17 Responses

  1. edyth
    June 28, 2010 at 6:54 pm | | Reply


    I am very proud to be an USA citizen because USA team did a very job in the Soccer World Cup. Yes, we could.

  2. eplnfl
    eplnfl
    June 28, 2010 at 7:14 pm | | Reply


    The soccer fans deserve the pat on the back but so does ESPN. Many of us here on this site where always hoping that ESPN would cover soccer like it does other American sports, it has and look at the results.

  3. carl johnson
    carl johnson
    June 28, 2010 at 9:15 pm | | Reply


    Alexi Lalas hates the EPL. He is the worst thing about the World Cup. Someone needs to muzzle that guy. Great article on Sotospeaks.com You guys should check it out. http://sotospeaks.com/2010/06/28/alexi-lalas-scum-across-the-pond/

  4. Jose
    Jose
    June 28, 2010 at 9:37 pm | | Reply


    I agree about Lalas. He’s annoying to watch. Bring on more of Macca and Martinez!

    On a side note, I hope ESPN does as good a job, or better, with the Women’s World Cup next year.

  5. Scott
    Scott
    June 28, 2010 at 11:13 pm | | Reply


    San Diego really needs an MLS team, they’ve had the highest ratings for all of the USA games, relative to the rest of the major cities. I think a team would be really popular down there.

    1. The Gaffer
      June 29, 2010 at 1:05 am | | Reply


      It’s interesting to note how few of the cities listed, that had the highest TV ratings, do *not* have MLS teams. By my count, only 3 out of the top 10 have a Major League Soccer team in their city.

      That’s good news for MLS expansion hopes, but bad news for MLS because I don’t believe they’re considering MLS teams in Cincinnati, West Palm Beach, San Diego, Norfolk, San Francisco or Austin. Maybe they should?

      Cheers,
      The Gaffer

      1. bradjmoore48
        bradjmoore48
        June 29, 2010 at 11:11 am | | Reply


        Norfolk and West Palm Beach don’t even any professional soccer teams, even at PDL level. Though 40 miles away from San Francisco, the Bay area already has an MLS franchise. Cincinnati has a PDL team that plays in another state (10 miles south in Wilder KY). Austin might seem like the next possible market, as the USL team is starting to draw crowds, but I only see it happening if Dallas decides to relocate. Vegas would be interesting, but would need an indoor, air-conditioned stadium, because who is going to play in 120 degree heat in July and August? And with the economy there in the toilet, no way I can see that happening.

        With the franchises that have just been awarded to Seattle, Montreal, Vancouver, and Portland, I think the league will reward fans in cities that stand by their local soccer teams, regardless of level of play. If those cities want an MLS franchise, they need to get to the nearest stadium. Otherwise, you end up with the problem plaguing some areas where there are soccer fans that could care less about their local MLS side.

        Either that or MLS needs to see about playing certain games “on the road” in these markets. Have a Galaxy or Chivas match in San Diego and/or Vegas, or a Crew match in Cincinatti, and see what kinds of crowds it draws. It got Oklahama City an NBA team, it could work for one of those cities getting an MLS franchise.

        1. Mike
          Mike
          June 29, 2010 at 3:33 pm | | Reply


          Moved from Cincinnati to Austin last year, so I can speak to both cities a bit. Cinti has always had a pretty high percentage of youth soccer involvement but there’s never been any clamor for an MLS team. The Crew are invisible in the market, as are the PDL Kings, who do play in Northern Kentucky but are no further out than any in-state suburb. They’d have to compete against the baseball Reds, and that dog won’t hunt.

          Austin, on the other hand, plays in a high school stadium adjacent to downtown and bars/restaurants. MLS would be the only major league franchise you could put here that won’t draw the ire of the University of Texas, much like the Crew in Columbus with OSU. The town’s rapidly growing, with an upwardly mobile, generally well-off population and would be ideal rivals with Houston and Dallas. It’d be a smart, sexy choice.

  6. sucka99
    June 29, 2010 at 7:20 am | | Reply


    i don’t think soccer is mainstream per se, just the World Cup. When EPL games start pulling similar numbers in the same timeslots as some of these games are in (7:30am, 10am) then we can say soccer is mainstream.

    1. YourMom
      YourMom
      June 29, 2010 at 8:54 am | | Reply


      Agreed. Let’s wait and see how ESPN’s EPL and MLS ratings compare year over year before we declare soccer ‘mainstream’.

    2. Martin
      Martin
      June 29, 2010 at 9:40 am | | Reply


      Agreed. Soccer is mainstream in the U.S. during the World Cup, while the U.S. is playing.

      Though I think similar numbers to the highest rated match in U.S. history for an EPL match during a 730 am Saturday or 9am Sunday timeslot is asking a bit much. I’ll take incremental growth.

      1. sucka99
        June 29, 2010 at 10:27 am | | Reply


        not asking for US v Ghana numbers for the EPL. Just the numbers that ESPN was getting for their 7:30 am group stage games, which I understand were between 1 and 2 million viewers.

        http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/06/14/strong-opening-weekend-for-espn%E2%80%99s-fifa-world-cup-coverage/54127

        plus ESPN is expected to have a regular 10am timeslot on Saturday (83 games total)

        1. bradjmoore48
          bradjmoore48
          June 29, 2010 at 10:59 am | | Reply


          Doubt it. College Gameday and College football on Saturday = no way in hell ESPN and ESPN2 give up late Saturday morning or Saturday afternoon for an EPL game. It’s conceivable ESPN may show Sunday morning matches, since they don’t have any NFL games until Monday night. If not, the extra matches ESPN shows will be mid-week fixtures, on Mondays or Wednesdays.

          1. The Gaffer
            June 29, 2010 at 11:24 am |


            The record viewing audience for the Premier League on ESPN last season was over 500,00 viewers for a 4:30am PT/7:30am ET game on a Saturday between Man United and Chelsea.

            ESPN is expected to show games at 10am ET this season. Just like in the 2009-2010 season, some of them will be shown on ESPN2. Some may be shown on ESPN Classic, too, depending on conflicts with other programming.

            Cheers,
            The Gaffer

          2. sucka99
            June 29, 2010 at 11:40 am |


            except for the weeks when the time change is out of sync between Europe and the US, there’s no college football before noon, and college gameday is on ESPN only. Besides, ESPN2 had about 5 or 6 games in the 10am slot this past season. Also ESPN announced recently that they were no longer going to air those outdoor/fishing shows.

            The only thing we have yet to know is whether ESPN will produce (or at least announce) their own games or if they will continue to take the world feed announcers (including Ian Darke, Efan Okoku, Martin Tyler, etc)

  7. dlink09
    dlink09
    June 29, 2010 at 8:29 am | | Reply


    ok who has rights to EPL games for next season. is it all on FSC? or ESPN has some games??

    1. The Gaffer
      June 29, 2010 at 9:55 am | | Reply


      The majority of games will be on Fox (Fox Soccer Channel and Fox Soccer Plus) and a healthy portion will also be shown on ESPN2.

      Cheers,
      The Gaffer

Leave a Reply