{"id":47146,"date":"2017-10-12T07:45:23","date_gmt":"2017-10-12T07:45:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biphoo.com\/bipnews\/?p=47146"},"modified":"2017-10-12T07:45:23","modified_gmt":"2017-10-12T07:45:23","slug":"fox-others-will-feel-pain-u-s-absence-world-cup","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biphoo.com\/bipnews\/sports\/fox-others-will-feel-pain-u-s-absence-world-cup.html","title":{"rendered":"Fox and Others Will Feel Pain of U.S. Absence at World Cup"},"content":{"rendered":"

Fox and Others Will Feel Pain of U.S. Absence at World Cup<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

Fox and Others Will Feel Pain of U.S. Absence at World Cup:-The United States might not be good enough to win soccer\u2019s World Cup, but as long as it shows up at the quadrennial tournament the domestic audience is sure to swell with casual fans rooting for an upset.<\/span><\/p>\n

That fruitful combination \u2014 American pride and a potentially massive captive audience \u2014 has delighted major companies that hitched their brands to the United States broadcast of the World Cup over the past 30 years. They eagerly signed up again for next summer\u2019s tournament, to be held in Russia, expecting another surge in soccer fandom.<\/span><\/p>\n

Now they are lowering their expectations. The summer of 2018 has lost a star attraction.<\/span><\/p>\n

The United States men\u2019s soccer team crashed out ingloriously on Tuesday night, losing to Trinidad and Tobago, 2-1, and failing to qualify for the event for the first time since 1986. Players, coaches and fans were distraught. Corporate sponsors were left calculating how many people in the immensely valuable United States market would consequently tune out next summer.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cOnce you say there is a disappointment from a fan perspective there is a ripple effect from that, and the impact is felt beyond fandom and into the sports business world,\u201d Dan Donnelly, managing director of Publicis Media Sports, said.<\/span><\/p>\n

The World Cup is an unusual event for corporate sponsors. When they sign deals, they generally don\u2019t know who will be competing. Coca-Cola, for instance, signed a 16-year extension of its agreement with FIFA, soccer\u2019s global governing body, in 2005, a deal that takes it through the 2022 World Cup. Coca-Cola signed that extension without even knowing where the 2018 and 2022 World Cups would take place, much less which teams would participate.<\/span><\/p>\n

In 2011, Fox paid more than $400 million for the English-language broadcast rights in the United States for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups \u2014 four times as much as ESPN had paid to broadcast the 2010 and 2014 Cups. Verizon and Volkswagen signed up to sponsor Fox\u2019s halftime and postgame shows.<\/span><\/p>\n

A portion of the audiences for those shows was lost Tuesday night when the United States bowed out. Even a riveting tournament next summer \u2014 which will include most of the world\u2019s top soccer powers, including Brazil, Germany and Argentina \u2014 will not attract the same number of casual viewers who would follow the American team.<\/span><\/p>\n

Stefan Szymanski, co-author of \u201cSoccernomics\u201d and a University of Michigan professor, said that the financial impact on World Cup broadcasters in the United States \u2014 Fox and Telemundo \u2014 would be the largest. But, in an email message, he cautioned that \u201cthis is all a bit tricky,\u201d and that the American-less World Cup would still draw strong viewership.<\/span><\/p>\n

Brian Wieser, an analyst at Pivotal Research Group, agreed. Press reports indicating a $10 million to $20 million negative impact on \u201cthe current English-language rights holder Fox \u2018feels\u2019 right in this context,\u201d he wrote in a research note, \u201cand represents a negligible amount for Fox.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

ESPN broadcast all 64 World Cup games from Brazil in 2014, averaging 4.6 million viewers. Games not featuring the United States averaged just 3.9 million viewers. The four American games \u2014 against Ghana, Portugal, Germany and Belgium \u2014 accounted for almost 20 percent of ESPN\u2019s total World Cup viewers.<\/span><\/p>\n

Telemundo, which paid $600 million for the American Spanish-language rights to the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, will also be negatively impacted, though not nearly as much. In 2014, the four United States matches accounted for about 9 percent of Univision\u2019s total World Cup audience. Fortunately for Telemundo, Mexico advanced to play in Russia.<\/span><\/p>\n

Fox and Telemundo were always expected to have lower viewership numbers than ESPN and Univision. Most games from Russia will be broadcast in the middle of the night or in the early morning in the United States \u2014 which was known at the time of bidding and could be accounted for. Missing out on a minimum of three matches for the United States was nearly unthinkable.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cLast night\u2019s World Cup qualifying results do not change Fox Sports\u2019 passion for the world\u2019s biggest sporting event,\u201d the company said in a statement. \u201cWhile the U.S. was eliminated, the biggest stars in the world from Lionel Messi to Cristiano Ronaldo stamped their tickets to Russia on the same day, and will battle teams ranging from Mexico to England that have massive fan bases in America.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Bruce Lefkowitz, a Fox Networks executive who handles advertising, said last month that about 75 percent of the \u201cmarquee\u201d sponsorship deals for the World Cup had been sold, suggesting Fox could be somewhat insulated from the impact of the United States missing out. But without the United States, Fox may not be able to meet its ratings guarantees it gave advertisers. Efforts to use the World Cup telecasts to promote other Fox programming will also be diminished.<\/span><\/p>\n

Coca-Cola, Visa and Adidas are official FIFA partners, while Budweiser and McDonald\u2019s are World Cup sponsors. According to The Telegraph, it costs $25 million to $50 million annually to be a FIFA partner, and $10 million to $25 million to be a major World Cup sponsor.<\/span><\/p>\n

The United States \u201cis not necessarily a growth market, so all these brands are fighting for share,\u201d said Gibbs Haljun, a managing director at GroupM, explaining why the United States missing out is not fatal to these companies. He also pointed out that the next two men\u2019s World Cups, in Russia and Qatar, aren\u2019t in markets that companies are desperate to get into, as they were with the Beijing Olympics or the Brazil World Cup.<\/span><\/p>\n

Budweiser and Verizon said their strategy had not changed, while Coca-Cola, Visa and McDonald\u2019s emphasized the global nature of the World Cup as the reason they became FIFA partners.<\/span><\/p>\n

A number of apparel companies use the World Cup as well. Adidas is a FIFA partner, while Nike sponsors the United States team.<\/span><\/p>\n

In its 2015 financial statement \u2014 which encompassed the 2014 World Cup and its run-up \u2014 the United States Soccer Federation reported almost $102 million in revenue, compared with $76.5 million the year before. Most of that increase was from national team game revenue, sponsorship and licensing, directly related to participation in the World Cup.<\/span><\/p>\n

National team expenses were also much higher, but Craig Depken, a professor at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, cautioned that the World Cup was still a huge net positive financially for U.S. Soccer. \u201cThey are essentially a nonprofit, and nonprofits tend to spend whatever they have.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Donna Shalala, a member of the U.S. Soccer board of directors, tweeted that the result against Trinidad and Tobago was \u201cunacceptable.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cFor us in U.S. Soccer more than a wake up call,\u201d she continued. \u201cTime for a revolution. Need a long term plan that is smart.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Source:-https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2017\/10\/11\/sports\/soccer\/world-cup-soccer.html<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t