(Unlike in 2006, an executive decision was made to eschew team-by-team previews for all 32 World Cup teams. Instead, starting now I'm going to try to write one World Cup-centric piece every week, or at least every other week. Today I'm starting with a bit of an oddball choice, if ESPN selling the World Cup is the best way to sell soccer to the skeptical American public?)
Getting sick isn't fun, obviously you don't need a degree in medical science to know this.
One beneficial offshoot for me last week as I grappled with some kind of mild flu bug (think lightning bolts attacking my stomach and head)was the ability to laze on the couch and watch a ton of college basketball, namely the Big East tournament.
After a couple nights of this, I can safely say that I've watched nearly every: truck, lite beer, insurance and cell phone advertisement ever conceived by Madison Avenue. No matter how "bro-tastic" theses ads might indeed be, commercials every five minutes or so are tough to take. Sorry, 21st century Don Draper wannabes.
Along with all these Maxim magazine approved ads, ESPN decided to sprinkle in plenty of shots of: William Gallas, Harry Kewell, Michael Ballack and Clint Dempsey. (As well as Gigi Buffon in a 1-v-1 fight with the goal netting.)
You know the ad I'm talking about. It's on the Worldwide Leader at least three or four times per night. They're on so often I've been searching my collection of historic maps for the "City of Blinding Lights."
Oh, and, Nuno Valente trying to karate kick Arjen Robben in half during the infamous "Battle of Nurermbeg" is currently running inside my noggin every time I close my eyes.
A word of warning here. The rest of this post isn't my typical crankiness or just an excuse to take some potshots at ESPN. And not, it's not sour grapes since the odds are slim that I'll be making the trek down to South Africa despite having tickets for the U.S. group stage matches.
Having said that, I'm beginning to wonder if all the pomp-and-circumstance that ESPN is trying to convey about the World Cup -- if only through the radio-approved chords of U2 -- is going to translate to the 2010 version in South Africa.
As we all know the World Cup is perfect sporting made-for-television drama, and it doesn't even need the Olympics on NBC soft focus, tape-delayed treatment. However, one of my long-standing beliefs is that although the World Cup might be high on dramatic moments and instances of individual brilliance, it doesn't always produce the greatest set of games to introduce/indoctrinate the game to newbies.
For every Dennis Bergkamp goal vs. Argentina in 1998, there seem to be about as many Ukraine/Switzerland scoreless Round of 16 matches.
Granted the soccer fan in America is about as disparate a group as possible.
You range from losers like myself that get up at all sorts of weird hours to watch Premier League matches on the weekends, to extreme casual fans who basically only know who that David Beckham fellow is (or at least the current status of his facial hair), or should I say, was. In between there is every sort of fan, too, from the MLS diehard to the weekend warrior player. And let's not forget the huge Latino audience (though they'll be glued to Univision) and the whole "soccer mom" crowd, who probably don't give two licks about the pro game.
Obviously you don't need to market the World Cup to the actual day-in, day-out soccer fan. They're locked into the game no matter what. They've been counting down the roughly 1,400 days since Fabio Grosso's penalty in the Olympastadion beat Fabian Barthez to give Italy its fourth Cup triumph four years ago.
But the casual sports fan? The kind of person that actually gives a guy like Jim Rome some credence? The person that mindlessly nods as ESPN force feeds highlights from the Danica Patricks of the world?
Are a couple cords from The Edge and some shots of cheering fans going to be enough to convert them, or at least plant the subliminal seeds in the back of their heads that, yes, come June I should be watching what ESPN is beaming into my television in the place usually reserved for Skip Bayless to debate Tiger Woods return to golf with Mateen Cleaves and Jaylen Rose?
To boil it all down, is the product on the field produced by the 64 World Cup matches produce the best representation of the "beautiful game", even with the world's best players all on display? Is that fact that entire nations -- not counting the U.S. -- are wrapped up on a nearly live-or-death struggle, enough to compel people to tune in?
Dramatic yes? Compelling athletic contests? We'll see.
It's almost on par with trying to sell, say, a European dude on American football by solely watching the Super Bowl every year -- and that's it.
There certainly going to be great games in South Africa, but just how many?
International matches are so high stakes and with the World Cup only once every four years, coaches tend to take a cautious approach. Playing for the draw -- or one point -- is a surefire way for a coach to get fired or his team relegated in league play, but in group play, it's a smart approach against stronger opponents. Double this in the knockout stages, where playing defensively or for one goal can bode well, especially with the lottery that is penalty kicks looming 120 minutes away on the horizon.
