***Official 2014 World Cup Thread*** (2 Viewers)

[Celph Titled]

That or the giant robot stomping down onto the ground to lead off the telecast.

[cut to fox football music]

[hi welcome to the World Cup. Alongside Troy Aikman, I'm Gus Johnson. Today Russia tries to DOMINATE Chile..... Blah blah blah]

Luckily fifa controls the visual broadcast so they can't #### that up.

Strahan's done the pregame for the last couple Champions League finals they've had on the Fox mothership. Actually true.

Unbelievable.

For some reason I thought it was only once. In any case the one time I saw it, it was beyond embarrassing. He knew less than 0 about the sport.

I think you're right, maybe it was only 2011. Really glad I was in a bar and hardly paying attention.

Here's a write-up: http://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2011/5/29/2195780/2011-uefa-champions-league-final-fox-coverage

 

[Sand]

Heres my concern: Right now we are in a period of soccer euphoria where Networks, Cable companies and Content providers (EPL, MLS, FIFA) are falling over themselves due to the new windfall being created by this sudden infatuation with the sport across 100M US households. My fear is in that price pressure in the value chain due to rising content costs will eventually cause the industry to "commercialize" the game :X :X . The same way we did with the NFL and NBA. I dont believe that FIFA and UEFA fully understand how much more money they can make in the US by lengthening the game and creating artifical pauses for advertisers. Its part of our culture here, why wouldnt they tag along for the ride? I really dont want to see mandatory water breaks, injury timeouts, etc. where advertisements are shown. But I can see it happening.

Don't see it. European dominated sport - no way they succumb to moderate TV audience wishes for the US market.

True but television rights for the big leagues are in the hands of a relatively small and incestuous group of broadcasters. If Sky (BSkyB and Deutschland), Canal+, ESPN, Fox, etc. collectively decide they want commercial breaks, it's time to go fix a snack.

Maybe the only advantage in having a completely psychotic ruling organization. FIFA would probably nix this after the Sudanese rep greased some palms.

 

[Short Corner]

It may have (probably has, actually) been brought up in here already but i'm concerned for US soccer interest in the immediate future. Such a big draw for this WC but the time zones really benefit that growth in interest. Russia and then Qatar (if it stays there) means at least 12 years before we get another chance of having our team draped in the flag in prime time.

I'm relatively new to the sport and for me the NBC addition of PL and other matches across Europe will keep me interested but I love sports and competition. The fringe fan may be lost in the next decade or so. Now, if they move the Qatar to the states, of course it'd be huge. Such a fun sport and i'm glad I found interest in it.

The Copa Panamerica in 2016 should help bridge the gap some. And honestly, it's not like this WC had the best start times for the US either, despite being in our time zone.

The times will always be adjusted to make them watchable in Europe. The odds of getting prime time games in the US are pretty slim, even if you host.

 

[bagger]

Everyone keeps hemming and hawing over wondo's miss, but the ref terribly called it offsides anyway, which would have actually made the loss feel worse if he made it and it was called back.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Everyone keeps hemming and hawing over wondo's miss, but the ref terribly called it offsides anyway, which would have actually made the loss feel worse if he made it and it was called back.

Darke later corrected himself and stated that the linesman had raised his flag for the ensuing goal kick, not offside.

In fact, FIFA's own stat sheet shows the United States was not whistled for a single offside.

He's not off the hook.

 

[Short Corner]

For those that don't know, roughly 1000 elite 6-8 year olds try out for Barcelona's youth system every year. They take the best 200. These 200 go into the funnel with the hundreds of others they already have. These kids have skills and a specific style of play drilled into their head 24/7/365 for years.

Barcelona doesn't care if 195 of those 200 kids never even sniff their first team. They'll gladly pay for their training (and in some cases room and board) for a decade if it means they find 1 Lionel Messi or Xavi. (plus a handful of other squad players and a bunch of others that they can sell to lesser clubs to recoup some of their investment)

The US will never get to this point, mostly because the parents in our culture will never accept it. The idea of letting 195 kids wash out in order to find 1 or 2 stars just doesn't work in America.

