|
|
Post by The River Assassin on Jun 14, 2010 14:00:44 GMT -5
Just ask yourself this KBK, if American networks didn't push this so hard how many people outside of the host country would be able to watch the games on tv?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kickball Kevin on Jun 14, 2010 14:15:12 GMT -5
That's not the issue. The original issue was who payed the bill for the tournament.
ESPN is in this to make money. I'm glad, b/c I get to see every game. It's the same reason they show the Champions League Final, there is a market for it. You can't make them out to be saviors.
|
|
sully
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 13,045
|
Post by sully on Jun 14, 2010 14:23:43 GMT -5
The World Cup wouldn't exist if it weren't for the good ole red blooded Americans.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kickball Kevin on Jun 14, 2010 14:25:57 GMT -5
Funny, the World Cup would go on with our without us. Like it did from after the 1950 World Cup to the 1990 World Cup
|
|
|
|
Post by The River Assassin on Jun 14, 2010 14:34:16 GMT -5
Just did a little interneting to put some of this in perspective. In 2007 The Walt Disney group paid $425 million to FIFA for the viewing rights to the 2010/2014 World Cups,the next two female world cups, and a few other major international matches.
By comparison, each network that airs NFL regular season games along with 2-3 playoff games (CBS, NBC, FOX) pay the NFL over 500 million...per season.
So, looking at the World Cup deal this way, I wouldn't say they paid that much.
|
|
cowtownmike
honorary peso (chingador*)
I done been thru the scruggles.
Posts: 12,467
|
Post by cowtownmike on Jun 14, 2010 14:34:51 GMT -5
How can you have a true World Cup without the GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD participating?  ?? This aint over KBK! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor??? HELL NO!!!! WHO'S WITH ME!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Kickball Kevin on Jun 14, 2010 14:40:28 GMT -5
Unless you think about how long the NFL season is compared to the World Cup.
|
|
|
|
Post by The River Assassin on Jun 14, 2010 14:44:08 GMT -5
By that logic the MLB should have a better tv deal than the NFL, but we know that isn't true.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kickball Kevin on Jun 14, 2010 14:49:26 GMT -5
The ESPN deal is not an exclusive tv rights deal. There are other companies who pay to carry the games in other countries. So the actual dollar amount paid to carry games is higher than that figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by The River Assassin on Jun 14, 2010 15:17:24 GMT -5
True, but I bet the total is still not even close to what the NFL makes per season off tv rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kickball Kevin on Jun 14, 2010 15:20:12 GMT -5
True. But to be fair, it's a market driven business. The NFL demands more to show its games than soccer does. Though the market for soccer is growing and those prices will continue to rise.
|
|
cowtownmike
honorary peso (chingador*)
I done been thru the scruggles.
Posts: 12,467
|
Post by cowtownmike on Jun 14, 2010 15:24:54 GMT -5
Will it be considered total failure if we lose to Slovenia this Friday?
|
|
sully
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 13,045
|
Post by sully on Jun 14, 2010 15:42:05 GMT -5
Not unless the team Moms forget to bring the orange slices and juice boxes!
|
|
|
|
Post by Kickball Kevin on Jun 14, 2010 16:30:10 GMT -5
That would be a huge upset. Failure for us = not getting past our group
|
|
|
|
Post by duckbutter on Jun 14, 2010 16:33:34 GMT -5
I've managed to watch several games. I love the World Cup. The damn horns are a bit much for me, so I mute it, and listen to my old Megadeth CD's at full blast. It adds a very ambient effect to your viewing of people running up and down the pitch, only taking 5-10 shots tops on goal for 90 minutes.
|
|
