-Chris Ballard

- Jason Davis

I'm nonplussed. Disappointed, but hardly surprised. With JP Dellacamera on to greener different pastures, ESPN has installed Adrian Healey as the lead voice for their MLS broadcasts. It always seemed unlikely that Ian Darke would pond hop, be able to manage MLS games as well as ESPN's Premier League broadcasts during the portion of the year when the two seasons overlapped. Darke's status as lead voice for the network's soccer programming wouldn't trickle down to ESPN's domestic soccer product. Thus, we get Healey.

- Jason Davis

Love him or hate him, JP Dellacamera has served American soccer admirably during his three decades calling every form of the game imaginable. In recent years, as the lead American voice on ESPN, Dellacamera called the MLS weekly broadcast as well as National Team games for both the US men and women. That run has now come to an end with Dellacamera switching over to FSC.

In almost every meaningful way, MLS is experiencing a boom. Stadiums are going up or are opening to rave reviews, attendance is rising, name players are arriving, and the league has more mainstream resonance than ever before. Even if soccer isn't crossing the threshold into "big time" in America, the domestic game is as healthy as it's probably ever been.


Except for TV. No one watches on TV.


The league's flat TV ratings are a concern, make no mistake. Garber may say otherwise, and job one is to get people in the seats, but TV money will eventually allow the league to push salaries higher and improve the quality of play. Gates just don't bring in enough cash to push the finances to the next level.


So what's the problem? How can everything be trending up but the number people watching on TV?


Sports as a remotely enjoyed experience is dependent on much that has nothing to do with the game itself: atmosphere is incredibly important, to both provide a sense of excitement for those sitting at home as well as to give weight to the proceedings on the field. The more people there in person, the more important the game will seem. Poorly attended matches are naturally going to suffer as a TV product because there is nothing to tell the viewer he or she should care; fans that are not emotionally invested in one of the competing teams take their cues from fans involvement.


I would argue that this is why so many Americans find themselves drawn to the English Premier League first. The stadiums are generally full, the fans are always singing, and every game has an air of massive importance because of those facts. A century and change of playing the game and developing their fan culture mean the English game projects a engaging television image.


I'm less convinced that the "quality of play" issue, and MLS suffering in comparison to European leagues, is a legitimate reason for low ratings, though I admit it could be a factor. I have trouble understanding why people wouldn't watch MLS during the European off-season, when the deficiencies of the league are less directly obvious. Million dollars players are not a prerequisite for excitement.


The production itself matters as well, though I'm not going to attempt a breakdown of ESPN or FSC in this space. It's enough to say that the latter, along with most of the locally produced broadcasts, look cheaply produced (because they usually are) and amateurishly directed. In some cases, that's enough to turn people off. ESPN's problems are harder to pin down, though I'm sure some would point to the quality of their; in some cases that's probably fair, in others, it's tad harsh and likely evidence of a bias against Americans doing that job.


I hardly think it's the announcers keeping people away, however. Maybe we should just sign up a stable of Brits to do all of the MLS games, and see if the ratings skyrocket. Yes, that's sarcasm.


I would imagine MLS is looking for answers. I certainly hope so. While I won't lose sleep over the ratings myself, the league should be proactive in determining why the numbers are stagnant; the sooner MLS becomes a viable TV property, the sooner it takes the next step in its growth.


As part of the search for answers, it's been suggested that dropping FSC in favor of Versus might be a good idea. I posted something to the same effect in February of last year, and would be happy to see MLS "upgrade" their secondary cable home. FSC's production is middling at best, and Versus has proven capable of putting on a high quality broadcast with their NHL efforts. Even if the league takes a hit on the contract price, it might be worth giving a new network a shot at presenting the product.


Consider this an open question - if you don't watch MLS on TV, why not? Maybe there's something I'm missing here.


I should mention that this post was prompted by a Sports Business Journal story on MLS attendance rising while TV ratings stay flat; SBJ is a subscription site, so I didn't bother linking in the body of the post. Here it is if you have a subscription.

You, my dear friend, are being begrudged your passion. While you were doing your psychic beast to will the United States to a victory on Saturday, while you reveled in the match-ups of Sunday, and even while you sit in a cubicle surreptitiously monitoring streaming videos of Monday's matches, you're being begrudged your soccer. ESPN is bringing you the Cup, but several of their personalities would prefer that weren't the case. Millions are watching the games, but millions more reject it. The U.S.-England match made headlines, and Bob Bradley's team started their World Cup with a half-step towards their goals. Still, the tone from certain quarters is the ridiculous and predictable, like tantrums thrown by toddlers when forced to take a bath.


Waaah, soccer is different and people that don't look or talk like me play it.


As Soccer Politics rightly points out, this dance is neither new nor will it end any differently than it has before. Those of us who appreciate the game will continue to do so, and those with entrenched viewpoints in opposition to a sport will continue to use it as an anti-immigrant, anti-socialist, anti-American straw man. The best thing to do is sigh and move on.


Because this segmentation of the American view of the greater world, of which soccer is an intrinsic part, is hardly notable. This is a big country we live in, with 350 million people sharing the title "American" despite stark differences in cultural upbringing, worldly sensibilities, and our understanding of just what makes any of us "American" to begin with. To believe that there won't always be hold outs, "entrenched" as Soccer Politics labels them, is fantasy. It's equally delusional to think that the entrenched won't always have their champions.


The fight, if we're being honest, is already won. The televisions ratings for this World Cup are justifying ESPN's financial commitment. Our domestic league continues to grow, and even with bumps in the road certain to appear, shouldn't be going anywhere. Our TVs are packed with North American, South American, and European versions of the sport on a weekly basis. None of those things are likely to change.