Who knows if the European model works if it doesn't have much competition. I don't think you have to identify these kids at 6-8. Lots of kids develop later and I wonder if the model you outline above misses a lot of late bloomers. Didn't MJ not start for his high school team?

Well the thing is, if you don't make the Ajax's of the world, there are plenty of local clubs where you can play and develop. And each year, kids are looked at again for whether they should stay in the system and new kids are brought in all the time.

Don't think they don't cherry pick kids of teams they play against either. Those 200 kids probably fill out 20 teams for their age group and the coaches will get to see every decent team in the city/region/country. They will still pick up a good number of players that slip thru the cracks on the initial look.

 

[bagger]

Everyone keeps hemming and hawing over wondo's miss, but the ref terribly called it offsides anyway, which would have actually made the loss feel worse if he made it and it was called back.

Darke later corrected himself and stated that the linesman had raised his flag for the ensuing goal kick, not offside.

In fact, FIFA's own stat sheet shows the United States was not whistled for a single offside.

He's not off the hook.

ok. Let's burn him at the stake now.Thanks for that I wondered why everyone kept talking like his goal would have mattered.

 

[The Gator]

Everyone keeps hemming and hawing over wondo's miss, but the ref terribly called it offsides anyway, which would have actually made the loss feel worse if he made it and it was called back.

Darke pointed out seconds later that the ref had his flag out for the goal kick.

It would have stood

 

[bagger]

Everyone keeps hemming and hawing over wondo's miss, but the ref terribly called it offsides anyway, which would have actually made the loss feel worse if he made it and it was called back.

Darke pointed out seconds later that the ref had his flag out for the goal kick.

It would have stood

thx, was probably too busy throwing up to hear him retract that.

 

[The Gator]

Everyone keeps hemming and hawing over wondo's miss, but the ref terribly called it offsides anyway, which would have actually made the loss feel worse if he made it and it was called back.

Darke pointed out seconds later that the ref had his flag out for the goal kick. It would have stood

thx, was probably too busy throwing up to hear him retract that.

Lol, I didn't even know they had said it wouldn't have counted until I watched it later at night.

Too busy yelling at the tv

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

Sure, the soccer's OK, but the real question is, who's winning the World Cup of Arm Folding?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_spot/2014/07/03/world_cup_player_introductions_a_deep_analysis_of_how_soccer_players_fold.html

 

[msommer]

Sure, the soccer's OK, but the real question is, who's winning the World Cup of Arm Folding?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_spot/2014/07/03/world_cup_player_introductions_a_deep_analysis_of_how_soccer_players_fold.html

That looks fascinating, but I think I'll wait until finger extending comes on

 

[Short Corner]

The US will never get to this point, mostly because the parents in our culture will never accept it. The idea of letting 195 kids wash out in order to find 1 or 2 stars just doesn't work in America.

We do have one big advantage over the likes of Spain and Germany though: 300 million people. We only need to be 20% as efficient at identifying and developing talent as them to be on a level playing field.

In Spain and Germany virtually all male children are kicking a ball from the time he can walk. My son was 3 when we moved here and started playing the following year. My mind was blown at how far behind he was. He played on the clubs first team this season (2005's, we have 3 teams at that age, Grundschule has 75-80 kids in his class) as a Mittlesturmer but will move down to the 2nd team next season. The system is pretty streamlined here.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Heres my concern: Right now we are in a period of soccer euphoria where Networks, Cable companies and Content providers (EPL, MLS, FIFA) are falling over themselves due to the new windfall being created by this sudden infatuation with the sport across 100M US households. My fear is in that price pressure in the value chain due to rising content costs will eventually cause the industry to "commercialize" the game :X :X . The same way we did with the NFL and NBA. I dont believe that FIFA and UEFA fully understand how much more money they can make in the US by lengthening the game and creating artifical pauses for advertisers. Its part of our culture here, why wouldnt they tag along for the ride? I really dont want to see mandatory water breaks, injury timeouts, etc. where advertisements are shown. But I can see it happening.

Don't see it. European dominated sport - no way they succumb to moderate TV audience wishes for the US market.

