The 2018 World Cup

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

An interesting question, how low would the ratings be for a Belgium-Croatia Final?

Exactly the same? It's the World Cup final.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Exactly the same? It's the World Cup final.

You really think Belgium-Croatia would get the same ratings as Brazil-England?

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

You really think Belgium-Croatia would get the same ratings as Brazil-England?

There's hoping! It would be historical.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

You really think Belgium-Croatia would get the same ratings as Brazil-England?

Yes. It's the World Cup final.

[MIJB#19]

That should have been 2-0 there.

[AlexB]

Pretty poor game, but not really surprising.

Two well organised teams, but neither with any great creativity, but along with Russia the weakest sides in the QF draw.

[PilotMan]

Russia/Croatia just screams meteor.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Yes. It's the World Cup final.

Yes, the World Cup is a big event and would get a certain expected rating no matter what, but it's silly to argue that there would be zero people more interested based on certain teams that would appear in the final. Let's take it a step further. Are you arguing that if the USA somehow made the final, there wouldn't be higher ratings?

[MrBug708]

I keep expecting the last subs to be in before the 75th minute, to get the development ratings in #fm

[PilotMan]

Sweden can't catch a break in this one. No way England should have gotten beat at the back like that with a 2-0 lead in the 72nd minute.

[miami_fan]

Very efficient performance by England. They have had complete control of the match. Well done.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Yes, the World Cup is a big event and would get a certain expected rating no matter what, but it's silly to argue that there would be zero people more interested based on certain teams that would appear in the final. Let's take it a step further. Are you arguing that if the USA somehow made the final, there wouldn't be higher ratings?

The World Cup is not a big event, it's the biggest event. I would argue that global ratings would decrease if the USA made the final. Number of viewers should increase in the USA and at the same time could decrease in USA-phobic countries, most likely downgrading global ratings. Give or take, there will be about 1000M people watching the final. Things would change if China or India were to make the final...

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Very efficient performance by England. They have had complete control of the match. Well done.

Wouldn’t say complete control, Pickford had to make three good saves! But we deserved to win, true enough.

However, I think we’ve run our race, assuming Croatia beat Russia.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Wouldn’t say complete control, Pickford had to make three good saves! But we deserved to win, true enough.

However, I think we’ve run our race, assuming Croatia beat Russia.

For me the turning point was that save Pickford made off the header early in the second half. England seemed energized after that and after Alli got the eventual dagger Pickford had a couple of other solid moments. He was on today for sure and was more animated than he had been in earlier matches.

I am not cashing in on Croatia, I think we have a shot. On a side note, Sterling can get down the wing at will but is the worst finisher on the team, he couldn't have finished a happy meal today.

[nilodor]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

The World Cup is not a big event, it's the biggest event. I would argue that global ratings would decrease if the USA made the final. Number of viewers should increase in the USA and at the same time could decrease in USA-phobic countries, most likely downgrading global ratings. Give or take, there will be about 1000M people watching the final. Things would change if China or India were to make the final...

+1

[AlexB]

Hello! What a goal!

[MIJB#19]

That took much longer than against Denmark, Croatia's equalizing is getting slower.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by nilodor

+1

Yes I agree with this and was my thought when I read that.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

You really think Belgium-Croatia would get the same ratings as Brazil-England?

There's hoping! It would be historical.

[JPhillips]

Someone check the bank account of the Croatian GK.

[PilotMan]

How has Croatia not ended this game already? This might be the worst game they've played this tournament.

[AlexB]

Who knew Corluka was still playing?!

[AlexB]

Dola, and who knew he was olny 32?

[PilotMan]

Is it too late to still be pulling for meteor?

[MIJB#19]

Oh my...

[PilotMan]

Disaster of defending that by Croatia. How were all those guys just standing there watching that?

[MIJB#19]

Huge chance for Croatia there.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

For me the turning point was that save Pickford made off the header early in the second half. England seemed energized after that and after Alli got the eventual dagger Pickford had a couple of other solid moments. He was on today for sure and was more animated than he had been in earlier matches.

I am not cashing in on Croatia, I think we have a shot. On a side note, Sterling can get down the wing at will but is the worst finisher on the team, he couldn't have finished a happy meal today.

Ok, agree with you! We have no reason to be scared of either team. They don’t have reason to be scared of us either, but I’m more confident than two hours ago!

