Good for you. Spectrum is my provider and I don't think I've ever gotten freebies from them (i.e. online access to channels/services that aren't part of my plan). Looks like they run a tight ship on all this.
Maybe they have a deal to include FS+ on the app for all subscribers? IIRC, either Hulu or YouTube TV does something like this.
Maybe but it still says not available with subscription and I can click and watch. I’m not complaining lol just enjoying it as long as I can.
I had a dream last night where it was 2002 and I was struggling to find a dodgy stream showing the important match between Scotland and Ukraine. Oh wait, that's real! F--- you, FOX! That's exciting. Looking forward to the San Marino v Seychelles friendly they're showing today. They can't show Croatia v Denmark or Holland v Belgium right before a World Cup (that they're televising!!), but they can show that friendly that doesn't promote the WC in any way.
BTW, I will be using this site a lot of the next 7 days. And also sharing it to as many people as I can. If I can get 1 person not to subscribe to FS+ and/or FS1/2 then its all worth it as far as I'm concerned. Proper commentary too, not the muppets on FUX! http://livetv581.me/enx/
Sorta shocking that there's been no posts at all since the Qatar WC started 8 days ago. But beyond the issues of FOX personnel or production I wanted to bring up the issue of possession stats... FOX is no longer using the binary possession %'s that seem mostly to be based on # of touches per team. For this tournament they've added the "in contest" category. I vaguely remember seeing this done 15 years ago or more... until everyone seemed to coalesce around the binary %'s. Do we think that this is the beginning of an industry-wide shift towards adding the "in contest" category? So far I've only noticed FOX doing this, and only for this Cup. p.s. I kinda like the idea because it's always seemed intuitive to calculate possession based on: A) how much time you actually possess the ball rather than the number of times you pass it; and B) there are obvious times where no team is in possession of the ball.
I almost want to say Italian television (RAI) has been using the "in contest" or "in play" stat ever since they broadcasted/hosted the '90 World Cup. Been using it for Serie A all these years. I could be wrong but that's the stat image I seem to remember.
Rob Stone is a class professional. Apparently he was close to Grant Wahl so today’s broadcast has been obviously really hard for him. Of all the American TV “moderators” of soccer shows I think he’s the best. YMMV?
Just wanted to say a BIG THANK YOU to FOX for deciding to put every single match on traditional (cable) TV, along with FoxSports.com/app. (I know you're not likely reading this, but nonetheless!) For me, and more than a few others out there, it made it so quick & easy to watch (the games and the ancillary pre/post/late coverage), especially in a time-shifted way w/ my DVR which can so easily be setup to auto-record all of that stuff without me having to hunt & peck for it like you do on streaming. For all I know, this may be the last tournament which is aired this way, but I hope not!
Assuming broadcast TV is still around in 2026 and we're not 100% dependent on Amazon web servers, I'd expect games involving the USA, Mexico and the final to at least be on broadcast TV. This basically involves a cataclysmic situation where pay TV as we know it (Hulu, Fubo, Comcast, Dish Network) all die off and *everything* is through individual apps owned/operated by media companies. In this case, if there's not even any semblance of broadcast TV, those aforementioned games would be available to anyone who uses the Fox Sports (or whatever) app and others would be behind a paywall. I don't see much of a change, however.
I think we will always have Broadcast TV. We still have AM radio. I think the future of free events though is just to put them on a major app for free, clear of any paywall. But we aren't there yet as linear distribution is still more popular. Kind of like what Apple did with Charlie Brown Christmas. They thought putting it clear on a paywall for a few days was good enough, but there was uproar so they let PBS air it
Well, hey. Fox Soccer Plus is relevant again! They'll be showing the USA U-17 game this weekend. https://www.ussoccer.com/all-matches
Not a lot of specifics yet, but it looks like there will be Gold Cup matches aired on Tubi and Vix in addition to Fox Sports. I've been hoping for good non-cable access to the tournament. https://www.concacaf.com/gold-cup/article/concacaf-announces-match-schedule-for-2023-gold-cup/
Did anyone else see that Tubi TV (Fox's FAST streaming service) had CONCACAF Women's U20 championships qualifiers this past weekend?
