Would America (or American TV stations) really embrace soccer football when each half is 45 minutes (plus a bit of added time) and no advertising is shown?

 

Now that would be a culture shock! Are the WC games being broadcast live with or without advert breaks?

In Canada they're live with some ads at halftime but also with a halftime show

I remember when the WC was held in America they tried to get the rules changed to 4 quarters for advertising and wanted to make the goals bigger. Thankfully Fifa didn't cave in.:-)

In Canada they're live with some ads at halftime but also with a halftime show

Same as independent TV here in the UK. BBC is best - no adverts... ever! :biggrin:

I remember when the WC was held in America they tried to get the rules changed to 4 quarters for advertising and wanted to make the goals bigger. Thankfully Fifa didn't cave in.:-)

 

That would be an unmitigated disaster! Although I would have liked bigger goals for the teams that England played. We might still be in the tournament! :biggrin:

Its because scores are so low  that we all go balistic when our team scores,  If goals went in every few minutes they would lose their rarity, their "specialness".  If we then get a "high scoring" game we remember it for years to come..... England....Germany, England... Holland.

 

Good Luck USA !

 

You took the words right out of my mouth. When 'my team' scores, we all go nuts and run into the garden to scream as loud as we can. Pure excitement! JOY! When there is a score in for instance basketball I think... well, I don't think anything at all... I just wait for the next score... and the next... and the next... To me in sports like that things only get exciting when the score is very close in the end. Too much scoring takes the fun out of the game. ^_^ The less scores you get, the more excitement and joy a score delivers!

 

BTW 'my team' is Holland. And I've been screaming in the garden a lot lately. B)

Would America (or American TV stations) really embrace soccer football when each half is 45 minutes (plus a bit of added time) and no advertising is shown?

 

Now that would be a culture shock! Are the WC games being broadcast live with or without advert breaks?

The WC games are broadcast live with no advert breaks, except for halftime, and viewership has been significant.  This advertising structure is the same for all of the games broadcast for the top American league (which includes three Canadian teams) called MLS, which stands for Major League Soccer.  Billboard advertisement on the field, as well as kit sponsorship exists as it does in the rest of the world, so ad revenue is captured in that manner. 

 

By the way, MLS just signed a huge, multi-year television deal with two major national sports networks (ESPN and Fox Sports) and the largest spanish network (Univision).  Additionally, the MLS, which currently has 19 teams, will expand to 21 teams next season with the addition of another team in New York and one in Orlando, and will be up to 24 teams by the 2018 season.  Most major United States and Canadian markets will have a top-tier team with room for the league to grow to capture the rest of the major US markets.

 

So, what are the results of this?  With a profitable television deal, the teams will have more revenue.  A good portion of team revenue will be invested in higher quality players and managers.  As the quality of play improves, more viewership will result and the next television deal will be even more lucrative, thus resulting in more money for better players from both inside and outside of the US and Canada.

 

It is such a shame that the United States and Canada have not had "the beautiful game" as a major sport, but that is changing. 

 

I remember when the WC was held in America they tried to get the rules changed to 4 quarters for advertising and wanted to make the goals bigger. Thankfully Fifa didn't cave in.:-)

Agreed.  In fact, when the MLS started, some of the elements of the game were a bit "Americanized" such as the clock counted down (from 45 to 0 for each half) and draws were not possible as each game that ended in a draw required a shootout.

The MLS is getting better but I think its structure is all wrong if they want to be a top league, and the commissioner has said they do. They need to have a one league system not conferences, and while its true that the size of the country makes it difficult each team plays each team so I don't really get the argument for it. Also no more playoffs, the first place team would win the league. And I believe that for all the leagues that do that.

 

The caliber and number of high caliber players is rising though so that's good. But I still don't watch it unless its the only football on

Don't forget the US women who beat Norway 2-1 in the final, to become winners of the first ever FIFA Women's World Cup.