[PilotMan]

I'll be stunned if the keeper for Croatia even stops 1. This is now Russia's to lose with the injury.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Ok, agree with you! We have no reason to be scared of either team. They don’t have reason to be scared of us either, but I’m more confident than two hours ago!

England should be confident, the winner of this game will come off exhausting back to back overtime games with penalties.

[MIJB#19]

Terribly taken penalty kick by Smolov.

[PilotMan]

Ok, I'm stunned. I'll take that.

[kingfc22]

That was a disastrously poor attempt

[PilotMan]

That was way too close for a finish for Croatia.


Happy for Russian sadness.

[Arles]

This World Cup continues to add the drama. What an effort by the Croatia keeper on the penalties with a bad hammy.

For the question about a Croatia-Belgium Final: would the super bowl get worse ratings if it was Tampa Bay-Jacksonville? It’s an event regardless of the teams - even Denver-Carolina got good ratings. In the US, people who like soccer will watch and I doubt England-France vs Croatia-Belgium would change much for the non soccer fans out going fishing. In the rest of the world, everyone will watch either way.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Terribly taken penalty kick by Smolov.

That's the sort of thing that gets you a dozen whacks on the head on amateur level, what a damn joke. I mean, there is no shame if kicking a bad one. Shit happens. But that ? That was close to self-sabotage.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

This World Cup continues to add the drama. What an effort by the Croatia keeper on the penalties with a bad hammy.

For the question about a Croatia-Belgium Final: would the super bowl get worse ratings if it was Tampa Bay-Jacksonville? It’s an event regardless of the teams - even Denver-Carolina got good ratings. In the US, people who like soccer will watch and I doubt England-France vs Croatia-Belgium would change much for the non soccer fans out going fishing. In the rest of the world, everyone will watch either way.

So the rest of the world watches the WC for the commercials? File that under stuff I never realized I guess.

[MrBug708]

Is calling for a re-play on a PK for a keeper leaving the line early kinda like calling carrying over in basketball?

[whomario]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Is calling for a re-play on a PK for a keeper leaving the line early kinda like calling carrying over in basketball?

Yeah, pretty much. Although imo part of the issue is people (and the media) misunderstanding/misrepresenting the rule, at least based on what a buddy working as a ref in the german 3rd division (just high enough to get the top level coaching) told me. The rule does state he needs to stay on the line, but the interpretation is: As long as the Keeper has part of one foot on the line it's considered legal.

Obviously it does still happen, but not nearly as often and as blatant as it's made out to be or looks. After the Croatia-Denmark and Russia-Spain PK an english paper (dailymail) made a big headline of it basically happening on all the PKs (15 of 19) and then showed pictures and to my understanding many were actually legal and those that weren't were early off by a split-second.

An example that looks blatant, but actually is fine when using the interpretation I and apparently every GK has been given:



If you look at it closely, basically every goal keeper does this now whereas not too long ago you actually saw people encroaching with small baby stepts with both feet to get aways with it. Since they all get the current interpretation on the rules before the season and in fact before the WC via the coaches being briefed by top referees, i assume that stepping forward with 1 foot while dragging the other has been green lighted.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

So the rest of the world watches the WC for the commercials? File that under stuff I never realized I guess.

Let's just stick to the abstract comparison of apples and oranges to understand the concept of fruit and not get too concerned about the color and taste of the seeds within the fruit. Not to mention that in some places in the world people get spoilt by being able to buy the fruit with the seeds or the entire core already removed.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by whomario

Yeah, pretty much. Although imo part of the issue is people (and the media) misunderstanding/misrepresenting the rule, at least based on what a buddy working as a ref in the german 3rd division (just high enough to get the top level coaching) told me. The rule does state he needs to stay on the line, but the interpretation is: As long as the Keeper has part of one foot on the line it's considered legal.

Obviously it does still happen, but not nearly as often and as blatant as it's made out to be or looks. After the Croatia-Denmark and Russia-Spain PK an english paper (dailymail) made a big headline of it basically happening on all the PKs (15 of 19) and then showed pictures and to my understanding many were actually legal and those that weren't were early off by a split-second.

An example that looks blatant, but actually is fine when using the interpretation I and apparently every GK has been given:



If you look at it closely, basically every goal keeper does this now whereas not too long ago you actually saw people encroaching with small baby stepts with both feet to get aways with it. Since they all get the current interpretation on the rules before the season and in fact before the WC via the coaches being briefed by top referees, i assume that stepping forward with 1 foot while dragging the other has been green lighted.