It's doubtful when Marcelo Lippi, Morten Olsen, etc. are considering the entertainment value for the American television viewer when they trot out their starting XIs.
Take, for instance, Tuesday's Inter Milan/Chelsea Champions League match at Stamford Bridge. As a diehard fan, I was enraptured by this match for 90 minnutes, even though the teams combined for just seven shots. It was such a tactical beauty to behold -- throw in the Special One's return to Stamford Bridge coupled with Chelsea's lack of creativity -- and I was hooked.
But would a soccer novice exactly walk away impressed by that match, even with 17 of the combined 22 starters likely featuring for their countries at the World Cup?
Chances are, they'd walk away with the stereotypical (and, frankly, ignorant) opinion that, "soccer is boring."
Again, I love the World Cup. In the days before Fox Soccer Channel, Internet streams and even the advent of MLS, it represented really the only time for a guy like me in America to get a soccer fix, especially since I didn't speak Spanish and the games on Univision gave me a headache with their rapid-fire delivery.
From the 1990 tournament, even up to the 2002 version, I never would have even thought that the World Cup wasn't 100 percent amazing. How could it not be? I just assumed every game would be like Roberto Baggio during the first half hour of Italy's semifinal 2-1 win over Bulgaria at Giants Stadium. (Maybe I just shot down my whole argument right here. All it might take is one or two moments of virtuosity by Lionel Messi or Wesley Sneijder to hook a 12-year-old or 52-year-old. And now there are more outlets to foster the would-be fan's growth.)
Before some lingering issues, it's 100 percent tremendous ESPN will televise every match in High Definition and have an announcing staff actually in the stadium for every match, too. (The fact they are all British is a different story. It does lead to casual fans adopting a bad/broad English accent to talk about the game, throwing out words like "jolly." This is a bad development, as much as I enjoy Adrian Healey's cheesiness.)
One major issue to consider -- South Africa remains a huge X-factor with the whole tournament.
As we stand today, there are some concerns.
For one, ticket sales both in the country and abroad have been soft. Me? I got tickets to the U.S. games, but since a flight cost around $3,000 and a decent package for the group stage started around $6,000, it was impossible to afford going. Sad but true.
And I'm not the only one staying away, with sales soft in continental Europe.
Contrast this to 2006, where the Germans put on a well-received tournament that was in the center of European, making it fairly accessible to millions and millions of fans.
Will this compare more favorably to the tournament in 2002 spread over South Korea and Japan, which did help to allow the U.S. advancing to the quarterfinals, and outsiders like the South Koreans and Turkey in the semifinals?
From what we saw at the Confederations Cup, the stadiums in South Africa aren't exactly enclosed to trap in the noise and the seats are a bit away from the field. This tends to suck away whatever "atmosphere".
Let's be totally blunt, is Australia v. Serbia going to have the Mbombela Stadium in Nelspruit rocking?
I hate to say it, too, but the vuvuzela will be a major turnoff for casual fans.
Bill Simmons -- as casual a soccer fan as you'll find -- repeatedly made light of this on Twitter during the Confederations Cup. It's a part of South African culture, yes, but it has the effect of getting your teeth drilled over the course of a match. If they're the only source of "atmosphere" we might be in trouble.
Expect to see a deluge of articles from English-language outlets, perhaps even once a day, about the vuvuzela. Every American media critic, whether a soccer-lover or soccer-hater is going to take a swipe here.
But the tournament is in South Africa, so the nation's traditions should be allowed, even if it makes for a less-than-enjoyable television experience.
Something else to consider is the altitude factor. Will it suck the energy out of the players as the tournament progresses, especially on the heels of the grueling European club season? This could either lead to some high-scoring games, since the defenders will be heavy-legged, or it could be, to borrow my favorite British expression, produce an array of "damp squibs."
So it'll be an interesting litmus test to see how far soccer has come in America come June. Will people get up early in the morning for matches, with the majority of kickoff times at 7 and 9:30 a.m. on the East Coast during the Group Stage?
In the end, maybe I'm still stuck, to a degree, in that 1998 mentality where really the only outlet I had to talk about the game was my German high school European history teacher.
