- Jason Davis

It seems that in the interest of improving league broadcasts, Major League Soccer's broadcasting department has set up a Twitter account specifically for TV-related feedback. Under the name @MLSonTV, the account appeared yesterday with a call for any and all opinions fans might have on the way the league is presented on the magic box -  from announcers to the use of replay.

- Jason Davis

My apologies for a dead, dead, dead-dead-dead Friday, but I'm pretty spent today. This always happens, my burning the candle at both ends and then melting into the weekend with nary a bit of energy left. It makes for really lazy Fridays where the closest I come to posting is considering a topic, thinking about what I would write, then forgetting about it altogether and staring out of my office window for an hour or three.


There's news though, which I feel no obligation to pass on as news since you've seen it in 63 places by now, but which deserves comment and might reveal something about the space MLS currently occupies into world of sports television.

If you live in the United States and have a television, you've probably seen this commercial for DirecTV. In it, a Russian oligarch-type talks about the savings he receives by subscribing to "premium televisions package" through the satellite provider.

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.

How, might you ask, can MLS improve their presentation, make their product better to look at, and improve their standing in the soccer community?


If you guessed "Get better players" or "End single-entity" or anything else that relates directly to the salaries or talent of the men who play soccer in the league, hang your head in shame because you're utterly and completely wrong.


The answer is "Broadcast every match in HD", of course. That's exactly what MLS is set to do in 2010, a result of a push from the League's leadership to highlight the improving quality of play on the field. There's now a mandate requiring every MLS club to produce their matches locally in high definition, the details of which are still being fleshed out.


The always-informed Kyle McCarthy has an overview of the HD mandate up at Goal.com, and though I highly suggest you read it, I wonder if you won't be thinking the same thing I did when you're done. What really changes? If some clubs will both have trouble finding HD outlets in their markets (very possible) and all HD broadcasts may not be available on the Direct Kick package ("there are questions" says McCarthy), then why make the shift?


Because it's necessary to improve the look of the league on television, even if it has little immediate impact. More local networks will be adding or switching to HD capabilities in the future, and it's smart for MLS to be ready for that eventuality by already having their content in the format. Just like any sport, soccer looks better in HD.


Perhaps you're of the opinion that producing every game broadcast in HD is akin to putting lipstick on a pig; I won't argue with you, especially as I wonder how much this move will cost the league (McCarthy relates numbers as high as 20-30% over SD costs) while the debate over player compensation and removing some of the financial shackles for the on-field product rages.


Nevertheless, this mandate shows that MLS is serious about getting with the times, and in a hurry. Combined with the revamping of the League's website (coming very soon, I'm told), Major League Soccer is making some savvy media decisions.

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.

It seems that the US as a soccer community takes a bit of a beating over the exploits of American owners who dip their toes into English waters; while Randy Lerner has managed to keep Villa fans happy, not every Yank owner has done such a good job. Hicks and Gillette continue to take heat in Liverpool and the Glazers aren't exactly beloved at Manchester United. It appears that another Big Four club may be added to the list of those controlled by Americans, as Stan Kroenke nears the control threshold that requires him to make an offer for remaining shares.


I reject the notion that all American owners should be viewed with a skeptical eye thanks to the problems at Liverpool and the debt at Manchester United; Americans aren't the only ones botching things in Europe when it comes to the business of running a football club. Still, it worries me what Kroenke might do if he does take control of Arsenal, if only because it would once again be used against all Americans. The Independent has a informational Q & A on the potential Kroenke takeover.

• I enjoy seeing laments over the Revolution's stadium situation, because it is now far and away the worst in MLS. If the Revs were bad, never made the playoffs and never showed up in tournaments like SuperLiga, it would be less of an issue (though still a concern); but the Revs are good, and so the situation looks all the worse. It's time for something to happen in New England, and happen quickly. If the proposed Somerville project is going nowhere, then Kraft and the league need to look for other options. Maybe Providence would like a pro soccer team.

