!!
Why are you complaining about ESPN showing soccer? Complain about ESPN showing strongmen competitions, cheerleading meets, bodybuilding, aerobics, poker, the list goes on and on. Complain about them showing a soccer event and cutting away from the end faster than the speed of light. Complain about them showing Champions League games without showing the lineup, or the bench. Complain about them not carrying soccer scores on the ticker. But complain about women's soccer? You've got to be kidding. Your sexist bias is showing. I enjoyed the Ukraine game. Sure, the competition was weak, but we got to see some new "kids" get their first caps. Milly got her 100th international goal. (Let's see, how many of the US men have 100 international goals. Oh, that's none.) Captain Kristine Lilly got her 297th international cap. No player in history, male or female, will ever touch that record. I'll be in front of the TV for her 298th, her 299th, her 300th, and hopefully more after that. I love the US men, too. I'm on my way to Foxboro tonight to see the Gold Cup matches. But the US women are not the US men's problem. Every soccer game on ESPN is a plus in my book. And, I've enjoyed the Gold Cup coverage on Telefutura. I don't speak Spanish, but they give the lineups, show the bench, show highlights from all the other games, and show great replays from multiple angles. Better coverage than ESPN. I just want more soccer on TV. Better coverage by ESPN. US men to win the World Cup in Germany next year. US women to win in 2007. More soccer!
Better coverage is right...also the commentary is more lively. Even if you can't understand what they say you can hear excitement in their voices. They make a boring game seem exciting.
i would love to see soccer on another network (besides espn and fox). i have been loving the gold cup coverage on the spanish networks. they are energetic in a way that Rob Stone is not (that little kid crap draves me crazy) and have made me laugh quite a few times. for instance in the CR match yesterday, "... but there are no replays in soccer... or in life."
[ESPN whiner mode on] Sure it's ESPN's fault. ESPN can easily shell out NFL-type money to Concacaf, or to Televisa, for the rights of the Gold Cup, do you think they wouldn't surrender? ESPN has a moral oligation to promote the game (er, for me to watch the game cheap) in this country. I don't care how much money it takes, and I don't care whose money it is. It's my birthright to watch soccer games on ESPN (cheap analog cable is all I can afford). "but why don't you advocate soccer on network TV then? it's free" Umm..... don't get off-topic. I am bashing ESPN now. It's ESPN's moral obligation to promote soccer. It's not CBS's or NBC's obligation. I don't want soccer free (networks), I just want soccer cheap (cable channel). Why do they always think about making money? Can't they spend a minute thinking about spending money for my sake? Whenever there is a soccer game that's not on ESPN, I'll bash them. Because I am crazy about soccer, the whole American population should be crazy about soccer. How dare anyone dispute that? [whiner mode off]
To their credit, ESPN has at least shown all Gold Cup Results on their ticker, even though they're not broadcasting the event.
ESPN has enough time and channels to show whatever they want, it's not what they are showing, it's what people on BS want them to show, which is USMNT soccer. I personnally don't care, if I can get it on antenna or satellite, as long as i see it, I'm cool
I guess the only problem I have with ESPN now that I know why they don't broadcast USMNT games regularly, is their very poor coverage otherwise. Fine you don't see any advantage in purchasing the rights, show us highlights occasionally or just mention that the game took place at all. Whenever soccer even gets mentioned on Sportscenter it's because a) there was an amazing goal that makes their top10 at like #7 and they end up making condescending remarks b) when.....hm well I guess there is no b. This is the United States National team playing not the Rochester Rhinos (no offense meant), show them the courtesy of a little coverage.
I remember they showed that DC/Crew game because Freddy's ego got rather large and he thought he could screw with Hedjuk.
Er, you're comparing apples to oranges. Lilly piled up a ton of caps because for so many years there was effectively no womens league *anywhere*. Thus, the NTs played a ton of games. As for scoring 100 goals (when the leading US man has 34), well, that's because for the longest time there's effectively been only 4 or 5 even halfway decent women's teams. All the others were about the relative standard of the US men's teams pre-1980s.
Correct. Let's all remember that we are living in the age of Title X (or whatever the rule is). This is why Women's Softball is put on ESPN HD, and (as far as I know) there has never been a USMNT game on ESPN HD. I mean softball is fun to play, but so is kickball. I would rather watch Rollerball (2002) than softball. I am a huse LL Cool J fan though, so I may be biased.
Correct, they are best in the world of women's soccer. Bottomline, if I had the choice between watching the WNBA Championship game on ESPN HD, and watching a highschool basketball game on ESPN2, I would choose the latter always. So would a large majority of ESPN viewers. The same result would be true with soccer, if the american sports fan knew the facts. The problem is that many people (non soccer fans) actually believe the US women are better at soccer than US men. This myth is fueled by the media. I am not criticising the women here at all, I am merely presenting the sports media's framing of soccer in the USA. End result, more people probably watch the women play...
I bet the numbers plummet now that Mia is gone. But I don't think that's true anyway. At least not with people I've talked to.
Um...you are aware that title IX has nothing to do with what tv stations put on tv but athletic program requirements at the college level, right? The fact that there is not more soccer on ESPN has nothing to do with any social cause or anti soccer agenda. ESPN IS A BUSINESS. They put on programming that they think will draw ratings and they can make a profit on. If ESPN thought they could draw higher ratings and make more of a profit putting soccer on then they would do it. Overall ESPN puts on a ton of soccer programming considering its overall popularity in terms of TV audience in the US.
Yes, Title IX (thanks for the correction) has nothing to do with sports programming. But it is a sign of the times. Pre-title IX, women's sports in this country did not get significant coverage in the media. Consider the formal ruling (title IX) a legitimizing force in the eyes of the public media. In the official 'public' world, women's sports were placed on par with men's sports. Henceforth, no more bad mouthing women's sports as inferior, unless you want public condemnation. Remember Ben Wright? I guess you could replace "title IX world" with "PC world" Nevertheless, ESPN chooses to air softball not because it in itself is profitable, but because ESPN wishes to promote itself as a women's sports friendly network. It takes care of two birds in one stone, being PC, while also getting some female demographic in their ratings numbers. It makes good business sense.