Which means that the only reason for us to harbor hard feelings when the Glenn Becks and Mike Florios spew forth with nonsensical criticisms is if we're intent on soccer "taking over". If you dream of the day that a soccer match out draws the NFL for television viewers or MLS is dominating headlines in places like ESPN and Sports Illustrated, then perhaps you're angered by the usual suspects taking to their soapboxes and lashing out at your game. If you self-identify as a soccer evangelist, or feel deep down as though you're a member of the Righteous Soccer Army taking on the clueless rubes who deny the sport's brilliance, then Beck, Florio, and the rest probably boil your blood. I suppose it's understandable.


But while you're doing that, letting people whose opinions matter little in the grand scheme or won't have any bearing the future prospects of soccer in America get your proverbial goat, I'll be over here enjoying the games. Fighting that "battle" is not only tilting at windmills, it only leads to maddening frustration. I for one, have taken leave of the proceedings, having learned that soccer's state is solidly one of constant advancement; the only reason to fret is if we believe it's not moving forward fast enough. Considering the environment and the variables, it just as easy to argue the opposite. To be sure, loss of ground simply isn't happening.


Militancy is rarely the answer, and inevitably draws backlash. Not constructive, but destructive.


Soccer's history is rich. Its past is rife with political shadings and cultural significance almost everywhere but here. For some, the game isn't just a sport, but a symbol, its image easily manipulated by those whose sit on both sides of the divide. In America, soccer is often less sport than it is scapegoat or idol.


But try to remember, everyone, that is just a sport. One that isn't going anywhere.

Soccer from this guy?

One of the more noteworthy things about this World Cup is the amount of resources American media outlets have committed to covering the tournament. From TV to print and online, domestic interest in the world's biggest sporting event has hit a new high water mark; this is only a good thing, even if some of the names and voices that will be on the ground in South Africa can seem a bit odd.


I decided to do a quick look at four names that might either seem questionable to soccer fans or are not usually part of the fairly small soccer-focused media we have in the U.S.; American soccer fans are very possessive about the game, and any hint that a talking head or writer doesn't have a verifiable soccer background inevitably leads to grousing. Sometimes it's warranted, sometimes it's not.


We know all about ESPN's massive investment on the TV side, and all of their usual soccer suspects will be in-country to give framing to the images beamed back home. There are two names that might seem outside of that group.


Bob Ley

Only mentioned because he is not usually on the soccer beat, there's no questioning Ley's qualifications. He worked for the Cosmos in the 70's before moving to ESPN, and has been part of the network's soccer coverage for decades. As the host of ESPN's investigative news magazine "Outside the Lines", Ley is one of the more respectable voices in Bristol, giving balance to the shtick that is so prevalent in their programming. If new fans of the game aren't familiar with Ley's soccer work, don't worry - he's legit.


Jeremy Schaap

Jeremy Schaap is simply a reporter, and an accomplished one at that. There's no reason to believe he's necessarily a soccer fan, though it's impossible to definitively prove he isn't either. He has some World Cup experience ('94), though his soccer qualifications might be a little questionable. For the stories he'll be doing, though, it's almost irrelevant; Schaap's assignments are almost certain to run in the "human interest" and "cultural" realm than in anything having to do with the game itself. When he is involved in a soccer story, expect it to be profile pieces on the lives and backgrounds of players and coaches.


Sports Illustrated has also picked up their game, and while the Grant Wahl's of the world are there to provide the quality soccer coverage we expect, America's leading sports magazine has also sent two of their better known talents.


Peter King

On the surface, this is among the more questionable choices for soccer temp in South Africa. King is an NFL writer, and only an NFL writer; it's not often that those two worlds crossover in the sportswriting world. What we can expect from King is anyone's guess; even if he treats the sport with the respect it deserves (which we would assume his bosses have indicated to him he should), it's hard to conceive of ready-made story lines for a guy who it's fairly safe to assume has little to no knowledge of the game. King is a big name in the American sports world. What else he brings to the party is questionable at best.


Joe Posnanski

Posnanski is a fantastic writer. Almost peerless, in fact. Yes, he's usually very wrapped up in baseball, but he's already proven that his abilities transfer well to soccer. His feature piece on Landon Donovan was excellent, and while the day-to-day action of the World Cup is a little different than telling the story of a player's career, I expect Posnanski will have no trouble finding stories. Perhaps the best news for soccer fans who doubt Posnanski's chops is that he can deftly avoid outing himself as a soccer neophyte because he's such a good writer. Posnanski is a supreme story-teller, and the coverage will benefit from having him in South Africa.

ESPN has a fairly popular (from what I understand; my phone game is seriously lacking at the moment) iPhone app out for the World Cup. People who know things tell me it's up to #4 in some rankings of this type of stuff. Hooray for World Cup interest, but boo to ESPN for this promotional image.


First of all, the American outlet for the World Cup has the English winning? Come on! Show a little confidence in the Yanks, dammit. And did it have to be Davies listed as the American goal scorer? When was this image created? And I just noticed that it says "Group A", which means it was created before December at the latest. Maybe they should have updated the image for their promotional package...just sayin. Wait though - if that's the case, how did they know the U.S. would play England? I'm so confused.


Oh well. At least the app looks fairly cool. Maybe I'll have an iPhone by 2014 and can partake of this stuff.


I'd provide a link to the app if you wanted to try it out, but I honestly don't even know where to look.


Look for more of these short bite-sized posts during the World Cup. There are plenty of things to talk about, and it's probably not necessary for me to write 800 words every time out.

Jozy Altidore sprained his ankle in training yesterday. His status is listed as day-to-day, and I'm guessing the young striker won't be suiting up against Australia on Saturday.


