ESPN Loses Champions League Rights…

By: chris | March 19th, 2009

UPDATE: According to our Twitter correspondent, also Brian (truly a Renaissance Man), one of FSC’s anchors twitted the deal yesterday but that has also now disappeared. However, the original author, Jaime, hasn’t removed his twote. Make of it what you will.

I feel an R.E.M. song coming on.

You’d expect the official blog of the network to have correct information, yeah? Wrong. Or so they’re saying for the time being. Brian from Run of Play has heard ~~whispers~~ thunderously loud denials and throwing of chairs after the writer put up the information, which has now magically whooshed from the site, so it appears FSC does not have CL rights. At least not yet. Updates forthcoming.

…to Fox Soccer Channel. Big news stateside as ESPN, “the global leader in sports”, has lost broadcast rights to the world’s biggest annual sports league. And to a channel most people can find somewhere around the 300’s. An upset to say the least in the world of sports television. It hasn’t been officially announced yet, but has been leaked on a Fox Sports blog, which makes it totally official in my book.

But despite ESPN having plenty of faults of its own, this isn’t necessarily a good thing. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I don’t have the required inside knowledge to accurately speculate, but if you told me ESPN lowballed their offer not taking FSC seriously because, well, they really shouldn’t have from all appearances, I wouldn’t bat an eye. As logical an explanation as any.

Breaking down the differences, with the most important aspect first: money. Not UEFA’s or FSC’s, but yours. Most that I know with the channel have to pay for Fox Soccer. My cable provider (Comcast) required a separate sports package to get FSC – almost a nominal fee, but a fee nonetheless. Or, I should say, FSC came with the sports package I needed for GolTV. So if you want to watch CL on terrestrial television, it’s going to come out of your pocket. (Unless you can hook a laptop up to your television, at which point you can use their Veetle feed which is of similar quality.)

And while you’re paying for it, Fox Soccer doesn’t come in HD – not yet, at least – nor does it come in multiple channels. Yes, watching the game is more important than the quality of the picture, but those ESPN HD production values were something special. And while ESPN2 would always have the requisite Prem game, there were times when ESPN Classic would show a game simultaneously and ESPN Deportes – if you didn’t mind the Spanish commentary – likewise. Now, it’s just one option.

I genuinely can’t claim to be an expert on their commentary and news, but nothing I’ve seen has impressed me a great deal, to put it kindly (alright, they’re rubbish) – putting it on par or thereabouts with ESPN. I’ll watch it for Serie A, but otherwise I’d rather get my footballing news from a grainy feed being spliced through some third world country in an internet stream – meaning the same will likely go for Champions League viewing.

Now the big question: will we still see the Premiership bias? Sadly, it’s very likely. They have UEFA Cup rights now and it’s always the same, always a Prem team involved. Much like ESPN, they’ve failed to properly provide the balance between ratings/pandering and product quality/diversity. You can hope it changes, but when Manchester United gets six group games televised live next year, don’t slack your jaw in shock.

Everything right now points to this being a lateral move at the very best, far from the big leap in quality for which those in the States were hoping. And with the amount of cash thrown at sports in this country, coverage of the biggest annual competition in the world simply should be better.