Editor's Note: New MFUSA contributor David T. Hammons has impeccable timing, and presents his perspective on why "Soccer Talk Live" represents a step forward for soccer in the United States.

by David T. Hammons

Kyle Martino is on the verge of offering Fox Soccer Channel and the newly-found American soccer fans something that this sport desperately needs to keep them interested in "The Beautiful Game."


News Corporation's Fox Entertainment Group, which owns Fox Soccer Channel, now comprehends what will attract more Americans to watch their shows - Americans want an American product.


Martino, a former member of the United States Men's National Team, has decided to leave ESPN and to join FSC and host their new show, Soccer Talk Live.


Fox Soccer Channel has decided that this is the perfect time to cash in on the success of the 2010 FIFA World Cup by producing a show purely dedicated to the American game - and not the other "bigger" European or South American leagues.


This proves to be a bit of brilliance by Fox Soccer, because they are bringing a young, bright individual who understands the American point of view.


Martino, who had a six year stint in Major League Soccer, comes across as a hearty, grassroot-American that has played on every level of soccer that this country has to offer.


Whether it was the youth and high School soccer in Connecticut, collegiate soccer at the University of Virginia, or professional level with MLS he will be able to connect to each and every player on those different levels.


This is not to slate Nick Webster or Eric Wynalda, who co-hosted the now-canceled Fox Football Fone-in, in anyway, but having a someone like Martino who has played at each level in the States offers something completely different to their first-time viewers.


Like Wynalda, Martino will offer honest opinions, but he does it in a way that most Americans soccer fans can and will relate to.


However, there is nothing more a proud American dislikes than a cocky Englishman, which Wynalda acted like, and his predecessor, Steven Cohen, clearly was - but that is what the producers wanted back then - not now!


Fox Soccer Channel needs to have British commentators and critics, but for the new soccer fans here, they cannot are not able to relate to them with their different terminology like someone born in Connecticut would offer.


However, being an American does not necessarily mean that you will strike a relationship with the adoring soccer fans and two prime examples of this were Max Bretos and Allen Hopkins, who both could not leave the Los Angeles-based company quick enough for ESPN, or as Dan Patrick refers to it, The Evil Mothership.


Of course, Bretos and Hopkins both appreciate soccer, but their selfish demeanor was very easy to read, and to a growing sport, that is the exact opposite thing that they need and fans were turned off by it.


With one of the major networks, News Corporation's Fox Entertainment Group, now completely on board, soccer should start becoming one of the major sports here in the United States.


Follow David on Twitter

I took in my first bit of the now two-week old "Soccer Talk Live" on Fox Soccer Channel last night. Hosted by ex-Crew and Galaxy midfielder Kyle Martino, the show is the direct replacement for the relatively long-running "Fox Football Fone-in." Unfortunately for Soccer Talk Live, I can't imagine it will last quite as long as its predecessor.


Martino is a competent enough host. He's got charisma, and despite a bit of put-on game show-host-like persona, appears to be the right man for the job. If you buy the idea that a soccer-themed talk show is worth the effort, than Martino in the host chair is a good place to start. It's too bad then that everything else around him is a disaster.


Fox Soccer Channel has a reputation for being notoriously cheap. Soccer Talk Live certainly feeds that rep, with a set that screams "public access"; despite a decent concept, STL's success is almost more dependent on the the visual presentation than the quality of its content. Martino could fantastic (he's not, but is getting better), and the guests could be top-notch, but if the show looks like it's emanating from a public access studio, it will all be for not. Right now, that's exactly how STL looks.


Meanwhile, I'm left to wonder why FSC felt the need to put this show on live. Yes, they've woven in live viewer questions through social media and email, but instead of adding to the interview in question they tend to bring it to a grinding halt. The mechanism for interjecting the questions from email and Twitter, a holdover from FFF in the form of a female presence set off to the side of the main set, is clunky at best and more accurately put, completely unnecessary.


If the show is going to be live, the logical step would be to add a studio audience; several times during the portion of the show I watched, Martino's one-liners fell flat or came off forced because there was no audible reaction from the guest(s). A studio audience, even a small one, would give the show a warmer and more engaging feel.