True but television rights for the big leagues are in the hands of a relatively small and incestuous group of broadcasters. If Sky (BSkyB and Deutschland), Canal+, ESPN, Fox, etc. collectively decide they want commercial breaks, it's time to go fix a snack.

Or possibly a cocktail? I'm . . . intrigued.

I dread the day the game changes to include commercial breaks, 4 quarters, 3 periods, time outs or water breaks. Kickoff, commercial, goal kick, commercial, throw in, commercial, injury, commercial, goal, commercial and on and on.

I love that a game is over in 2 hours. I love the running clock, I love that I can tell the wife when a game will end so she knows when I will be available for anything (this keeps her happy and off my back and why soccer is ok and the NFL isnt lol).

I agree completely. The NFL is ####### horrible when it comes to commercials, and one thing I've always liked about soccer is how they just play the game and let tension build without having to learn about the features of the latest Dodge Ram model. But I honestly don't think that's an economically viable model if US viewership picks up.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Heres my concern: Right now we are in a period of soccer euphoria where Networks, Cable companies and Content providers (EPL, MLS, FIFA) are falling over themselves due to the new windfall being created by this sudden infatuation with the sport across 100M US households. My fear is in that price pressure in the value chain due to rising content costs will eventually cause the industry to "commercialize" the game :X :X . The same way we did with the NFL and NBA. I dont believe that FIFA and UEFA fully understand how much more money they can make in the US by lengthening the game and creating artifical pauses for advertisers. Its part of our culture here, why wouldnt they tag along for the ride? I really dont want to see mandatory water breaks, injury timeouts, etc. where advertisements are shown. But I can see it happening.

Don't see it. European dominated sport - no way they succumb to moderate TV audience wishes for the US market.

True but television rights for the big leagues are in the hands of a relatively small and incestuous group of broadcasters. If Sky (BSkyB and Deutschland), Canal+, ESPN, Fox, etc. collectively decide they want commercial breaks, it's time to go fix a snack.

Or possibly a cocktail? I'm . . . intrigued.

I dread the day the game changes to include commercial breaks, 4 quarters, 3 periods, time outs or water breaks. Kickoff, commercial, goal kick, commercial, throw in, commercial, injury, commercial, goal, commercial and on and on.I love that a game is over in 2 hours. I love the running clock, I love that I can tell the wife when a game will end so she knows when I will be available for anything (this keeps her happy and off my back and why soccer is ok and the NFL isnt lol).

I agree completely. The NFL is ####### horrible when it comes to commercials, and one thing I've always liked about soccer is how they just play the game and let tension build without having to learn about the features of the latest Dodge Ram model. But I honestly don't think that's an economically viable model if US viewership picks up.

Your last sentence does not make sense to me.

If I am understanding you, you are saying the current system, which is producing record tv contracts for soccer in the US almost every year recently, is economically viable at lower tv ratings now but once the ratings improve in the future it won't work any more?

I am missing something because that does not seem to add up to me.

 

[NewlyRetired]

One thing to keep in mind in the coming years is the changing face of how we will watch sports.

The most complicated part of the huge TV deal MLS just signed was the online rights. They settled on everything for tv pretty quickly but it took them forever to close on the best solution for the online rights.

 

[Eephus]

One thing to keep in mind in the coming years is the changing face of how we will watch sports.

The most complicated part of the huge TV deal MLS just signed was the online rights. They settled on everything for tv pretty quickly but it took them forever to close on the best solution for the online rights.

That's not unique to MLS. I don't think anybody has figured out the best model for monetizing streaming sports. The market for televised sports is comparatively mature. There is a fixed number of potential bidders who all have similar data on the expected ratings and demographics. A network might overbid on the NFL or Olympics in order to get a bounce for their other programming but that's not happening for MLS. We have probably reached a tipping point where the World Cup has entered that realm which is a long way from watching tape delayed WC'82 broadcasts in Spanish.

 

[NewlyRetired]

One thing to keep in mind in the coming years is the changing face of how we will watch sports.

The most complicated part of the huge TV deal MLS just signed was the online rights. They settled on everything for tv pretty quickly but it took them forever to close on the best solution for the online rights.