This, by itself, is pretty big news on the eve of the World Cup. Any injury, even a "mild" one, is scary when there are only twenty-three men in country, game plans are being laid out for crucial group openers in training, and any loss, much less one of front line talent, might mean going into the fire with a hole in your suit. Jozy is important. This is not good.


The situation was exasperated, at least in the minds of the fans, when ESPN decided to send out their Twitter and SMS update (which I received while out to lunch - not like the local ESPNRadio station was going to report it) with the word "hospitalized" in the text.


Wait, hospitalized? Jozy sprained an ankle and was hospitalized? Who ever heard of such a thing? WORLD CUP OVER!


Only, "hospitalized" really meant "had X-Rays taken at the hospital". This, I can understand. Sprained ankles, especially nine days before the tournament begins, are nothing to take lightly. Jozy reportedly picked up the injury yesterday (Wednesday); so either he went to the hospital shortly after it happened and had X-Rays done to make sure it wasn't more serious than it seemed, or he went today after sleeping on it. The latter seems worse than the former, but neither of them constitute his being "hospitalized".


The X-Rays were negative, by the way.


And so ESPN had an unfortunate choice of word (or flat out failed), gave the American soccer fan base on Twitter a collective heart attack, and continues their reign of terror over our game (I'm kidding).


Just please be careful next time, World Wide Leader. Our hearts can't take it.


I'm off to look for a silver lining. Nine days with no use and proper treatment of a mild sprain might have Jozy just ready enough to play on June 12th. Cross your damn fingers.


I forgot to include this when I posted earlier. Courtesy of Ben Rycroft (Follow him on Twitter) of It's Called Football, a handy meter for all of us Yanks panicking over Jozy's ankle:

I don't usually post press releases and the like, but this is too cool not to highlight.


ESPN will be all-soccer all-the-time between 10 AM ET on Thursday, June 10th and the conclusion of the South Africa v. Mexico opening match from South Africa. Even Mike and Mike, the morning radio show that is only occasionally bearable, will have soccer as a major part of their broadcast.


***

ESPN will kick off its month long coverage of the 2010 FIFA World Cup with a 24-hour soccer-themed “Countdown to Kickoff” programming block on ESPN2 beginning Thursday, June 10 at 10 a.m. ET, and concluding Friday, June 11 at 10 a.m. The “24-Hour Countdown to Kickoff” will lead into ESPN’s live presentation of the 2010 FIFA World Cup opening match – host nation South Africa vs. Mexico – Friday, June 11 at 9:30 a.m. from Soccer City Stadium in Johannesburg.world-cup-2010-logo

“ESPN is committed to providing the most comprehensive 2010 FIFA World Cup coverage, and this collection of soccer-themed programs over a 24-hour span in advance of the opening match will help build the excitement for this historic event and give fans a glimpse of what to expect from South Africa during the month ahead,” said Scott Guglielmino, vice president, ESPN programming and acquisitions.

Six hours (10 a.m. – 5 p.m. ET) of daytime programming from South Africa – including three hours of live World Cup preview show (10 a.m. – 1 p.m.) and three hours of the “World Cup Kick-off Celebration Concert” (2 – 5 p.m.) – will anchor the Countdown. Additional programming will include the DC United at Seattle Sounders FC MLS Game of the Week (10 p.m.), the final match before Major League Soccer’s first in-season break for the FIFA World Cup. Also, ESPN Radio’s Mike & Mike in the Morning (simulcast on ESPN2, 6-10 a.m.) on June 11 will focus on South Africa 2010 with guests and tournament previews. Other highlights:



2010 FIFA World Cup Preview Special (10 a.m. – 1 p.m.):

Chris Fowler, Bob Ley and Mike Tirico will host a three-hour live preview of South Africa 2010 from ESPN’s studio location inside the International Broadcast Center (IBC) overlooking Soccer City in Johannesburg. The program will feature all of ESPN’s FIFA World Cup studio analysts: Shaun Bartlett, Ruud Gullit, Jürgen Klinsmann, Alexi Lalas and Roberto Martinez. Other elements:

* Reports from ESPN correspondents covering team camps – Jeremy Schaap (U.S.), Darrell Currie (England), Andrew Orsatti (Australia), John Sutcliffe (Mexico), and Dan Williams (South Africa);
* Human interest correspondent Sal Masekela and general assignment reporters Julie Foudy, Allen Hopkins and Rob Stone will offer features and their perspective on the tournament;
* Comprehensive previews of all eight FIFA World Cup groups;
* A look at South Africa and how the nation is addressing the challenges of hosting the World Cup.



2010 FIFA World Cup Team USA Preview Special (1-2 p.m.):

A one-hour preview focusing on the U.S. Men’s Soccer National Team, highlighting the squad’s strengths, weaknesses, challenges and opportunities as the team enters its fifth straight FIFA World Cup. The live program will examine the chances for success in South Africa 2010 and preview the highly-anticipated opening round match against England. Additional highlights include player profiles and interviews, and a SportsCenter “Sunday Conversation” with Landon Donovan.



FIFA World Cup Kick-Off Celebration Concert (2-5 p.m.):

Sal Masekela, ESPN’s 2010 FIFA World Cup human interest reporter and co-host of The Daily 10 on E!, will host ESPN2’s presentation of the three-hour Kick-Off Celebration Concert in Soweto/Johannesburg, featuring Alicia Keys, the Black Eyed Peas, John Legend and Shakira and popular African artists, such as Angélique, Hugh Masekela, Juanes, K’Naan, Lira, and more. For more information, click here.