Not that I imagine it would be easy to find such a group.


Two items I didn't see enough to comment on: Martino's sidekick, a soccer-loving comedian named Bredan Hunt, and "Fast Lane", the feature portion of the show with Temryss Lane out at the Miss Galaxy pageant. It would be unfair of me to give an opinion on what they bring to Soccer Talk Live without having seen them first hand.


I'm intrigued by the approach to Soccer Talk Live, and I applaud whichever mind at FSC conceived of the concept. The show will have difficulty gaining traction because it attempts to meld soccer and pop culture, but the effort is commendable; taking the steps to break the nerdish shackles that too often confines soccer in the US is a wonderful idea. Perhaps FSC is the wrong venue for the show because its viewership is almost completely made up of obsessed footy fans who would prefer to hear only discussion on games, tactics and transfer rumors, but there should be room for a show like Soccer Talk Live in the growing American soccer scene.


But concept alone is not enough to carry them through, and without a significant investment on the part of FSC or their coporate overlords, I have trouble believing that Soccer Talk Live will be with us for too long. FFF was easy because it leaned heavily on direct viewer interaction via the phone, essentially operating as a radio show on TV. Soccer Talk Live is a much more difficult show to pull off, and while Martino is capable, the infrastructure around him might make it impossible to do the show well.


I expect STL will get better, perhaps much better, in the coming weeks. I may even give it more of my time, if only because I don't have anything more important to watch on Monday nights.


Just as long as their not playing that terrible Trivia-plus-cornhole game. What was that?

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.

A few months back, when reviewing my television service, I made a bold decision:


It was time to switch to DirecTV.


Now, there were several factors that played into my choice to switch, not the least of which was some potential savings (at least for awhile) and a wider selection of HD programming. I'm not necessarily an HD snob for most things, but I do enjoy sports in high definition; I bought the HDTV, I should get some use out of it, right?


One of the HD channels I assumed would be added to the DirecTV lineup, and the one I was most excited about getting, was FSCHD. Fox had finally made the investment in their little soccer channel and bumped up production to the current standard for signal quality; considering that Fox Soccer Channel is home to EPL, MLS, and Serie A matches, this was big, big, news for any footy freak. Finally, the glories of Anfield, Old Trafford, etc. (to say nothing of their MLS Game of the Week), would be visible in a crisp, clear picture more often then the once a week provided by ESPN.


I waited anxiously, expecting the usually-prompt DirecTV to add FSCHD at the earliest possible date. I gritted my teeth every time Christian Miles told me that a game was broadcast in glorious high definition, and I fumed when the network put the "HD" symbol in the top right corner of the screen.


HD? What HD? I don't have it in HD, so why are you saying it's in HD?!


Still, my frustration with FSC is a bit unfair. I know they're providing an HD signal, and it's not their fault that DirecTV hasn't added it; so even though they're technically lying, someone somewhere is watching the game in high def. Just not anyone subscribed to DirecTV.


Eventually, I stopped worrying about it. Even though I still saw the "HD" symbol on my grainy picture, I simply assumed that the channel would be added shortly, I'd forget about my anger, and everything would be right with the world. Besides, the DirectTV twitter account had responded to my question about FSCHD and said something about a new satellite. It had to be coming, they said it was coming. So when is it coming?


It's April, and there still is no word on FSCHD being added to DirecTV. It won't be added in May, either, according to an announcement by the satellite company on new HD channels.


I'm feeling like quite the sucker today.


I'm sure there are many of you who either don't have DirecTV or don't care about HD enough for this to be an issue. Good for you, really. But I and many others are more than a bit annoyed at this point, and I think it's time for a bit of action.


If you have DirecTV and want FSCHD, send them an email demanding it be added. At this point, all I can find is an email form through their website, which means entering your info; if I can find a direct email address, I'll update this post.


I'm sure people have contacted DirecTV about this over the course of the last few months, but we need a concerted effort here. The more emails, the better, so let's hit 'em hard and fast.