• Americans are generally used to the corporate renaming of stadiums, though it's rarely done for venues with as much history and lore as St. James' Park, home of Newcastle United. "Sportsdirect.com @ St. James' Park" is the official new name, and it's bad even by American standards; Sky talks about those American standards in a piece meant to (I assume) put the sponsored name in the modern context. Even Pizza Hut Park and Dick's Sporting Good Park, two of the stadiums mentioned in the piece, aren't as bad because they're new facilities. The renaming of St. James', and with that ridiculous "@" sign to boot, is well beyond anything we've seen here. Imagine if Fenway Park was "monster.com @ Fenway Park"...

• Alex Kotler at Football Partnerships has an interesting take on the need for "teaching" in soccer broadcasts. He uses Tim McCarver (a man who says one worthwhile thing out of a thousand, in my opinion) to illustrate his point, calling on broadcasters to use stoppages in play to educate the consumer on the finer points of the game. I think it's a nice idea, but flawed in several fundamental ways. It's actually the "dumbing down" of American soccer broadcasts that keeps many fans of the game from giving MLS a chance, and I might even argue that broadcasters like ESPN actually do attempt to work in graphical elements to illustrate how a play occurred. I generally don't mind these "Americanized" elements on an MLS broadcasts, but it is possible to take things too far. Soccer will always be a game of flow; going to a telestrator to draw squiggly lines on one of Beckham's free kicks doesn't strike me as necessary or particularly insightful.

Shallow Scratches, otherwise knows as Deep Cuts When I Don't Feel Like Dealing With Snarky Comments, appears as daily as is possible and brings together stories relating to American Soccer from around the web. If you have a link for Shallow Scratches/Deep Cuts, feel free to email it to matchfitusa@gmail.com.

Summers Restaurant in Arlington, Virginia-where I'm headed on Saturday
Bear with me here; I'm fleshing out some thoughts as I type rather than doing so first and presenting you with a finished product. Time is short today, and the TV situation for the Honduras World Cup qualifier is on my mind. There's really nothing good to say about the fact that the game will only be available via closed-circuit television in bars around the country; nevertheless, I'm looking for a silver lining.

And this is the best I could come up: If enough people plunk down the cover charge most places are charging for the match, and the bar owners reap some kind of significant monetary benefit from showing the game, it could be seen as another sign that soccer's support in the (English-speaking) US is on the rise.

How'd I do? It that "silver" in the classic sense, or more of a slightly tarnished aluminum?

Let's hold out hope that many, many people do show up at their local soccer outlets. Not only is it a chance to support those places that give us a chance to watch the beautiful game in the company of like-minded individuals regularly, these bars and pubs are invariably small businesses that need the patronage.

My logic may be flawed in my tattered aluminum lining, but it would seem to follow that tracking a thing like number of patrons, which involves a much more accurate physical count, is easier than sampling a small portion of the greater American television audience to determine what a particular game's TV rating might be. In that regard, USMNT fans could shock the sports-marketing and television establishment by showing up in massive numbers, overflowing bar after bar, and proving to those stodgy bean-counters at ESPN that perhaps their continued passing on out-of-country National Team games is a miscalculation.

Or not. I realize I'm grasping at some serious straws here; it's much more likely that the game with come and go with either no reports of who showed up where, or the audience will be downplayed or downright disappointing.

I'm a optimist. I want to believe, and think it possible, that every bar that has the game will be packed to the gills. In fact, I'm suddenly concerned that I may not be able to get into the bar I'm headed to and plan to adjust my departure time accordingly.

Of course, it still just plain stinks that we'll have to watch it this way. Twenty dollars and an hour one-way (my personal situation), or staying at home and scrambling for an internet feed that may not exist?

Might I suggest that if you do have a local establishment that is showing the game, that you head out and watch it there. Whether the response is overwhelming or not, we might as well support those that were willing to bite the bullet and bring us the game.

While you ponder what exactly the TPL might be, I've managed to collect a few intriguing links from around the internet to further stimulate your mind.

Soccer, perhaps more than the traditionally relevant and entrenched sports leagues in the United States, is about looking to, and preparing for, the future. Intelligent people are on the job all over the country, including L.E. Eisenmenger at Soccerlens; her piece there today proposes a youth transfer fee system in the United States, something which could help bridge the gap between the massive youth clubs our country possesses and the new-on-the-scene MLS clubs.