The soccer culture in the States is here to stay and growing each day, thanks to the explosion of the Internet and satellite television. In a way it mirrors the U.S. melting pot in general, taking a healthy cut of Euro-centric meat, a dash of Latin American flare and the solid potatoes (CBA pending) from MLS, and then everything in between.
If the World Cup doesn't exactly wash down like a cool glass of lemonade on a hot day, it's not the end of the world. Soccer's media presence in the States continues to grow each and every day. As a whole, too, I think we're beyond that ever-present need for acceptance by the "mainstream", which is continuing to get older and more marginalized.
Nothing shows this more than the fact that soccer's survival in American on the mainstream radar isn't reliant on a tournament once every four years. Throw in that people tend to be drawn to international competitions, and despite some of my worries, I think we'll be okay.
Now just point in in the direction of that city with the blinding lights...
Getting sick isn't fun, obviously you don't need a degree in medical science to know this.
One beneficial offshoot for me last week as I grappled with some kind of mild flu bug (think lightning bolts attacking my stomach and head)was the ability to laze on the couch and watch a ton of college basketball, namely the Big East tournament.
After a couple nights of this, I can safely say that I've watched nearly every: truck, lite beer, insurance and cell phone advertisement ever conceived by Madison Avenue. No matter how "bro-tastic" theses ads might indeed be, commercials every five minutes or so are tough to take. Sorry, 21st century Don Draper wannabes.
Along with all these Maxim magazine approved ads, ESPN decided to sprinkle in plenty of shots of: William Gallas, Harry Kewell, Michael Ballack and Clint Dempsey. (As well as Gigi Buffon in a 1-v-1 fight with the goal netting.)
You know the ad I'm talking about. It's on the Worldwide Leader at least three or four times per night. They're on so often I've been searching my collection of historic maps for the "City of Blinding Lights."
Oh, and, Nuno Valente trying to karate kick Arjen Robben in half during the infamous "Battle of Nurermbeg" is currently running inside my noggin every time I close my eyes.
A word of warning here. The rest of this post isn't my typical crankiness or just an excuse to take some potshots at ESPN. And not, it's not sour grapes since the odds are slim that I'll be making the trek down to South Africa despite having tickets for the U.S. group stage matches.
Having said that, I'm beginning to wonder if all the pomp-and-circumstance that ESPN is trying to convey about the World Cup -- if only through the radio-approved chords of U2 -- is going to translate to the 2010 version in South Africa.
As we all know the World Cup is perfect sporting made-for-television drama, and it doesn't even need the Olympics on NBC soft focus, tape-delayed treatment. However, one of my long-standing beliefs is that although the World Cup might be high on dramatic moments and instances of individual brilliance, it doesn't always produce the greatest set of games to introduce/indoctrinate the game to newbies.
For every Dennis Bergkamp goal vs. Argentina in 1998, there seem to be about as many Ukraine/Switzerland scoreless Round of 16 matches.
Granted the soccer fan in America is about as disparate a group as possible.
You range from losers like myself that get up at all sorts of weird hours to watch Premier League matches on the weekends, to extreme casual fans who basically only know who that David Beckham fellow is (or at least the current status of his facial hair), or should I say, was. In between there is every sort of fan, too, from the MLS diehard to the weekend warrior player. And let's not forget the huge Latino audience (though they'll be glued to Univision) and the whole "soccer mom" crowd, who probably don't give two licks about the pro game.
Obviously you don't need to market the World Cup to the actual day-in, day-out soccer fan. They're locked into the game no matter what. They've been counting down the roughly 1,400 days since Fabio Grosso's penalty in the Olympastadion beat Fabian Barthez to give Italy its fourth Cup triumph four years ago.
But the casual sports fan? The kind of person that actually gives a guy like Jim Rome some credence? The person that mindlessly nods as ESPN force feeds highlights from the Danica Patricks of the world?
Are a couple cords from The Edge and some shots of cheering fans going to be enough to convert them, or at least plant the subliminal seeds in the back of their heads that, yes, come June I should be watching what ESPN is beaming into my television in the place usually reserved for Skip Bayless to debate Tiger Woods return to golf with Mateen Cleaves and Jaylen Rose?
To boil it all down, is the product on the field produced by the 64 World Cup matches produce the best representation of the "beautiful game", even with the world's best players all on display? Is that fact that entire nations -- not counting the U.S. -- are wrapped up on a nearly live-or-death struggle, enough to compel people to tune in?
