Not surprised. Their business model is a disaster right now and its why they have fallen so far. Funny because as far as I know they still get the biggest piece of the buck of every cable/satellite dollar.Just figured out that all FA Cup games are behind the ESPN+ paywall. That's ******* ridiculous.
Just figured out that all FA Cup games are behind the ESPN+ paywall. That's ******* ridiculous.
http://worldsoccertalk.com/2018/08/15/tv-not-included-espns-plan-stream-fa-cup-games-espn/Say goodbye to the FA Cup on television in the United States. ESPN’s acquisition of the FA Cup rights in the US will feature all broadcasts streamed on ESPN+ with no plans to air any of the matches on television.
The agreement will bring 79 FA Cup matches – beginning with the First Round in November and running through the Final – exclusively to ESPN+.
While the news that The FA Cup has found a home in the United States after the previous deal ended with FOX Sports, it’s a surprise that ESPN didn’t decide to at least have the semifinals and final on US television. But it’s also a sign that the broadcaster is very confident that ESPN+ will be the go-to streaming platform for a majority of soccer fans. That will be a big change though for many soccer fans who have been accustomed to enjoying the giant killing matches on television.
I could understand putting the early rounds only on ESPN+, but quarterfinals and on should be on cable. I refuse to sign up for ESPN+ since I already pay for the ESPN package through my YoutubeTV subscription. I might try the 7-day free trial if Chelsea makes the finals.Not surprised. Their business model is a disaster right now and its why they have fallen so far. Funny because as far as I know they still get the biggest piece of the buy of every cable/satellite dollar.
Too bad they are involved in futbal/soccer at all....
You can sign up for ESPN+ for $5 a month....not worth it in my opinion.
You won't have to worry about the free trialI could understand putting the early rounds only on ESPN+, but quarterfinals and on should be on cable. I refuse to sign up for ESPN+ since I already pay for the ESPN package through my YoutubeTV subscription. I might try the 7-day free trial if Chelsea makes the finals.
I'm usually very anti-illegal streaming, but I might have to make an exception for this.
I see what you did there.You won't have to worry about the free trial
Look I get the streaming is a big thing but only to a point. I think its really going to hurt them as they will lose the casual viewers especially the semi's and the final. Hard core fans will sign up for the most part bit that will not fuel their advertisments.
You will be able to watch highlights on You Tube as the FA will put those up
They ate trying to promote ESPN + and this is one of the ways to do it. I think it will backfire especially when the Final is on.Sitting here watching La Liga is fine. Would enjoy watching FA cup more. But, really, there has to be some sort of language in future contracts by these Cups with TV media that a certain amount of games need to be shown live on standard/premium cable channels. The interest must be low enough that they are happy with whatever they get?
I give NBCSports a little bit of a pass, because they put so many games on their cable network (and CNBC) and OTA NBC. If you're a fan of a bottom table team it probably sucks, but it's not much different than how the other professional sports handle their TV packages.Same with NBC Gold. NBC yanked their complete EPL coverage save a couple games each week and put the rest on Gold for an extra fee. I'm paying for extra NBC stations already and they want to tag on another cost? I will never understand ESPN+. I already pay a huge chunk of my cable bill due to ESPN, compared to other channels. They want to double dip into my pocket? No chance. I was happy that Cox can be manipulated to get ESPN3 games through Contour. That comes in handy every so often.
Don't know if there any who watch Barca regularly. They have a dilemma.
On one hand they have 21 yo Dembele. 140M transfer. 2nd year at Barca and still looks completely foreign with their style of play. Immature off the field. Not clicking with teammates.
On the other hand they have 21 yo Malcolm. 40M transfer. 1st year at Barca and looks much more comfortable, albeit in limited duty. Mature kid. Teammates love him. Messi has taken him under his wing.
The Pulisic acquisition probably won't go over very well for the die-hard Chelsea fans at that price point. That's a decently hefty fee for a good, not great player. I think the move was made for 2 reasons: potential and marketing.
Pulisic will play wing/outside F for Chelsea and should fit into Sarri's system very well. He has the versatility to fill in centrally if needed. What makes him a "good" player right now is his ability to consistently win 1v1 matchups on the wing and successfully deliver the ball. That makes him Willian's equal and superior to Pedro. Wing play in Sarri's system is pretty basic when all is said and done. Consistently beat the first defender = good. Ability to consistently generate dangerous balls into the box = very good. Ability to do those two AND integrate the ability to consistently beat the second/third defender = world class. His delivery is inconsistent but is expected to improve with time. When he had Dembele and Auba, it's no coincidence he looked more dangerous. He won't be solely out on the wing for Chelsea as Sarri gives Willian and Pedro more freedom. That should help his game as he runs well at defenders but also means he's going to have to finish more than Dortmund required of him. People will complain that Chelsea just spent 50M+ on a bench player. I wouldn't get too concerned. First off, Sancho is awesome. Secondly, he declared his desire to move before the season, and coupled with the injury and emergence of Sancho, Dortmund did the right thing. If things don't go off the rails, Sancho will demand a higher fee than the inflated Pulisic transfer. He's that good. Furthermore, Chelsea needed another wing/outside F. Pedro and Willian are on the wrong side of 30. They have a really nice, but untested, player in Hudson-Odoi who they'll hopefully give opportunities. He and Pulisic give them a base for the future. For all the love Chelsea fans have for Hudson-Odoi, Pulisic is much more proven. The metrics support his status as one of the best young players in Europe. He ranked #1 in dribbles in the Bunda last year. What he hasn't not been able to do is generate assists or goals to match his other numbers. The numbers say he's poor defensively but also is very good in generating meaningful counters. So the ability is there to be more well-rounded.
Second is marketing. People get on message boards and talk jersey sales. That's great for Nike, but not Chelsea. Chelsea is like every other big Euro club in that they want America. The world is saturated for teams wanting to increase their brand, with the notable and monstrous exception of America. And the reason isn't jersey sales. Fans = views = corporate money in the States. Nike will go full throttle on Pulisic. NBC will as well. Corporate relations and sponsorships are what everyone is after. Not too many American companies have made the jump and there is a ton of money to be had. ManU has over 400 corporate sponsors. All that money means more to spend in the future. The future ability to grow as individual clubs is stunted financially and really is all about collective league agreements anymore (or making the CL). The one exception to this is America. Soccer is now ahead of the NBA and NHL in viewership in the US. It's #2 in viewership in individuals less than 30 years of age. I read somewhere today that signing Pulisic probably nets Chelsea at least 10M in US corporate sponsorship alone whether or not he actually sees the field next year.
If I put aside that I love Pulisic going to Chelsea as a US fan, I'm probably torn on the signing as a Chelsea fan. I can see why they paid what they did and Lord knows I'm sick of watching Willian up top, but honestly, I'd rather have Sancho. But there aren't too many young, experienced players like Pulisic laying around. I hope Hudson-Odoi isn't miffed at the signing because he probably has a higher ceiling than Pulisic. I do like that Chelsea was proactive. They may be in for a 2 or 4 window signing ban here shortly, so they have to make moves. I view it as a move for the future, as I'm sure Chelsea does with the loan back to Dortmund for the remainder to the season. Chelsea still needs a #9 to improve. Morata has been trash.
Now, let's throw more money at Hazard. Because without him, Chelsea is screwed.