SportsNation – 2010 FIFA World Cup Special (5-6 p.m.):

The popular, interactive ESPN2 program co-hosted by Colin Cowherd and Michelle Beadle will feature a FIFA World Cup-themed special. During the show, the “World Cup Dunk Tank” will make its debut, the “Pop Culture” segment will be themed to World Cup, and there will be a special segment featuring Beadle and U.S. Men’s National Team striker Jozy Altidore.

Other highlights of the 24-hour Countdown to Kickoff:

* Outside the Lines – Robben Island: A Greater Goal (6 p.m.): In this special OTL, Chris Connelly reports on how the political prisoners of Robben Island created a soccer league and learned how they could forge a free and peaceful South Africa, the country that is now on the eve of hosting the world’s greatest sporting spectacle. To preview the story, click here.
* E:60 (6:30 p.m.): Jeremy Schaap offers an in-depth profile of U.S. Men’s National Team star and Fulham FC player Clint Dempsey, while Lisa Salters offers a heart-wrenching story about the Haiti U-17 Women’s National Team in the aftermath of the country’s devastating earthquake.
* Homecoming with Rick Reilly: Landon Donovan (June 11: 2:30 a.m.): Before his third consecutive FIFA World Cup appearance, Landon Donovan returned to Redlands, Calif., April 19 as host Rick Reilly and more than 1,500 cheering fans packed the high school gym of the star of the U.S. National Team. The special includes interviews with Donovan’s mother (Donna), father (Tim), twin sister (Tristan) and older brother (Joshua). Others in attendance include Donovan’s former U.S. National Team and current L.A. Galaxy head coach Bruce Arena, current U.S. coach Bob Bradley, his former MLS coach Frank Yallop, and his U.S. U-17 National Team coach John Ellinger, who coached Donovan in the 1999 FIFA U-17 Youth Championship. Galaxy teammate Chris Klein also shares some of his favorite moments with Donovan.
* The 2006 World Cup Film – The Grand Finale (June 11: 3:30 a.m.): Actor Pierce Brosnan narrates the key action from the quarterfinals through the title match of the 2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany. Highlights of the documentary include pre and post-match interviews with the players and never-before-seen footage.



The schedule:




ESPN Inc.’s 2010 FIFA World Cup Coverage in the United States

South Africa 2010 will be ESPN’s seventh FIFA World Cup and coverage of the event promises to be the most comprehensive in company history. ESPN, ESPN2 and ABC will air all 64 matches live and in high definition. ESPN3.com, ESPN’s signature broadband network available in more than 50 million homes, will feature live English-language simulcasts of matches on ESPN and ESPN2. ESPN 3D will feature 25 matches. ESPN Mobile TV will show all matches. ESPN Deportes, the Spanish-language all sports network, will air more than 50 matches in Portuguese live in the U.S., and ESPN Radio will broadcast all 64 matches.

Additionally, ESPN will present 2010 FIFA World Cup television studio programming from site in South Africa, offering U.S. sports fans the most comprehensive news and information coverage throughout the month-long soccer showcase. Studio coverage of the quadrennial global event will include SportsCenter segments, a nightly World Cup Live program, and prematch, halftime and postmatch shows, with additional studio programming and World Cup-branded segments, totaling more than 65 hours of coverage, originating from two sets in and around Johannesburg.

ESPN the Magazine, that is.


They needed an angle, a World Cup story to pull in the casual American fan. Stories about the Yanks and their stars are trite and overdone (apparently), and the team needed something edgy, controversial.


What better than a profile of the young New Jersey-born star who spurned the country of his birth for the nation of his parents?


The story, and Giuseppe Rossi's agreeing to be the focus of an ESPN the Magazine cover piece, are not in and of themselves the problem. Many American had probably never heard of Rossi, and a story on his decision to leave American for Italy and a dream of playing for the Azurri is interesting and provocative on its own. ESPN didn't screw up by sending Jeff Bradley (brother of National Team head coach Bob, by the way) to do the story; they screwed up by choosing to drape the story in World Cup imagery while backhanding American soccer across the face in the process.


Read the tagline on the cover. ESPN went wading in dangerous waters, not only in an effort grab their readership by the balls and lead along them rather than walk them down the story's natural path, but also because Rossi was never a lock to make the Italian team.


So we don't feel too bad for them today, considering the rather blatant shot they took at U.S. National Team fans and American chances. Whether the line was true or not doesn't really matter; ESPN's tact was questionable at best. If U.S. fans were ever going to get over Rossi's "betrayal" (not my word), it was going to take some time; it's unfortunate then that ESPN extended the process by reopening the wound so dramatically.


I say get over it. ESPN didn't help my cause.

Blank slate. Ramble time?


Or a Larry King-style stream of consciousness collection of random thoughts?


More likely neither, but let's see how a directionless late night post goes...


As a fan of American soccer always looking for a breakthrough moment, even as I intellectually know it's extremely unlikely to happen, I wonder if this World Cup can provide it. England. Charlie Davies (maybe). ESPN's full court press. A confluence of factors that could be a tipping point. But probably not. Won't change anything for most of us anyway.


Still burning brain cells on the issues brought up over at Nutmeg Radio about US supporter music. Is our soccer culture too fragmented to ever find a coherent voice, or is that range of influences a strength that will allow us to form something truly unique? I hope it's the latter, even though I imagine it will be a long, painful process of stops and starts. What do American fans bring to the table as a group? It just might be up to people like the American Outlaws to figure it out.