That's not unique to MLS. I don't think anybody has figured out the best model for monetizing streaming sports. The market for televised sports is comparatively mature. There is a fixed number of potential bidders who all have similar data on the expected ratings and demographics. A network might overbid on the NFL or Olympics in order to get a bounce for their other programming but that's not happening for MLS. We have probably reached a tipping point where the World Cup has entered that realm which is a long way from watching tape delayed WC'82 broadcasts in Spanish.

I did not mean to say it was unique to MLS. i was using them as an example for all sports since they were the most recent to sign (ignoring the WWE's new deal).

 

[Mister CIA]

I'm digging soccer and it's not all that far-fetched that I'll soon kick the NFL to the curb. It cannot be any more difficult than kicking MLB to the curb back in 199x. In fact, if the NFL does not give me an option to stream Red Zone channel without paying a Comcast ransom this season, I'll walk away slowly. I'll walk away much faster if I see NFL refs continuing to grind games to a halt.

Ball is in your court, Roger "not the Rozelle" Goodell.

If I can't find worthwhile soccer options on my Roku instead, I'll probably settle for a life less reliant on TV sports.

Ball is in your court, soccer.

 

[Moe.]

Only reason I have cable is for sports. I'm so ready for google et al to throw their hat in the ring for online rights.

 

[Daywalker]

Would this event be diminished if it was every two years?

It isn't going to happen so why does it matter?

Yes, it's nuts to imagine an event this big being every two years instead of four. I mean who would want the money?

Qualifying? You make the knockout round you automatically qualify for the next World Cup. That cuts down qualifying quite a bit. We need 2.5 years to determine qualifying? Is this the DMV?

We have World Cup and Olympic soccer going on. Get rid of soccer in the Olympics.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Would this event be diminished if it was every two years?

It isn't going to happen so why does it matter?

Yes, it's nuts to imagine an event this big being every two years instead of four. I mean who would want the money?Qualifying? You make the knockout round you automatically qualify for the next World Cup. That cuts down qualifying quite a bit. We need 2.5 years to determine qualifying?

Reducing 16 teams out of 203 for qualifying is basically in the noise. You are still looking at close to 2000 games.

It is simply impossible unless you expect all league play to stop.

 

[Daywalker]

Would this event be diminished if it was every two years?

It isn't going to happen so why does it matter?

Yes, it's nuts to imagine an event this big being every two years instead of four. I mean who would want the money?Qualifying? You make the knockout round you automatically qualify for the next World Cup. That cuts down qualifying quite a bit. We need 2.5 years to determine qualifying?

Reducing 16 teams out of 203 for qualifying is basically in the noise. You are still looking at close to 2000 games.

It is simply impossible unless you expect all league play to stop.

So setting up qualifying for the Olympics in 2016 is set but getting rid of Olympic event and just doing another WC is impossible?

 

[Spartans Rule]

So setting up qualifying for the Olympics in 2016 is set but getting rid of Olympic event and just doing another WC is impossible?

The Olympics aren't significant. Euro 2016 and Copa America are significant. You're not getting rid of those.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Would this event be diminished if it was every two years?

It isn't going to happen so why does it matter?

Yes, it's nuts to imagine an event this big being every two years instead of four. I mean who would want the money?Qualifying? You make the knockout round you automatically qualify for the next World Cup. That cuts down qualifying quite a bit. We need 2.5 years to determine qualifying?

Reducing 16 teams out of 203 for qualifying is basically in the noise. You are still looking at close to 2000 games.

It is simply impossible unless you expect all league play to stop.

So setting up qualifying for the Olympics in 2016 is set but getting rid of Olympic event and just doing another WC is impossible?

Qualifying for the Olympics does not affect qualifying for the WC. The olympics is basically a youth tournament.

And how you qualify for Olympics is significantly different in format from how you qualify for the WC.

It is apples and oranges.

 

[Daywalker]

Would this event be diminished if it was every two years?

It isn't going to happen so why does it matter?

Yes, it's nuts to imagine an event this big being every two years instead of four. I mean who would want the money?Qualifying? You make the knockout round you automatically qualify for the next World Cup. That cuts down qualifying quite a bit. We need 2.5 years to determine qualifying?

