Fox Soccer Channel Scores Record Ratings With Man United vs Man City

Fox Soccer Channel’s broadcast of the English Premier League game between Manchester United and Manchester City on Saturday, February 12th garnered the highest household average coverage area rating for a 7:45am ET EPL game in the history of the league being shown on U.S. television in that timeslot.

The broadcast, which began at 4am PT with pre-match analysis featuring Fox Soccer Channel’s Christian Miles, Warren Barton and Jamie Trecker, exceeeded ESPN2’s average coverage area rating (CAR) for the Saturday morning time window by 109% in households CAR (0.46 vs. 0.22), +82% in males 18-34 CAR (0.40 vs. 0.22), +82% in males 18-49 CAR (0.40 vs. 0.22), and up 46% in males 35-54 CAR (0.35 vs. 0.24).

Fox Soccer Channel’s 0.46 household CAR is the highest for a Premier League game on either Fox Soccer Channel or ESPN2 in this window since Fox Soccer Channel began being Nielsen rated in October, 2008. Average viewing audience numbers for the Manchester derby were unavailable at press time.

Fox Soccer Channel typically doesn’t show Premier League matches in the early Saturday timeslot (7:30am to 10am ET). Those games are generally shown on ESPN2 instead. However, Fox recently broke another record for their February 5 broadcast of Chelsea against Liverpool on Super Bowl Sunday where Fox Soccer Channel garnered their most-watched broadcast in the history of the TV network.

What are your thoughts about the ratings that Fox Soccer Channel achieved for its early Saturday broadcast? And do you think the game would have broken the record for the most-watched game on the network if it had been played live on a Sunday at 11am instead? Share your opinions in the comments section below.

33 thoughts on “Fox Soccer Channel Scores Record Ratings With Man United vs Man City”

  1. Still didn’t beat that MLS Cup Final that got 748,000 viewers that you always mention.

    If the biggest matchup in the league can’t even get 500,000 then that surely is a bad sign. Time to switch EPL coverage to La Liga coverage I think. Or more MLS matches.

    1. There’s a massive difference between a game that’s shown on Sunday night on ESPN in prime time versus a game that’s shown at 4am PT on a Saturday morning. I’d be interested to see what TV ratings a MLS Cup Final would get if it was televised live at 4:45am PT/7:45am ET on a Saturday.

      La Liga TV ratings are miniscule in comparison, other than the home and away legs of El Classico.

      The Gaffer

      1. I live in the pacific time zone. I DVR’d it and watched it when first thing in the morning. I know they keep track of how many people recorded it, how many watched it that day, or within 3 & 7 days.

        Taking those numbers into account, I wonder how many people watched it….

      2. I don’t know if you have access to the Share number for the different matches, but you can use that to control for the difference in HUT levels (Houses using television) between the time periods.

    2. MLS Cup Final was pure garbage of a match, zero quality. Casey as MVP says it all. You can’t compare ESPN to FSC audiences when it’s a premium channel dedicated to football – of course it’s going to be less you nit-wit. Shut up and go learn something about the game.

      1. On the abuse scale, nit-wit is pretty much at the bottom. I usually start with twit or hoser and escalate to eunuch and retard (not very PC, as is moron). At the upper levels there is douchebag, asshat, plus a whole host of british-isms americans have been shamed to use (tw*t, c*nt). Shut up is so pedestrian–let’s elevate the conversation people! Shut your pie hole, Shut your gob—-you can do better!

  2. I may be wrong but isn’t this the first season that FSC has attracted audiences large enough to be measured by the traditional ratings system? If I am remembering correctly, breaking their ratings record multiple times during the season as we have big matches toward the end of a closely contested title race shouldn’t be too much of a shock. Is there any evidence that FSC is doing anything to actively improve their ratings or are they just riding on the coattails of a particularly interesting season combined with a lack of historical data to judge current performance on?

