The massive Telemundo audience probably wasn't surprising given the Spain/Argentina final. Obviously I only watched the BBC/ITV coverage in the UK where matches alternated across both channels, with only the final being simulcast on each. The BBC always gets the bigger audience for this, in part because it's commercial-free. 9.7m on BBC1/iPlayer and 2.4m on ITV/ITVX. The peak BBC audience was 13.6m.
But in the US, the less-than enthusiastic coverage about Lalas and Zlatan would have 100% made me watch Telemundo in a language I don't speak rather than put up with buffoonery. I like Thierry Henry (I am an Arsenal fan after all), but I want decent analysis not shouty shouty rubbish.
I haven't seen any discussion about the half-time show. It did not go down well in the UK, with Wayne Rooney, the former player on the BBC's coverage giving his instant reaction afterwards as being: "I though it was crap." He then went on to say he liked the individual performers.
Personally, I thought it was OK-ish. But it was wrongly placed and should have been a pre-grame show. Football matches only have breaks of 15 minutes, and not 27 because someone at FIFA thought it'd be a good idea. It's literally a law of the game like the size of goalposts or whatever. The Madonna part was fun, but clearly pre-recorded until the moment she emerged on the pitch, and someone would have had to let out some tracksuits quite a lot to fit the former players wearing them. The pre-recording also meant she was definitely lip-syncing.
Gustavo Dudamel conducting his orchestra and some Muppets in Seven Nation Army was fun, but again, should have been at the beginning. Beiber was meh and was too slow for this kind of thing. BTS were fine, but the camera was too zoomed in the whole time. And Shakira and Burna Boy definitely brought the energy and were probably the best thing. I could have done without the Love song at the end with Coldplay quietly in the background. It was competently produced, but just in the wrong place. Aping the Superbowl halftime show is something FIFA should not be attempting. It should build it's own thing.
It's interesting to hear UEFA saying that they absolutely will not be doing something like that for the Champions' League final or the Euros final. But then, there is no love lost between UEFA and FIFA right now.
A bit like the Olympics, all broadcasters are required to take the Host Broadcast world feed, and that seems to come with a bunch of things I hate:
* A single cutaway to Gianni Infantino the president of FIFA in every game he attends.
* Cutaways to celebrities who the sports commentators around the world may or may not recognise.
* Hot female fans who at least one camera operator is always tasked with finding. I'm willing to bet that the average match at the men's World Cup is about 90% male, but they always find some very attractive women to show.
* And close-ups of children crying when their team is losing. I mean, why? It's just horrid. An adult fan disappointed? Sure. But leave kids out of it.
In general, I thought the tournament went well, and there was very little for the president to mess-up apart from rescinding a match ban for a red card which will, hopefully, haunt Infantino for years to come.
It's good that it cut through in the US to a decent extent, but this is the best case from a timezone perspective. The next WC will be in Spain/Portugal/Morocco with a handful of games in South America. The timezones will not be as good. And the WC after than will be in Saudi Arabia ...for reasons. Matches will all take place in the morning and mid-afternoon EST. So all these discussions about who will buy the rights are interesting because while Fox got a bargain (FIFA recompensing them for holding the last WC in the winter in the middle of the NFL season), the next two iterations will be in US-audience unfriendly timezones, with the Saudi WC also clashing with the NFL because it'll have to be in the winter again.
Adam