FIFA loses TV fight

Fifa loses free-to-air World Cup TV battle

Fifa and Uefa have lost an appeal against a European ruling that the World Cup and Euro Championships should be shown on free-to-air TV in the UK.

In 2011, the European General Court said the UK could keep the events on a list of "protected" events of national sporting interest broadcast for free.

It means the two tournaments cannot be sold exclusively to pay-TV firms.

Fifa and Uefa had appealed, after saying they could not sell the events fairly for their real value. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of the BBC.

Kicking Back Comments: There is a (business) part of me that feel for FIFA in this case. They legitimately own the rights to the World Cup and as such can reasonably exercise these rights as they see fit within legal and moral bounds.

Also, FIFA certainly has the right to make money, while I typically don't like how they use it, there is nothing to stop them from exercising this commercial right in a way they want, not just to a public broadcasting outfit. It is reasonable they could make more from a pay-per-view channel.

The argument that won the day was interesting. It was a "crown jewel" argument where the World Cup is such an event, a "crown jewel" of sport that it MUST be free for all (i.e. on a non pay channel). Similar to the Olympics or other such World Wide events (Le Tour?) it must be free for all.

It's a great argument, and one that I agree with.

It is ironic too, as FIFA has done a tremendous job marketing The Game around the world. So good in fact, they made the case against themselves here.

Blame the engineers ...

FIFA CONSIDERS SCRAPPING 3-D COVERAGE OF WORLD CUP

RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) — FIFA is considering scrapping 3-D broadcasts of the next World Cup, describing ESPN's decision to abandon the format as another setback for the technology.

The sports network said earlier this week that there weren't enough viewers in the United States to make 3-D broadcasts worth the investment, and ESPN's dedicated channel will close by the end of the year. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of the AP.

Kicking Back Comments: I am of course kidding about the title of this post, as it would seem fairly clear that if ESPN made the decision to invest in the technology knowing that only 6% of household can utilize such a stream, and only a small percentage of those would actually watch the World Cup, it is the folks in marketing who wanted to do it in the first place that would seem to have erred.

I would think the question of "does the market want it?" would be answered before "how do we build it?" in this consumer setting.

Then again that might me the engineer in me talking.