Get everyone you know involved, and give DirectTV no choice but to get Fox Soccer Channel in HD added to the lineup.

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.

ESPN has struck an deal with FSC to sub-license some of the soccer network's English Premier League matches; this means that Jozy Alitdore's possible first appearance with his new club, Hull City, will be available on ESPN2 at 7:45 AM EDT tomorrow.

Altidore's loan to Hull comes after two frustrating years in Spain, and represents his best opportunity to date to see significant playing time. Hull has been adding players throughout the summer, and while they may still have their eye on another striker, Altidore's position in the pecking order should garner him a reasonable amount of action.

Whether or not Altidore plays tomorrow is up in the air; manager Phil Brown could opt to leave his young American on the bench with Hull visiting powerhouse Chelsea at Stamford Bridge.

Visit EPL Talk for more information on the coverage of English soccer by ESPN.

*UPDATE* Bad news. It appears that Jozy can't make his Premier League debut, as he's still in the States getting Work Permit issues worked out. From his Twitter account:

Bloggers love to use clever devices to express their thoughts; while I often try to avoid them, sometimes it just makes sense to present things in a format that neatly categorizes what I'm trying to say. Today, I'm using one of those devices to tackle the issue of MLS match quality.

By "match quality", I essentially mean the "watchability" (which is not actually a word) of a given match. Because MLS is still a young league, rapidly expanding, and working on a budget, quality is a continuing concern. Not just for the players themselves, the teams individually, or the league collectively, but also for the entertainment value of each match.

This past week (with two games still to be played today) is MLS in microcosm: uneven, ugly, and mostly unwatchable matches juxtaposed against well played, engaging, and entertaining games.

Just to take my point one step further, I've chosen three matches from the past week to illustrate the range of quality that exists in Major League Soccer.

Bad

Kansas City Wizards 1, New York Red Bulls 0

This game was flat out plain ugly. An early red card given to New York's Carlos Johnson sucked all of the energy out of what could have been an entertaining match up.

After Kansas City converted the penalty that resulted from Johnson's transgression, the home side seemed content to sit on their lead, daring New York to attack. Unfortunately, the Red Bulls were never able to breakthrough, and the game bogged down. The next eighty-five minutes passed without so much as an intriguing moment (or so it seemed), an unfortunate circumstance made all the more disheartening because the game was ESPN's Game of the Week. Although extenuating factors abounded (the red card, Curt Onalfo's pregame accident) that could be responsible for the poorness of play, it doesn't make it any easier to swallow.

Better

Real Salt Lake 6, New England Revolution 0

I suppose that New England fans would vehemently disagree that this was a "better" game. But I've chosen it for a reason; although completely one-sided (although that's really only true for the second half), the match produced quality chances on both sides. New England seemed to play well enough in the first half, and RSL looked dangerous on multiple occasions before the put six in the net. Attacking soccer is most often equated to quality soccer, so this game gets the seal of approval. Its entertainment value clearly vastly exceeded that of KC-NY, despite the blowout. It's unfortunate that all of the goals were scored by one side, but the quality of some of those goals (Mathis's volley was world-class) made the match a fun one to watch. "Wow" moments make for "better" match quality.

Best

Columbus Crew 2, Chicago Fire 2

This match was the obvious choice for "best". Two strong teams (despite Columbus' early struggles) playing a highly contested, playoff type match in front of a passionate crowd. Columbus showed why they were MLS Cup winners last year, though Chicago always had the look of a team that just wouldn't go away. Even after the Crew's Gino Padula received a slightly controversial red card in the fifty-seventh minute (it didn't appear to me that he made contact with Blanco, and I don't know if the intent was there), Columbus was the better team. Chicago turned on the pressure, the tension ratcheted up, and the Fire finally broke though on a quality goal by Brian McBride. Columbus reeled, time ticked away, and the Fire continued to press for the equalizer. Chris Rolfe's determination and a beautiful shot by Gonzalo Segares sealed the draw, a result that seemed to do the match justice. The Crew and the Fire put on a show that exhibited the best MLS has to offer: an entertaining match that sits on the opposite end of the spectrum from Thursday's depressingly boring Kansas City victory over the Red Bulls.