Does anyone know what is happening with the U-20 World Cup broadcast, which starts next week? Has a full broadcast schedule been released by Fox or Telemundo? I see the US-Ecuador and Argentina -Uzbekistan matches show up on the schedule of Telemundo for May 20 and they also have Brasil-Italy on Sunday May 21. But that is it. Nothing for the second US match on Tuesday, May 23. Any Peacock or Tubi options?
We have to remember that this tournament was supposed to be broadcast at odd times of the night/ morning due to it being initially awarded to Indonesia. Since moving to Argentina FOX and Telemundo I imagined had to scramble and try to figure things out at times that are closer to our time zones so I am not surprised they are still trying to figure things out with conflicting contracts and shows that get better ratings.
So Fox Sports 2 has some matches listed: Italy U20 vs Brazil U20 England U20 vs Tunisia U20 Gambia U20 vs Honduras U20 United States U20 vs Fiji U20 Argentina U20 vs Guatemala U20 Italy U20 vs Nigeria U20 Brazil U20 vs Dominican Republic Uruguay U20 vs England U20 Slovakia U20 vs United States Iraq U20 vs England U20 USA U20 vs Canada U20 Telemundo Deportes has a list of some upcoming matches scheduled on the left side of their website... ... although it is a bit confusing cause they list some games on Telemundo that conflict with each other. Some of those games could just be streaming on their website Telemundos Deportes and the apps. https://www.telemundodeportes.com/
Interesting indeed. I have no idea, but… Could FS1 be cheaper than ESPN? Could it be getting into more basic cable bundles??
It's a race to the bottom. Traditional TV is losing subscribers by the hundreds of thousands every quarter. The fact that FS1 is now in more homes than ESPN just means that ESPN are ahead of the game when it comes to streaming - which for better or worse is the future. SA
One has literally nothing to do with the other. ESPN is in fewer homes because it is, by far, the most expensive channel for carriers and some are fighting back. Fubo's two options, where Fubo Blue has the Fox Sports channels and not the ESPN channels, is a prime example. ESPN was way ahead on streaming even when they were in 20 million more homes. Fox has intentionally avoided live streaming for most content, not just sports, and continues to be wary of the financial viability of streaming. That hasn't changed.
First, I'm gonna get my pet peeve out of the way: Can we (as in society in general) stop referring to "all paid TV providers" as "cable?" If people dropped cable and went to satellite 20+ years ago, did they cut the cord? I went from cable to IPTV back in 2008. Yet, some people would consider me to be a cable subscriber because I have boxes attached to TVs I control via remotes with numbers for each channel. With that said, if someone drops Charter, Dish or Verizon FiOS for Hulu, YTTV or Sling, they're still paying for ESPN. Thus, they still count in that same subscriber pool. I can prove that U-Verse isn't cable, even though your local village idiot may consider it to be cable. If someone pays for ESPN+ and they don't get linear ESPN...I don't think they count in that subscriber base, do they? When FS1 and ESPN negotiate with the providers, it's basically the same all across the board: "If you want the big-boy channels, you gotta get the little sibling channels." That's why we all get channels like DisneyXD, ToonDisney, etc. It's also partially why the bills and channel counts are so high. Most companies have 4-5 channels, if not more. Viacom/Paramount/whoever is another prime example with all the VH1/MTV channels plus Comedy Central, E!, etc. (They also own Showtime which may or may not be bundled into a higher tier or by itself.) Sidenote about Showtime: It's now available to most Paramount+ subscribers. I subscribe to P+ with Showtime. If I upgrade my U-Verse tier, I'd get it there...and essentially pay for it twice. I wanna know two things: 1) What providers DON'T have ESPN...and all the other channels that come with it? I think that'd be business suicide for a provider. 2) Speaking of that...ESPN2 has always been in fewer homes. A loooooong time ago, I got one of the channels, but not the other. For some reason, I want to say it was ESPN I didn't get, which doesn't make sense.