In the freestyle relay(s), the top 6 goes to the Olympics.
Yet, all the other events it is only the top 2.
That should change. Every athlete that makes the qualifying time should go to the Olympics. Look at the men's 100 back, the top 6 at the 2008 US trials swam faster than the 1992 Olympic Gold Medalist. Surely the 5th swimmer could have a better performance in the "big" pool.
Sending only 2 in each event "waters" down the potential performances at the Olympics, ultimately making the semi-finals less competitive. (other phrases could be used) The bottom line is, the top 16 at the Olympics should represent the fastest in the world.
Former Member
Here you go Stud -
Calling it "the biggest TV deal in a single country in FIFA's history," world governing body FIFA announced a $425 million deal for World Cup television rights in the United States from 2007 to 2014.
Under the agreement, the 2010 and 2014 World Cups, the 2007 and 2011 Women's World Cups, and the 2009 and 2013 Confederations Cups will be broadcast in English in the U.S. by the Walt Disney Company-owned ABC and ESPN networks, and in Spanish by Univision.
In a joint bid, ABC\ESPN paid $100 million for the rights package for the broadcast rights in English, while Univision paid $325 million for the Spanish-language rights.
So, it might not break it, but it sure as heck made it.
I'm sure they are happy with the money, but if its gone it will still be the WC, it was before and it would be again. You overestimate the importance of it to everyone else, who would watch it some how, some way without Disney's spondoolas!
Anyhow, that deal is for more than the Men's world cup...I just wish more of the $ made it's way into the hands of those that need it. Enough of the soccer talk, you'll get us into trouble.
I would like to see the limit go back to 3...
Two reasons:
1. USA does not have the world dominance it had in the 70s when the rule was applied
2. Track and field, which is similar to swimming in how it is 'run' at the Olympic venues (with prelims/finals, heats, several relatively short events, etc) is allowed 3.
I'd also add the extremely important element of the professionalization of the sport.
We've got pros that are being blocked out of the Olympics by a rule that was written in a vastly different era.
Happens all the time.
The world cup is a great example, teams from Europe and South America are eliminated at the expensive of a more diverse international tournament.
UEFA (Europe) typically has 6-8 teams that are fantastic, a couple of teams that are ok and then 1-4 DUDS!!
Poland, Serbia, Russia, Belgium are just a few of the Euro teams that have tanked at recent world cups.
Conmebol: other than Brazil and Argentina, when was the last time that one of them made the quarterfinals?
The World Cup? Are you on HGH or something? The US don't even broadcast all of their national teams games.
:lmao:
Get informed.
Anyhow, that deal is for more than the Men's world cup...I just wish more of the $ made it's way into the hands of those that need it. Enough of the soccer talk, you'll get us into trouble.
Each Women's WC is worth roughly $10 mill.
Subtract that $20 mill, what are you left with?
You were saying?
Conmebol: other than Brazil and Argentina, when was the last time that one of them made the quarterfinals?
:lmao:
Get informed.
You were saying?
...You were saying?
I think you miss the point of my saying elimnate the rest of the work from the WC. I am all for inclusion. That said some teams do get knocked out in qualifying and a few weaker geographic zones get their allotment. I'm not complaining about it. Just pointing it out, how it works the same as in 2 swimmers per olympics. You have to qualify and the slots are spread around for fairness and enjoyment of the tourney throughout the world. I like the system.
The US do not broadcast all of their national teams games. YOU get informed. I know, because I wanted to watch US vs England last month and it was not shown.
Lastly, I don't care how much $ ESPN throws at Soccer. The World Cup is not dependent upon them. Much less on the US soccer bodies that wanted quarters and bigger goals....ok yeah let's change it.
Back to you...
From the US Code, Title 36, Chapter 10:
§171. Conduct during playing
During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should render the military salute at the first note of the anthem and retain this position until the last note. When the flag is not displayed, those present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed there.
You should have studied at immigrant school instead of eating Hagis!:canada:
i'll have to dig up my immigrant school publication. Then you can take it up with them.
Anyway "up yer kilt!" :bump:
The US do not broadcast all of their national teams games. YOU get informed. I know, because I wanted to watch US vs England last month and it was not shown.
It was on Galavision.
Lastly, I don't care how much $ ESPN throws at Soccer. The World Cup is not dependent upon them.
$400+ million is a nice chunk of change for any organization.
Take away that money, and FIFA would be hurting.
Much less on the US soccer bodies that wanted quarters and bigger goals....ok yeah let's change it.
That generation of American execs was from the 80's and mid-90's and they were trying to address the attitudes seen in the Euro Cup thread in the not swimming related forum.
That's a very different generation.
NOW that for-profit soccer has made its mark in the US, ESPN, MLS and The Powers That Be recognize that there's a market here in the US for the sport.
Hell. The fact that we're arguing about this on a swimming board during the US Olympic Trials and right after the first ever broadcast of the Euro Cup in the history of US broadcast tv should give you an idea of the fact that those attitudes are a thing of the past.
You are really missing the point. Soccer is saturated in Europe, it's not getting any bigger, or only marginally so. The market is the US. Having ESPN/ABC on board is a huge benefit to the WC. The marketing potential for the US is untapped in soccer and if you don't think that is a massive cash cow you are missing, well, then you probably don't turn on your TV during football season to see the $$ out there.
I can guarantee you that when the WC people meet, or any influential soccer group for that matter, their #1 topic is engaging the US better for increased revenue.
I agree the WC is not dependent on the US but it sure is their prime target now.
Oh, and out of curiosity, check out the US investment groups buying up the Premier League teams. Still don't think US $$ is important to soccer?
No I get the point. Not saying that the money isn't an attraction for the leagues and the comps. US interests are buying up the prem teams (as are many different conglomerates) but not everyone is happy about it.
They're even trying to add 1 more game to the Prem season now and play it somewhere else in the world. Managers are not happy, fans are decidely not happy.
I forgot what your point of it was orignally but, even without the ESPN funds, the WC would still go on. My sadness is that the money is not getting to the grass roots folks in soccer to develop talent and nurture smaller clubs.
Hear, hear! Haggis is the national dish of Scotland, not England. Stud is English, he likes Yorkshire Pudding, and other stuff. I cooked Haggis once and only myself and my dog (with some prodding from me) ate the stuff. Geek cannot poke fun food wise because where our relatives come from, Haggis is pretty tame. If you are going to place athletes based on the best, not the countries' best, then let the hillbillies race the Nascar, the Brazilians can take care of the Indy (yeah, get rid of those Andrettis), give the Canadians hockey, let the east europeans run the gymnastics (well, there is that Japanese guy, but ditch him), soccer can be played by Brazil and maybe a couple of players from Argentina, none from England...
It was on Galavision.
So I should have to subscribe to yet one more cable channel to watch the national team play in an international match? You know what my piont is, is should be central. It certainly wasn't on any cable PPV or otherwise on my system, I checked through.
Admitted, you probably have to have Sky TV in England or go to the pub. But between ESPN, MSG, FSN, Soccerchannel... you think one of them could have shown it?
I didn't say FIFA wouldn't miss the cash, but they managed before. It would not be the end of the World Cup.