Reducing 16 teams out of 203 for qualifying is basically in the noise. You are still looking at close to 2000 games.

It is simply impossible unless you expect all league play to stop.

So setting up qualifying for the Olympics in 2016 is set but getting rid of Olympic event and just doing another WC is impossible?

Qualifying for the Olympics does not affect qualifying for the WC. The olympics is basically a youth tournament.

And how you qualify for Olympics is significantly different in format from how you qualify for the WC.

It is apples and oranges.

Change the qualifying for the WC then. Make it like the Olympics. Who cares about countries who don't really have a shot anyway. This can't be figured out every two years? We got 10 teams going to playoffs in MLB. Talk of expanding NFL playoffs. Why? The money. Too much money to be made with WC to be only every four years. The demand would not diminish if it was every two years. Why stop soccer for the Olympics when you could make a boatload of money with a WC instead?

You could program the WC in front of the Summer Olympics for promotion.

Why stop soccer for an Olympic event when you could hold a WC and have the stage/money for yourself?

 

[NewlyRetired]

Would this event be diminished if it was every two years?

It isn't going to happen so why does it matter?

Yes, it's nuts to imagine an event this big being every two years instead of four. I mean who would want the money?Qualifying? You make the knockout round you automatically qualify for the next World Cup. That cuts down qualifying quite a bit. We need 2.5 years to determine qualifying?

Reducing 16 teams out of 203 for qualifying is basically in the noise. You are still looking at close to 2000 games.It is simply impossible unless you expect all league play to stop.

So setting up qualifying for the Olympics in 2016 is set but getting rid of Olympic event and just doing another WC is impossible?

Qualifying for the Olympics does not affect qualifying for the WC. The olympics is basically a youth tournament.And how you qualify for Olympics is significantly different in format from how you qualify for the WC.

It is apples and oranges.

Change the qualifying for the WC then. Make it like the Olympics. Who cares about countries who don't really have a shot anyway. This can't be figured out every two years? We got 10 teams going to playoffs in MLB. Talk of expanding NFL playoffs. Why? The money. Too much money to be made with WC to be only every four years. The demand would not diminish if it was every two years. Why stop soccer for the Olympics when you could make a boatload of money with a WC instead?You could program the WC in front of the Summer Olympics for promotion.

Why stop soccer for an Olympic event when you could hold a WC and have the stage/money for yourself?

Soccer does not stop for the Olympics. It is basically a youth tournament.

It has nothing to do with WC qualifying. WC qualifying will start in June of 2015 and continue until December of 2017. Qualifying will be in full swing during the summer of 2016.

 

[Sebowski]

Screw these every four year guys. Just ignore this ####.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Screw these every four year guys. Just ignore this ####.

It can't hurt to try and explain. It is helpful to others that may want to understand more about why it is a long process.The soccer thread has plenty of full time posters now who were once "every four years guys".

 

[Daywalker]

Would this event be diminished if it was every two years?

It isn't going to happen so why does it matter?

Yes, it's nuts to imagine an event this big being every two years instead of four. I mean who would want the money?Qualifying? You make the knockout round you automatically qualify for the next World Cup. That cuts down qualifying quite a bit. We need 2.5 years to determine qualifying?

Reducing 16 teams out of 203 for qualifying is basically in the noise. You are still looking at close to 2000 games.It is simply impossible unless you expect all league play to stop.

So setting up qualifying for the Olympics in 2016 is set but getting rid of Olympic event and just doing another WC is impossible?

Qualifying for the Olympics does not affect qualifying for the WC. The olympics is basically a youth tournament.And how you qualify for Olympics is significantly different in format from how you qualify for the WC.

It is apples and oranges.

Change the qualifying for the WC then. Make it like the Olympics. Who cares about countries who don't really have a shot anyway. This can't be figured out every two years? We got 10 teams going to playoffs in MLB. Talk of expanding NFL playoffs. Why? The money. Too much money to be made with WC to be only every four years. The demand would not diminish if it was every two years. Why stop soccer for the Olympics when you could make a boatload of money with a WC instead?You could program the WC in front of the Summer Olympics for promotion.