The issue of American "style" came up thanks to Jurgen Klinsmann's comments on our apparent lack of one. This discussion, and the accusation that American soccer is devoid of distinct character elicits a fairly visceral reaction in me. The object is to win the game, which means playing your strengths; for Bob Bradley and the men that came before him, that means relying on defending and counter-attacking almost exclusively. I guess that in and of itself isn't a "style". Bah. Do what you need to do to win, and style will evolve over time. Most nations given the honor of having a "style" by experts have been A) successful internationally or B) operating top-flight leagues for decades. The US has done neither. Where's the appreciation for the time it takes to develop?


Speaking of Klinsmann, his naming to the ESPN crew dredges up all of those raw nerves from the US courtship of the German legend. The man's coaching resume is fairly thin when you think about it, though he does have "German National Team" and "Bayern Munich" in bold, 24 point font on it. Sure, his World Cup run carries weight, and his Americanized sensibilities might have made him a good fit here on some level. But I'm doubtful, without being able to prove it of course, that he could have done any better to this point than the coach we ended up with. Say what you want about Bob Bradley, he's managed to pull some fairly impressive performances out of this team. Confederations Cup aside, I can't help but wonder what might have been in Azteca if Donovan hadn't been ill and beaten to the end line for Mexico's winning goal. Yeah, I know. It doesn't matter much now.


I'm reading (in fits and starts) Filip Bondy's book Chasing the Game. It's the telling of the US story leading up to the World Cup, with some additional background on high profile players and Bob Bradley. There's nothing special about it, and there are a few fairly obvious mistakes that footy fans would catch, but it's not a terrible read. If you been around for awhile, it serves as a trip down memory lane; if you're new to the game, the National Team, or the World Cup buildup, it becomes more of a primer. There's room for that, and I'm glad to see books like this appearing; but as Adam Spangler rightfully pointed out in one of the first reviews I've seen of the book, there's little to no narrative, and the information presented is in no way new. Oh, and bits of it are maddening for people who know and love the game. Take it for what it is and move on.


How Larry King managed to spit out those USA Today columns in one sentence/thought bites, I have no idea. Maybe I'm just too damn wordy.


Have a good weekend.

Here we go. First kick is here, and I'm beyond ready. I'm so ready, in fact, that I completely forgot that NCCA basketball tournament Sweet 16 games start tonight, going directly up against the Sounders-Union showdown in Seattle.


I know what I'll be watching, and I know a small and dedicated MLS fan base will forsake the basketball games for the soccer match; but I doubt that will be the case for most casual sports fans, and even some soccer die hards will struggle to switch from CBS and the Sweet 16 to ESPN2 and MLS at 9:30 ET.


So is it just a matter of poor planning on the part of Major League Soccer, or are they snake-bitten when it comes to going up against higher-profile sporting events?


I tend to put it in the latter category, especially since MLS is beholden to ESPN for their season debut. It's likely Bristol that presents the league with dates to kick off the season, and I have trouble believe Garber and co. would choose to battle college basketball unless they had no choice.


MLS has refocused their energies on the passionate soccer fan, a smart move in an country where snagging casual general sports fans was always going to be extremely difficult. Because of that, perhaps the thinking is that the head-to-head with the NCAAs is of little consequence, because their core audience will watch First Kick and any causal interest would be minimal and outside of their target anyway.


And yes, I realize that's a weak rationalization. Just thinking this through.


Would tonight's match do better without the competition? Possibly, though I don't think it's a slam dunk (pardon the metaphor), and might make little difference in the final rating anyway. We've learned that MLS matches just don't do that well, no matter the night of the week they're on (though there was a small bump last season when ESPN moved their broadcasts around rather than locked them into Thursdays), or the programming they are up against. The league and the network need to find a way to attract American soccer fans who haven't previously given any of their time to MLS before they worry about the lack of casual sports fans who might wander by and stick with the game.


But for those of us interested in both events, it does present a bit of a problem. I'll be watching Seattle-Philly because I've committed so much of my time and energy to the product and I'll take much more from the start of a new MLS season from a stadium with 35k fans than I will a third round tournament game for a sport I only follow in March.


There might not be that many like me, though.


Do you have any issues with First Kick going up against the NCAAs?

While debating the issue of ESPN signing up only British voices for their World Cup match coverage on the most recent American Soccer Show, I found myself arguing more strenuously against the problem of American soccer appropriating English/British football culture than the actual announcers themselves.

This is a pervasive problem (and if you have an issue with my characterization of it as a "problem", you're more than welcome to disagree in the comments) that extends not only to the soccer fanatic's general preference for English announcers, but to more widespread issue of taking our cultural cues from the Old Country.

This all stems, of course, from the common language. Without it, England would be just another football-mad country that cares about the game way more than we do, no different from Spain, Italy, Germany, etc. But because information flows freely across the Atlantic without the need for pesky translation, Americans absorb the English game and opinion on it naturally and without effort. It's why the English Premier League has so many fans here, and why a strong streak of inferiority runs through too much of American soccer's fan culture. Still, it would be amazing if we didn't defer to our colonial progenitors in some way.

Which is why I struggle with the larger question of just how much of an imperative there should be for American soccer to develop its own identity. And by "American soccer" I mean less the youth team machine, which is a major part of any discussion but remains oddly detached from the highest levels, and more the appreciation of the professional game; we have our own leagues, we have a pretty good national team, and we have a history. So why then should the English version of things have such an impact on how we view ourselves?

I'm generalizing, of course, because it's the easiest way to paint the picture and the simplest way to convey my thoughts. There are many, many, Americans who can both appreciate the English and Scots, enjoy their brand of football, and listen to them pontificate without turning their noses up when their Yank counterparts get in on the act. But there's also a large segment of the American footy-loving populace that refuse to believe Americans capable of much when it comes to the game, be it playing it, announcing it, or otherwise. This attitude holds America back from developing its own unique soccer culture, one that sets it apart from our Anglophone cousins while properly recognizing the strong connections that exist between us.