 

My wife made me post that :lol:

Making the goals bigger would of been a disaster for England , our defence was bad enough with normal size ! :-(

 

Best performance do far was Holland. Awesome !

 

Back to Fsx I have been VFR ing around Rio to capture the views the tv has been showing :-)

Mike,

 

Thanks for the info. But there's still no relegation in the top league is there? So where's the incentive to play better football for the struggling clubs?

 

Boxdog, I meant the opposition's goal should be bigger, not England's. :wink:

Thanks for the info. But there's still no relegation in the top league is there? So where's the incentive to play better football for the struggling clubs?

 

While I know that relegation is the system most fans outside NA are used to, a closed system with divisions and playoffs has its advantages as well.  Take a look, for example at: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1973980-why-relegation-would-be-a-terrible-idea-for-mls .  What's important is that the system being used drives a competitive league.  As the article linked points out, one of the reasons that American Football has been so wildly succesful is the highly competetive nature of the league, with 8 different league champions in 10 years.

 

 

Scott

been a great world cup, and whilst USA still certainly arent top drawer yet, I do think its been their best WC, and the most entertaining they've been to watch.    

 

My cash is on the Argies........ but I would LOVE to see Switzerland get it.  (always look out for an underdog). :smile:

Scott,

 

Interesting read. I do like the idea of a salary cap. Wages are ridiculous in England (and elsewhere) and something needs doing to stop the madness because it's costing the fans a lot of money.

 

But I doubt it will happen mainly because of the EU. But I'm drifting off the thread so will cease. First night without footie to watch. At least it's back tomorrow. Good luck USA!

I went to my first football match last year, Toronto FC, being raised on hockey I found the pace really slow, but man the fans were awesome, chanting, singing, and boozing it up :drinks:  it was fun. Maybe someday Canada will be in the world cup, then I will really be onboard. :canada-flag:

The MLS is getting better but I think its structure is all wrong if they want to be a top league, and the commissioner has said they do. They need to have a one league system not conferences, and while its true that the size of the country makes it difficult each team plays each team so I don't really get the argument for it. Also no more playoffs, the first place team would win the league. And I believe that for all the leagues that do that.

 

The caliber and number of high caliber players is rising though so that's good. But I still don't watch it unless its the only football on

That is a good point, but I do see the value in the approach that MLS is taking for now to help the sport grow in the US and Canada.  First of all, there is an Eastern and a Western conference and while it is true that all teams play eachother, the number of times a team plays each in-conference team is three compared to only one game for out-conference teams.  The result is healthy rivalries among teams within certain regions of this really big country and those regional rivalries help promote the sport.  It is not as "football-purist" as it should be, but it is helping soccer to grow.

Playoffs are another animal as they are just part of the American culture and changing it to a top-of the-table structure just would be too different for the US.  I do have to say that my team, which plays in a league that has a champion based on points, won this season and for us "soccer nerd" fans that understood this structure, it was quite exciting. 

 

Mike,

 

Thanks for the info. But there's still no relegation in the top league is there? So where's the incentive to play better football for the struggling clubs?

 

Boxdog, I meant the opposition's goal should be bigger, not England's. :wink:

Promotion/Relegation is a very good way of doing things, however here is the problem with it.  Remember, US/Canadian soccer is relatively new and MLS is still in a growth phase.  Also, it costs a new team 75 to 100 million dollars just to get into the league, plus there are costs in building a stadium and marketing the team as well as just marketing the sport. 

The second tier league, NASL (North American Soccer League) is also in a growth phase, but it only costs 200 thousand to get a team into the league.  In order to get a team in the third tier league (USL Pro), the cost is only 35 thousand dollars.  How would an investor of a new MLS team that just paid 75-100 million dollars feel to be relegated to the second tier and lose a significant part of your investment.  Conversly, how would that same investor like to see a team that entered a lower league for a couple hundred thousand dollars take its spot in MLS.  Unfortunately, Pro/Rel would just not work even though it works well in other parts of the world.

What might work, however, is pro/rel within the lower leagues.