Dramatic yes? Compelling athletic contests? We'll see.
It's almost on par with trying to sell, say, a European dude on American football by solely watching the Super Bowl every year -- and that's it.
There certainly going to be great games in South Africa, but just how many?
International matches are so high stakes and with the World Cup only once every four years, coaches tend to take a cautious approach. Playing for the draw -- or one point -- is a surefire way for a coach to get fired or his team relegated in league play, but in group play, it's a smart approach against stronger opponents. Double this in the knockout stages, where playing defensively or for one goal can bode well, especially with the lottery that is penalty kicks looming 120 minutes away on the horizon.
It's doubtful when Marcelo Lippi, Morten Olsen, etc. are considering the entertainment value for the American television viewer when they trot out their starting XIs.
Take, for instance, Tuesday's Inter Milan/Chelsea Champions League match at Stamford Bridge. As a diehard fan, I was enraptured by this match for 90 minnutes, even though the teams combined for just seven shots. It was such a tactical beauty to behold -- throw in the Special One's return to Stamford Bridge coupled with Chelsea's lack of creativity -- and I was hooked.
But would a soccer novice exactly walk away impressed by that match, even with 17 of the combined 22 starters likely featuring for their countries at the World Cup?
Chances are, they'd walk away with the stereotypical (and, frankly, ignorant) opinion that, "soccer is boring."
Again, I love the World Cup. In the days before Fox Soccer Channel, Internet streams and even the advent of MLS, it represented really the only time for a guy like me in America to get a soccer fix, especially since I didn't speak Spanish and the games on Univision gave me a headache with their rapid-fire delivery.
From the 1990 tournament, even up to the 2002 version, I never would have even thought that the World Cup wasn't 100 percent amazing. How could it not be? I just assumed every game would be like Roberto Baggio during the first half hour of Italy's semifinal 2-1 win over Bulgaria at Giants Stadium. (Maybe I just shot down my whole argument right here. All it might take is one or two moments of virtuosity by Lionel Messi or Wesley Sneijder to hook a 12-year-old or 52-year-old. And now there are more outlets to foster the would-be fan's growth.)
Before some lingering issues, it's 100 percent tremendous ESPN will televise every match in High Definition and have an announcing staff actually in the stadium for every match, too. (The fact they are all British is a different story. It does lead to casual fans adopting a bad/broad English accent to talk about the game, throwing out words like "jolly." This is a bad development, as much as I enjoy Adrian Healey's cheesiness.)
One major issue to consider -- South Africa remains a huge X-factor with the whole tournament.
As we stand today, there are some concerns.
For one, ticket sales both in the country and abroad have been soft. Me? I got tickets to the U.S. games, but since a flight cost around $3,000 and a decent package for the group stage started around $6,000, it was impossible to afford going. Sad but true.
And I'm not the only one staying away, with sales soft in continental Europe.
Contrast this to 2006, where the Germans put on a well-received tournament that was in the center of European, making it fairly accessible to millions and millions of fans.
Will this compare more favorably to the tournament in 2002 spread over South Korea and Japan, which did help to allow the U.S. advancing to the quarterfinals, and outsiders like the South Koreans and Turkey in the semifinals?
From what we saw at the Confederations Cup, the stadiums in South Africa aren't exactly enclosed to trap in the noise and the seats are a bit away from the field. This tends to suck away whatever "atmosphere".
Let's be totally blunt, is Australia v. Serbia going to have the Mbombela Stadium in Nelspruit rocking?
I hate to say it, too, but the vuvuzela will be a major turnoff for casual fans.
Bill Simmons -- as casual a soccer fan as you'll find -- repeatedly made light of this on Twitter during the Confederations Cup. It's a part of South African culture, yes, but it has the effect of getting your teeth drilled over the course of a match. If they're the only source of "atmosphere" we might be in trouble.
Expect to see a deluge of articles from English-language outlets, perhaps even once a day, about the vuvuzela. Every American media critic, whether a soccer-lover or soccer-hater is going to take a swipe here.
But the tournament is in South Africa, so the nation's traditions should be allowed, even if it makes for a less-than-enjoyable television experience.
Something else to consider is the altitude factor. Will it suck the energy out of the players as the tournament progresses, especially on the heels of the grueling European club season? This could either lead to some high-scoring games, since the defenders will be heavy-legged, or it could be, to borrow my favorite British expression, produce an array of "damp squibs."
