World Cup 2006 In HDTV on ABC, ESPN HD, ESPN2 HD - All 64 games! - Page 2  

If it's like last time TSN had the games but Sportsnet I don't think had any. CBC showed the opener and final. TSN also repeated a game a night.

This time it's a little more complicated. Sportsnet held the Canadian license. But they don't have the room on their sched to carry all 64 games live, so they are sub-licensing some live games and tape-delayed rights to TSN (pocketing a healthy margin no doubt), and even a bigger profit for licensing the final to CTV (over the air). Sportsnet could've carried the final, but this way it's more profitable for them. And they haven't figured out how to sub-license the non-English rights in Canada.

As a side note: the last time (2002), CBC held the original Canadian license including the final. The TSN arrangement came in later in a side deal without the participation of CBC.

This needs to be a sticky

This had been speculated on in other threads. Immensely exciting to hear that the Mouse family of networks is doing the right thing.

The pool feed is 1080i, so it's not like they have to spend anything significant on production.

Yeah, finishing was dreadful the other night. Should've been 2-0, Twellman was onside. Convey has always been a poor finisher. Oneywu is a stud.

Let's get some more USMNT games in HD!

I disagree with your analysis entirely. The T&T keeper made 3-4 sick saves to keep it 1-0. And the disallowed goal was obviously a blown call. The U.S. outclassed and outplayed T&T the entire game. We peppered them with shots and the defense was always there when it needed to be. Of course you never want to waste opportunities but the goals will come if they create that many chances.

The World Cup has never been a big thing in the U.S. For the Mouse network, I think they actually get PAID to have the tournament on the network, as opposed to having TO pay for it. At the end of the day, it's low cost but low ratings.

So the production cost for ABC is low, and they don't have to spend a whole lot unless the U.S. gets into the Semi's and the Final (slim chance). If that happens they'll probably just send a camera crew and interview every one on the team to set up the big Final with an hour-long pre-game show (as opposed to a 15-minute show).

I wonder if ABC will try to do a trial run and do the MLS Cup in HD? We can at least hope.

I know nothing about how all this HD business is delivered...I just enjoy watching it.

But, all the cameras for the World Cup are a shared pool feed--each country just inserts their commentary/additional graphics. So a trial run for the MLS Cup with ABC cameras might not be that advantageous? But I'd certainly love to see the MLS Cup in HD!

the World Cup ratings are actually decent, and these are for live events at odd hours -- the middle of the night ratings for ESPN for Korea/Japan '02 were much higher than they would've been otherwise. it's an interesting event that draws in viewers that wouldn't watch other sports events. what happened for '02 & '06 is that a group packaged the MLS to ABC/ESPN together with the World Cup. the MLS is still a $$ loser, but the U.S. soccer powers (such as they are, basically Phil Anschutz's $$) knew that the World Cup is a perfect event for ESPN, so they told ESPNiin early '02, we need you to cover the MLS for the next 5 seasons through '06, but you get the next two World Cup rights--which they had bought for something over $10 million I believe-- for free. With the U.S. success in '02, ESPN did well, and I'm sure is looking forward to all-HD coverage, which will pull even more viewers in. If/when the World Cup is packaged separately, it will be bid upon in the states, and as noted there will always be a world feed for U.S. television to pick up, without the need for additional costs.

I agree the World Cup is not "big" in the states, although it was in '94, and soccer is definitely bigger here than it would have been without '94. In an international city like San Francisco there will be a buzz in the air during games and long weekday lunches at numerous bars.

Probably right but it's making progress.

I was under the impression that they paid for the rights. I think the one where they get paid is MLS

Some time ago, in another of the Cup threads, I voiced my skepticism about getting all the games aired here live, much less in HD. To those who kept "telling me so," I now gladly eat all my words, will place proverbial foot in mouth, etc. Good news indeed.

Now, if I can only smoothe over the feathers from the other comment I made which offended many: that the World Cup, as opposed to the World Series, is a true "world" event (the only thing "worldly" about the World Series is the use of a few international players, all on teams only from North America).

1080i > 720p will still far surpass the pain I went through trying to watch the Olympics.

graphic layout are all the same. They just type in their commentary names.

DougMan

Be interesting to see how the graphics are handled for WC 2006. WC2002 had two systems available for broadcasters ISTR.

ITV in the UK used the host-broadcast feed with graphics, and added their own graphics in the host-broadcast style.

