The World Cup doesn't start until Friday, but one thing has already been firmly established here in South Africa: the United States delegation is considerably pleased with itself.
It's not just the usual case of overconfidence. While the U.S. team has two top-tier midfielders, one of the world's top goalkeepers in Tim Howard and a relatively weak group to contend with, nobody has forgotten that this nation has only twice made it out of group play in the past 60 years. The consensus on the street is that the U.S. should prepare to be pulverized by England in Saturday's opener.
This time, those broad smiles and that swaggering bonhomie we're seeing on display here are the result of something Americans are far more used to boasting about: the dollar.
For this World Cup, soccer fans from the U.S. have bought more tickets than the fans from any other nation outside of South Africa. The U.S. has paid the highest media rights fees of any nation and has pledged to pay it players nearly $1 million apiece if they find a way to win the whole thing. Sunil Gulati, the president of the U.S. Soccer Federation, says the U.S. can play a leading role in the World Cup gaining "financial muscle" in coming years. There's a larger prize behind all this dollar flashing, too: America is a finalist to host either the 2018 or 2022 World Cup—prizes FIFA will bestow this December upon two of the bidder nations. As U.S. soccer officials don't hesitate to mention, the 1994 World Cup in the U.S. was the first to ever sell every ticket to every game.
There's just one problem: Financial muscle doesn't much impress international soccer officials, who say their bid decisions are driven more by a concern for parity than profit.
"You may be confusing the world of football with the IMF or the World Bank," says Michel Platini, a top executive of FIFA, the international governing body of international soccer.
"When it comes to decision-making in international football," he says, "the U.S., like Germany or China, has as much power as San Marino, Vanuatu or Belize." (Ouch!)
One of the misconceptions Americans tend to make about the World Cup is that its economics are similar to those that guide the Olympics. But there's a big difference: the Olympics like to take in lots of money because they use the funds to support impoverished sports like swimming, which can't support themselves. The World Cup, however, is a showcase for professional athletes who earn decent to fantastic salaries in private leagues around the world. This sport doesn't count on the tournament for its livelihood.
This year, FIFA World Cup revenue will reach $3.5 billion, up from $300 million in 1998. For the world's most popular sporting event, however, that's a relatively modest amount compared with the roughly $8 billion a year the National Football League takes in. Sports economists point out that if FIFA wanted to squeeze every last dollar out of the World Cup, it wouldn't award the event to countries as economically challenged as South Africa and Brazil, home of the 2014 games. Soccer, Mr. Platini says, is governed by a democratic principle that "aims at giving everyone the same opportunity irrespective of the size of their market or their sporting success."
As much as the U.S. soccer movement has grown, it could still use some help. While poorer countries support professional soccer leagues without difficulty, America's Major League Soccer remains largely unprofitable and—by international standards—second rate. Mr. Platini, the FIFA official, called the sport "a relatively young and weak sprout" in the U.S. when compared to established sports like American football, baseball, basketball and ice hockey.
U.S. soccer executives note that MLS franchises are selling for nearly $45 million, up from only $5 million in 1995. "The U.S. market is waking up to soccer," said MLS Commissioner Don Garber. Clark Hunt, an owner of two MLS franchises, shoots back that FIFA has been "on a slow learning curve" in understanding the sport's growth in the U.S.
No comments:
Post a Comment