L.E.'s suggestion makes sense on several levels, and while the details would certainly have to be worked out, fixing the disconnect should be a priority for US Soccer, Major League Soccer, and those that run youth clubs around the country. If the clubs have incentive to develop players for the professional ranks, much of the animosity that exists between the two levels could be washed away, making for a more productive environment for the game in the U.S.

• Also a nod towards the future and building the game in the US is the launch of USSoccerProject.com, a site that will provide a free online hub for the sport in America. Audacious in its aims, the US Soccer Project's corporate backer, Elite Design Corporation, plans to purchase a European club "to enhance player development and bridge the gap between the U.S. youth system and the structure of youth soccer around the world". It will be extremely interesting to see where this site goes, and if their ambitious goals are achievable.

• Coming on the heels of last week's announcement that the MLS Cup Final will be moved to prime-time as well as cable comes one writer's call for the game to move away from neutral sites. The argument here is that MLS is wrong to follow the "NFL model", and should instead move to be more in line with South America's Copa Libertadores (a two-legged final). I'm fine with a two-legged final in each finalists home stadium, but I chafe a bit at the idea that the series should take place on consecutive Wednesdays in order to limit competition for attention. Then again, does MLS really need to play their final on a weekend up against American football?

• Our last link for today relates to a unfulfilled future, and one that has faded fast in recent times. Extrafootie remembers when Freddy Adu was America's chosen one, and throws salt in the wound with a video highlight package of the young phenom. I still feel for Freddy, who was never placed in a position to develop naturally because of the hype that surrounded him. You have to wonder if he would have become a great player if he was either not American or had come after someone else had blazed the trail that it seems he was forced to. Although different players in style and talent, it's worth considering whether Jozy Altidore would have become the player he is today if Freddy Adu hadn't come before him.

And now the part I always forget: Deep Cuts will attempt (but not always manage) to bring you soccer links from off the beaten path on a daily basis. If you come across something you think would make a good Deep Cut, please send it along to matchfitusa@gmail.com.

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?

It seems like we've done this once before. An important World Cup qualifier for the US National Team being played away from home in a Latin country will be unavailable for millions of American fans. This time it's the upcoming road date with Honduras in San Pedro Sula; but instead of only a lucky few having access as was the case with USA-Mexico before we pushed Telemundo/NBC Universal into making the match more widely available (yes, I think we should take credit; 2,300 signatures is damn good), it looks like none of us will be able to see this one.

That is, of course, unless you want to pay for it. Reports indicate that the company that purchased the rights to the game, both English and Spanish, from the Honduran federation may only offer it via a pay-per-view broadcast; that is pure crap, of course, and there's really no other way to say it.

But there are significant differences between this situation and the one we faced with the Mexico game; while that game's rights were ultimately held by an American company who happened to have outlets in both English and Spanish, the Honduras match is controlled by a foreign concern with no such vehicles.

Hence, I'm not sure there is much we can do but take in the you-know-where and follow the match through trackers and *ahem* "alternate means" (if available). A campaign of any sort, be it petition, email, or even old fashioned letter writing, has no obvious target. ESPN can't be expected to purchase a game that will get minimal, even if "good for soccer", ratings for a price that makes it bad business to do so; as much as we may not like it, the "Worldwide Leader" should probably get a pass.

I'm left angry and disappointed, but resigned to our fate.

Share your thoughts below, but try to keep the cursing to a minimum.

Let me apologize for being a little behind on this. I know that since I took the lead on the Mexico TV situation that some of you looked to me to figure out what was going on with this game; I intended to, but got a little distracted. Sorry about that.

In light of today's news that mun2 will be available to many on the day of the USA-Mexico World Cup qualifier at Azteca, I'm curious how the development effects those of you planning to watch/DVR the game.

I'm throwing up a two polls, and encourage you to expound upon your answers in the comments if you feel the need to do so.

Polls after the jump.

poll by twiigs.com

poll by twiigs.com

We signed a petition, we sent emails, we moaned and complained, all in an effort to get NBC Universal to do something about the availability of the USA-Mexico match on August 12th.

I don't know if they listened, but it's clear they're making an effort to make the match available to a wider audience. While the game will still be broadcast on Telemundo's sister channel mun2, that network will now be available free of charge to DirecTV and Dish Network subscribers on August 12th.