We're conditioned, as fans, to believe British is better. ESPN's decision on their World Cup announcers is just another example that the media decision-makers understand that fact; add that the country's highest profile/most popular soccer radio show is hosted by Brits and that Brits populate the analyst chairs on our studio shows, and it's clear that as a soccer nation we struggle to assign credibility to those with American accents. The inevitable consequence is that aforementioned inferiority complex; not only do we defer to the British on matters of opinion, we begin to feel anything done by Americans is inherently less valuable. This sense of inferiority colors how many of us view any domestically-bred soccer, including our nascent top-flight club competition, the efforts of our national team, Americans as players, coaches, etc.

If it's American, it's can't possibly be good.

Back to that pesky ESPN World Cup announcer for a moment. How much of the backlash I've received for my stance on ESPN's decision is related to conditioning? I believe that people are being honest when they say that the choices are good because "there are no good American announcers", but the cynic in me finds it hard to accept that that at face value; American announcers are held to such a different standard than their British counterparts that I wonder if fans aren't simply deferring to the accent rather than objectively assessing the abilities of the announcers in question.

Any criticism of Martin Tyler is anathema, of course, so I play with fire as I type.

But focusing on the individual comparison (i.e., Martin Tyler v. J.P. Dellacamera) misses the point; the issue isn't "who's better", but rather why an American network is turning wholesale to foreign voices. Again, the common language makes it easy, but that doesn't mean that there's not room to question the cultural (strictly in terms of soccer) implications. The continued appropriation of English football culture for a burgeoning American soccer culture does this country no favors as it grows with the game.

The English invented the game. They took it around the world, spawning soccer-mad cultures in nation after nation. Those countries made the game theirs, developing their own unique flavors and idiosyncrasies that make the sport the world's game not just because it fit in so many cultures, but because those cultures made it fit them. In a time before instant communication and where language was a serious barrier, the Italians, Germans, Brazilians, Argentines, and others were able to create their own soccer bubbles where an organic cultural growth wasn't hindered by the expansive shadow of the English originators. In terms of a more popular American sport, this is similar to the growth of and development of baseball in Japan; the game is the same, but the culture, approach, and style is something different.

The modern world of television and the Internet might mean we'll never escape that English shadow. A distinct, separate, and unique American soccer culture will always be slow to develop as long as the English loom just over the horizon, ready to critique and influence everything we do. Fans here might always defer, always see themselves as more inclined to the British game and voices, always unsure that Americans can fill any of the roles as competently. If we've passed to point of no return on becoming hopelessly conditioned to English football over American soccer, it's probably too late.

Elitism, combined with the sense of inferiority, has too many Americans ashamed of their nationality when it comes to the sport of soccer. It's not enough to love the game, appreciate it in all its forms, and accept that things here will be just a little different. The uphill battle to respectability for our leagues, our players, and our media (announcers included) will be a long and difficult one as long as Americans can't see value in soccer being American, and that being just fine.


***
I realize that I've probably offended a few people with this, or that it might come off as jingoistic (it's not). All I would ask before you lambaste me via the comments (which you're certainly allowed to do) is to think critically about what I've put forth here; if you have never questioned why you might prefer English to American, now might be a good time for self-examination. And with that being said, I'll admit to my own prejudices, and note that my opinions here are born somewhat out of my own desire to understand the phenomenon as it relates to my soccer appreciation.


There's nothing wrong with preferring English accents, or identifying English soccer as better (of course it is); there is something wrong in my mind, however, with preferring English over American to the full exclusion of the American.

So ESPN's Top 50 Players of the World Cup list came out Monday. Awesome, right? Because... lists? Everybody likes lists, right? Looks great on Digg, doesn't it?


The main problem I have with this list is the sheer meaninglessness of it. ESPN thinks Leo Messi(1) is a better player than Cristiano Ronaldo(2)? Stop the flipping presses. Wayne Rooney(3) is the best striker in the Premiership? Thanks for that, but I was kinda clued in by the twenty-three goals he's scored so far this season.


Although I would like to meet the person who decided that eight-goals-in-twenty-one-matches Sammy Eto'o (13) is better than the nine goals in fourteen matches of Luis Fabiano (14). Or how both are somehow better than Carlos Tevez (24) and Cesc Fabregas (16). Michael Essien (10) is a great player, but if he's "better" than David Villa (11), something is seriously wrong. Villa won the Golden Boot at Euro 2008, and is sitting on top of the La Liga scorers table. John Terry (37) is a central defender and has scored more goals this season than striker Miroslav Klose (34), but is ranked below the German. And why is Miroslav Klose, who has just a single league goal this season, even mentioned?


Is it because this list is nothing more than World Cup flavored filler requiring almost no research whatsoever but guaranteed to light up the footballing twittersphere and bring in the pageviews? Surely not...


And where the hell is Xabi Alonso? Go ask Liverpool fans how important he is.


And nice cop-out on ranking Landon Donovan #50, ESPN. By putting him last, you've been able to claim that an American is one of the 50 best players in the World Cup without actually saying he's better than anyone. Except, you know, the players not on the list. Like Xabi Alonso. Or Ronaldinho. Or Antonio Di Natale. Or Sergio Ramos. Or Robinho. Hell, ESPN should be damn happy that qualification kept Andrei Arshavin, Edin Dzeko, and Zlatan Ibrahimovich out of the tournament, or they'd have some serious shoehorning to do.


What's that? Too many Spaniards and Brazilians in the list? Not enough of a worldwide mixing bowl? Well too bad, they've earned those places. Don't change the science to fit the results, ESPN. You're one of the few outlets with the resources and the clout to do serious, interesting reporting. Leave the pointless lists to us bloggers. You can afford to do better.

