Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you really saying college basketball, hockey and golf are niche sports?
At this point, I'd say hockey is. Hockey is regional. Golf post-Tiger might be, in terms of viewer interest.
As a soccer partisan, I think "general professional soccer (MLS, FIFA, EPL, misc.)" as of now does belong in this second-tier group (NHL, PGA) for American level of spectator interest, however. Ten years hence, things will be different
The media underplays the MLS because it simply does not generate the ratings, or attention needed to justify a large amount of coverage. Again, the MLS is not even the most watched league in its own country, so that is why you see the EPL getting better coverage and the UEFA Champions League.
Are you really saying college basketball, hockey and golf are niche sports?
I think the last stats I read the MLS was equal to or a notch below those sports. I could be wrong but I don't see how they're more covered than MLS. The ratings aren't that poor.
I think attendance to the games is higher than the tv ratings reflect.
I can see that ratings are kind of up there in interest. So does it follow that in order to have a great US soccer program that the 'ratings' have to be great? Even if fans or the casual viewer comes in to watch how does that translate into getting better soccer players? I know 'watching' denotes interest but it only seems to me to denote interest to advertisers who are keen in knowing how many viewers they are delivering in a telecast. The question is as I see it is 'advertising' more of a focal point rather than getting the soccer program to greater heights? Seems to me it has to start with getting exciting players and having them talked about relentlessly. Just my take.
I think the last stats I read the MLS was equal to or a notch below those sports. I could be wrong but I don't see how they're more covered than MLS. The ratings aren't that poor.
I think attendance to the games is higher than the tv ratings reflect.
Correct. Soccer is a sport that is best watched with a group of friends at the stadium. The atmosphere in English stadiums, for example, is phenomenal. Even MLS has great atmosphere for Portland and Seattle home matches. I don't live anywhere near a MLS club so I have watched it over the years through the internet.
The league has progressed strongly year by year and is a good product right now. Hopefully those managing it will not let the salary cap slip too soon or too quickly. What makes MLS better to watch than most leagues is the parity that exists. Too many of the European leagues are dominated by a small clique of rich clubs who buy the best players and put some of them on the bench or in the stands. It's one thing to strengthen your squad twice a year; it's another to strengthen your squad AND weaken the opposition at the same time.
if an MLS team sells a player (for example Roma wants to pay $8 million for Yedlin), who gets the money? MLS or the team?
Depends. I don't exactly know the rules, but the league cuts a cut either way. If it is a homegrown player, like Yedlin, then the team gets a larger cut of the transfer.
Easy,
start showing the games on "over-the-air stations" (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX)
A crazy idea that just might work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