BBC in the UK used a data feed from the host-broadcast operation, and a clean match feed, so that the graphics could be generated in BBC Sport style, but the graphics gear was controlled by the host-broadcast data feed, so the information was identical and the graphics appeared and disappeared entirely in sync with those on ITV!

The BBC and ITV share the World Cup broadcast rights in the UK, splitting the live broadcast rights between them (with the other broadcaster then showing recorded highlights)

I was able to watch both ITV and BBC incoming live coverage (one being recorded in London) from the venues, and it was quite spooky seeing totally different graphics, with the same information, appearing completely in-sync!

[quote=JCL]The World Cup has never been a big thing in the U.S. QUOTE]


Isn't the World Cup Dr. Kevorkian's new assited suicide machine? They strap you down in front of the TV and turn on the World Cup until you are bored to death. :)

Ok, somebody help me here. What time and what channel will game between USA and Mexico be broadcast on Sept 3?

Peace,

DM

Real soccer fans fans don't get bored to death during matches.

In 2002, ESPN had a delay so they could overlay their own graphics...if you wanted to watch things "real-time" (i.e. 6 seconds earlier) you could tune to the Univision broadcasts which were en vivo.

The entire ESPN production was very hokey last time around... the commentators were not even at the match, they were watching TV in the Connecticut studios... You could tell they were watching the live feed and delaying because on at least a couple of occasions the commentator launched into his totally unconvincing faked enthusiastic Brazilian commentator impersonation "GOOOOOAALL!!" before the ball was anywhere remotely near the net. :rolleyes:

Up in the air right now. Live English broadcast is troublesome since the Mouse also has college football contracts. They are working on it though.

Rumor has it will be live on ESPN Classic, but not final yet. But if it's in HD, which I highly think not since the HD stuff is going to be used for college football and SNB.

Yeah, we're the ones who understand the true meaning of the word football.

If ITV and BBC split the rights, they would not show the same game together -- which was what I thought happened in WC2002. BBC would have some games (usually including games that involved England) and ITV would have the other ones. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If that's the case, how can both channels be showing the same game over-the-air to allow for the comparison you've just described? Perhaps, you're watching the internal feed of one of the two broadcasters as they record-to-tape?

Correct.

Can't remember - but I think this may have been the case.

Both ITV and BBC covered the games live on location - and fed back their coverage live to London. The network with live rights put the game live to air, the network without live rights recorded their incoming live feed in London and replayed later in the day. (Easier than recording on location and feeding post-match)

I wasn't watching over-the-air... Both the BBC and ITV feeds were downlinked at the same location (BBC Television Centre as it happens), where I happened to be for some games, and both feeds were available for viewing side by side simultaneously - which is how I noticed the graphics were different artwork, but entirely in-sync...

(I think both ITV and the BBC had on-site presentation and replay facilities, and of course the commentary was from the event location - not "off tube" in London. ITV stuck with the host-broadcast graphic package - mainly because ITV doesn't have a huge amount of sports programming, so doesn't have a widely recognised "ITV Sport" brand in the same way that "BBC Sport" have a well recognised branding for their sports coverage. No doubt it was cheaper for ITV to stick with a pre-designed artwork package than to pay for their own - whereas the BBC would want their coverage to be branded in the same "look" as other BBC football coverage)

Talking globally not Britain, many big broadcasters are really concerned about "branding" their telecasts. In big events like the Olympics or WC, they would first try to convince the host broadcaster to change its graphics to be compatible (if not 100% identical) to its own. Failing that, they would negotiate for a clean feed.

It happens all the time in North America (especially NBC with its multi-Olympics TV deal). Canada's CBC usually doesn't get clean feeds but have its own graphics which are pleasant looking and very compatible with the host feed's. ABC is usually quite picky about graphics, but for budget or other reasons it stuck with the host-fed graphics during WC2002. Perhaps WC is low priority and ABC's people aren't knowledgable enough about Soccer (Football).

Ohh I remember that argument. I am with you on this one. The little league world series is more wordly than the MLB one. BUt that will be changing in the future. I think there will be an event organized by the MLB with national teams playing.

There was a post earlier in this thread that ABC does not have to pay for the World Cup and production costs will be low. Well ABC has to pay for english language rights for the World Cup in the USA, while Univision has spanish-language rights in the USA. In all honesty, te competition for english rights is probably not very competitive (nobody else wants it). That plus the other networks have no foundation of soccer in the US. Only Fox Soccer Channel, which is not available to the extent that ABC/ESPN/ESNP2 is. FSC probably didnt even bid or issued a bid FIFA would consider serious.