  3. I was awake for the game, as I am for all City games..its great to see that real football is making its way into the US and people can see real skill and not MLS rubbish..and yes, if they game was later the ratings would have been much better. CMON CITY!

    1. Why is it necessary to say that the MLS is rubbish, we all know that the EPL is better but stop complaint about the MLS, it is an awesome league in North America, I bet you wouldn’t be able to make a MLS squad, idiot!

  4. The fact I see monthly or weekly news reports on record ratings for FSC is great. More viewers means more money, which means more production values and better programming, which means more viewers.

    This is great.

  5. As a fsc. Subscriber. I’m not impressed with the numbers I think to compare the numbers to espn2 knowing the games they get at that time is misleading. In saying that fsc. Doesn’t do enough promotion or marketing in my opinion they just know they hold all the cards. if there was more competition for soccer in English in this country I would choose another broadcaster.

    1. you can’t compare fsc to espn period. Espn gets forcibly included in most base packages at your expense. On average 5 -8 dollars of your cable bill is for the inclusion of espn. FSC is a dedicated football channel. Lest we forget, we are living in a country that has been opposed to football for the last how many years? You will never see FSC on regular cable. The fact that it is paid and still gets high ratings. that is impressive. That means the number of fans dedicated to football in this country is fairly high, not just casual all-rounder sports fans (the typical american male).

      1. Don’t forget to include the boatloads of people watching telemundo/telefutura matches for free. it’s Mexican soccer, but still of decent quality if you don’t mind the occasionally over-dramatic players.

        1. I’m on that boat! Cancelled Comcast after one year of watching grainy FSC that is not much better than online offerings… and got ESPN3 access via ATT DSL.

          ESPN3 > FSC non-HD

    2. Here in NYC FSC is part of the standard package of Time Warner Cable. And I thank them for that. It’s probably due to the large and diverse population in this area. I agree–Billy Bob from Podunkville will probably take a gun to the local cable office if he realizes he’s paying $0.50/month for that no-good furrin sport channel. (j/k)

  6. Imagine if FSC could get the HD version available on more carriers. I would have woken up early for this one if I could have gotten it in HD. C’mon Fox get with it!!

    1. I hate to say it, but only spoilt american brats don’t watch a game because it’s not in HD. In africa and asia we have whole villages crowded around an old 10 inch cathode-ray tube … And you won’t watch it because it’s not in HD. I say go watch repeats of the Supper Bowel..

      1. Well you can only watch so many games…so I prioritize the ones I can watch in HD. But you are right..I do have issues!! HAHA!!

        Still though, FSC is trying to attract casual fans and HD would really help.

        1. Personally I prioritize games based on the likeliness of it being an interesting match (i.e. the teams involved), or personal emotional investment in the game (i.e. if it’s my team playing), not the resolution of the image, but I’m funny like that.

          Seriously though, I can’t believe HD is still so much of a drawing factor for anyone. I mean after the first couple of times you see it and say “OMG I CAN SEE EVERY BLADE OF GRASS!!!”, the novelty kind of wears off when you realize that seeing every blade of grass isn’t a necessary part of the viewing experience.

  7. The mere fact that a post can be made on FSC ratings is always a good sign. This of course means that the Premier League will make sure to charge Fox Sports more money when the current rights deal is up.

      1. I get FS+ in HD, which is great, but not FSC HD,which is not. It’s all down to my local TWC provider…..and who the hell can figure out what they are thinking? Not me.

  8. Love the fact that FSC (and the EPL in particular) is catching on in the states. I remember when you could only get FSC if you had DirecTV and I duly cancelled my cable subscription. I’ve been a loyal DirecTV & FSC subscriber ever since.

  9. Probably World Cup fever lingering about… however, it is good to see improved 8 AM viewing (EST). Do these numbers include viewers … oh wait! does not show televised events — duh!

    1. It’s over six months since the World Cup Final. No “fever” lingers that long.

      Unless you count “Bieber Fever.” Which I don’t

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *