|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Multimedia Central Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities Work in Sports
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE |  |
Let's start with football
Posted: Friday March 10, 2000 03:35 PM
Phil Jones is co-host of "World Sport," the international sports show that airs live on CNN/Sports Illustrated and CNN International. He will answer you questions every Thursday. We will never all agree on which is the best football league in the world, but thanks for all your opinions on that subject. Can we agree just to disagree? Clearly every league has something to offer each and every one of us -- surely on that much we can agree. As for specifics, Gonzalo from New York talked of merging the Spanish and Portuguese top flights. That would be interesting. An Iberian Super League would certainly enhance coverage of Portuguese teams, who seem to get lost in the mix when it comes to covering global league action. I don't think either country would welcome it, however. I see a British Super League happening more readily, with the likes of Celtic and Rangers joining England's elite. And even that is far fetched now in this world of European Super League conjecture. As for the rest of the mailbag, we touch on many subjects this week (again with apologies to those of you whose questions I couldn't get round to, but are nonetheless most welcome). Here goes: At what number is a tennis player considered non-seeded? Sixteen players are usually seeded in any one tournament. Seedings are determined by rankings. When all the world's best players are involved, the top 16 players in the rankings will normally be seeded. But if only a handful of star players are competing, people ranked lower in the world can rise a few notches and be seeded. It's a very flexible thing.
Why are big network honchos chauvinistic? Despite more booming results from the WTA, television continues to downplay women's tennis (especially in this side of the world). Tier 3's and doubles matches are non-existent down here. The more women's tennis continues to offer up varied stars and intriguing rivalries, the more it will get coverage. These things take time. We never downplay women's tennis on World Sport and fully appreciate its value. If there are other companies or shows that don't, it is up to the WTA to attempt to change that. I'm not sure it has anything to do with sexism or chauvinism. If the product is good it will sell -- it's as simple as that. The more the women's game rises in public popularity, the more of it we'll see I suspect. Superstars like Vialli, Gullit and Klinsmann spent their prime in Serie A and then came to England. Please ... even when Maradonas, Platinis and Van Bastens were gracing the Italian turf, the English kept ranting about the greatness of their own Football League. Denis Bergkamp, Marc Overmars, Jaap Stam, Roy Keane, Ryan Giggs, Alan Shearer, Eric Cantona et al have or are playing their prime years in England. When Maradona and Platini played, English clubs dominated European football. How many European Cups did Maradona win? Was it one for Platini? Terry McDermott won more than that with Liverpool !!! Van Basten and the Dutch contingent helped change things for AC Milan ... but English clubs had been booted out by Europe and it took some time catching up. With Man. U, Chelsea and Leeds United progressing well in Europe this season, you can see it gets better year-by-year for English teams. Don't underestimate how much that enforced absence hurt English teams. Hi Phil, my question is quite short. Juventus reached three straight European cup finals in 96, 97 and 98. But, why does everyone forget or rather fail to mention the fact that Milan reached three straight finals too (95, 94 and 93), where they won one and lost one and I'm not sure if they were awarded the 1993 cup (because Olympic Marseille got banned). They also won in 89 and 90, so they reached the final five times in seven years and won three outright and a fourth could be claimed by them. Also they hammered Barca 4-0 in 94, which is surely the best performance ever by a team in the final against such quality opposition. Being a diehard Milan fan myself, I find it tough to understand why there is such a Juventus mania just because Milan had a lean mid spell in the mid '90s? I just mentioned AC Milan in the previous answer, Arjun, and am only too happy to point out how wonderful a team they had when they ruled Europe for those years. There is a certain fixation with Juventus, like Man U in England I suppose. I always viewed Juve as "Italy's team." You know the kind, the one people from across the country support just because they're successful and not because of any connection to Turin. But I'd wager there are many such AC Milan fans across Italy and, indeed, the world after their successes in the 90's. Van Basten, Gullit, Rijkaard, Maldini, Baresi -- just a wonderful mix of sublime footballers. One of the people at your site asked what were the 10 most watched sports viewership events? Soccer was No. 1 and then you listed Formula 1 as No 2. I think you may be mistaken. Last year's Cricket World Cup was watched by 2.3 billion people, only surpassed by the 1998 Soccer World Cup, with 3.4 billion. When will people give cricket its due and realize that like soccer, its no longer an English game but a world game? What would it take to take this game's undeniably growing popularity to the next level? Cricket remains popular in very few countries. The interest on the sub-continent will always boost viewing figures, but it isn't representative of the globe. Because there are a billion people in China, more people on this planet talk Mandarin Chinese than English [or so I was told]. Basically, I'm using that to illustrate a point. English is a more universal language. Formula One is a more universal sport than cricket. It's just a fact. Thus in terms of WORLDWIDE viewing figures on a season-by-season basis, F1 is right up there. Cricket alas isn't. I have to agree with you on how ridiculous it is to set out limits in how one should celebrate after one scores a brilliant goal. I was shocked to hear that there are rules like that that even exist. I have never seen such an "offense" being booked however, have you? -- Karim Kamel, London I can't say I have, now you mention it. But now that the edict has been handed down, I fear it could be more commonplace when it's really so petty and needless in the first place. English football, for me is still getting into the swing of being great on the European stage. After all English teams were suspended from European competition for five years because of the Liverpool fans. I am a loyal Manchester United fan and am 14 years old, by the time that I'm 18, English football is going to be the world's best for years to come. And after seeing the England under-21 team four or five times, I think that the English league and national team are going to surge, so watch out! Also there is more money coming into our game than ever before, from people like Sky Sports, providing excellent interactive coverage. So for me the Premiership is best, because it's the fastest, most organized, most televised, most exciting league in the World! What do you think?
