How Loyal Are You to Your Favorite Soccer TV and Internet Provider?

espn fox soccer logos1 How Loyal Are You to Your Favorite Soccer TV and Internet Provider?

You watch hours of top quality Premier League soccer each week on television, the Internet and sometimes mobile devices, but do you have an allegiance to any or all of the TV networks that provide the coverage to you?

If so, depending on the part of the world you live in, are you loyal to FOX Soccer, ESPN, Sky Sports, BBC, ITV, ESPN Star Sports or any other network that shows you your favorite English football club each week?

For example, if you live in the United States, and the majority of Premier League matches switched overnight from FOX Soccer and ESPN to NBC Sports, would you feel any remorse? Would you continue subscribing to FOX Soccer and ESPN even though they didn’t carry the games you watch each week?

Of course, this is all hypothetical, but the question I’m trying to get to answer is how loyal you are to your favorite soccer channel? Are you married to them? Or, if they no longer showed your Premier League matches, would you care and would you miss anything? Or would you simply go wherever the coverage was?

Share your opinions below.

About Christopher Harris

Founder and publisher of World Soccer Talk, Christopher Harris is the managing editor of the site. He has been interviewed by The New York Times, The Guardian and several other publications. Plus he has made appearances on NPR, BBC World, CBC, BBC Five Live, talkSPORT and beIN SPORT. Harris, who has lived in Florida since 1984, has supported Swansea City since 1979. He's also an expert on soccer in South Florida, and got engaged during half-time of a MLS game. Harris launched EPL Talk in 2005, which was rebranded as World Soccer Talk in 2013. View all posts by Christopher Harris →
This entry was posted in ESPN, FOX Soccer, Leagues: EPL. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to How Loyal Are You to Your Favorite Soccer TV and Internet Provider?

  1. Amanda C says:

    None of the US providers give the same experience as watching it when you’re in the UK – so I don’t care where a match is on as long as I can see it. Fox Soccer actually comes with my cable package so I don’t have to pat extra for it anyway. Although – I would prefer that no channel have Piers Morgan speak in the studio or ever have Alexi Lalas talk period – but we can’t all get what we want.

  2. Luke says:

    I don’t care what channel the games are on, i’ll watch them.

    Prefer ESPN’s coverage to FSC without questionbut yea if it’s football, i’m gonna watch it. If the commentary is a problem, i’ll press mute and if the pre/post game stuff is not worth watching i’ll switch off til the game kick’s off.

  3. EvertonfanKY says:

    I prefer ESPNs coverage or the coverage on FSC+ rather then FSC. But I watch who ever shows Everton.

  4. Mark says:

    I’ve seen a lot of complaints on this website about various service providers to areas in the US. It’s too bad that you don’t have Sportsnet World (formerly known as Setanta) like we have in Canada. Not trying to brag but the quality is always good and they show every match throughout the day. They always use the official barclays feed which is also nice (depending on which broadcaster you get for that match). Seems like whenever I come onto this site (everyday) there is always an article about which provider is better or what is wrong with FOX soccer. Sounds like providers in the US need to step their game up!

  5. gary says:

    I’m as loyal to them as they are to me – ZERO!

    Since I have to pay extra for Fox Soccer, I’d drop them in a heartbeat.

    • Nonsense says:

      Completely agree with you. I pay extra for non-HD FSC without any hope of HD in sight. If there was one channel that I prefer it would be ESPN2 – HD, good commentators, and production.

  6. eplnfl says:

    Fans want the best coverage pure and simple. FSC provided a service for years that we all knew could be better. ESPN has come onto the scene with it’s it production qualities which American’s wanted. In the long run who ever provides the superior coverage has the fans hearts. In the future NBC Sports channel may well get into the business since they have committed to MLS. The nature of the coverage is what counts. The American audience wants a high quality technical presentation with a on the scene component and broadcast. We grew up on it with the NFL and expect it across the broad in sports television.

  7. Mahlon Christensen says:

    I’m married to the EPL, not any specific channel, so yes I’d drop FSC if they stopped carrying it.

