4 ms·

> For FIFA, the US is the single largest source of television audience and therefore advertising revenue. Are you for real? This statement is so ridiculous tha

by akfanta 11y ago

> For FIFA, the US is the single largest source of television audience and therefore advertising revenue. Are you for real? This statement is so ridiculous that I don't even know where to start. You do realize football is by a huge margin, the most popular sports on this planet, right?

sswezey 11y ago
This article talks about the last world cup final: http://www.espnfc.com/fifa-world-cup/story/1950567/world-cup-final-most-watched-soccer-game-in-us-history-more-than-26-million-viewers http://www.espnfc.com/fifa-world-cup/story/1950567/world-cup... The US had 43.8 million people watching the final (in English and Spanish). Germany (who was in the final) had 34.65 million people watching. Even if Argentina had ever single person in their country watching, they'd only have 42.6 million people watching (wiki estimate). Granted Brazil almost definitely has higher viewership, but the US is definitely one of the largest.
- thrillgore 11y ago
  Because ESPN, being the broadcast partner at the time wouldn't fudge the numbers. Riiiiight.
- akfanta 11y ago
  I don't get the point, those are hardly the only countries watch world cup. For a event like world cup final, it's the single most important match in 4 years. It won't just attract fans from the countries that are in the final. For example, the 2006 world cup attracted 4 billion viewers from China, and their team was not even playing.[1] [1] http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/ffprojects/ip-401_06e_tv_2658.pdf http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/ffprojects/ip-401_...
  - cbr 11y ago
    > 4 billion viewers from China Something suspicious about that...
    - akfanta 11y ago
      How so? When you count viewership, of course they will combine number of viewers from each match, considering most of the viewers will tune in for just a few matches. This is common sense, I don't think there is anything suspicious about that.
      - akfanta 11y ago
        Seriously? Down-voted for explaining my point? This place is as pathetic as reddit.
        TomGullen 11y ago
        4 billion viewers is a lot different to 4 billion views
    - cc438 11y ago
      Think of it more like 4 billion "views". If 1 person watches 6 matches they count as 6 "viewers" for those statistics. It makes sense if you're trying to track retainment for an event that's broken up into several instances.
kijin 11y ago
For the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, Fox paid $425 million for U.S. English-language broadcasting rights, and NBC's Telemundo paid another $600 million for Spanish-language rights [1]. That's already a billion dollars from the U.S. By comparison, FIFA's worldwide revenue from broadcasting rights for the 2014 World Cup was around $2.4 billion [2]. American soccer fans might only constitute a small fraction of soccer fans worldwide, but they watch more ads and have deeper pockets than most of the rest. A billion poor fans don't make FIFA any money. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2014/06/09/american-world-cup-rights-fees-soar-along-with-viewership/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2014/06/09/american-w... [2] http://www.statista.com/statistics/380788/revenue-of-the-2014-world-cup/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/380788/revenue-of-the-201...
- akfanta 11y ago
  > The same package cost ESPN just $100 million for the previous two World Cups, in 2010 and 2014 It's clear the TV broadcasting price has jumped rapidly over the years. You can't compare the current revenue with a future deal. 100 million over two world cups is still a tiny portion compared to 2.4 billion in one world cup.
  - vonmoltke 11y ago
    FIFA can't cut the US out of past World Cups. The future lost revenue is what is relevant for any retaliation FIFA may try to take against the US.
nmrm2 11y ago
The quote should have stated "largest single source" rather the "single largest source". And note that the quote says "SOURCE of advertising revenue", not "viewership". It's not so hard to believe, given that a lot of the multi-nationals that advertise aggressively in FIFA are American-held... Americans don't have to like football to believe that advertising during the world cup could be profitable...

by akfanta 11y ago

sswezey 11y ago

This article talks about the last world cup final: http://www.espnfc.com/fifa-world-cup/story/1950567/world-cup-final-most-watched-soccer-game-in-us-history-more-than-26-million-viewers http://www.espnfc.com/fifa-world-cup/story/1950567/world-cup... The US had 43.8 million people watching the final (in English and Spanish). Germany (who was in the final) had 34.65 million people watching. Even if Argentina had ever single person in their country watching, they'd only have 42.6 million people watching (wiki estimate). Granted Brazil almost definitely has higher viewership, but the US is definitely one of the largest.

thrillgore 11y ago
Because ESPN, being the broadcast partner at the time wouldn't fudge the numbers. Riiiiight.
akfanta 11y ago
I don't get the point, those are hardly the only countries watch world cup. For a event like world cup final, it's the single most important match in 4 years. It won't just attract fans from the countries that are in the final. For example, the 2006 world cup attracted 4 billion viewers from China, and their team was not even playing.[1] [1] http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/ffprojects/ip-401_06e_tv_2658.pdf http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/ffprojects/ip-401_...
- cbr 11y ago
  > 4 billion viewers from China Something suspicious about that...
  - akfanta 11y ago
    How so? When you count viewership, of course they will combine number of viewers from each match, considering most of the viewers will tune in for just a few matches. This is common sense, I don't think there is anything suspicious about that.
    - akfanta 11y ago
      Seriously? Down-voted for explaining my point? This place is as pathetic as reddit.
      - TomGullen 11y ago
        4 billion viewers is a lot different to 4 billion views
  - cc438 11y ago
    Think of it more like 4 billion "views". If 1 person watches 6 matches they count as 6 "viewers" for those statistics. It makes sense if you're trying to track retainment for an event that's broken up into several instances.

kijin 11y ago

For the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, Fox paid $425 million for U.S. English-language broadcasting rights, and NBC's Telemundo paid another $600 million for Spanish-language rights [1]. That's already a billion dollars from the U.S. By comparison, FIFA's worldwide revenue from broadcasting rights for the 2014 World Cup was around $2.4 billion [2]. American soccer fans might only constitute a small fraction of soccer fans worldwide, but they watch more ads and have deeper pockets than most of the rest. A billion poor fans don't make FIFA any money. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2014/06/09/american-world-cup-rights-fees-soar-along-with-viewership/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2014/06/09/american-w... [2] http://www.statista.com/statistics/380788/revenue-of-the-2014-world-cup/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/380788/revenue-of-the-201...

akfanta 11y ago
> The same package cost ESPN just $100 million for the previous two World Cups, in 2010 and 2014 It's clear the TV broadcasting price has jumped rapidly over the years. You can't compare the current revenue with a future deal. 100 million over two world cups is still a tiny portion compared to 2.4 billion in one world cup.
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  FIFA can't cut the US out of past World Cups. The future lost revenue is what is relevant for any retaliation FIFA may try to take against the US.

nmrm2 11y ago

The quote should have stated "largest single source" rather the "single largest source". And note that the quote says "SOURCE of advertising revenue", not "viewership". It's not so hard to believe, given that a lot of the multi-nationals that advertise aggressively in FIFA are American-held... Americans don't have to like football to believe that advertising during the world cup could be profitable...