Fox Soccer Channel’s Soccer Talk Live, hosted by former U.S. international Kyle Martino, is a painful, soul-crushing experience.
I wish there was something more positive to say, but at some point, the kid gloves need to come off. Fox Soccer Channel won’t critique itself, while many of those in the professional media will hardly consider challenging a peer even though feuds are great for publicity.
It’s probably not much of a stretch to say that the U.S. soccer machine is an incestuous mess of symbiotic parties hardly capable of discussing hard truths about itself, probably out of fear of biting the already impoverished hands that barely feed them. While this fear is understandable, it is no way for the game to grow, that is, if you feel the media has a role in soccer’s growth by challenging the status quo when the status quo needs challenging.
When you think of all that a soccer talk show could be in the United States, it is hard not to be aggravated by segments largely dedicated to empty conversations with questionable “celebrities,” a term I use loosely. It’s almost as if the predetermined target audience is “people who don’t care about soccer” to the exclusion of the existing soccer audience already primed to engage in thoughtful, well-reasoned debate. As it stands, I already miss Eric Wynalda and Nick Webster, which says a lot.
If Fox Soccer Channel happened to be interested in examining models for successful television, they shouldn’t have to look any further than Jon Stewart, sadly one of the few people on television willing to ask straight-forward questions and critically explore elephants in rooms. Unsurprisingly, the ratings have followed Stewart as he comically explores obvious gaping hole after obvious gaping hole. Fox Soccer Channel could learn a thing or eight from this guy if improvement is on the list of goals.
You may recall the old, yet still spectacular clip of Stewart on Crossfire where he evicerates Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala for being disingenous, uncritical, and fundamentally symbolic of our inability to engage in productive discourse. The clip is below. But this time as you watch, assume that Stewart is talking about soccer coverage in the United States (by professionals) and then we’ll continue from there …
It’s not a perfect parallel, but if Stewart was talking soccer, he would have hit the nail on the head. Where is the substance in our conversations? Is anyone interested in responsible, honest conversation, or are we only interested in substance-free theater? I think we know Fox Soccer Channel’s stance.
Watching Temryss Lane interview beauty pageant contestants and Martino commiserating with Susan Sarandon on Soccer Talk Live is difficult to stomach when there are fascinating soccer stories and debates all over this country that are routinely ignored in favor of nonsensical programming that makes my inner soccer fan cringe. If Fox Soccer executives think that there is nothing of value to discuss between game highlights and vacuous celebrity cameos, we’ve got a significant problem on our hands and an obstacle to growth of the sport in this country.
Tracking down people capable of discussing immigration’s impact on U.S. soccer, gender equity, urban-suburban issues, technical challenges, various youth development models or issues with the MLS model is not difficult. If executives truly believe that a show like Soccer Talk Live in its current state is more viable than a show that delves into some of the aforementioned issues, then we no longer have to wonder why soccer in this country sometimes struggles to find an audience among people who already love soccer. Too often they talk to us as if we’re in middle school when we have masters degrees.
Maybe this is the result of a completely disconnected suburbia controlling our soccer coverage. How else would you characterize a group of perpetually risk averse people either unable to see or unwilling to consider the real issues facing soccer in the 21st century? How else can you describe a group capable of repeatedly creating programming that is completely unrelatable to someone who has been soccer obsessed for decades? Which brings me back to Jon Stewart and Crossfire. Stewart’s main point is that he’s incapable of forgiving processed, unenlightened political conversation from seemingly intelligent people. When it comes to soccer, what aren’t we willing to forgive from our coverage? Horrible plywood set aside, when do we recognize that good content is a vision issue and not necessarily a money issue? If you think that time and money will solve the vision problem, stay tuned for disappointment. I am willing to accept the automatic “we’re a young sport/network/landscape” excuse for some things, but not all things, and certainly not for an inability to have vision.
Ultimately, I don’t blame Kyle Martino for this televised tragedy. I blame those way above his pay grade who are responsible for programing direction and concepts. Only a leadership completely disconnected from soccer reality can produce something like Soccer Talk Live without recognizing the oncoming train. People are already rightfully concerned. While missteps are understandable, hopefully lessons can be learned this time so that next time there’s less of a train wreck and more of a bicycle accident.
Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!
Coverage in ALL sports is aimed at the weak-minded amongst us. MLB games are analyzed (at least on TV) by guys that yell random shit as highlight home runs fly over the fence – nit by Bill James. I can’t imagine that people who really care about the NFL get their info and opinion for the Fox pre-game show. Soccer seems to be falling right in line. I’m not saying this is a good thing, just that it isn’t shocking and this Kindergarten version of an opinion show is NOT holding US soccer back in the least. It seems that your argument is that the common-denominator shows shouldn’t exist – but that is what all televised punditry is – sports and (as your Stewart example shows) politics as well.
