Tweet
For me, this is welcomed news since Fox is where I get most of my football. However, according to this report, regarding the criticisms against them, I would say that about ESPN. What do you think?
Fox Outbid ESPN for Rights to 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup, so What Now?
By Dan Levy
(National Lead Writer) on October 21, 2011
1,530 reads
6
Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse more storiesNext
Lars Baron/Getty Images
The American soccer community was abuzz Friday morning with news that ESPN was out-bid for a package that includes the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups. The winning bid, per reports, came from Fox.
Fox has covered major soccer events in America for some time, most notably their current deal in televising the UEFA Champions League, so it's not surprise that Fox was interested in getting the World Cup. What is surprising is that they were about to pry it away from ESPN and John Skipper, who seemingly reveres the World Cup as much as former NBC Sports headman Dick Ebersol loves the Olympics, a big part of why the real news is not that Fox won the bid, but that ESPN lost it.
There are two underlying questions coming from this. First, will Fox step up its national soccer coverage and stop watering down the sport for a general audience? ESPN received rave reviews during the 2010 World Cup for a professional and dedicated approach, not dumbing-down its coverage for a potentially larger audience to absorb. People within ESPN have told me there was a concerted effort by both on-air talent and producers to not talk down to soccer fans in America, targeting a more sophisticated audience with their coverage while hoping the new fans that follow an event like the World Cup will be able to keep up with the dialog and analysis.
Jasper Juinen/Getty Images While the coverage on Fox Soccer Channel has been more geared toward a savvier brand of soccer fan, the few live matches that have appeared on Fox have been surrounded by incredibly underwhelming studio coverage. If Fox is going to have as much success in growing the game – read: getting good ratings – as ESPN has done, they'll have to realize the audience doesn't want to be treated like we're just learning the game, which means putting people in studio and in the booth that don't sound like they're just learning the game, too.
Fox has anchored their Champions League coverage with Curt Menefee, who also anchors the NFL on Fox. He's a solid and extremely likeable personality, but his presence on those matches made it feel like Soccer: 101. After being universally panned for his work on the show, word got out that Menefee is really "a soccer guy" which was either spin from Fox to try and justify their choice of anchors or spin from Menefee to distance himself from the one-note style of coverage in an effort to let the public know he's more knowledgeable about the sport than his network made him look. If I had to go with my gut, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and blame the format.
Either way, Fox has seven years to figure out who to anchor their coverage, which is more than enough time to lure someone like Bob Ley or Chris Fowler away from ESPN or someone like Josh Elliott away from ABC. If Fox has out-bid ESPN for rights, they certainly have the money to bring in better soccer voices.
Ian Walton/Getty Images That goes for the booth, too. Fox Soccer picks up the feed for most matches from its partners in England, but they will likely have to find their own high-quality announcers to call matches exclusively for them when the World Cup begins. The fact is, it won't be hard. ESPN hired a group of fantastic British announcers for its coverage, keeping several on board for MLS, US Soccer and Women's World Cup coverage after South Africa.
Jokes aside, and I know seven years is a long time, but I do not see Fox sending the likes of Joe Buck or Gus Johnson to Russia to call matches. Buck may be their lead guy and soccer fans may want to experience Johnson calling a match, but the World Cup isn't the place for either of them. Then again, seven years is a long time…
The second question that comes out of this news is how ESPN will treat soccer after the 2014 World Cup. Will ESPN still have interest in promoting EPL, MLS and other leagues without the ultimate payoff of World Cup ratings? Will ESPN take the freed up capitol and use it to become more focused on their existing properties or try to acquire more?
Here's the statement from ESPN:
“We made a disciplined bid that would have been both valuable to FIFA and profitable for our company, while continuing to grow our unprecedented coverage of the World Cup and Women’s World Cup events. We were aggressive while remaining prudent from a business perspective.
“ESPN remains committed to presenting the sport of soccer at the highest level across our platforms with coverage of the UEFA European Football Championship, English Premier League, La Liga, MLS and other top leagues and tournaments, including the 2014 World Cup in Brazil.”
Every word in a statement like that can be scrutinized, but the phrase "disciplined bid" is the real takeaway from ESPN's comment. Does that mean ESPN doesn't think the World Cup is as valuable as Fox does (or as perhaps as valuable as we all assumed ESPN did)? Does it mean Fox over-paid for the rights like NBC has done for the Olympics? Or does this mean that the checkbook is unlimited for football, but not so much for futbol?There's a lot obviously up in the air, but what we do know is that ESPN is still producing the next World Cup in Brazil and it's going to be the gold standard of soccer coverage in America for Fox to have to follow. The rest is seven years away.
Paul Marin -19 is one thing, 20 is a whole other matter. It gets even worse if they win the UCL. *groan*. 
05/18/2011.MU fans naah cough, but all a unuh a vomit?-Lazie 1/11/2015
Comment