It's very confusing.. I was always taught the keeper is not allowed to move forward off the line, period. Having one foot still on the line makes no difference if he's moved forward with his other foot, he can only move side to side until the ball has been kicked. The problem is, AR's never seem to raise their flags like they should, which is what should have been done in this situation, IMHO.



"moves off the goal line before the ball is kicked"

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

would the super bowl get worse ratings if it was Tampa Bay-Jacksonville?

Actually yes. SuperBowl ratings tend to ebb and flow based on the teams. For example look at the ratings of Super XXXII (1999) and XXXIII (2000). XXXII was Packers v. Broncos, and XXXII was Broncos v. Falcons. XXXII had a rating of 44.5 and a share of 67. XXXII had a rating of 40.2 and a share of 61.

And the ratings for the following SuperBowl XXXIV (Rams v. Titans) was 43.3 and 63.

Obviously the teams matter.

And if you look at it in the US context. People tend to watch the World Cup to root for a) the US and then b) the Country from whence their ancestors came. There are lot of people who trace their ancestry to Germany. Spain is also pretty big. England and France would be too. Belgium & Croatia? I doubt it.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Actually yes. SuperBowl ratings tend to ebb and flow based on the teams. For example look at the ratings of Super XXXII (1999) and XXXIII (2000). XXXII was Packers v. Broncos, and XXXII was Broncos v. Falcons. XXXII had a rating of 44.5 and a share of 67. XXXII had a rating of 40.2 and a share of 61.

And the ratings for the following SuperBowl XXXIV (Rams v. Titans) was 43.3 and 63.

Obviously the teams matter.

Not really, though. All Super Bowls get a crazy rating. Over the past 20 years, the Super Bowl has been rated between 40.4 (Rams-NE) and 47.1 (Pats-Seahawks). But most have been between 42 and 46 (st Dev of around 2.5 from the mean). Plus, the Broncos-Panthers (46.6) did basically the same rating as the highest Pats-Giants (47). It's not like Denver and Charlotte are anywhere near Boston and New York in terms of network eyes. If the Super Bowl was Tampa-Jacksonville, I'm guessing the rating would be between 43 and 46 - much like most Super Bowls over the past 10 years. It's not like the game would get a 30 or 35 rating if it's a bad matchup and a 50 if it's a great matchup. It's margins (3-4 rating points).

And if you look at it in the US context. People tend to watch the World Cup to root for a) the US and then b) the Country from whence their ancestors came. There are lot of people who trace their ancestry to Germany. Spain is also pretty big. England and France would be too. Belgium & Croatia? I doubt it.

Two of the 5 highest games in the US have been Uruguay-Portugal (9,689,000) and Croatia-Denmark (9,022,000) - not exactly countries with a ton of US ancestry. The World Cup is becoming a bigger event (even within the US) and I expect its ratings will continue to rise when they games aren't shown live at 2 AM, 5 AM or 7 AM. The time difference has been the biggest factor, IMO. If these games were live at 7 PM each night, the US rating would be much higher.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

Not really, though. All Super Bowls get a crazy rating. Over the past 20 years, the Super Bowl has been rated between 40.4 (Rams-NE) and 47.1 (Pats-Seahawks). But most have been between 42 and 46 (st Dev of around 2.5 from the mean). Plus, the Broncos-Panthers (46.6) did basically the same rating as the highest Pats-Giants (47). It's not like Denver and Charlotte are anywhere near Boston and New York in terms of network eyes. If the Super Bowl was Tampa-Jacksonville, I'm guessing the rating would be between 43 and 46 - much like most Super Bowls over the past 10 years. It's not like the game would get a 30 or 35 rating if it's a bad matchup and a 50 if it's a great matchup. It's margins (3-4 rating points).

They may all get above 40 ratings points, but there is a bit difference between 40.4 and 47.1. There is a reason the NFL was freaking out that Super Bowl ratings dropped 3 points from last season.

Two of the 5 highest games in the US have been Uruguay-Portugal (9,689,000) and Croatia-Denmark (9,022,000) - not exactly countries with a ton of US ancestry. The World Cup is becoming a bigger event (even within the US) and I expect its ratings will continue to rise when they games aren't shown live at 2 AM, 5 AM or 7 AM. The time difference has been the biggest factor, IMO. If these games were live at 7 PM each night, the US rating would be much higher.