The free preview of the channel will make it available in 56 million households that day, a significant increase over the 31 million homes that currently receive it.

In addition to this free preview news, Telemundo/mun2 also announced that the English-language broadcast team for the qualifier will be Phil Schoen and Marcelo Balboa.

A statement by mun2 Senior Vice Predident and General Manager Alex Pels:

"By offering a live a major sporting event on mun2 free-of-charge to the industry, we hope that all soccer fans and sports enthusiasts will recognize mun2 as uniquely American, game changing, connected and smart - our brand attributes. It is a great opportunity for new viewers to sample our quality programming and to see an historic game produced by Deportes Telemundo, the best sports team in the business."

This is fairly big news, and I'm happy to see that the match will be available to many more English-speaking Americans than before. Telemundo has played this smart, putting their other property (mun2) in front of a larger audience, giving the American soccer fans what they want, and leveraging the interest in the game.

If you're a cable subscriber, call your cable company and demand that they take advantage of this free preview; while DirecTV and Dish Network have signed on, cable companies may not unless pushed to do so by their customers.

Give me your thoughts on this news.

While many of us have been frustrated in recent days over the planned broadcast of USA-Mexico on mun2, the full story of why it ended up there is just now becoming known.

MFUSA has learned that Telemundo did in fact offer the game to ESPN, and at a rate charactarized as in-line with the prevailing standard, as well as consistent with those charged when the Spanish-language channel purchased rights from ESPN. Various media outlets have suggested that the asking price for USA-Mexico was exorbitant, a label that sources claim is inaccurate.

ESPN, for their part, has stated that their desire was to have the the game be available to as many viewers as possible; how that relates to their negotiations with Telemundo is unclear. Sources indicate that Telemundo approached ESPN with a proposal a year ago, only to have their communications go unanswered.

ESPN states that their stance has never been any other than "We do not have the rights to the match"; it's not clear how the prevailing wisdom became that they were priced out of the match.

As we've noted in this space, and as Telemundo president Don Browne told TV Week, the game will be available in English through both mun2 (available in roughly 30 millions homes) as well as through the SAP function on Telemundo.

A little different tact today. I usually try to keep my posts limited to one topic, but today's warrants a change in approach. Time is limited and there are a few things that happened this weekend that deserve comment but that I can't really devote 1,000 words each to. So here we go, with the Gold Cup, Beckham's return to LA, MLS parity, and Telemundo's idiocy:

US Beats Panama in Gold Cup Quarterfinals

Unfortunately, family commitments kept me from giving this game as much attention as I would have liked. I managed to follow along, caught each goal, but didn't get to see one second of extra time. As you'll hear on the new MFUSA Soccer Show, Kenny Cooper's penalty wasn't the most confidence-inspiring take I've ever seen; but he got it done, and the US is through to the semis. An uneven performance to say the least, but this younger/more inexperienced team was bound to hit a difficult patch eventually. Honduras is next, and I honestly have no expectations; while I think they should win and go through, I'm not going to assume that or be disappointed if the Hondurans jump up and catch the US.

Beckham Returns to LA

Spoiler alert if you plan to watch the tape-delayed broadcast of the LA-Milan friendly on FSC (and what is that all about anyway): Beckham's return to LA was incredibly entertaining, and I enjoyed it immensely. Not simply because I believe it was the Riots Squad's right to give to Beckham (short of physical confrontation), but because a few LA players showed they could play against world class talent. If you didn't watch it last night (streamed, naturally), I highly suggest to try and catch just a little bit of it. While it meant nothing, the atmosphere was good and both teams put enough into the first 60 minutes or so to make it worthwhile viewing.

Telemundo Officially Announces USA-Mexico Plans

Per the Soccer Insider Twitter feed comes news that Telemundo has officially announced plans to put the English-language broadcast of the USA-Mexico World Cup qualifier on sister channel mun2. Blech. This does not in anyway mean that the campaign to get the game moved will end; in fact, it probably means that we'll redouble our efforts and push even hard to let Telemundo how ridiculous their decision is. There are irons in fires all over the place, but we still need your support via the petition or by your volleying emails at NBC Universal. Check the "Give Us Our Yanks" post for more info.

Also check out Goff's post on the official announcement by Telemundo.

I intend to be back later.

On this week's Match Fit USA Soccer Show, Jason and Zach cover the USA-Mexico TV issue, discuss the Gold Cup with All Things Footy and MFUSA contributor Kevin McCauley, return to the Beckham saga, and finish up with the Brian Ching's Twitter transgression.

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

LISTEN in the CSRN Media Player

DOWNLOAD the show

SUBSCRIBE to the MFUSA feed in iTunes

RSS FEED

Morning boys and girls. There's a full day of footy ahead of us, including MLS, a high-profile friendly, and Gold Cup, and yet my mind still remains on next month's USA-Mexico World Cup qualifier. The suits at Telemundo still don't seem to get it, and it's clear that we will need to redouble our efforts to get them to wake up.

Steven Goff has an update on the situation, and it's clear that Telemundo seems intent on using the interest in the match to push mun2. Again, that's not acceptable to me. Too many Americans will be left out in the cold if the game isn't moved to a channel with better reach, and we need to make ourselves heard.

The petition now has over 1,200 signatures; it's a good start, but it's nowhere near enough to bother Telemundo/NBC Universal. Spread the word by whatever means necessary, we need thousands more signatures if at all possible.

Those most concerned about this problem, including myself and Jason Gatties from CravenCottage.us, continue to do our best the let people know what's going on; the sense is that the issue hasn't gone mainstream, meaning too many soccer fans are unaware that the game won't be where they expect it (meaning ESPN). If you have any ideas to keep up the momentum and give the movement a wide reach, please don't hesitate to suggest/enact them.

Remember; the petition is nice, and it's certainly a way to quantify the number of people upset over Telemundo's disregard for the English-speaking American audience, but it's never going to be effective as directly contacting NBC Universal. We encourage you to send emails as often as you can, and to direct them to executives with the company. If you'd like an easy copy-and-paste email to use, follow this link back my original "Give Us Our Yanks" post.

The issue and the campaign will be a major part of the MFUSA Soccer Show this week, so stay tuned for that as well.

First, an apology. I was selfish. I took the news that the USA-Mexico World Cup qualifier taking place August 12th in Mexico City would not be on a widely-available English-language outlet with entirely too much calm. I get Telemundo, and I could briefly subscribe to mun2 if I so choose, and I let those facts color my reaction. Obviously not everyone is as "lucky" as I am.

Many of you have commented that you don't get either Telemundo or mun2, and will be left to hunt down a soccer bar or internet feed. Even if you do receive Telemundo, it's maddening that the English feed of the match will be on a niche channel that most of us had never heard of until yesterday.

More than maddening. It's inexcusable.

First, let's properly direct our anger: Is ESPN to blame for not stepping up and paying Telmundo (and by extension, NBC Universal, Telemundo's parent company) what they wanted for the US English-language rights? Maybe, but as long as the ESPN ship has sailed, it's a pointless exercise to focus our attention there. It should all go back to the source, to the entity that holds the rights and ultimately decided to keep them for themselves, spitting in the face of USMNT fans everywhere by planning to air the match on a channel with an extremely small cable footprint. Add in the fact that mun2 is often only available through the purchase of an additional tier of channels (as is the case with me), and NBC Universal's actions are even more disgusting.

Other outlets exist. Outlets with widespread availability. Here's the list of NBC Universal's television properties:

NBC
USA
CNBC
MSNBC
Bravo

At least one of those makes sense as a home for USA-Mexico. The USA Network has hosted sports programming fairly regularly over the years, and I simply can't imagine that their 4-6pm ET schedule on August 12th can't be rearranged for a highly anticipated soccer match. In fact, the network is running an NCIS marathon on that day (according to their online listings), and while that show may be somewhat popular, I seriously doubt that the umpteenth episode in a row would get better ratings than USA-Mexico.

As fans, what do we do? Now that we not only know who should receive the lion's share of our anger, and have in mind an alternative that would clearly makes sense, what actions should we take?

That's the easy part.

Not only should you email NBC to voice your displeasure and demand that the game be broadcast elsewhere (preferably the USA Network or a channel with similar distribution), each and every soccer-friendly media figure in the country should be made aware of the issue.

