If you got home from work last night, enjoyed a nice dinner, sat down in front of your TV with a cold beer and got excited to watch an intriguing midweek MLS match, you were extremely disappointed to find no live soccer on the ESPN family of networks. If you were frustrated, angered, and disgusted when ESPN2's College World Series game went on and on without any attempt by the Bristol Boys to find an alternate location for the match, then you weren't alone.
ESPN stuck a giant middle finger up at all of the MLS footy-loving Americans out there on Wednesday night, choosing to ignore opportunities to start the Sounders-DC United on another network while their college baseball obligations ran long. It seems that Major League Soccer matches, no matter their profile (and I would argue that a Sounders-United game in Seattle is just about as big as MLS gets at this point), are well down the pecking order from even USMNT matches; live events running long have required a shifting of Nats games to other channels in the network in the past, so we know that ESPN is capable of finding an outlet.
Most galling for us waiting for ESPN2 to join the MLS match was the programming being run on those alternate possibilities; while ESPN Classic showed a year old golf tournament (the 2008 US Open), ESPNU reran a two-day old Confederations Cup match. Both of those event, especially because they were tapes, seem obvious candidates to be bumped for the live game taking place in Seattle. Instead, ESPN continued with old programming, once again illustrating why soccer fans across the country find themselves angry with the county's foremost purveyor of televised sports.
We've heard fairly consistent rumblings that ESPN wants to expand their soccer coverage. We've heard that some of the key decision makers at the "Worldwide Leader" are passionate footy fans who hope to increase the network's profile in the most popular sport in the world. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem as though that commitment applies to America's domestic league. Perhaps ESPN does want to add more soccer to their rotation. They have increased soccer highlights and score reporting, after all, and while I find myself disgusted with the dismissive attitude of SportsCenter anchors towards the game, even that is a small victory that should give fans hope. But that victory seems hollow when something like what happened last night occurs on a frustratingly regular basis.
MLS needs ESPN, and I won't deny that. But I have this gnawing feeling that perhaps the league might be better served in the short term by partnering with lesser networks that would treat the league as a worthwhile product, rather than a second-class citizen. Versus seems an obvious candidate, and I've written on the thought in the past. I wonder, though I'm not yet sure, if the way that ESPN has handled MLS has done more harm than good in the long run. I realize that ratings haven't exactly impressed and that ESPN's obligations don't extend beyond what they are already currently doing, but the league's image suffers every time the network refuses to find ways to get their broadcasts on the air in light of unforeseen circumstances.
By the way, if you would like to read all of the expressions of frustration from a veritable "Who's Who" of bloggers, with a special guest appearance by the Kansas City Wizards' Jimmy Conrad, I highly suggest you read Ginge's amazing impromptu liveblog from last night.
What are your thoughts? Am I overreacting? Should I just accept the way ESPN handles MLS because the league's profile would suffer otherwise?