Why stop soccer for an Olympic event when you could hold a WC and have the stage/money for yourself?

Soccer does not stop for the Olympics. It is basically a youth tournament. It has nothing to do with WC qualifying. WC qualifying will start in June of 2015 and continue until December of 2017. Qualifying will be in full swing during the summer of 2016.

You should write to Fifa, I am sure they would love to see how you plan to have a well thought out qualifying format that would work in such a short time frame with out killing league play.

And I am also sure the club owners who actually pay the players will love this idea.

You cut the club owners/leagues in on the money. If you have one of the biggest sporting events in the world that would be just as popular every two years as opposed to four you make it happen. Every two years makes the pot twice as big. For all the players that are in the WC the league that they are from gets a %. If the EPL has 15% of the players they get 15% of the revenue.

Why draw out qualifying over 3 years? Make it an event itself. More cutthroat. Like the U.S. Olympic trials.

So much you can do to generate money for the club owners. Have the pod stage set in their region/stadiums and let the final 16 tourney be in the host country. Or we can build stadiums in the middle of the rainforest.

Just leaving a ton of money on the table.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

D-walker - You are aware that these players all play professionally for teams in leagues around the world? That's where the money is. FIFA would probably stage a World Cup once a month if it could, but this is essentially an exhibition tournament, not really a professional sports league. Cutting back the professional leagues around the world to stage another international tournament would decrease revenue, not increase it.

 

[=Smackdown=]

SCHWEINSTEIGER !!!

Going to be fun watching this game at a German Beer Garden today - folks goose stepping all over the place

 

[Mjolnirs]

SCHWEINSTEIGER !!!

Going to be fun watching this game at a German Beer Garden today - folks goose stepping all over the place

You get a up until the last part.

 

[NewlyRetired]

D-walker - You are aware that these players all play professionally for teams in leagues around the world? That's where the money is. FIFA would probably stage a World Cup once a month if it could, but this is essentially an exhibition tournament, not really a professional sports league. Cutting back the professional leagues around the world to stage another international tournament would decrease revenue, not increase it.

Yeah, I don't think he understands the enormity of the club game in terms of revenue.

If FIFA ever tried something this illogical, that would finally be the straw that causes the clubs/leagues to tell FIFA to "eff off" and break away and FIFA will be helpless.

 

[NewlyRetired]

SCHWEINSTEIGER !!!

Going to be fun watching this game at a German Beer Garden today - folks goose stepping all over the place

You get a up until the last part.

Any updates on the German players health?

 

[Mjolnirs]

All of this discussion about changing the process or the tournament inspired me to read up on previous World Cup Finals.

The growth of the event with the ease of travel and communications is astounding.

In 1930 only 13 teams showed up in Uruguay because it was difficult to get there. There were no qualifying rounds. You get there, you play.

In 1934 there were 32 teams in qualifying for the 16 spots. Only 1 spot available for the North America crowd and only 2 teams up for it. Mexico and the US played a 1 game knockout in Rome to be that team. The US won 4-2.

From there:

year - teams in qualifying

1938 - 37

1950 - 34

1954 - 45

1958 - 55

1962 - 57

1966 - 74

1970 - 75

1974 - 99

1978 - 107

1982 - 102

1986 - 121

1990 - 116

1994 - 147

1998 - 174

2002 - 199

2006 - 197

2010 - 205

2014 - 207

 

[Mjolnirs]

SCHWEINSTEIGER !!!

Going to be fun watching this game at a German Beer Garden today - folks goose stepping all over the place

You get a up until the last part.

Any updates on the German players health?

Looking at a Q&A with Jogi and he says that Hummels is good to play and Schweinsteiger and Khedira are recovered. He mentions that a third of the team were still complaining of sore necks yesterday, but no fever. That's all I've found so far.

 

[QuizGuy66]

All of this discussion about changing the process or the tournament inspired me to read up on previous World Cup Finals.

The growth of the event with the ease of travel and communications is astounding.

