OT: FIFA World Cup expanding to 48 teams, expansion worth $1billion

[Hoek]

The financial implications of USA missing out are little to FIFA, except maybe a slight drop off in advertising dollars I suppose, but most of the huge money FIFA advertisers are international (McDonalds, Coke, etc).

The real hit is for FOX. They spent the money for TV rights in the USA, and getting advertisers to spend on a lower-rated tournament could be tough.

But at the same time, people will watch because it's the biggest sporting event in the world, even though we aren't in it.
2014 USA-Portugal drew 18.2 million viewers on ESPN. The Final drew 17.3 million. So you're probably looking at only 2/3 the ratings for the entire WC, and four windows with a drastic drop.

Fox is going to need England and Mexico to have deep runs.

Argentina or Portugal going deep might help too, or should I say Messi and Ronaldo. Messi vs. Ronaldo in the final would be pretty easy to hype.

 

[KevFu]

Its results like tonight why FIFA is expanding....

Right?!!?!

There are going to be 32 teams in Russia. For the first time, they will be seeding the Draw. There's always Host and top 7 seeds in the first pot. But now Pot 2 is Teams 8-15 by FIFA rank; Pot 3 is 16-23, Pot 4 is 24-31.

A year ago, if I told you this new system would make Pot 1: 1 ARG, 2 GER, 3 BRA, 4 BEL, 5 COL, 7 FRA, 8 POR, 53 RUS

Guess which of these are Pot 2 and Pot 3:
Pot W: 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 28, 21
Pot X: 6, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, 22, 23

Pot Y: 24, 25, 31, 32, 33, 35, 40, 50
Pot Z: 27, 36, 38, 42, 43, 46, 49, 51

(14 of those 32 teams in my four pots are either in playoffs or still alive for CAF group play; and I listed 5 of the 7 as upsets).

But you get my point: Everyone viewed expanding the World Cup as if it was going to let teams 33-48 in when they weren't getting in before because they weren't good enough. The reality is that out of teams 12-54, the HALF getting in and the half being left out are pretty balanced. It's a zipper, not a top and bottom.

 

[KevFu]

Most Mexico fans are not going to watch the English broadcast so that doesn't help Fox at all.

The final drawing less than a group game in the US to me speaks to just how big a drop off this might be.

FIFA rakes in money out of the US for the World Cup. It was the biggest spender in the last cycle in terms of what was reported. This is a disaster for a lot of parties...

It is still going to be a massive event, but I think the impact of them not being there will be felt.

I think the fandom of Mexican-Americans who follow El Tri is generalized way too much. It isn't "All Mexico fans in the USA watch El Tri in Spanish." There's definitely age considerations (The English language online/app audience beats the Univision online/app audience 3 to 1 across the board). But the numbers show that El Tri fans flock to Univision at a higher rate when they PLAY USA. Because the English broadcast is annoying American Soccer propaganda. So they pick Univision.

We talked in the NHL National TV thread about "I'm GLAD my team only has X national games. I'd rather watch MY GUYS call the game." That's what happens for USA-Mexico. And I totally get that, because as a Mets fan, the 2015 World Series FOX broadcast was so annoying, I switched to Fox Deportes for games 2-5 (And I don't speak Spanish. Like, AT ALL).


Another thing that's going to be crazy interesting: There's a lot of die-hard soccer fans who will watch the World Cup just because it's a World Cup. Chances are all of THOSE people weren't being counted in the USA ratings because they were at sports bars, live viewing parties, rallies, etc.

 

[LeHab]

Wonder if there are any financial conditions in the FOX World Cup broadcast contract for the US missing.

Bloomberg and a few other newspapers have articles today on this issue. Sounds like Fox is on the hook:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...project-20-million-in-lost-world-cup-ad-sales

Apparently 75% of ads were already sold so that should help but Fox may have to compensate advertisers in some way depending on how those contracts were negotiated.

 

[Howie Hodge]

I would imagine interest will be like in Canada, where fans latch on to whatever country their ancestors may have come from. Like myself, who is looking forward to England's 3 and out.

Although, the hipsters will probably just cheer for Iceland.

I used to watch England play with my Father for the same reasons, and it was closed circuit TV at a Theater in Buffalo back then. Ironically by the time the games came to broadcast TV he had passed.

Their current form is certainly cause for concern isn't it?

 

[HajdukSplit]

Brazil was also a "perfect storm" with the US doing relatively well and the games being played in the afternoon, heck one game was played at 9pm EST which was surreal for me Also, easy to say now I guess, but the field in 2014 looked stronger than 2018 so far, probably doesn't matter to the casual fans...