So it'll be an interesting litmus test to see how far soccer has come in America come June. Will people get up early in the morning for matches, with the majority of kickoff times at 7 and 9:30 a.m. on the East Coast during the Group Stage?
In the end, maybe I'm still stuck, to a degree, in that 1998 mentality where really the only outlet I had to talk about the game was my German high school European history teacher.
The soccer culture in the States is here to stay and growing each day, thanks to the explosion of the Internet and satellite television. In a way it mirrors the U.S. melting pot in general, taking a healthy cut of Euro-centric meat, a dash of Latin American flare and the solid potatoes (CBA pending) from MLS, and then everything in between.
If the World Cup doesn't exactly wash down like a cool glass of lemonade on a hot day, it's not the end of the world. Soccer's media presence in the States continues to grow each and every day. As a whole, too, I think we're beyond that ever-present need for acceptance by the "mainstream", which is continuing to get older and more marginalized.
Nothing shows this more than the fact that soccer's survival in American on the mainstream radar isn't reliant on a tournament once every four years. Throw in that people tend to be drawn to international competitions, and despite some of my worries, I think we'll be okay.
Now just point in in the direction of that city with the blinding lights...
Labels: 2010 world cup, ESPN, Soccer
"I just assumed every game would be like Roberto Baggio during the first half hour of Italy's semifinal 2-1 win over Bulgaria at Giants Stadium."
I was a soccer fan before then but this game is exactly the same moment that I became hooked as a hardcore fan. I still have the original VHS of that game and I've probably watched that first half hour 100 times, no exaggeration... to the point where I know the majority of the commentary.
Another good post Cardillo. Off topic but weren't you planning to write something about your beef with MLS? I'm interested to hear what you have to say, especially with the current state of the CBA negotiations.
Thanks for the comment.
I don't have a beef with MLS. I actually came up with a couple ideas to increase interest/media attention. That's all.
I hate to say it, but a strike would be one of those, "If a tree falls in the woods" scenarios.
Joking aside, I can see the points both sides are making. Hard to see them reach an agreement when they are so far apart.
--Mike
Nicely done, 'dillo.
I wonder, too if espn's approach to presenting the World Cup is the best one for the growth of the game in this country (though that is not ESPN's job). The WWL will do fawning pieces on Lando and the Beckschilles - until even casual fans will hate those players like I hate hearing about Favre or Tiger. Plus, it seems that their approach is to make the WC epic and ultra meaningful - even as US viewers are left to wonder what all the fuss is about.
The analogy of using the Super Bowl to sell a European on the NFL game is an apt one. Barca-Valencia would be a much, much better sales tool than some grinding Group Stage game in South Africa where both teams are happy with the nil draw.
The growth of soccer in the US doesn't really need a mass conversion of casual fans into up-at-6:30-dorks like myself. It is hardly necessary or even possible. The 'soccer is boring' hardliners will be counter-acted by regular folks seeing more of the game for themselves. Once people have more first hand experience with the game, the theatrical rantings of the anti-soccer grandpas will quickly lose their power.
The possibility of an MLS strike is scary. How much would using 'replacement players' hurt the gate and TV ratings for MLS teams? Outside of one or two players per team, would the differences even show up on the field? How much better is the $17k per year guy currently on the Galaxy than the random college player that Arena could find to replace him?
I thnk the Euro tourneys produce mech better games. I believe that ESPN was very surprised with the great daytime ratings for the games. Why is that? Probably a mix to two things.
1) Nothing else was on.
2) The soccer was quite good.
For the WC, ESPN is hyping it as an event! Unfortunately, the soccer itself may end up being dour, although I do think the cooler temps in South Africa will help.
In the end, soccer will end up exactly where it is now -- a growing niche sport in America. As long as America keeps allowing immigration and other Americans keep on traveling around the world (it's how I got hooked), soccer will grow, no matter what ESPN does with it.
At least all the games are televised on widely available networks. And I do think USA-England on ABC is going to get enormous ratings. It will help soccer in this country if the US doesn't crap the bed.
"the place usually reserved for Skip Bayless to debate Tiger Woods return to golf with Mateen Cleaves and Jaylen Rose"
Ugh.. this totally made me vomit in my mouth a little bit. What kind of espn zombie watches that?
