A sportswriter story published nationally and listed on the messageboard wrote a story about poor TV audiences for the World Cup.
I know I duplicated my response, but hopefully some people will read this and get the point I'm trying to make. This story was written by yet another anti-soccer Guy.
Think about it, 3 million households watch England vs Paraguay. A game with no US player/team interest. Sounds minimal ?
Compare it to the massive 610 thousand (80% less) households that watched the first game of the Stanley cup finals and there is a team from the USA in it !!
Also ompare it to the final of the World Baseball Classic at 2 million (50% less).
They even quoted the lowest viewed game on Satruday rather than the 10% (3.3M) higher viewership for the Sweden vs Trinidad game the same day and in the same Nielson report. I wonder why this Guy did that ? I really don't know. But hopefully, I'm making my point.
It was also 65% higher than in 2002 for the opening weekend games. Another plus point, never covered.
The stats were used with specific inuendo to justify the writers required outcome and were not compared to like events or against previous data. Just a typical US Baseball/Football sportswriter B.S. whcih was covered in local papers everywhere, who picked it up published it and therefore reinforced it.
3 million to watch England is a better number than the final of Americas sport (WBC). Soccer is building it just takes time, and Baseballs excuse for the World Baseball Classic Final low TV ratings which Bud Selig said were above expectations is ? Simply put, he was never negatively covered about the TV ratings. I wonder why they are on Soccer ?
