83 points KellyCriterion 1 hour ago 94 comments
chistev 1 hour ago | parent
serial_dev 1 hour ago | parent
bdavbdav 1 hour ago | parent
stockresearcher 46 minutes ago | parent
windward 43 minutes ago | parent
watwut 40 minutes ago | parent
kryptiskt 13 minutes ago | parent
rbarrosoPT 40 minutes ago | parent
Now, we see huge panels (double the height) for ads in stadiums which become very intrusive when watching on TV (20–30% of the screen ends up being used for ads). Added the hydratation->ADs breaks, and increased World Cup tickets insanely.
Football used to be for everyone, now they're are killing it for almost everyone.
zimpenfish 31 minutes ago | parent
Same in the UK (Sky for EPL+EFL Cup, HBO for EPL+UCL, Amazon Prime for Christmas EPL + occasional cup games) + a TV licence (for the occasional cup game / tournaments.)
If you don't pay for anything, you can watch about 10? cup games a season on ITV. Or go to a pub, obviously (but then you'll be forced to buy drinks.)
You can usually listen to a bunch of games per week via BBC Radio (I think it requires a TV licence if you use streaming but you can still get 5Live on AM radio AFAIK) and TalkSport (also on AM radio.)
VulgarExigency 16 minutes ago | parent
H4cks0r1337 58 minutes ago | parent
dzonga 46 minutes ago | parent
honestly I think it's not a bad move - as it allows for tactical flexibility.
lbreakjai 45 minutes ago | parent
The World Cup turned it into a farce by making it mandatory even during a rainy 19 degrees weather, or inside climate controlled stadiums.
It's still close to 40 degrees in Sevilla these days.
originalvichy 38 minutes ago | parent
tremon 25 minutes ago | parent
lbreakjai 15 minutes ago | parent
Some teams within the same group had to travel far more than others. Some played at noon in a California stadium shaped like a oven while others played later in cooler climates or in climate controlled stadiums. Some games had to be interrupted because of thunderstorms.
Yet the only measure they took for "fairness" happened to be the one that incidentally allowed them to make more money. Let's be honest for a second, a three minutes break amounts to a somewhat lengthy VAR or offside check, a slow corner kick, or an injured player getting escorted off the field.
If anything, it makes it _more_ unfair to make it mandatory everywhere. It's not an advantage, it's supposed to make up for a particularly hot/humid weather. Now your next opponent will have had the benefit of an extra 6 minutes break, without the disadvantage of having exerted themselves in a very hot weather.
Any talk of fairness when out of the window when FIFA decided to put their thumb on the scale and rescind Balogun's red card anyway.
Muhammad523 1 hour ago | parent
xnorswap 1 hour ago | parent
onion2k 1 hour ago | parent
xeyownt 1 hour ago | parent
rf15 1 hour ago | parent
gwd 1 hour ago | parent
LPisGood 1 hour ago | parent
smallmancontrov 1 hour ago | parent
DaiPlusPlus 49 minutes ago | parent
But the problem with marketing and advertising is that it's impossible to know if a campaign will be a hit - a flop - or the butt of jokes from an entire generation (e.g. New Coke, Jaguar 2025; or it may very well just work despite all the industry naysayers like Apple's translucent plastic look from 1998 - I/we felt no-one would ever buy an overpriced and non-expandable PC that looked like a kid's toy, or a loo-seat laptop.
...of course, what actually happens is the strongest personalities in the C-suite eschew what their MBA course taught them about trusting the experts below them in the org chart; instead they champion their own personal pet ideas, no matter how much predictable damage they'll do to the company's share-price, because they couldn't possibly be wrong; he is the CTO, after-all; very smart!
NeutralCrane 10 minutes ago | parent
Early in my career I worked for a pharmaceutical giant as a statistician. One of the things we would work on was trying to determine how much the various advertising efforts the company did actually moved the needle. Every year was the same miserable experience. The company would spend millions and millions of dollars in various advertising channels. We would attempt to determine how effective it was, but the wayin which they advertised and the way we collected data made it very difficult to generate any kind of insight at all. We would make recommendations as to how to adjust execution moving forward to ensure we could reliably determine how much value we were getting out of these campaigns, all of which would be ignored. They would massage our findings to tell whatever story they needed and would do the same thing the next year.