Colin Cowherd recently stated that the USA-Mexico qualifier at Azteca is the most important game in the history of American soccer, a potential tipping point in the popularity of the game here. Cowherd has a voice, a national profile, and the means to make a stink; while I wonder if his ESPN affiliation means he won't comment (I hope not), there's always a chance. It seems worth the effort to barrage him with emails (theherd@espnradio.com) and tweets (herdonespnradio).

Email Bill Simmons. Email Michael Wilbon. Email anyone you can think of that might care. Email your congeressman if you want to. Let everyone know that this issue matters to you; it's the only way it might possibly change. Let everyone know here in this thread or elsewhere around the Internet soccer community who might make a good target.

This match at Azteca is the highlight of the USMNT year. The FMF has already made it difficult enough to see by setting kickoff for 3pm CT; we shouldn't be forced to hunt and scrounge to see it as well. There are enough of us to make a difference, and a collective campaign is the only way to do so.

I'll be sending emails and doing my part, whether this campaign gets off the ground or not. Selfishly ignoring the problem before, I've now see the light; come on Telemundo/NBC Universal..

GIVE US OUR YANKS!

Per Jason Gatties' suggestion, there is now an online petition for the effort:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/usamexicotv

Sign it, send it to everyone you know, tweet it, post it on message boards-do whatever it takes to make this a campaign that actually carries some weight.

*UPDATE* Apparently I should have researched this particular petition site a little; it seems that ipetitions makes it appear you have to pay to sign. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. THERE IS NO CHARGE TO SIGN THE PETITION.

Online petitions are nice, and they're certainly easy, but clogging up email in-boxes and fax machines are even better. I realize that the effort needed can often be a deterrent, and so I'm making it easy for you:

First, copy and paste these email addresses into your email's recipient box.

brian.walker@nbcuni.com, adam.freifeld@nbcuni.com, Lyndsay.Iorio@nbcuni.com, dick.ebersol@nbcuni.com, Perkins.Miller@nbcuni.com, Jeff.Zucker@nbcuni.com

Make the subject "USA-Mexico on USA Network" or something similar.

Next, copy and paste this text into the body of your email:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am an American soccer fan. Yes, we do in fact exist, and we are likely more numerous than you might believe.

As an American soccer fan, I was distressed to learn that the United States Men's National Team's upcoming World Cup qualifier with arch-rival Mexico will not be broadcast on a widely-available English-language network.

This is unacceptable. Soccer, and in particular the USMNT, are growing in popularity at a rapid clip. The team's recent strong showing in a tournament last month has drastically increased their profile, and more Americans than ever are following them. USA-Mexico is not only a crucial game for World Cup qualification, it's also the most compelling, intriguing, and attention-worthy game on the 2009 calendar. The soccer community is anxiously awaiting the match, and will watch in larger numbers.

Broadcasting the game on a network few of us receive or would be forced to pay added cost for is not only unfair, it's bad business. Cutting the potential audience for the game off at the knees does not seem the best way to maximize it's potential worth to NBC Universal.

Therefore, I respectfully request that you move this match to one of your other more widely-available networks. USA Network would seem to make the most sense, though I am not picky. Please allow us, the American soccer community, see the game that we are so looking forward to. I'm convinced that this move makes sense for your company as well; aside from the millions of eyes tuned to your one of your networks, the PR ramifications are obvious.

Sincerely,
(your name)
An American Soccer Fan

Hit send.

If you're like me, you immediately began to plan an "illness" when it was announced that the USA-Mexico World Cup qualifier set for August 12th would go off at 3pm CT (4pm ET). I've got my excuse ready, and I'm set to be home in plenty of time to get comfortable for the afternoon kickoff.

The only question that remained was, what channel would I be watching it on?

The answer came today courtesy of Steven Goff, who reports that Telemundo is holding on to their the English-language rights for the game and will be showing the match on mun2, a sister channel that typically aimed at a younger Latino demographic (and which regularly broadcasts in English).