And this from a young man in Wales. I'm impressed. I touched on this earlier, Alex, and the ban was harmful to English teams and the development of players. No question. As for the views on the new kids coming through and the Premiership, I'll applaud your enthusiasm and refer you to the top of this mailbag. I have been a long suffering
Liverpool fan. Do you think that they have turned around the team and are able to compete with United -- this weekend? I received this after the weekend game, such is the nature of how and when these questions are delivered to me. But the 1-1 score against United will show Liverpool is indeed on the way back. Wins over Arsenal and Leeds will further confirm it. I don't see a title success this year, though. But get Michael Owen back and fully fit, add a more creative midfield player and perhaps Emile Heskey from Leicester and Markus Babel from Bayern and it could be good for next season. A Champions League berth for this season would be a fine achievement for starters and they are certainly capable of that. 1. Do you agree when I say that even though Serie A is the toughest league in the world, English Premier League is still the most entertaining. Besides that, EPL is the most watched soccer league in the world.
2. What do you think will happen to Man United's performance should Rivaldo or Ronaldo decide to join the club?
I'll leave the first one alone after my introduction to this week's mailbag. As for the second question, Rivaldo [even Ronaldo] would add an exciting dimension to an already free-flowing United attack. Now they are worth more than a billion pounds (US$1.6 billion dollars)-- United can certainly afford the best. Will they destroy their pay structure to do so? We'll see. But did you hear Gabriel Batistuta is learning to speak English? My question is how far do you think Liverpool will go this year? Do they have the depth to win the league?
As I mentioned earlier Alpesh, I don't think it will be this year. But with shrewd additions in the close-season, Liverpool could be Manchester United's strongest challenger next season. I think Serie A is still virtually the best, but only because many of us don't watch to compare with say the Spanish Liga or the Premiership. In fact, CNN too doesn't show highlights from the Serie A on world sport. Is it that it is very expensive for television stations to purchase rights? I thought by getting as many viewers as possible, it would make the league richer even richer.
It is a rights' issue as far as we are concerned -- and cost does come into it to some degree. That's why we have no Serie A action on our show. But we added the Premier League to our Spanish and French highlights, so who knows for the future. I would like to say, no matter what many people say (and many, many people say), Manchester United is still very overhyped. I certainly hope Bayern can win the title this year and maybe whack Man U on the way. All I want to know, for now at least, is who is the highest paid footballer in the world. Is it Ronaldo or is it Del Piero. And why do you say that the Spanish league is overrated?
Actually, I didn't say the Spanish League was overrated. Someone else did and I defended the league. Ronaldo is reported to be the highest paid player in the world. Two questions here. First, I was wondering if there's gonna be other sport shows other than World Sport on CNNI, sport shows that are hosted by WS presenters such as yourself. Second question, can I send comments to other WS presenters via their email too? Thanks, Appreciate quick reply.
