Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, I give you ESPN's World Cup broadcast schedule.
I bring this up not because I don't think you've heard about it (I assume you have), but because it's worthy of comment. Lots and lots of comment.
There's simply nothing more glorious than soccer in HD (and yes, I include MLS in that statement), and ESPN is giving us every World Cup match in high definition. The schedule is comprehensives and is backed up by a commitment by ESPN to provide pre-game, and half-time, and post-game analysis.
Even better, the USMNT's opening match against England, highly anticipated and full of intriguing story lines, will be on broadcast television (ABC) June 12th. There is simply no reason to believe that it won't be the highest rated soccer match ever shown in the United States. Besides the obvious Anglophone connection, the big brother-little brother dynamic, one which works in both directions depending on subject, the game will likely be even more visible thanks to the amazing story of Charlie Davies. Much could still go wrong for Davies, but if he's playing, in the squad, and in uniform in Rustenburg, media outlets everywhere will inundate the American public with his saga. Fine by me.
Though the ESPN coverage schedule is enough to make footy fanatics shed a tear of joy, it still only represents a practical choice on the part of the network. They paid a lot of money for the American broadcast rights, and the only major sports in season (that ESPN also broadcasts) being Major League Baseball and the NBA, showing every game is a smart business decision. The comprehensive coverage doesn't represent a massive shift in the status of soccer in the United States, but it might indicate a rising water level.
Despite the tired opinions the old-timey sportswriters like to crank out (or recycle) in which they moan cynically about the soccer explosion that they believe will never come, the professional game will not vault into the American consciousness overnight. Even a high-profile Saturday match like USA-England won't make a drastic difference immediately; more fans will be attracted to the game, but the path to day-to-day relevancy is a slow and winding one. Still, ESPN's coverage of the World Cup does show that the market exists (why else would they buy the rights and commit the resources they will), that progress is happening, and that soccer's place in America is secure.
From a fan's perspective, provided I'm able to avoid work long enough to enjoy it, ESPN's coverage is an amazing, amazing thing. I'm ready for June right now. Longer term and bigger picture, I'm hopeful that more casual and resistant fans come to the game because of it. There's not better showcase for the sport than the World Cup, and with every game on, every game in HD, and every game framed by proper commentary, there's a very good chance of that happening.
It should be noted that this is not the first time ESPN will broadcast every game of the tournament live and in HD; they did the same in 2006. The major difference this time around is the wider reach of HD, the additional commitment to on-the-ground coverage, and the lucky break of the USMNT opening with England. All that should make for the best performing World Cup in American television history (not a high bar, admittedly), and probably by a wide margin. That performance should convince other networks and corporate concerns that soccer is worth an investment, hopefully leading to more coverage, better quality coverage, and a resulting increase in the number of people interested in the game.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go fill out a leave request form.