Taking a cue from Ginge (which I try not to make a habit of), I've decided to address some TV news just released today; per Fox, the 2010 UEFA Champions League Final will be broadcast on their over-the-air flagship station, and ESPN has announced that a deal with Fox Sports International will allow them to broadcast 83 English Premier League matches, up from the 48 shown this season.


Wow. That's pretty exciting stuff if you're a fan of the European game, and the UCL announcement alone has many buzzing about the potential rating the match could do. Between ABC's broadcast of the England-USA World Cup match and the Champions League Final, 2010 should be the biggest ratings year in the history of soccer TV in America.


But as Ginge points out, there's a disappointing issue with all of this; while Americans can now watch more European (and therefore top class) soccer than ever before, domestic league matches are frustratingly far less available. Sure, you can buy the league's Direct Kick package if you'd like, or pony up a smaller fee for the Internet version; but as more and more Americans discover the sport, it's worrying that they can watch a foreign product much more easily than our own American league.


I get it. I understand why English football is popular here in the States, and I generally don't blame fans for gravitating to the richest league in the world. The language is the same, the players are recognizable, and quality of play is obviously top notch. I also don't blame ESPN, FSC, or any other television concern for leveraging American interest in English soccer. Still, I have to wonder if all of this Euro love is stunting American soccer.

"Here in the US, it's easier to watch an EPL match than it is to watch a match in our own domestic league."

Ginge Talks The Footy

MLS will always remain a second class citizen in the United States as long as it's taking a back seat to leagues from distant shores. While the lack of visibility and money constraints are the major reasons for that situation now, television will play a large part in the future. Though watching the English game (thanks to the time difference) doesn't preclude people from watching MLS as well, the juxtaposition of the two does the American product no favors.


Some of the blame for the situation certainly falls to MLS. Ginge believes MLS has been ineffective in marketing themselves; I think that's true to a point, though I'd argue that the league's hands are tied in many cases. At least they're making money from television now.


I'd be lying if I said I wasn't excited for more EPL matches in HD on ESPN and a Saturday Champions League Final on Fox. But there's a part of me that wonders if the explosion of European soccer coverage in the US is doing more harm than good; while it's nice that our soccer-playing kids can now watch the best in the world do their thing (and hopefully pick up a thing or two), it won't matter if our domestic league can't gain enough traction to be a proper place for those kids to develop and play.


TV money is the lifeblood of any professional sports league. MLS needs more, but it's the European leagues that are getting the most exposure.

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.

The MLS Western Conference Final, which pits the resurgent LA Galaxy against the perennially contending Houston Dynamo, is set for the Home Depot Center tomorrow night.


Unfortunately, if you live on the East Coast, you'll probably need a pot of coffee to catch the whole thing.


Kickoff for the match will be at 11:27 PM ET, a ridiculously late start for those of us that call the right side of the country home. West coast games are routinely late starters, something we've generally grown accustomed too; I can't count the number of times I've found myself up beyond midnight waiting for a match to end. It's usually not that big of a deal.


But Friday is just a little different. It is the playoffs after all, contested between (supposedly) Major League Soccer's best teams, and the should be type of game the league would want to be in front of the largest audience possible. Unfortunately, Friday's start time makes that almost impossible; I realize that it's annoying fact for much of the country, but the fact remains that a predominance of the US population resides east of the mighty Mississippi.


It's TV, I know. MLS is suckling at the teat of ESPN, and it's hard to blame them. But a kickoff time of roughly 11:30 PM not only eliminates a portion of the game's potential audience, it gives the impression that MLS is so beholden to the "Worldwide Leader" that they can pushed in any direction the Bristol-ites choose. Even if that is the reality (which it clearly is), the perception that MLS is a a pushover, even during their most visible portion of the season, is troubling.


Forget the Beckham Effect, because playing until after 1 AM on the East Coast negates it. Forget that the game could be a thriller, with two teams on solid form and who possess marketable young stars, because most of the country's population will miss it. Forget that ESPN is the best place for the profile of MLS to grow, because despite being broadcast there, the number of people who might stumble upon it and stick around is now a fraction of the possible total.


The hardcore, of which there are fewer than there should be but whom certainly exist, will stay up. I myself will be brewing the aforementioned pot of coffee, or stocking up on Red Bull (wait, never mind, make that Monster), or both, setting myself down and committing to a late, late night. It is the playoffs after all. How could I miss it?


Thanks MLS. And thank you ESPN.

If you haven't heard, some soccer on TV ratings came out yesterday. FSC, America's preeminent all-soccer broadcaster, became Nielsen-rated just about a year ago. Since then, the network's ratings have been of supreme interest to cadre of soccer observers (meaning everyone with too much time on their hands and an opinion about the place of the game in the US, myself included). Throw in the ratings from ESPN for both MLS and their newly acquired European properties (but mainly English Premier League games), and suddenly there's more than an few number to bat around and analyze.


What do they mean?


Is soccer actually watched in large numbers in this country?


Does EPL outperform MLS?


Those are all pertinent questions I suppose, though I think that they all cloud the issue, and some more than others. The nature of the numbers, and what they indicate about about the United States as a consumer of soccer is important; TV, more than attendance or jersey sales, drives revenues, budgets, balance sheets, and projections. The more people watching soccer on TV, the more advertisers will gravitate towards the game, and the larger the infrastructure grows; when there's money to spread around, the number of people it can be spread around to increases. We want the game covered by the media in greater numbers and with greater quality, and it will be TV viewership that makes that happen.


