By Zach Ricchiuti

On the sad state of affairs that is U.S. television's soccer coverage.

Readers, prepare for a rant. I am angry. I am angry and disappointed with a lot of things really, but for right now, I’m especially angry and disappointed at the quality of soccer coverage in America.

Basketball, football and baseball fans, you have no idea how lucky you are. Turn on the radio in the morning and there will be at least 10 stations full of talking heads overanalyzing the latest press conferences and games from the day before. News outlets devote whole sections to NFL, MLB, and NBA reporting online, in print and on television. And frankly, it has made me a very bitter and jealous soccer fan.

Soccer in the U.S. is growing. The double-Windsored douchebags on Sportscenter might still chuckle every time a brilliant Champions League goal sneaks into the week’s top 10, but it is. Soccer is now the number two sport for children aged 12 to 24, and the MLS is the third-best attended sport in the nation.These are tangible signs of traction, and that's without counting the the "I don't like soccer, but I watch the World Cup" crowd that surfaces every four years by the millions.

Yet that growing contingent of soccer fans must find its fix among the table scraps on the Internet and specialty channels like Fox Soccer. Don't get me wrong, the Internet is a fantastic source, and likely the number one contributor to the Premier League’s explosive popularity around the world. How else would people watch a Manchester United game from a tiny 75th-floor apartment somewhere in Singapore? But if the sport is going to continue growing here in the U.S., there needs to be a serious change in the way that the media cover the sport.

Now, I don't consider myself a typical American soccer fan. I am an addict. So I understand that the U.S. media might not be able to cater to my specific needs. That's okay. I can live with that. I have enough sources that cater to sickos like me who actually want to know how an 18-year old Arsenal player is doing during his time on loan in Spain’s second division.

But for the love of the game, what is with the programming shoveled down fan’s throats by the major soccer television channels? Fox Soccer is the main culprit. Despite controlling the most most marketable and widely consumer soccer league in the world, the Premier League, the lack of content and quality analysis that this channel offers is stupendously low.

For example, FSC’s main news channel has a section called “The Banter Zone.” You read that right. For 10 minutes each night, this “flagship news show” (FSC’s words, not mine) puts some soccer-illiterate, faux-hawked tool on air to reel off inane Twitter postings about whether or not David Beckham will start for PSG. It barely attempts to take itself seriously, which is a shame because we only got to this point after the channel rebranded itself and dumped Bobby McMahon, one of the finest soccer analysts on American television.

And while any reputable soccer match program around the world knows that two central production elements are the pre- and post-match interviews with players and managers, Fox Soccer instead blesses us with Eric Wynalda and Warren Barton, who hate each other so much that you’d think Barton slept with Wynalda’s wife (It was actually John Harkes, in 1998). Poor Rob Stone is left to mediate while trying to maintain a shred of the show’s dignity and steer it in the right direction. Meanwhile, Brian McBride stands there, dazed and confused. He’s useless.

The rest of Fox Soccer’s lineup consists of replayed FA cup games from the 1990’s, and the occasional gift from God that is the Premier League Review Show. The review show is far and away the only quality piece, which makes sense because it is taken directly from England’s Sky Sports.

Where is the analysis, Fox Soccer? Where is the comprehensive coverage of the best league in the world? Simply showing three hours of Premier League soccer every Saturday and Sunday morning is not enough to keep this channel alive.

Which brings me to ESPN. The condescending attitude that has permeated ESPN’s culture in the way it reports on soccer is one of the major reasons the sport has failed to find a foothold with the average American sports viewer. The network broadcasts the MLS, the World Cup and parts of the Premier League, and yet ignores the sport on its various highlight and analysis shows. Just because Mike and Mike in the Morning don’t care about soccer doesn’t mean that the rest of the country feels the same way.

And ESPN has the talent to cover the sport with the same obsessive passion it does everything else, if it ever decides that it wants to. Online contributors like Roger Bennett, Michael Cox and Dave Hirshey are among the world’s top soccer writers, but get little television exposure and none of the premier spots on the website.