So there you have it: three matches on three different levels, all in the same league and within just a few days of each other. Although it's admittedly a crap shoot, MLS needs more of the latter type of clash to appear on the national showcase that ESPN provides (FSC is fine, but it's no ESPN).

Give me your choices for bad, better, best.

I know what you're thinking:

You're thinking that I never talk European soccer in this space, and you're a little confused as to why I would bring up Fox Soccer Channel's recent purchase of the U.S. rights for the UEFA Champions League.

Let me explain.

After the jump of course.

I recently (in fact, only a few moments ago) watched the president of Fox Soccer Channel outline a fairly audacious plan for those newly acquired right; those plans include distribution of Champions League matches across various Fox outlets, online distribution of those matches (a la ESPN 360), and an HD version of Fox Soccer Channel to roll out by the end of 2009.

Big time stuff, and all of it is exciting for Americans who love the biggest of European club tournaments. I'm certainly among those, and I'm happy to hear about the changes that FSC will be making. Outlets for soccer in the U.S. are few and far between, and FSC in HD sounds like a dream come true.

But a question at the back of my mind continues to nag...

Where does MLS fit in with all of this?

Will our domestic league suffer because more and more of the European game is available to fans who are quick to dismiss MLS anyway? What about those people who might not yet appreciate the game, but could be enticed to follow soccer by FSC's distribution of Champions League matches? Would those same people embrace Major League Soccer, or reject it out of hand as so many, including some individuals involved with FSC do?

I realize these are difficult questions, ones without clear answers.

I'm probably just overreacting; although it sounds like FSC is making the Champions League the centerpiece of the network's offerings, that does not necessarily mean that they will neglect their coverage of MLS.

It just means there is one more think to compete with, one more thing that will make our domestic competition pale in comparison.

Share your thoughts and let me know what (if anything) you think this means for FSC's relationship with the American version of the game.

Televised soccer has had a rough go in the United States, a situation that must be rectified if the game is ever going to become mainstream. The unconverted and soccer-haters will often point to the TV ratings as proof positive that the sport simply does not appeal to Americans.

While I've given most of my attention to ESPN's efforts (or lack thereof) to distribute soccer to the masses, there are certainly other outlets available to MLS.

I was flipping around the channels the other day, frustrated by the amount of college basketball (I guess it is the only thing going on), when a thought struck me: Why is there no soccer on the Versus Network?

While Versus is mostly known for being the television purgatory that the NHL currently inhabits, they also broadcast several "niche" sports. Outdoor sports, MMA, bull riding, and the Tour de France all air on the network. While I'm sure they all have their own dedicated viewers, it's unlikely that the available audience for any of those sports (save MMA, maybe) can match up to that of soccer. Despite the struggles of MLS to break through with both non-soccer fans and soccer fans that reject MLS, it would seem worth it for Versus to show a little soccer. MLS and Versus seem like a perfect match; one is a second-tier sports league struggling to increase their profile, and the other is a second tier sports network, working towards respectability with a wide range of programming.

For the sake of comparison a few fact about both FSC (the current secondary broadcaster of MLS) and Versus:

REACH:
FSC 32 million homes (source)
Versus 74 million homes (source)

That's a pretty significant advantage for Versus.

Maybe there's something I'm missing, and Versus isn't a network that would work well with soccer or MLS. It's possible that MLS has already approached the network, and the folks at Comcast (owners of Versus) turned down the deal. Or maybe it happened the other way around, and Versus didn't offer enough to MLS to make it worth it for the league. How MLS games can show up on HDNet, a network with a relatively small market penetration, and not be available on Versus is beyond me.

Thoughts? Anyone with insight as to why two parties seemingly made for each other haven't hooked up yet?

*EDITED TO ADD*
Just wanted to be clear here that I'm suggesting that Versus could be an additional outlet for MLS, not an alternative to ESPN. MLS must be on ESPN to have any chance of breaking through. I hope the ratings improve this year.