Soccer Talk Live wants to play nice with guests and get celebrities to come on – so they literally CANNOT ask biting questions or the publicists will stop returning their calls. It is a waste of air. Oh well.
High quality info/insight is usually gathered not from TV, but by reading, whether soccer from fine sites like NutmegRadio or politics at 538.com.
I’ve only seen one show and I thought it was fine fir what it is. For the life of me I can’t understand why folks are upset about someone having a light show about soccer. I find it refreshing, a nice change from all the analysis and debate (read: arguing) in the blogosphere; afterall sport is entertainment just like music and film, it should be fun (to me at least).
30f — I agree that coverage in ALL sports is presented for the weak-minded amongst us. But it shouldn’t be. Comparing soccer to other mainstream sports is disingenuous. Other sports, for instance, already have an established audience and a pool of players eager to participate at all levels. Soccer, not so much. Considering we have only one major channel (two if you count GOL TV), my point is more that FSC should be more to its audience than what it is. There’s nothing wrong with having a playful talk show. But there has to be something in between highlights and a bootleg Tonight Show.
What I mean by holding us back: Fox Soccer has the ability to push stories about real issues in US soccer. They can start conversations and educate people interested in the game about the deeper issues plaguing development (for example). They have a platform to be interesting rather than just entertaining. If we accept that the soccer’s loudest voice on TV has no responsibility, it will be harder to get the soccer public to take many of soccer’s problems seriously. They can legitimize issues that are already on some people’s radars, but should be on more.
I don’t want to see an entire day of serious programming on a soccer channel, but I also don’t think that the goal should be to relegate thinking to the internet or books. For some reason, we’ve come to a place where we accept that sport and thinking on TV are mutually exclusive. In my opinion, that shouldn’t be the case.
SF — I’m not as upset about a light show on soccer as I am about the apparent desire of soccer television to be devoid of argument and debate. I would just love to see a diversity of programming or perspective that reflects the diversity of the game. At some level, IMO, of course, the disconnect between the blogosphere and television is a concern. We obviously see issues that the major voices have little to no interest in discussing. My hope is that soccer on TV can be both fun and serious, with room for light, playful shows, and moments for serious commentary.
Mirti – I feel like a crumudgeonly old bastard here, but …
I bet FSC thinks they can improve their ratings by having this kind of light, not so insightful show that reaches outside the soccer nerd demographic. I doubt that strategy and think they’d do better (at least with me and my friends) with a hardcore dork-fest about transfers and formations and confederation coefficients – but I don’t work at Fox Soccer.
No television network wants to coast along in their lane and wait for the rising tide of growing interest in their subject mater to improve their bottom line. No network executive wants to be seen as the person who isn’t trying to ‘grow the brand’. Fuel has music shows to expand their appeal to girls and others not interested in wake-boarding and BMX. I bet FSC types see this wacky and not very soccer-ish show as expanding their potential viewer base. Look, they had an Oscar winning actress on the show!!!!
I bet the production budgets are far smaller than you think at FSC. Thus they run (and re-run) Sky programming and old matches over a hypothetical original show where dorks argue the benefits of a 4-3-2-1 over a 4-4-2 – since those existing shows are free to air, but a new show costs $X to produce and it would have to generate a rating Y% higher than their re-hashed fare to make it worth while. My guess is, they have decided that no soccer-only show, even a cheap one, would meet that Y% target. Thus we get this entertain-y thing that soccer dorks like us don’t like – and probably still won’t earn them enough extra eyeballs to get renewed.
ESPN rarely pushes the discussion about sports in the US. They usually get it from blogs or the locals and then take it nationwide. TV news producers just read WaPo and NYT (plus drudge and HuffPo these days) to determine the conversation. I think this show is boring, but I don’t see it as big a over-all negative as you do.
The story is sadly right on target. Call me naive, BUT… I think the many real soccer fans would appreciate / support a show much like the old “Nick and Eric” show sans the painful “audience surveys”.
Would be great if they took real questions from real people during the week, researched the answers, and delivered real answers during the show. For example, Joe Blow might ask why Bob Bradley is so insistent on playing Josy Altidore when he seldom scores and frankly plays little even on his own club team. Fox Soccer poses the question to Bob Bradley and presents both the question and answer on the live show. Is that so hard to imagine?