World Cup Viewers Take It in the Ear

The 2010 World Cup already has been a huge branding success for FIFA on a number of fronts. But there’s one area – aurally — where the matches on TV and, arguably, in person have marked a huge disappointment so far.

Visually, the contests and the telecasts have been stunning, from the oft-re-aired fumble by English goalie Robert Green versus the United States, to the rainbow-hued clothing of the jubilant Ghanese fans celebrating their team’s 1-0 victory over Serbia. Technologically, here in the U.S. ESPN has been on its game, from the high-definition telecasts to innovations such as the on-screen indicator that shows decisively whether a team has gone offsides.

But when it comes to the audio and how it affects viewers' enjoyment and perception of the World Cup brand overall, the loud and constant drone of the vuvuzelas — the plastic horn favored by South African fans and now sold by the thousands to all attendees at World Cup venues — has gone way past distracting and annoying to maddening.

So it came as no surprise that the BBC is considering muting them, though it was disappointing that an ESPN spokesperson has told USA Today the network won't tamper with the games' natural sound, despite its own commentators complaining about them. But there's hope on the horizon, as the company handling audio for the World Cup broadcasts tells AP it will double its audio filters to reduce the noise.

It’s been difficult not to be distracted by the horns' droning noise as you watch and try to listen to a telecast and wonder things like: How can the players stand the noise? How can non-blowing fans stand it? How does blowing a vuvuzela indicate support for one team or another when they’re just continually going off anyway? And isn’t it unfortunate that the horns drown out essentially every other means of fan expression, such as cheering and chanting?

Already, vuvuzela complainants have ranged from Cristiano Ronaldo, the iconic Portugal star player, to the Hear the World Foundation. And World Cup organizing committee head Danny Jordaan had to concede in an interview with the BBC on Sunday that an outright ban on vuvuzelas had become an option even though FIFA would be loathe to nix the horns because of their significance to local football.

Meantime, ESPN isn’t scoring quite as badly with its announcers, but there is room for some improvement there as well. Certainly it makes sense for ESPN to have gone heavy with non-American announcers, considering its vast global audience and the fact that Americans — soccer fans and non-fans alike — recognize that we are not the seat of global authority on the sport.

But when these gentlemen actually can be heard above the cicada-like din of the vuvuzelas, they tend to be a bit mealy-mouthed and verbose for American ears, even considering that the pace of soccer demands their filling a lot of air time.  And the Scottish brogue of one announcer is so thick that it almost defies interpretation unless your name is McMillan and you’re wearing a kilt.

Even if these are just annoyances to the U.S. audience, ESPN can’t take us for granted: World Cup viewership by Americans has been double what it was four years ago, and the network can’t afford to screw up its so-far winning ways with its home crowd.

Interestingly, Saturday's U.S. vs. England kick-off match set ratings records for ESPN. Still, if TV broadcasts could swat the audio pest, the World Cup would certainly score with even more fans around the globe, and particularly here in the U.S.