I don't think there's anything more ESPN can do to help promote soccer in the US. They present the games live, show a decent ammount of highlights on sports center and best of all every game is available in HD. Other than Hockey I'm not sure there's a sport that benefits more from HD than soccer does. Now it's time for ESPN to sit back and let the games speak for themselves. I don't think there's ever going to be a watershed moment where everyone in the US all of the sudden falls in love with soccer, but every World Cup a few more fans will watch and a few more fans will keep watching. Fans like us just need to be patient. Hell if 4 years ago you told me I'd be watching a Seattle Sounders game with 30,000 screaming and chanting fans in quest field I would've called you crazy.
On the vuvuzelas : since a majority of people in the stadium will be from the two countries playing each other, I thin vuvuzelas will be kept to a minimal level. Unless they give free/dirt cheap tickets to the locals for some poorly sold games and they come and use their things.
Also, I've read that players have complained about the sound of them. If you hear one more complaint, FIFA will have a compelling interest to ban their use. And on TV, it sounds like it's footage from the 82/86 World Cups, and I'm sure FIFA doesn't want to have that happen. I'm pretty sure FIFA wants to limit the expression of "African pride" to the designs on the ball and Didier Drogba.
Nice post- Hope you revisit this topic as we get closer to June. A few things -
I'm a 3-5 game a week American soccer fan and I had to turn off early round Confed Cup HD games cause of the vuvuzelas. I fear that being a huge problem for the channel flipping non soccer fan.(side note - is the solution watching games at sports bars?)
There is one clear answer on how to bring in the typical American sports fan - you need to build momentum behind USMNT. The majority of Americans aren't very bright and they need a GO USA type hook to jump on things. The winter olympics marketed -Team USA Hockey, Lyndsay Vaughn, Apollo A-O, and fake snowboarding events only Americans win. There were probably other ahtletes worth watching from other countries but NBC didn't bother.Besides mens tennis I can't think of another fringe sport that survives with non-Americans being the focus. Ex.- Tour De France - Lance Steriod Years vs. Euro Steriod Years?
Even though watching Spain, Brazil, Argentina, or Netherlands play the beautiful game theoretically should bring in new fans... it doesnt work that way in America. Landon and Clint or bust.( and busting wont change the fact FSC HD is coming and after that what more does the American fan really need?)
Interesting that you brought up the Inter/Chelsea match. I was enthtalled by that match. A strategy-heavy contest that only more knowlegeable fans will appreciate. The Italian side consistently baited Chelsea into fouls and the ref into pulling out cards. The last 25+/- minutes of the game seemed to consist entirely of free kicks, inter players loafing up to set plays or theatrically nursing injuries. They certainly have time-wasting down to an art form in Italy.
Aside from the fact that Americans have almost hard-wired aversions to that sort of "gamesmanship", no casual fans of any sport wants to watch that sort of contest. Who wants to see a 10-6 punters duel, or a 85-79 defensive NBA game where people are fouling out left and right? I don't imagine the casual english fan wants to watch a nil-nil Burnley/Stoke matchup, either. Unless the stakes are high, TVs are tuning out everywhere.
ESPN needs to take America's soccer education a step further. Instead of just showing rediculous goals and the ensuing celebrations, explain why players like Javier Macherano - the soccer equivalent of a middle linebacker - are so important. Then when he's sutting down the more offensive player that you profiled before the game, the casual fan will understand the importance of a holding mid, for example.
You wouldn't expect an English viewer of the Superbowl this past season to understand that the Colts were running cover 2 and that becuase the safeties and CBs sat back in a shell, the Saints we just picking them apart with 8-12 yard pass plays. Same goes for the American viewer of the World cup. We're not total idots. We understand you can't touch it with your hands and that a foul in the box is both a PK and "what she said." But maybe we don't understand the tactical difference between a 4-4-2, 4-3-3 and 4-5-1.
ESPN is going to treat it how they treat it. People who love the game will be annoyed by them, people who are casual fans will tune in when their interest is peaked. Same way they treat everything else. Throw in a little Jim Rome on how easy the game is becuase they dont use hands, and thats that.
Me, I am actually waiting in breathless antcipation to see what NIKE puts out there for commercials this year. Is old friend Cantona coming back again to star? Are we going to get something like "Take it to the next Level" from the EURO's two years ago? I see that commercial, and I want to go lace them up right away.
Honestly, those commercials do more for the game then ESPN does.
you are so right about the Nike ads. Great stuff to build interest.