What might help is FOX's commitment to show a lot of the games on their over-the-air network however most matches will kick off at 7am and 10am with the latest kickoff at 1pm

 

[cutchemist42]

Wonder if there are any financial conditions in the FOX World Cup broadcast contract for the US missing.

https://deadspin.com/fox-sports-is-half-assing-the-world-cup-1825544146

Sounds like they are pulling a Rogers when no Canadian teams make it.

 

[varsaku]

https://deadspin.com/fox-sports-is-half-assing-the-world-cup-1825544146

Sounds like they are pulling a Rogers when no Canadian teams make it.

It makes sense since they probably projecting lower ad revenue with no USA. This will help cut a lot of costs and improve their margin.

 

[cheswick]

https://deadspin.com/fox-sports-is-half-assing-the-world-cup-1825544146

Sounds like they are pulling a Rogers when no Canadian teams make it.

Why don't they just pull the international feed with british play by play like they do in Canada? Surely it would be better than Americans calling the games off of video. Personally can't stand American calling of soccer.

 

[LeHab]

Why don't they just pull the international feed with british play by play like they do in Canada? Surely it would be better than Americans calling the games off of video. Personally can't stand American calling of soccer.

Sounds this is not the first time:

Neal was ready for the onslaught. Earlier this week, he spoke with the Inquirer and Daily News about why the network will have its other four crews call games off monitors in Fox’s Los Angeles studios.
“It’s fairly standard procedure these days to do [broadcasts] off tube and do them from home,” Neal said. “The technology is there, and it allows us to not have to travel everybody.”
He cited NBC’s history of having Olympics announcers call live events from studios in the U.S. It is a subject he has some experience with. Prior to joining Fox in September of 2012, he was the executive vice president of NBC’s Olympics division.
“ESPN similarly split their operations in Brazil in 2014” at the World Cup, he added.
There’s a big difference, though: ESPN had all of its broadcasters in Brazil. When they weren’t in stadiums, they called games off monitors in Rio de Janeiro. Fans forgave the network, understanding that not every broadcaster can fit in every stadium.
But at least they were able to experience the scene in Brazil in person. For Fox to not have announcers in the host nation is different. That hasn’t happened since 2006, when the World Cup was of far less importance to U.S. English-language television than it is now.
Neal said Fox considered flying everyone to Moscow, but decided to not. Why?
“Really, there’s no advantage if you’re doing a monitor call — it doesn’t matter where you are,” he said. “We’ve got the infrastructure here in L.A., so there’s really no reason not to avail ourselves of it.”

Why most of Fox's 2018 World Cup TV announcers will work in Los Angeles, not Russia

 

[willy702]

Sounds this is not the first time:



Why most of Fox's 2018 World Cup TV announcers will work in Los Angeles, not Russia

I don't get it. Really how much more does it cost to send 8 more people to Russia? If all those other hosts and commentators will be in Russia, what insignificant cost are you saving? Maybe 100k? Maybe some of the commentators just really didn't want to go to Russia so this stay in LA strategy was so they could appeal to a few more broadcast teams?

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I don't get it. Really how much more does it cost to send 8 more people to Russia? If all those other hosts and commentators will be in Russia, what insignificant cost are you saving? Maybe 100k? Maybe some of the commentators just really didn't want to go to Russia so this stay in LA strategy was so they could appeal to a few more broadcast teams?

they also cut out the logistics/cost of broadcasting from Russia. It's a lot cheaper the way they are doing it outside of just the travel costs

 

[DoyleG]

I don't get it. Really how much more does it cost to send 8 more people to Russia? If all those other hosts and commentators will be in Russia, what insignificant cost are you saving? Maybe 100k? Maybe some of the commentators just really didn't want to go to Russia so this stay in LA strategy was so they could appeal to a few more broadcast teams?

When a network seriously overbids for broadcasting rights, one expects such things to happen.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

It kinda makes sense as crappy as it is for the viewers. Soccer still isn't a leading sport in America and without the U.S. team there to fire up the patriotic instincts of viewers it's bound to be a bit of a ratings dud.

I mean it's not like the NFL is shown on main networks in Europe with the exception of the Super Bowl (a one off event). Similarly, the UK coverage of the Winter Olympics is significantly curtailed due to the lack of British success in those (and there is no coverage at all in Ireland of the Winter Games due to lack of Irish participation and success).