    –Mahlon–

  8. Jason says:

    Not loyal to either Fox or ESPN because both networks have their problems in showing EPL soccer matches. So if the games were shown by another network I’d watch it there and drop Fox Soccer. ESPN2 comes free with the basic package.

  9. Omar says:

    Personally, I’m not loyal. Too many issues with the Fox apps to be loyal. Having said that, I would prefer NBC and NBC Sports Network to ESPN as not enough matches would be shown on ESPN and WatchESPN app isn’t as good a quality imo.

  10. NotTheNoob says:

    ESPN loses points for constantly spoiling other Premier League fixtures (spoken by Ian Darke and/or on the ticker) during their broadcasts.

    • Nonsense says:

      Didn’t Ian start to give a warning when he would announce goals because everyone was giving him crap on his twitter. I try to tell myself not to look at the ticker but it still gets me every once and again.

  11. JerZGooner says:

    I agree with the majority. I will watch whichever channel is showing my club. The more channels dedicated to showing the EPL the better. This is similar to the NFL with CBS, FOX, ESPN and NFL Network. The sport is loved to a point where they will watch ALL of it regardless of location. Once soccer gets to that point here we’ll be in good shape…

  12. ruffneckc says:

    I go where the games are. As of now, that means FS/+ and ESPN2. The minute I can get ESPN3 and FoxSoccer2go available on a streaming box, such as Roku, I will ‘cut the cord” for good.

    I must add though, that ESPN’s football presentation is top notch and I would miss it. Likewise, I miss not having GolTV because of the color commentator in the excellent Ray Hudson, even though I can watch the matches elsewhere.

  13. patrick starr says:

    Still waiting for cox to carry FSC + …

  14. Justin says:

    Also would like my cable provider to show it in HD. Comcast sucks. So nice and refreshing to watch a game on ESPN in HD. Sound quality is better as well. Prefer ESPN to FOX soccer channel. Why does Warren always has to look at the camera when he speaks. What is that all about.
    Apart from that… fantastic news that there is a lot more coverage and getting more popular.

  15. Aaron says:

    I’m loyal to EPL, MLS, FA, and USMNT coverage. I’ll go to or watch whatever brings me those things.

  16. Sam says:

    I’m loyal to Liverpool….not the network that shows them!

      • Tagomi says:

        I’m not sure how that comment is lame. I’m also loyal to my club and not the network. Being a Newcastle supporter who lives in the United States, there’s no telling which provider is going to pick up the game. FSC, FSC+ (which should have an HD option), or Espn3. My preferred option is the FSC, because I have that on the TV in HD.

  17. tarkovsky says:

    I have DirecTv and pay for all the extras (Sports Pack and FSC+) just so I can get all of the EPL games. I would dump both, and the extra $28, if the games moved to ESPN or other channels already included in my subscription. If it went to ESPN on a subscription basis I would pay for that.

    I personally love ESPN’s presentation and picture the best but would definitely love Ian Darke to stop reading scores from other matches.

    • MG says:

      FSC+ is useless for $15.. What an absurd price for ONE channel, that also mainly presents rugby as well. You’re getting ripped off. I had it included with 5 other channels on TWC for only $5. I switched to DirecTV and realized I didn’t need it as FSC carried most of the important matches, and/or ESPN2 is showing the other.

      GolTV, ESPN Deportes, Fox Deportes, FSC and ESPN2 (and occasionally Galavision-Univision) are what I depend on, and I love ‘em all.

  18. Mark says:

    I don’t pay for any FOOTBALL matches. Whatever is shown on ESPN on Xbox Live is what I watch. If I want to watch a match and it’s not there, I just go online. If you have an internet connection, it’s dumb to pay hundreds of dollars a month just to watch football.

  19. Brian says:

    I am loyal to ESPN. Only because I think Fox Soccer Channel is awful and I mean AWFUL. They do not use True HD technology, the pre and post games are terrible (I mean has Eric Wynalda ever said anything interesting…ever?) the MLS production was incredibly bad and now they are goiing to replace the foreign feed from Italian games so they can have Christiona Miles call the matches from some studio in LA…I may just drop it and watch ESPN soccer matches only.

