http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/thegoalkeeper/176347831.html Reading between the line, it seems that NBC bought the EPL rights for $250 mil / 3 years mostly for the superclubs. Look at the World Series TV Ratings. With superclub Yankees in the World Series, TV rating jump significantly. San Francisco-Detroit tv rating was dismal.
Obviously if everybody interested could watch Chelsea-Manchester United or Wigan Athletic-Norwich City but not both, the first one would get much more viewers and I expect there would be a big difference even if you took out fans of those four clubs. You posted this in MLS: General but you didn't relate the topic to MLS.
Could be a lot of ways to connect it (not saying I agree with any of them, just trying to start a conversation) Can MLS get big viewership without any true super clubs? If they can't, will something have to change with the parity/single entity parts that block this from happening? Would it be a good thing?
Slightly misleading thread title. I think it is an unpopular but accepted view that a successful NY and LA franchise, preferably two would be beneficial to the league (especially for TV) but I don't think they need to take on superclub status. MLS just needs a bit of glamour and a few more stand out names (preferably with one or two more made in the USA) and a stand out franchise or two. That can be franchises elsewhere, especially well supported ones just so long as they look to be raising the bar rather than a random peak on a flat wave. I don't have any sense of San Jose being a special team despite their fantastic season, though to be fair Wondo's exploits have been a great story line, they just seem to have been the best of a rather ordinary bunch this season. Perception is 9/10 reality in marketing.
This is why there will never be a Euro-wide "G-18" league. Barcelona and Man U would occasionally look like crap if they had to play 40 games against high powered opposition year in and year out.
duh. you are telling me you watch the Premier League to watch the dreadful style of soccer of the teams in the bottom half of the table.
As a Sounders fan, which would mostly be one of the MLS superclubs due to its higher revenue streams, I approve of this message. Bring on the lack of parity! Or Parody, whichever. Nevermind that the small revenue teams would basically find themselves as also rans waiting for that Cinderella season where they take off out of nowhere and make a run for it. Of course, that season is incredibly rare and may not happen for most teams, but that's their fault! Let 'em fold! Or something. *sigh* I tell you, these threads seem to get stupider every time they come out.
I'm sure they lost a lot of viewers waiting for CFL to end and not because the kickoff was close to 11pm on the East.
San Jose Earthquakes are a special team because the players know the hardcore fans on a first-name basis. The Quakes are almost certainly the closest thing to the 1950s Baltimore Colts or Brooklyn Dodgers that exists in American professional sports today. For example, here's a video created to introduce a surprise community award presented to the 1906 Ultras' capo at a charitable dinner three weeks ago. Presented by Wondo. While on stage together, the league's incipient MVP and the team's leading supporter led an unscripted, impromptu and rowdy chant, perfectly synchronized, because as evidenced by the video Wondo is one of us. I'm pretty positive L.A. fans don't have the same sort of special relationship with David Beckham. A "super club" like the Galaxy may generate better ratings. But a working class club like the Quakes is far more special for its fans.
I hear you Don and it is brilliant that the players are close to the fans, how it used to be back in the good old days in England before they all became overpaid brats and that is special in its way but it is not the kind of special I meant. I'm talking about a team that grabs the neutrals attention because they have some stand out attributes that can excite. As I say they have Wondo and they have scored a lot of late goals which are decent story lines so perhaps I'm being a bit mean spirited. It should be a great game with LA
Hey, I like the CFL, its quirky and occasionally the football isn't bad either. But having a gridiron foottball game on before a soccer playoff was a recipe for disaster.
copying and pasting a post by triplet1 I've put a link to the EPL TV ratings on ESPN2 from the 2010-11 season. Of those 30 games, all but two of the top ten feature at least one of the big clubs -- ManU, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea or Man City. The only exceptions are Fulham/Villa (where there were American players to attract U.S. viewers) and, oddly enough, Portsmouth v. Burnley. I have no idea about that one -- call it the exception that proves the rule. Still, for the most part, the biggest ratings follow the biggest clubs. http://www.epltalk.com/espn2-epl-tv-ratings-august-09-to-february-10-16415 What's interesting (to me) is that the same pattern was true in MLS with respect to domestic regular season games. Big market, "big spending" teams draw higher ratings. Here are the top 10 ESPN/ESPN 2 ratings from 2010 (excluding the All Star Game and Playoffs): Sun June 26 2:02 ESPN New York 1, Chicago 1 0.4 622 Tue Mar 15 9:30 ESPN Los Angeles 1, Seattle 0 0.4 604 Sun July 10 4:00 ESPN Seattle 3, Portland 2 0.3 467 Thu June 23 10:21 ESPN2 New York 2, Seattle 4 0.3 410 Sat May 14 11:00 ESPN2 Portland 1, Seattle 1 0.2 328 Sat May 7 11:00 ESPN2 New York 1, Los Angeles 1 0.2 320 Sun Oct 16 9:00 ESPN Chivas USA 0, Los Angeles 1 0.2 298 Thu Sep 29 9:00 ESPN2 D.C. United 2, Philadelphia 3 0.2 296 Mon July 4 10:37 ESPN2 Seattle 0, Los Angeles 0 0.2 289 Tue Oct 4 7:30 ESPN2 Los Angeles 0, New York 2 0.2 276 http://thevoiceoftv.com/nielsen-tv-...nx/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed There are a lot of LA, Seattle and NY games in that list. So while parity is held up as a virtue, I'm not sure it appeals all that much to a national audience for MLS games either. Finally, while the broadcast times are different (and ESPN probably reaches more households than ESPN2), the number of MLS viewers isn't that much different from the number of EPL viewers -- indeed two of the ESPN games drew much better than the top EPL games on ESPN2.
Superclubs are important and surely generate ratings.. Instead of fighting their importance, the league should use them. Exhibit your superclub as you need to get into the households, but then tell the story of the other team...build the other team up, build their storyline, familiarize the viewership with their players.....The big names do draw people in, but if their story is told correctly then the other club can feature as well, just by their pure scrappiness and work ethic. Being a Galaxy fan I was thrilled as hell about them winning and the attention on Beckhams last game, and the praise upon Keane and Donovan...at the same time as a Soccer fan I was very disappointed in their failure to tell the Dynamos' story. They were most definitely a worthy foe and I was happy the Galaxy beat them...but how can a casual fan get into the game if the opposition is not equally built up for the audience??
Look, ANOTHER bullshit thread dredged out of the depths by you. Seriously, are the mods all hung over still ?
Boring. I'm not saying you are wrong (in fact you are probably right), but every other league is like that. Its one of the things that I love about MLS and something that sets us apart. But unfortunately, I see MLS inching closer to having "Superclubs" every year.
I guess you like spoilers to your movies as well. A lot less fun when you pretty much know who's going to be on top every year. Fact.
Everyone wants to have their shot at the club that is on top of their game. It makes for exciting contests, like what we had last year. I also like a good preview, and some good hype and competition. Fact/True Story.