Hope this is quick enough for you, although there are a couple of days in between you sending me a message, writing this and getting it posted on the web. We have four World Sport shows on each day. We would dearly love to add more sports programming, but have to be aware we are a NEWS network. Somewhere down the line, we'd like to see a soccer show, maybe even a tennis show. But much depends on sponsorship. Alas, you can only directly e-mail those of us who have columns on the web with that special red box at the side of it. Sorry. But I'll pass on your regards to the others! There have been recent demands by some lobbyists who want less foreigners in the English Premier League. Under EU laws, this would not effect the players from EU countries but could reduce the number of players from non-EU countries. Many clubs however do not agree with them as this would weaken their squads. Do you think such regulations should be made? Can the English League still be popular if such an action does take place? Do you really think the English national team shall benefit from this at all? Should clubs be forced to field more English players in the Premier League? Would English teams be able to compete well in Europe if they have quotas on the number of foreign players? --Ahmad Nasir, Magnolia, Arkansas This is difficult to answer in a short space, but I'll try to give you my general thoughts. I do think there's a danger, not just in England, of the market becoming saturated by foreign players. Having star names in any country is a boost to the game there and can encourage youngsters from each nation to take an active interest in the game. But having too many mediocre foreignners in the game, just because they are cheaper than home-based players or are more readily available to plug a gap in the team, is dangerous. The fewer opportunities for home-grown players, the more the national team will suffer. If quotas are introduced just in England and nowhere else, yes it could affect their chances in European competition to some degree. If it happened across the board in Europe, the playing field should be more level. It wouldn't hurt the English Premier League unduly, though. After all, such stars as Beckham, Bergkamp, Desailly, Giggs, Keane, Petit, Henry, Overmars, Shearer, Ginola etc. would still be on show -- either because they're English or protected under the EU law. I just can't see it happening unilaterally. It has to be something which all governments and governing bodies decide on together ... not to mention the international courts. Even then there's another Bosman case just sure to be hovering around the corner to change things back and make it a kind of free for all. In the name of elevating the level of competition in North America, do you see any possibility of having a soccer league with American, Mexican and Canadian teams? --J.C. Reveles, Naperville, Ill. I don't see this happening any time soon, but think it is a great idea. The MLS will try to stand alone and grow over the next few years. I truly believe it can survive here -- but thrive? I'm not so sure. Adding that international flavor would be a future step, perhaps. But would the Mexican League be interested? They do very well on their own. If the financial and television package was right, though, then maybe it isn't beyond the realms of possibility. I'd love to see a CONCACAF League. Hey Phil, two questions: 1) When is Pete expected back on tour from his hip injury? 2) Even though I am not a big Agassi fan I have to appreciate what he has done in the last year. Even though he has had a great run, do you think he can beat Pete at Wimbeldon and the US open? I think Sampras finishes as the No. 1 seed in the end of this year ... your thoughts??
By now, you'll have seen Sampras is back in action this week at the Franklin Templeton Classic in Arizona. He opened up with a win over Greg Rusedski. I think Agassi can beat Sampras at the U.S. Open and, of course, always has a chance at Wimbledon if he's on form. But if Sampras is fit and gunning on grass, he's unbeatable. That's where I expect him to break Roy Emerson's all-time Grand Slam record this year. I just hope both of them stay fit and get to slug it out at both the Slams you mentioned. As for No.1, the new race makes it hard to predict. But Pete says he's concentrating on the Slams and Davis Cup, so I'd give Andre the distinct edge. The way I see it, women tennis is becoming more and more interesting and competitive (even without Graf around). But I have a difficulty in accepting Hingis as the No.1 because Davenport had shown us in the Australian Open how good she is. I guess Hingis is overrated and Davenport, on the other hand, has never been given the credits she deserved. What do you think?
This is just a slight quirk of the ranking system. Davenport is destined for the top before long. Yes, she's been greatly underrated. But winning Wimbledon, then the Australian Open in dazzling fashion, has elevated her to a new level. She's a bona fide star now, whose career can only soar higher. Tennis was always considered as an elite sport. Here in Brazil, mainly due to Guga's success, longtime tennis fans like me had the chance to watch tennis in the news, filling up a space as the least the third sport in the country. What do you think will take tennis to get a prime time in tv?Or do you believe the secretly the beauty of tennis lives in this "protection" of the media centre around the world?
It's hard for me to talk about your country's coverage. All I can say is that I believe tennis, as one of the few truly global sports, gets a fair amount of coverage around the world -- but appreciate it could be better in some regions. You're probably right that it takes a star player to ignite the media attention and then TV coverage duly follows. I'm not sure Germany was a massive tennis-watching nation before Becker, Graf and Stich. Sweden wasn't what you'd call a typical tennis nation before Borg. Then look what happened. A Swedish conveyor belt of talent went into operation. Much greater coverage followed. I hope Guga stays up there so you can get your tennis fix. Equal pay: No way -- I think after seeing seles winning after a four-month layoff just proves the women's game is not where the men are. In the men's game, you can have someone ranked No. 100 beat the No. 1 player, it's impossible in the women's game. What do you think?
Tony, are you trying to get me in trouble? I take your point about Seles. I also have to generally fall on the side of the fence which says women shouldn't get equal pay unless they play equal sets. But when Hingis, Davenport, the Williams sisters and Seles are around to keep intriguing rivalries going and maintain a high interest level in the sport, I believe the women are deservedly closing in on the men. My main argument in favor of unequal pay continuing would be this: in early rounds of tournaments, the top women tend to breeze through because there's less strength in depth [though that's slightly improved in recent times] and the higher-ranked men tend to get involved in much tougher and more entertaining battles, often losing to non-seeds. A bit of a generalization I know, but you get my point. So Tony, as much as I love the women's game right now, I have to say I AGREE. What a way to end. Thanks for all your interest and kind comments about the show. Until next time ...
| |||||||||||||||||||||