  20. StellaWasAlwaysDown says:

    I like FSC better than ESPN, but Comcast doesn’t offer FSC in HD in my area. So while I don’t want to see soccer ‘ESPNed’ with the horrible commentary and catch phrases, when it’s on ESPN2 I love watching it as they do offer it in HD. So get it together Fox/Comcast!

  21. Rich says:

    You shouldn’t feel any loyalty towards a corporate entity, Neither one really give a crap about the people who watch.

    FSC: Crappy HD feeds, bad commentators, studio shows that look like they are done in a public access TV studio, outsources their highlights show to Canada, not on basic cable in most markets.

    ESPN: Wildly inconsistent. When they put their best foot forward (2010 WC, 2011 Women’s WC, the rare EPL match) it’s great. When they don’t (2006 WC, most MLS games) it sucks. But they have a track record of burying things they don’t have the rights to and I suspect when 2018 rolls around that’s going to happen with all soccer.

  22. MNUfan1991 says:

    Rupert Murdoch brought EPL to this country. As long as FSC keeps showing them they will always have my money.

  23. dlink09 says:

    decent HD would do it for me.. i would prefer ESPN to FSC..

  24. richardfromnyc says:

    I prefer FSC to ESPN. Hate the ticker, and the burying of EPL games on ESPN3. Next week’s Arsenal v Blackburn game will be on ESPN3…. i think that must be the third EPL game this month they buried on ESPN3 than put on ESPN2…

  25. Efrain says:

    I am not loyal to any network. I am loyal to the game. So wherever they are shown, that is where I will be.

    With that being said, Fox Soccer has awful HD, ESPN a little better HD….. The best HD (and commentators-Ray Hudson/Phil Schoen nice duo) GOLtv. That is one network I hope to never lose.

  26. Jean says:

    Yea, ESPN’s A-team is the best we’re gonna get over here. But I do love FOX for throwing it over to the Sky feed occasionally, and also for building a nice studio crew to describe the action and they were the first and they are still quality now its in HD.

  27. Yodster says:

    One word: Bloodzeed. By far and away the best online feed you can watch.

  28. Brian says:

    I really don’t know how any serious fan who likes to watch more than one game in a day, can enjoy the ESPN coverage.

    A few weeks ago, Ian Darke apologized for giving out the ongoing scores of concurrent games and explained it was company policy. He then gave a warning that he was going to give an update. Great I thought! At last they are respecting fans. An inconvenience to mute for a couple of minutes and be on the ready to cover the ticked when it showed up at the bottom, but I can live with that.

    However, in the last game they broadcasted ManU vs Stoke, this courtesy had disappeared. He spent about 25% of the commentary on updating the scores of the other games and even worse now they have the pop-up (down actually) in the top left with game score updates without warning! It is now almost impossible to avoid what is going on in other games.

    So the commentary where they respected the fan who does not want to know the other scores lasted, I believe, one match.

    I feel ESPN has no respect for fans in the way they do this? I think they should be taken to task on this and, assuming I’m not alone, this forum wouldn’t be a bad place to start.

    • The Gaffer says:

      Brian, I agree. This is a very polarizing topic among soccer fans. Some love the updates/ticker. Some hate it. I’m in the latter camp. I’ve written extensively about it here on EPL but ESPN won’t budge on their policy unfortunately. The best next step would be to email ESPN via their contact us form on their website.

      Cheers,
      The Gaffer

  29. Guy says:

    Well, we’re all different, aren’t we. I don’t mind hearing scores of other matches. If I am interested enough to record it I will probably still watch it to see how it played out. Knowing the result doesn’t spoil it for me. One man’s poison…….

  30. bluemoon70 says:

    I’m in Raleigh, NC. I have TWC. They now offer Fox Soccer HD, Fox Soccer Plus HD and Gol TV HD. I thought about switching to another provider but none of them can offer this for the price TWC can at the moment. So, I’m pretty loyal.

Leave a Reply

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

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>