The marketing division is its own organization, with their own incentives that don’t necessarily align with the broader company’s incentives. They also were heavily addicted to relying on external analytical consultants who could pump out all the slide decks and pie charts they wanted, which would inevitably show that the marketing was not only effective, but should be invested in more the following year.
xnorswap 1 hour ago | parent
Next time you walk into your local electronics retailer and look at TVs, you might see a Samsung, LG, HiSense.
Chances are, if not for massive amounts spent on advertising sports, you'd overlook some of these brands in favour of the ones you recognise.
It won't be a conscious, "I saw this during the north London derby so I'll buy it", but subconscious name recognition will have a huge impact on willingness to buy.
mrweasel 1 hour ago | parent
Do I go to McDonalds because I saw an ad, or because it 3 minutes away and the kid wants nuggets? Do I shop at my local supermarket because they buy every third ad on YouTube, or because it's the closest? There are a ton of details that influence our daily choices, and I'm not suggesting that ads aren't one of them, but I'm starting to doubt that it's the defining one. When I look at what I buy it's: availability, cost, and specification. There's not a hold lot advertising can do about any of those three.
If we could truly measure which ads works and which doesn't the entire ad based economy would crash over night.
devsda 37 minutes ago | parent
Whether we realize or not subconsciously our minds will associate the product and ad. When that association is reinforced by the salesman, a strategic placement on the shelf, or discount offers it is easier to convert it to sale.
DaiPlusPlus 58 minutes ago | parent
Like, what-on-earth was Visa thinking when their sponsorship of the Olympics had all the food-vendors and merch sellers boasting how they were "Proud" to decline payments from customers unless they're using Visa-networked cards[1] - which demonstrates they just can't exercise restraint.
[1]: https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/2012/07... - Visa's official slogan really was “We are proud to accept only Visa.”
inexcf 21 minutes ago | parent
EDEdDNEdDYFaN 1 hour ago | parent
rjknight 57 minutes ago | parent
However, I have to presume that the effect is different for at least some other people.
inexcf 23 minutes ago | parent
bdavbdav 1 hour ago | parent
bayindirh 52 minutes ago | parent
totetsu 46 minutes ago | parent
wateralien 59 minutes ago | parent
serial_dev 1 hour ago | parent
tremon 49 minutes ago | parent
invalidusernam3 45 minutes ago | parent
pluc 41 minutes ago | parent
I understand the concept that the kit colours is what identifies the team, but still, I can't justify wearing a giant advertisement. If you gave it to me, I'd refuse it. Fuck you, pay me.
aczerepinski 37 minutes ago | parent
dwedge 35 minutes ago | parent
pluc 31 minutes ago | parent
expedition32 24 minutes ago | parent
It led to the hilarious situation were they have to wear pink shoes so that the audience looks at them.
pluc 9 minutes ago | parent
https://boardroom.tv/michael-jordan-olympic-jacket-nike-reeb...
iamacyborg 4 minutes ago | parent
etcetcetcetceta 12 minutes ago | parent
It's common even at a local grassroots level where local businesses will feature on the kits.
rob74 57 minutes ago | parent
Do we really need an academic study to tell us that yes, there were ads on the sides of the football pitch at the World Cup, and that FIFA's choice of sponsors is questionable (but hey, questionable sponsors pay better than less questionable ones)?
probably_wrong 46 minutes ago | parent
I didn't need someone to tell me that FIFA is full of ads. But studies like this provide a precise, measurable target to work with.
mitxela 43 minutes ago | parent
boesboes 55 minutes ago | parent
adrianN 53 minutes ago | parent
pluc 29 minutes ago | parent
mordae 26 minutes ago | parent
Those do get gamed and might cheat since they'd get kickbacks, but that should result in a reputation loss as other journalists point it out. There are also various cooperative models that work here well as members can just vote kickback-taking staff out.
People used to actually subscribe to magazines (and some still do) in areas they are interested in. And they still go and visit the shops to see if anything interesting pops up and there is word of mouth.
So I believe discoverability is not really a problem. The fact is that polished advertisements take up bandwidth that would be more productively utilized by a benchmark comparison chart with a commentary on differentiators. People would get more performant and/or better fitting products and services and the overall productivity and happiness would increase.
iamacyborg 2 minutes ago | parent
snemvalts 30 minutes ago | parent
This can be extended to all other sports. A sport needs to be easy to follow and easy to advertise with to get funding. Being able to practice it cheaply on a grass-roots level helps.
rationalist 1 minute ago | parent
The sport, or the franchise?
hnisjafx40 51 minutes ago | parent
wateralien 49 minutes ago | parent
gumby 39 minutes ago | parent
Seems like a good feature for AirPods too, though the new CEO Ternus seems committed to the opposite.
thinkingtoilet 10 minutes ago | parent
gps372 49 minutes ago | parent
At the end of the article is this excerpt
>> Results from this research were generated using an AI computer vision model developed by the research team on Bristol’s Isambard-AI, the UK’s most powerful AI supercomputer. Isambard-AI powered the analysis of 172.6 hours of live match footage from all 104 games played between 11 June and 19 July 2026.
So, basically now merchandizers, auditors, compliance monitors, etc. have a tool using which they can quantify whether broadcaster complied with contractual requirements of showing their ads/merch/logos as per contract. And if they missed, then they can quantify the delta - to sue the broadcaster for the balance as well.
Also, it can enable many countries, where certain content is not allowed, then this tool can simply give them data points without having to employ someone, or have someone review the output of the AI tooling.
thevinter 45 minutes ago | parent
OccamsMirror 24 minutes ago | parent
vasco 16 minutes ago | parent
> The analysis counted advertising built into the match footage (e.g. on the hoardings), rather than commercials shown during advertising breaks
gps372 21 minutes ago | parent
Not an expert on this but I don't think same kind of manual effort is required anymore.
GuB-42 10 minutes ago | parent
If you are spending millions on ads, you can pay a couple of guys to watch TV and take notes.
brookst 8 minutes ago | parent
You hire minimum wage people to walk around stores with cameras. This was actually done with notepads occasionally, but so much less expensive tondo with AI.
amelius 3 minutes ago | parent
What's also surprising is that despite all this data we can't automate those soccer player jobs yet.
justincormack 43 minutes ago | parent
lostlogin 32 minutes ago | parent
Like the FIFA peace prize.
shevy-java 42 minutes ago | parent
Also, if I were not use heroic ad-blockers. But as I neither watch FIFA's money laundering scheme nor its ad-pester business (all gets blocked here without mercy), it does not affect me in the slightest. Hopefully these clowns pay proper taxes to aid everyone, but I bet they park their money in offshore areas anway.
holoduke 36 minutes ago | parent
diego_moita 25 minutes ago | parent
There is no "beautiful game". This show is only about manipulating people by exploiting their most basic and stupid instincts: aggression, tribalism, etc.
Sports entertainment has always been like that since the Coliseum and Circus Maximus were the main attractions in town.
The very expression "beautiful game" was born out of it. From the late 60s to the 70s, Brazil was one of the strongest contenders in the World Cup. They achieved that because they were able to select a roster of very skilled athletes among an huge national league. Because the country was ruled by an extremely nationalist military dictatorship, the government fully supported and promoted wrapping the country around the national team. Then the subservient sports press invented the name "jogo bonito" (beautiful game) to typify this game based on individual skills. From there, the propaganda term caught on. A similar thing happened in other countries ruled by dictatorships by then: Argentina, Chile, Portugal, Greece, Turkey,...
My point is that football's tribalism (like the Roman circus) was always at the service of some power. Before, it was autocratic nationalism in dictatorships. Now, it is just bets, alcohol and junk food.
expedition32 10 minutes ago | parent
To put things into perspective when people whine about the American held world cup: nobody was thrown out of an airplane.
Tycho 24 minutes ago | parent