This is both good and bad news, all at once. The good news: If you have mun2, you'll be treated to a Delacamera & Harkes-free match, a rarity when the US plays a meaningful match. The bad news: If you don't get mun2 (and I'll still trying to figure out if I do), you'll be forced to watch the game on the main Spanish-language outlet of Telemundo. There are worse things to be forced to do of course, and I'm one that generally doesn't need commentary to keep my aware of the game. On occasion though, there are moments in a match that need the clarification of the broadcasters; often this is due to cameras missing crucial action or switching away before it was clear what exactly occurred.

In the end, it doesn't really matter. I'll be watching wherever I can, and while not having English commentators may make it slightly more difficult to follow the action, I'll just be glad to see it.

One does have to wonder if this will mitigate the impact of the match, because although it's set to take place during working hours, I have the sense that new found USMNT fans and those intrigued by last month's Confed Cup run were looking forward to watching the game. Will the non-die hard English-only speakers be turned off if they can't find the game in their language on their televisions?

What about you guys? Any concern over the English outlet for the match? Happy not to have to listen to Harkes and Delacamera if you do in fact have mun2?

I'm here to rail on the US Open Cup, again. If you've listened to the podcast, or followed this blog for any considerable length of time, you know that I am extremely frustrated with the state of the US Open Cup. A tournament with history and romance that receives little respect from the upper echelons of American soccer, the Open Cup represents the elephant in the room, a significant problem that no one with any sway really wants to address.

Last night, in the quarterfinal round of the tournament, three MLS sides took care of business and will play in the semi-finals. The lone USL winner, the Rochester Rhinos, beat a USL-2 team, the Wilmington Hammerheads, the earn a berth in the semis.

Only two of the four matches were available via some broadcast outlet; the all-USL affair, and the Houston-Charleston match which took place at the Battery's home ground. Fans of Seattle, Kansas City, DC United, Harrisburg, as well as interested neutrals, were shut out, left to track those matches on the internet or through text updates. If if wasn't for USL Live, run by a league whose teams put much more effort into the Open Cup than their MLS counterparts, the tournament wouldn't be broadcast at all.

What a sad situation for the venerable Cup.

I often lament MLS clubs not taking the tournament as seriously as they should; but with the lack of interest involved, and the fixture congestion that so many clubs already face, it's difficult to really blame them. Should I be angry with MLS teams for playing reserve lineups when MLS and USSF are making it clear that the Open Cup doesn't really matter?

Perhaps I should direct my anger elsewhere.

Without consistent broadcasts of the games, the US Open Cup is destined to languish in near-obscurity. While a TV contract is unlikely, I see no reason that US Soccer can't do a better job of disseminating matches over the internet. A camera or two, a reasonably well-spoken play-by-play man, and an internet connection is all it would take. Even if the expense is fairly significant, the exposure possible is well worth the dollars spent. In the modern world of streaming video and YouTube clips, the highlights alone make streaming the games live a winning proposition.

So where is it? Where's "USOpenCupLive.com"? Where's an effort on the part of the tournament organizers to take full advantage of the technology available and raise the profile of the Open Cup, even if only a little?

Instead of working to increase interest in the Open Cup, it appears as though things are headed in the opposite direction. Only hardcore soccer fans are aware of Open Cup match days, and even then it's not a guarantee that following the action will be easy. When the tournament gets down to the later rounds, and games are played at MLS venues, it's as if they take place in a black hole; seeing them anyway other than live and in person is impossible. Add that pesky alternate-venue situation, and it's no wonder so many choose to ignore America's oldest soccer competition. So many of the actions of MLS and US Soccer scream "Let's just get this thing over with" that any enthusiasm on the part of the fans is extinguished by the sheer pointlessness of it all.

"Going through the motions" is the phrase that comes to mind.

MLS, and American soccer as a whole, needs a strong domestic Cup competition. Domestic cups resonant with fans around the world because they represent the sport at its purest; no matter who you are or where you come from, you have a chance to play for a trophy that truly means something. Magic things happen in these tournaments. Players secure legacies or create legends with timely goals or epic performances against better competition. When properly presented, a domestic cup has all the makings of sports at its most compelling.

Jut not here. I've said before, but I think it bears repeating: if the Open Cup is going to continue to receive scant attention, little support, and zero respect from too many of the clubs involved, then it may be time to scrap the tournament. Revamp it, repackage it, overhaul it; do something to make it a worthwhile effort for both teams and fans alike.

Or just broadcast the damn games.