In 1930 only 13 teams showed up in Uruguay because it was difficult to get there. There were no qualifying rounds. You get there, you play.

In 1934 there were 32 teams in qualifying for the 16 spots. Only 1 spot available for the North America crowd and only 2 teams up for it. Mexico and the US played a 1 game knockout in Rome to be that team. The US won 4-2.

From there:

year - teams in qualifying

1938 - 37

1950 - 34

1954 - 45

1958 - 55

1962 - 57

1966 - 74

1970 - 75

1974 - 99

1978 - 107

1982 - 102

1986 - 121

1990 - 116

1994 - 147

1998 - 174

2002 - 199

2006 - 197

2010 - 205

2014 - 207

Can we pay off the FIFA historian to change that 1934 playoff score to Dos A Cero?

-QG

 

[CletiusMaximus]

D-walker - You are aware that these players all play professionally for teams in leagues around the world? That's where the money is. FIFA would probably stage a World Cup once a month if it could, but this is essentially an exhibition tournament, not really a professional sports league. Cutting back the professional leagues around the world to stage another international tournament would decrease revenue, not increase it.

Yeah, I don't think he understands the enormity of the club game in terms of revenue. If FIFA ever tried something this illogical, that would finally be the straw that causes the clubs/leagues to tell FIFA to "eff off" and break away and FIFA will be helpless.

Hmmmm... Maybe this is an idea we should be supporting then? Imagine a world without FIFA.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

"Football is a simple game. Twenty-two men chase a ball for 90 minutes and at the end, the Germans win."

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I'm ready for this. Wife and kids are off enjoying the wonderful holiday weather while I'm heading to my neighbors basement with a growler. Here's hoping for a couple more great games today.

 

[guru_007]

Germans playing like a 4-2-3-1 today with Schweiny and Khedira both lending support to the back 4

No BFG, and Lahm moved back to fb.

Klose starting, but no Goetze, Schurrle.

Think Germany wins this one 4-0

 

[Pumpnick]

Germans playing like a 4-2-3-1 today with Schweiny and Khedira both lending support to the back 4

No BFG, and Lahm moved back to fb.

Klose starting, but no Goetze, Schurrle.

Think Germany wins this one 4-0

are they still sick?

 

[guru_007]

dunno about their health, just reporting lineups and my prediction.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If I am understanding you, you are saying the current system, which is producing record tv contracts for soccer in the US almost every year recently, is economically viable at lower tv ratings now but once the ratings improve in the future it won't work any more?

I am missing something because that does not seem to add up to me.

Sorry, I worded that terribly.

What I meant is that if I'm a network and I have a choice between broadcasting football/basketball -- which feature a ton of commercial time for me to sell -- and soccer where my monetarization comes from on-screen logos and on-site signage, it's hard to justify choosing soccer. Even if viewership was potentially identical, it seems like other sports would be a lot more lucrative for broadcasters.

But like you said, and like I've only recently realized, networks have actually been really eager to acquire broadcast rights, so it's obviously lucrative enough.

 

[NewlyRetired]

If I am understanding you, you are saying the current system, which is producing record tv contracts for soccer in the US almost every year recently, is economically viable at lower tv ratings now but once the ratings improve in the future it won't work any more?

I am missing something because that does not seem to add up to me.

Sorry, I worded that terribly.

What I meant is that if I'm a network and I have a choice between broadcasting football/basketball -- which feature a ton of commercial time for me to sell -- and soccer where my monetarization comes from on-screen logos and on-site signage, it's hard to justify choosing soccer. Even if viewership was potentially identical, it seems like other sports would be a lot more lucrative for broadcasters.

But like you said, and like I've only recently realized, networks have actually been really eager to acquire broadcast rights, so it's obviously lucrative enough.

Agreed.

The extreme amount of hours to fill across the sports networks really helps soccer (and other smaller sports). With out the proliferation of channels and specifically the proliferation of sports channels, soccer would struggle to get any decent air time outside of the big events.

The difference today compared to say the late 90's/early 2000's is staggering. And with online viewing likely to become the dominant medium over the coming decades, all sports should be able to have an avenue to display their games.

