What specifically is the threat part of this? They walk where? Form a new competitor to FIFA? Boycott the 2016 tournament?
Christian Pulisic Is Better Than Jack Harrison, But Not By Much
- Thread starter FredMertz
- Start date
Don't host it. They either want to be assured now that they've won the bid to host or they will walk away from the bid process. Doesn't mean their teams won't enter qualification for the tournament.
That reminder will be long gone in 13 years, just like if you scheduled a reminder in your Palm Pilot circa 1998
I remember a similar stat from a few years ago. When the USA beat the Golden Generation for Portugal in 2002, the announcers said there were more kids playing soccer in America than there are people in Portugal. Presumably, one of those was a 3-year-old Christian Pulisic.
I seem to recall from various things that I've read the FIFA puts excessive interest in making sure that international tournaments are focused around the Asian market. I believe that this is because FIFA places particular emphasis on how many people they reach, as much as they do in how much money they're going to make from media rights.
European TV rights for the Olympics are distorted since a few years ago the IOC made the decision to change from selling to individual TV companies to instead selling to the company which owns Eurosport to let them sublicence to each country. (FYI, Eurosport paid $1.45b for the rights). Before then, figures were artificially low anyway, as many have to be shown on state-owned/free-to-air terrestrial channels.
European TV rights for the Olympics are distorted since a few years ago the IOC made the decision to change from selling to individual TV companies to instead selling to the company which owns Eurosport to let them sublicence to each country. (FYI, Eurosport paid $1.45b for the rights). Before then, figures were artificially low anyway, as many have to be shown on state-owned/free-to-air terrestrial channels.
Last edited:
Talk about overpaying for sports TV rights. That's absurd.
Can you explain why that would make ratings lower? I'm not disputing. It just doesn't seem to follow logic.
Is terrestrial what we call "over the air"? Free to receive broadcast networks get higher ratings, here. That's why we always make a big deal about being on Big Fox (Simpsons' Fox as Rob Stone calls it)
Speaking of Rob Stone, that guy has really worked his way up the ladder, and now he does a good job of herding the clowns at Fox sports. Imagine having to constantly deal with Fernando, Lalas, Wynalda and never knowing what kind of crazy talk is coming next.
That would probably be a pretty dangerous lineup.
But mostly because it gives us an extra player on the field
dannd23
Registered
I was wondering why it looked so goodThat would probably be a pretty dangerous lineup.
But mostly because it gives us an extra player on the field
There is truly no weak spot. Kudos.
ferrarinycfc
Registered
Apparently, NBC lose money on it as well, but consider it a halo for the station in other areas of programming.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...pics-broadcast-deal-is-a-bet-on-videos-future
ferrarinycfc
Registered
Dont think it was an ultimatum per se, they just told FIFA look we are the best bid by miles so lets cut out the charade and give it to us now.
I'd be surprised if any other bidder comes forward by the deadline.
Lol, I instantly thought "you mean 23 years, we have plenty of time." Nope. What happened to the last decade??
So, not that anyone actually bought the original premise, but CIES just released their list of world players worth more than 40 million euros.
Pulisic comes in at #53, with a value of 60.6 million. The only other 18 year old on the list is Kylian Mbappe at #18, 92.6 million. Very few 20 or younger on the list at all (CP's teammate Dembele and Marcus Rashford are 2 I noticed).
http://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2016/192/en/
By the way, they also rate him as the most experienced player of his birth year in the world.
http://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2016/176/en/
(that was from March, so before his cup and CL qualifying PK earns or his massive US performances in critical qualifiers where he has scored or assisted 8 of last 10 or something nuts like that)
So yes, as we all concluded, it isn't that close at all.
Pulisic comes in at #53, with a value of 60.6 million. The only other 18 year old on the list is Kylian Mbappe at #18, 92.6 million. Very few 20 or younger on the list at all (CP's teammate Dembele and Marcus Rashford are 2 I noticed).
http://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2016/192/en/
By the way, they also rate him as the most experienced player of his birth year in the world.
http://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2016/176/en/
(that was from March, so before his cup and CL qualifying PK earns or his massive US performances in critical qualifiers where he has scored or assisted 8 of last 10 or something nuts like that)
So yes, as we all concluded, it isn't that close at all.
Last edited:
Sorry for the late response, and sorry for the confusion. I meant figures for money spent on buying rights. It goes without saying that if only one or maybe two companies are eligible to bid for the rights, they're not going to feel compelled to offer a lot of money.
As for terrestrial - kind of. Terrestrial specifically refers to the channels which were able to broadcast via ground-based transmitter towers (hence the name) which were - mostly - all the big free-to-air TV channels in the days when satellite/cable first was introduced. There are now hundreds of free TV channels, but terrestrial continues to refer to just the five "main" channels which have each existed for 20 years or more now and are considered the "household names" - BBC One, BBC Two, ITV, Channel Four and Channel 5 (we are mighty creative with our naming). It's my understanding that most European countries are broadly similar.
Sounds like the answer then as to whether that is what we call OTA would be yes. Difference being only PBS is public (technically, a non-profit I believe), the others (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX) are private-sector owned.
Well, BBC and Channel 4 are state-owned (but not state-run) but ITV and C5 are private-sector and for-profit, so the same split applies for us too.
Like I say, there are a load of free-to-air channels now, but it's only the five which broadcast via radio masts which are allowed to claim terrestrial status, and of those only BBC and ITV actually have the financial muscle to even make a bid for major sporting events like the Olympics. Again, AFAIK it's basically the same around Europe. I'm pretty sure that the Olympics in France are pretty much always on Canal+ for instance.
Anyway, this is all going way off course for what was originally being discussed.
Move it to the tv thread, boss!
Similar threads
- Poll