Still, it's important to realize that Nielsen isn't perfect. While the ratings convert (somehow) into "hard" representations of total viewers, they should be taken with a grain of salt. In order to turn around the information they provide so quickly, Nielsen is working with small sample sizes and extrapolating them into a larger picture. I'm no statistician, but the problems with that process are obvious; when the ratings company says 250,000 people watched a particular soccer game, there's really no way of knowing exactly how accurate that number is.


Not that it matters. Advertisers and networks use the number in the game they play, so in the end, perception is reality. Nielsen is accepted as the authority, and if they say 250,000 people watched a particular telecast, then for all intents and purposes, that's how many watched. The network sets their ad rates based on those numbers, and the advertisers buy time with those numbers in mind.


I've failed to get to my point. All this talk about TV ratings and what they mean has only led me off my intended path. The TV ratings from FSC, augmented by those of ESPN, has led to much discussion of Major League Soccer's ratings as compared to those of the English Premier League. The weak sister of soccer in America, the country's own domestic league, cannot seem to get away from the bully on the block.


It's natural to want to compare the ratings of the EPL to those of MLS. It's all soccer, after all, and the leagues are ostensibly doing the same things, running professional competitions of the world's most popular sport. But beyond that, the two leagues are so different that it's almost not fair to compare them; while the EPL consists of massive clubs, spending tens and hundreds of millions of dollars a year on players, Major League Soccer tightly constricts their spending to the point of ridiculousness. When clubs are prohibited by the rules from even chartering flights for their players, the discrepancy is to obvious to ignore.


MLS is an American product, and is therefore looked upon by many as the barometer of the sport's popularity in the United States. But MLS is an infant in the footballing world, operating on a level more Double A to the EPL major leagues than as a direct American analogue. How is it fair to believe that soccer fans, both those who have followed the game for years as well as the new fan attracted to the biggest and best, would tune into a league whose best players often make less than a European superstar's weekly wages?


I watch MLS, and I know plenty of people who do. Our reasons vary, from true passion for a particular club to a sense of obligation to support the American professional league. Often, even as we watch, we disparage the quality, bemoan the poor officiating, and grumble over terrible production. No matter why we watch, we realize that what we're seeing isn't the best, and we don't pretend it is; there's a reasonable argument to be made that soccer junkies who make sure to follow MLS despite having "better" options like the EPL and La Liga are doing more for the growth of the game in the United States than those who don't. That's simplistic, and I don't mean to make MLS watchers sound "better" than those who ignore the American product; I get the allure of big time European football, and I though I wish more people would give the league a chance (there are other reasons to watch than quality alone), I get it. Americans like their sports to be the best.


There's a reason that the UFL will likely ultimately fail, despite the voracious appetite American have for football of the gridiron variety; it's not the NFL. There's a reason that Americans are barely aware of sports leagues that exist outside of the United States but play the country's biggest games; they're not the NBA, NHL, or Major League Baseball. The history of inward focus, bred of continental separation and a feeling of world superiority is easily transferred by Americans who pick up a love of soccer to the biggest and the best abroad. The world is getting smaller, and that means soccer-loving Yanks who are already predisposed to sporting snobbery have an easy out when it comes to the game in the United States. The American don't do it best, so let's transfer our attention to the most popular league in the world where, as luck has it, the language is one we understand.


American soccer fans won't stop watching the EPL anytime soon, and they certainly won't be trading in English football for American soccer. ESPN sub-licensed rights to the league because they knew that the interest would be there, at a time of day when anything beyond the hunting and fishing crowd is a bonus. MLS is a different animal, and while its audience is largely the same (or should be), it shouldn't be held to a standard set by the EPL. There are many ways that yesterday's ratings can be taken; they seem to indicate improvement for MLS but are being viewed by many through the EPL prism, which immediately leads to the minimizing of their importance.


Stop it. Stop it now.


MLS and EPL are not direct competitors. Major League's Soccer's success or failure does not hinge on how their TV ratings compare to those of the Premier League's. It shouldn't matter to anyone, least of all fans of MLS, if one is "beating" the other.

The MLS Cup Final, traditionally a Sunday afternoon affair broadcast on over-the-air network ABC, will move to cable (ESPN2) and a prime-time slot (8:30 pm) for the first time, the league announced today.

The move was made to allow for the match to start later in the day local time, which places it solidly in the East Coast evening time slot. The final will now go up against NBC's Sunday Night Football rather than afternoon NFL games, a situation that could actually work in Major League Soccer's favor. The trade-off from over-the-air to cable is significant, though the competition for viewers might actually be less intense. ABC was unable to accommodate the game with a later start time thanks to their own Sunday prime-time lineup, which includes several popular shows.

NBC's Sunday Night Football on November 22nd feature the Philadelphia Eagles and Chicago Bears; while both teams feature strong national profiles, neither may be serious championship contenders at that point in the season (in my humble opinion, they won't), which could push a few casual viewers in the direction of ESPN2 and the MLS championship match. For a sport and a league that draws paltry television ratings no matter the slot, competition, or platform, even a few more eyes would be a bonus.

Last year's final received a paltry 0.7 rating, which means that the move from broadcast to cable should be of little concern. ESPN2 is widely available enough that a rating similar (although hopefully better) is possible.

What do you make of this move? Will it ultimately benefit the league, or is the move to cable for the final a mistake?

This week, Jason and Zach "Don't call me the Pink Cloud" Woosley review USA-Mexico (now that Zach has actually seen the game), discuss ESPN's decision to broadcast the EPL, and wonder about the best path to stardom for young American players.

The Match Fit USA Soccer Show, part of the Champions Soccer Radio Network.

LISTEN in the CSRN media player

DOWNLOAD the show

SUBSCRIBE in iTunes

RSS FEED