As for production costs, they may in fact be low, because their announcers sit in their Connecticut studios and they supply their own graphics.

Guess its time to invest in HDTV and choose between Cox/Dish/D*TV/FIOS for HD service. :eek: = my wife's face :p

i'm a huge football fanatic but i found the liverpool-chelsea first leg match during last season's Champions League semis boring. :D both teams playing for a 0-0 draw...

It's probably likely that Univision paid more than ABC for the rights. Anyone know the amounts? :eek:

Yep - the BBC in the UK has a very clear and well identified sporting brand on-screen - so I guess it falls into the NBC camp on this! Where possible it uses this on domestic production and when it is host broadcaster - though often the host broadcast feed doesn't have the actual BBC Sport logo on it. (You will see it on the Open Golf and Wimbledon - font is Gill Sans/Humanist, and backgrounds are normally solid straps with accent colours. Aim is to be clean and simple and clear, but not intrusive)

ITV doesn't really have a family of sports shows in the same way that the BBC does - it brands each sporting event it covers separately. I think in the case of the World Cup they decided to stick with the host broadcast branding - as there was no real reason not to?

MLS, through its marketing arm SUM, owns the rights to the 2006 World Cup, and packaged to them to ABC/ESPN in early 2002 along with MLS games from 2002-2006, the 2002 World Cup, and 2003 Women's World Cup. SUM paid $40 million for the rights to the 2002 & 2006 World Cups, and 2003 Women's World Cup. [Univision paid $150 m for spanish-speaking rights for 2002]. The articles below talk about the risk that the 2002 WC wouldn't have been on U.S. English-speaking TV at all without some creative packaging, and how SUM got a bit of a windfall when the 2003 Women's World Cup was moved from China to the U.S. due to the SARS outbreak:

http://www.sweetspotsoccer.com/headl...002/01/02.html

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/socce...-cash-in_x.htm

with respect to 2006, the mouse reps are playing coy, but SUM execs say they get air time for free:

"The networks, owned by The Walt Disney Co., acquired the rights from Soccer United Marketing, an affiliate of Major League Soccer. SUM said it in essence gets the air time for free and sells the advertising, while the networks' affiliates sell some advertising time.

"Leah LaPlaca, ESPN's senior director of programming and acquisitions, declined comment on the financial arrangements."

http://cbs.sportsline.com/soccer/story/8745001

http://www.ussoccerplayers.com/lates...ws/487445.html

and numerous wire stories last week.

It had been widely reported in 2002 that SUM gets the air time "in essence for free," because ABC doesn't have to pay them directly for it. ABC/ESPN "paid" for the WC rights, though, by having to broadcast MLS games for 5 years, with their tiny ratings. But ABC didn't have to put up any $$$, just air time. The MLS was desperate to remain on the air, and smartly packaged themselves with the World Cups to get air time.

This deal has turned out better than expected, due to the U.S. success in 2002, and the move of the 2003 Women's World Cup back to the U.S.



as for high World Cup TV ratings in 2002:

http://www.columbuswired.net/Sports/...%20_062502.htm

"ESPN's Friday morning telecast of the U.S. vs. Germany quarterfinal match on June 21 at 7:30 a.m. ET, seen in an average of 3.77 million television homes based on a 4.36 rating, is the network's most-watched and highest-rated soccer telecast ever, according to Nielsen Media Research data. Also, the telecast is ESPN's most-viewed program ever in the second
quarter of a year (April - June). ...

"Additional ratings highlights from U.S. - Germany:
ESPN's highest-rated program of the year among men 18-34 (5.32 rating)
Cable's most-viewed morning (7A-1PM) program ever among men 18-34 (1,351,571 impressions).

ESPN's morning telecasts of 21 World Cup matches through June 21 have averaged a 1.09 rating, up 230% over the 0.33 average rating for the 1:30 - 9:30 a.m. time period in June 2001. Television households for the matches on ESPN have averaged 948,000, up 251% from the time period last year.

ESPN2's 33 telecasts have averaged a 0.57 rating and 476,000 households, a ratings increase of 418% (0.11 rating in 2001) and household increase of 473% (83,000 television homes) over the time period last year."