From the record TV ratings to the teeming watch parties, there’s no question this World Cup sparked futbol fever in the United States, and brought a soccer culture to the forefront. The question is what that will mean now that the tournament is over, whether it was an epiphany or just an aberration?
Has soccer arrived in the US? The question — and so, by default, the answer — is about as nuanced and many-layered as the beautiful game itself.
Big-time European soccer — the EPL, la Liga, Serie A, the Bundesliga — already has an ever-increasing foothold. And the US National Team stands to enjoy the biggest boost from its World Cup run, but only if it makes the right moves to cash in on it. But has MLS caught hockey and turned the Big Four into a Big Five?
Strip away the World Cup euphoria and talk to industry experts, and that seems to be wishful thinking, at least from an MLS standpoint. US soccer’s mission is to become more relevant between World Cups instead of a quadrennial event. The task for MLS is to grow steadily and smartly, which it has done since kicking off in 1996.
“We have to work with all the different parties in the USA to make sure that, yes, we develop soccer and soccer becomes stronger,’’ FIFA secretary general Jerome Valcke told the Los Angeles Times. “[There’s] just a little more to do to have football becoming maybe not the No. 1 but the No. 2 sport in the US’’
Not so fast, according to SportsCorp president Marc Ganis. The dealmaker who has been involved in the development of over two dozen sports facilities projects from Yankee Stadium to Heinz Field to the Verizon Center says even catching the NHL for the No. 4 spot could take a long time … and that’s not a bad thing.
“What can soccer become here? It can become more popular as people get more familiar and there’s greater repetition,’’ Ganis told The Post. “But it’s not telegenic, doesn’t have commercial breaks and the lion’s share of the game is played when it’s impossible to score. The game — as beautiful as it may be — isn’t appealing to the way Americans consume pro sports. And we’re used to having the top league in our sports. In soccer they don’t.
“[The World Cup] has a better chance of being able to tap into the patriotism, passion and desire of youth than MLS does. Part of the reason this became so popular was young people looking for events to go to. They’re out of school, and this brought them together. People want something to communally connect with. This World Cup became that, and could become even bigger in four years. [But] this was an event that happened to be about soccer, not soccer that became event.’’
A huge event. The 200,000 tickets sold in the US marked the biggest contingent of fans from any country, other than the hosts. The ratings were stellar, with 24 million (18.2 million in English) watching the United States’ tie against Portugal and 24.5 million during the loss to Belgium. For perspective, the NBA Finals averaged 15.5 million, last year’s World Series 14.9 million and the Stanley Cup final under five million.
“We decided we weren’t going to allow our country to be less than enthusiastic on a national basis about this event,’’ said ESPN VP Jed Drake. “[In 2010] we said that we’d finally changed the culture in the United States.’’
But those numbers fell off somewhat after the US was eliminated. And of similar concern is keeping interest up between World Cups, according to 16W Marketing co-partner Steve Rosner, who has represented Phil Simms and Steve Young, as well as World Cup standout Tony Meola.
“A lot of people watched the World Cup because it was our country being represented,’’ Rosner told The Post. “MLS is an infant … less than 20 years. Even though we want instant gratification, that’s kind of soon. I’d say they’re still trailing hockey. But the league is progressing, the curve is still going. I don’t think it’s fair to soccer yet to give it a final score. I’d give it an incomplete.
“The rest of the story hasn’t been told yet. There are some important steps to capitalize on the World Cup. They have to keep some World Cup players home. The league and advertisers have to get behind the high-profile players, promote them more so they become familiar names not just for four weeks of the World Cup but during the four years the World Cup isn’t playing.
“Our country doesn’t have a goodwill ambassador for soccer. Baseball has many. Look at Cal Ripken [Jr.], Derek Jeter will be following him soon. Basketball has a whole array of Hall of Famers still visible. Football has some. You ask me who was most high-profile soccer player, I’d say Pele. … We’ve got to get back to where we have [star power like] the Cosmos.’’
It’s not lost on Rosner this is actually the Golden Era of soccer, that MLS’ attendance is stronger than the old NASL’s. The Cosmos’ best average gate was 47,856 in 1978, but nine of the 20 league teams that year drew under 10,000 fans.
The Seattle Sounders drew 64,207 against Portland on Sunday, still far behind the MetroStars’ MLS record of 69,225 in the inaugural season.
“You see more mainstream America getting into the sport,’’ Seattle striker Clint Dempsey told CBS. “You’re seeing bigger TV deals. Look at Univision, Fox and ESPN. It just shows there’s a need for it and there’s a lot of viewers watching those games. It’s exciting times, and it’s about continuing that growth.’’
In 2011, average MLS attendance hit 17,872 to surpass both the NBA and NHL, and reached 18,807 last year. But Rosner’s point was despite that, the players still weren’t — and aren’t — household names.
“Exactly. We need to promote the stars,’’ said Rosner. “We don’t have an American ambassador for the game, and we need it. We need that person for people to look up to. David Stern did lots of things for the NBA, kept guys involved. Isiah Thomas got a job, Larry Bird got a job, Magic. You want those guys in your league.’’
The league needs bigger stars to get better TV ratings, which is its single biggest hurdle. According to ESPN, MLS ratings (220,000 viewers last year, down from 310,000 in 2012) are even worse than the WNBA (230,000 a game). NBC Sports Network mustered just 102,000 for the league, in contrast to 392,000 for the NHL. Those numbers have to improve — but gradually, according to Ganis.
“People who think one or two star players in a nation that doesn’t know who those stars are is going to turn this around, they’re just spending money foolishly,’’ Ganis said. “MLS teams don’t do that. They’re intelligent. They find their market, generally Hispanics and target that aggressively. That’s a smart, measured and intelligent approach. If they approach it like the USFL, they’d fail and crash.
“That’s why I have great confidence in MLS management. They’re avoiding that pitfall. They’re growing in a measured way and building a really nice footprint. When they start believing they’re something other than they are, that’s the beginning of the end. They’re not going to be the next NFL.
“They’re not a $9 billion, $12 billion industry. That’s not going to happen. The NHL is $4 billion and they’re growing by another billion — $4 billion on the way to $5 billion. Basketball is $9 billion. MLS is under the $1 billion range.’’
Forbes estimated the MLS teams’ combined revenues last year at $494.2 million, or an average of $26 million. Adding two teams in 2015, and three more shortly thereafter, with that eight-year, $720 million TV deal Dempsey referenced will be a game-changer. But according to industry experts, the game is a long way from over, with the results nowhere near in yet. And that’s a good thing.