After All the Hype, World Cup Set to Start

It's here, the day ESPN and all its outlets have been telling us about for months, encouraging us to care -- or at least watch.

According to all official ESPN references, including whenever it's noted in the Bottom Line (that crawl of information across the bottom of your TV set), its the 2010 FIFA World Cup (TM). Yes, ESPN has been religious, or at least required, to even use the little trademark logo in every reference to the event.

ESPN paid $100 million for U.S. rights to the tournament, less than the $325 million Univision paid for rights in Spanish-speaking countries but still a sizable investment. Along with cash, ESPN has tied the launch of ESPN 3D to the tournament, with 25 World Cup games broadcast in 3D during the next month.

Before games begin and regardless of how popular the broadcasts will be, it seems ESPN has done several things correctly. Most notably, ESPN has not tried to force U.S. broadcasters onto games. Instead, people who call the sport regularly and call it well will work the games. Soccer fans want to hear people who know what they're doing and, honestly, casual fans will turn in for the athleticism, and mostly, games featuring the United States -- and they'll only be worried about some nationalistic pride and the score in those instances.

The announcers will also work on site in South Africa, unlike some World Cup games four years ago when announcers called games from studios in the United States while the event itself took place half a world away.

When the U.S. team plays, ESPN should draw good ratings, especially for its opening game, England vs. United States at 2 p.m. Saturday. That game will air on ABC. A weekend timeslot against England should mean all kinds of casual interest.

Still, the World Cup seems a bit like college football recruiting -- at least in terms of how some network officials and soccer supporters want to position it. Many, as usual with the once-every-four-years Cup, believe it can be a "flash point" or "starting point" for some great influx of soccer interest in the United States. Or at least an interest in soccer on TV.

Even if the World Cup draws good ratings -- and it likely will because of changing demographics in the United States and, honestly, overall ratings are typically low enough that a slight increase in viewership will make any ratings boost seem huge -- the impact of the event will not be able to be measured at the end of the summer or next year.

Maybe more soccer will show up on TV at a result of the World Cup, but if the ratings do not hold for international games or the MLS (and that league has never drawn eyeballs on TV), then ESPN, no matter how much it invested in promoting and providing the World Cup this year, will back away for a few years before ramps up the hype machine in advance of the 2014 World Cup.