Thankfully, newcomers NBC Sports and BeIn Sports are trying to pick up the slack. Soccer is a regular part of the highlight rotation during NBC shows, and BeIn’s coverage of La Liga and Serie A are textbook examples of how to cover soccer. Highlight shows? Check. Quality ex-player analysis? Check. Pundits who know what they’re talking about? Check. Non-ex-player talking heads who bring an interesting perspective to the game? Check. Beautiful, knowledgeable women to introduce segments and do interviews? Check, check, check.

The old “nobody in the U.S. cares about soccer” argument doesn’t work anymore. Two or three games a week is not enough anymore to satisfy American soccer fans’ ravenous appetite, and there are signs that the media are slowly getting that picture. But it will be up to the major television outlets to put the final nail in that myth. When that happens, I pray that The Banter Zone is killed along with it.

Zach Ricchiuti is a contributor and resident soccer expert for Began in '96.

Read more »

Via the Seattle Times

By Zach Ricchiuti

Major League Soccer must reevaluate its priorities if it hopes to entrench itself alongside mainstream U.S. sports like football and baseball.

Sepp Blatter's year-end swipe at Major League Soccer left no question about how the big man atop FIFA views soccer in America. And while harsh, he unfortunately has a point.

MLS has made big strides in its short history. It's the third-best attended sport in the U.S., and the number two sport for kids aged 12 to 24. More significantly, just 7.2 million of the 30 million Americans who identify themselves as soccer fans are also MLS fans. That leaves some serious room for growth. 

But those headline statistics cannot make up for the simple truth that professional soccer in the U.S. is routinely buried by the attention and airtime devoted to the NFL, NBA, and MLB. Soccer has so far failed to break into the country's mainstream sports narrative, even after publicity grabs that included recruiting David Beckham, Thierry Henry and Robbie Keane. 

In spite of that, teams are sticking with the same strategy, hoping the next major international splash brings lasting attention along with it. The New York Red Bulls in the offseason signed Juninho, a stellar professional who is also a 38-year-old with questionable ability to mesh with the existing squad. Combine him with former PR plays Tim Cahill and Henry and the New York attack is a combined 106 years old. 

Not to be outdone, the L.A. Galaxy are now in talks with 35-year-old midfielder Frank Lampard.

The average American soccer fan is surely glad that these icons are playing in MLS. But at the same time, it's made them no more likely to trek out to lonely Harrison, N.J., to support the Red Bulls, or travel miles outside of Chicago to root for the Fire. Stadiums without 50-yard lines and teams in new places like Portland and Seattle have helped move the league forward, but the lack of a coherent storyline or sense of importance around those arenas and their clubs still holds MLS back. It'll take more than a lively atmosphere to create that necessary connection, and the league needs to refocus on solving that problem, rather than just buying every available aging star and plastering his name all over the place. 

The better answer to MLS' dilemma is simple youth. Clubs need to take more gambles, like Seattle did with Colombian sensation Fredy Montero. He may have been inconsistent, but he was exciting and unpredictable and quickly became the face of the franchise. The fans got to make a natural connection with their team's star, rather than one prearranged through an expensive cross-continent deal and some clever marketing. 

MLS would also do well to put added emphasis on youth here at home. Pump more money into academies and raise the standard of coaching in the U.S., so that the best talent comes from that giant pool of 12 to 24-year-olds already hooked on soccer in America. We've seen the success that Clint Dempsey and Jozy Altidore have enjoyed on the international stage, and similar homegrown stories would bring national attention and commercial benefits. Media hype about an 18-year-old U.S. soccer phenom is guaranteed to receive more play on ESPN than Frank Lampard playing out the string in L.A. 

MLS won't break into the upper tier of American sports if it maintains its short-term view. It needs to accumulate and solidify its loyalties with fans, and unless it's going to throw gobs of cash at them like teams do with their big-name recruits, it will take a little longer and a lot more work. So start young, and work up from there. When MLS can prove that it can both build and retain U.S. talent, the value of its product will soar.

Zach Ricchiuti is a contributor and resident soccer expert for Began in '96.

Read more »