Those are combined ratings (with Telemundo) and Croatia-Denmark is actually the 6th highest rated match before the QFs. The Top 5 are Mexico-Germany (11.9mil), Mexico - South Korea (11.8mil), Mexico - Brazil (10.1), Germany - Sweden (9.3mil). As you can imagine, Telemundo numbers were higher than Fox's for Mexico and elevated the Uruguay - Portugal match (well, in addition to Ronaldo). Obviously the ratings continue to rise, and people will watch more when it is more convenient, but people do care about match ups. US and Mexico will get higher ratings. Stars will get higher ratings. Germany and England get higher ratings.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Those are combined ratings (with Telemundo) and Croatia-Denmark is actually the 6th highest rated match before the QFs.

A very solid point as the only meaning for the combination of English & Spanish language broadcasts is for hype purposes.

For advertisers -- for whom the ratings exist -- they're completely separate entities & have no bearing on each other whatsover (unless someone is trying to justify their ad buy).

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Stars will get higher ratings.

Apologies for snipping your argument down to one line.

I think that's an argument to think there's little to worry about then. We've lost C. Ronaldo, Messi and Neymar, but the hypothetical Belgium-Croatia matchup could give us plenty of second tier players like E. Hazard, De Bruyne, R. Lukaku and Modric.

[Arles]

I think 4 things matter for US viewership:
1. Is the US involved? (If so, high ratings)
2. Is Mexico involved? (If so, pretty good ratings)
3. Is the game on a timeslot where most people can see?
4. Is the game competitive and somewhat compelling?

After that, I don't think it matters if the team is England, Belgium, Uruguay, France etc. Heck, Croatia had some of the highest rated games because they were on the 11 AM (west coast) time slot and both games went to penalties. It's not like there's a massive eastern block contingent in the US ramping up for the Croatia-Russia game (and the biggest star in the game was Luka Modric) - but it had much higher ratings than England and France had. Of course, France and England were both in the earlier time spots (IMO, the biggest determining factor for non-Mexico games in this World Cup).

Whether it is England-France or Croatia-Belgium, the rating will be similar. The final will be at 8 AM (west coast) on Sunday morning, so that will be a hit no matter what. But, how competitive the game is will be more of a determining factor for ratings than the teams.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

I think that's an argument to think there's little to worry about then. We've lost C. Ronaldo, Messi and Neymar, but the hypothetical Belgium-Croatia matchup could give us plenty of second tier players like E. Hazard, De Bruyne, R. Lukaku and Modric.

Emphasis added. I am focusing more on Americans watching the World Cup, but De Bruyne doesn't have the same pull as Christiano Ronaldo, unless you are a Man City fan.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

After that, I don't think it matters if the team is England, Belgium, Uruguay, France etc. Heck, Croatia had some of the highest rated games because they were on the 11 AM (west coast) time slot and both games went to penalties. It's not like there's a massive eastern block contingent in the US ramping up for the Croatia-Russia game (and the biggest star in the game was Luka Modric) - but it had much higher ratings than England and France had. Of course, France and England were both in the earlier time spots (IMO, the biggest determining factor for non-Mexico games in this World Cup).

At this point, it's the soccer fans watching. The finals hope to get a lot of casuals interested. For comparison, the 2014 Final had a combined viewership of 27.3mil. Of that 17.3mil was ABC and 9.2mil was Univision. For the casuals, the narratives and the teams and players matter. You know that FOX is absolutely hoping England or France make it (or both for that matter) due to all the people who have that ancestry who will jump on (as you saw a ton of people who had German grandparents or something jump on board for the 2014 final).

[Arles]

Maybe if the game were at 2 PM on Sunday (ie, NFL). But, I don't think the switch of England for Croatia and France for Belgium is going to make people in the Midwest skip church to watch a 10 AM game or people out west to watch an 8 AM Sunday game if they weren't already really into soccer.

The Russia timeslots have pretty much pushed casual fans out (except for the handful of 2 PM EST games on the weekend). The only team in the pool that could have changed this was Mexico. After them, I can't see any other team mattering much for ratings at the Sunday timeslot the Finals will be (and that includes England and Germany).