 

[roadkill1292]

If I am understanding you, you are saying the current system, which is producing record tv contracts for soccer in the US almost every year recently, is economically viable at lower tv ratings now but once the ratings improve in the future it won't work any more?

I am missing something because that does not seem to add up to me.

Sorry, I worded that terribly.

What I meant is that if I'm a network and I have a choice between broadcasting football/basketball -- which feature a ton of commercial time for me to sell -- and soccer where my monetarization comes from on-screen logos and on-site signage, it's hard to justify choosing soccer. Even if viewership was potentially identical, it seems like other sports would be a lot more lucrative for broadcasters.

But like you said, and like I've only recently realized, networks have actually been really eager to acquire broadcast rights, so it's obviously lucrative enough.

I don't think anyone will argue this. You can't sell as many advertising minutes for soccer in its current state than you can for football or basketball.

What's interesting to speculate about is whether the popularity of soccer watching creates a pushback from fans in our big domestic sports and viewers start to rebel over the last three minutes of games taking a half hour to complete. I've told the story a couple of times about catching a college basketball game last year where both coaches decided to eschew timeouts after the final under-4 minute one and how the flow and excitement of play was phenomenal. We've been awfully conditioned to accept a lot of stoppages but I don't think soccer fans will put up with it universally.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If I am understanding you, you are saying the current system, which is producing record tv contracts for soccer in the US almost every year recently, is economically viable at lower tv ratings now but once the ratings improve in the future it won't work any more?

I am missing something because that does not seem to add up to me.

Sorry, I worded that terribly.

What I meant is that if I'm a network and I have a choice between broadcasting football/basketball -- which feature a ton of commercial time for me to sell -- and soccer where my monetarization comes from on-screen logos and on-site signage, it's hard to justify choosing soccer. Even if viewership was potentially identical, it seems like other sports would be a lot more lucrative for broadcasters.

But like you said, and like I've only recently realized, networks have actually been really eager to acquire broadcast rights, so it's obviously lucrative enough.

I don't think anyone will argue this. You can't sell as many advertising minutes for soccer in its current state than you can for football or basketball.

What's interesting to speculate about is whether the popularity of soccer watching creates a pushback from fans in our big domestic sports and viewers start to rebel over the last three minutes of games taking a half hour to complete. I've told the story a couple of times about catching a college basketball game last year where both coaches decided to eschew timeouts after the final under-4 minute one and how the flow and excitement of play was phenomenal. We've been awfully conditioned to accept a lot of stoppages but I don't think soccer fans will put up with it universally.

I hope you're right. The end of basketball games is insufferable.

 

[Eephus]

I'm drinking with my daughter at the Mad Dog. It's 8:30 in the morning. GB the WC.

 

[gianmarco]

If I am understanding you, you are saying the current system, which is producing record tv contracts for soccer in the US almost every year recently, is economically viable at lower tv ratings now but once the ratings improve in the future it won't work any more?

I am missing something because that does not seem to add up to me.

Sorry, I worded that terribly.

What I meant is that if I'm a network and I have a choice between broadcasting football/basketball -- which feature a ton of commercial time for me to sell -- and soccer where my monetarization comes from on-screen logos and on-site signage, it's hard to justify choosing soccer. Even if viewership was potentially identical, it seems like other sports would be a lot more lucrative for broadcasters.

But like you said, and like I've only recently realized, networks have actually been really eager to acquire broadcast rights, so it's obviously lucrative enough.

I don't think anyone will argue this. You can't sell as many advertising minutes for soccer in its current state than you can for football or basketball.What's interesting to speculate about is whether the popularity of soccer watching creates a pushback from fans in our big domestic sports and viewers start to rebel over the last three minutes of games taking a half hour to complete. I've told the story a couple of times about catching a college basketball game last year where both coaches decided to eschew timeouts after the final under-4 minute one and how the flow and excitement of play was phenomenal. We've been awfully conditioned to accept a lot of stoppages but I don't think soccer fans will put up with it universally.

I hope you're right. The end of basketball games is insufferable.

It's the primary reason I don't watch basketball anymore. Either the game isn't close or the last 3 minutes take 30 minutes.