MLS asking FSC for $20M a year

WOW!!!! 20m a year? or is it 20m for the length of the contract? in either case thats a HUGE increase... i wonder if MLS has someone else who will pay that if FSC doesn't?

 

Wow.

 

Well, I might as well say it. Could the other party that is willing to pay 20 mil be Versus?

 

I'm intrigued, I just hope no matter what Versus gets MLS. I get Versus free on my current viewing.

 

All I can say is if FSC dishes that money out then maybe they will promote MLS games better. If they take this financial risk then they have to be more focused on getting ratings up and increasing sponsorship to make up that 20 mill. Let's hope this happens.

 

Damn that's awesome, and I HOPE it means they've got VS on the pocket.

 

I signed up for a trial subscription and am waiting for approval to read the online version. I might have used up all my e-mail accounts for this purpose so we'll see what happens.

 

The same article also reports that MLS and Versus haven't spoken since September.

 

Okay, so that's what, 36 RS games + 5 playoff games for 20 mil?

Just a shade under a half million in sponsorship revenue to raise per game + production costs to break even.

Not too difficult, me thinks.

 

can the source (or "several sources" as the case may be) on this article be believed? (not that I know who those sources are, or even if they're revealed later in the article, as I don't have the full version of the linked article available at this time.)

"public negotiations" (or details there of) often have very little in common with the actual business being conducted between the parties.

I'd be very skeptical of any number that's thrown about before an actual new deal is signed (if a new deal is actually going to be signed between FSC and MLS/SUM, and I can't see why a new agreement wouldn't be signed, unless of course the 2 sides were so far apart from any possible deal).

note, if this new figure ($20mil/year just from Fox) does wind up being accurate or even within a reasonable range of what FSC may be paying to be a partner with MLS/SUM going forward, then I'm certainly glad to see that the business of Major League Soccer is moving to seek/demand more revenue in the broadcast areas (as opposed to perhaps significantly or drastically jacking up ticket prices, at this point.)

I really enjoy the sub-header of the article: "League looks to set market for bigger packages"

 

If FSC ends up paying that, to make production costs even lower it will mean the games will be shot via grainy black and white security cameras, the play-by-play and color will be done like EPL Fanzone, with pre-game done by Christian Miles' 12-year-old nephew and a cardboard cutout of Christopher Sullivan.

 

or, it doesn't actually mean any of that.

there's a fair argument out there that the production quality would/could improve from FSC (and/or Versus or whomever), given that more financial investment in the rights to the content would mean more of an overall effort to improve the presentation of that product in hopes by tv partner to attract more viewers (and thereby create a better and more-sustainable business).

(note, MLS content might not now, or ever, be ready to be a "big time" tv/media property. but again, it's good to see that the league is reportedly trying to push their business in that direction -- as tv rights and money need to be a basis for the growth of the business of MLS in the future, imo.)

 

20 Million got to be a typo or MLS is getting Bold.. How much money a year ESPN pays?...

 

Oh ok, thanks. I was not able to view more than a the first couple sentences of this article. I'm disappointed that negotiations with versus appear to have fallen through.

 

this new deal with FSC very likely could also include internet content rights for their FSC/FSE games (and additional league games) on a platform like foxsoccer.tv.

from the league's perspective, it probably makes more sense to have their media partners pay for multi-platform rights than for MLS itself to try to control/present all of those rights (via things like MLSLive.tv).

 

18 teams in the league with a salary cap (excluding DPs) of $2.5 mil a year = $27 million.

A big chunk of that would be taken out in on big swoop.

 

for the business of the league, they can not actually "exclude" DP salaries from their overall annual operating budgets/plans for MLS.

but your broad point is a good one, that "more tv money" will certainly help the business of the league, and could eventually lead to more higher-earning (and supposedly/hopefully better) players in the league.

 

Sure. But I don't draw the line. (and I'm not even sure if that line is actually drawn. I know the operational and business structure of the league would be one where they, for legal and player-contracting reasons, want to say the teams are in fact the league collectively as a single-entity, and that there isn't a line between the two.)

Whatever TV money MLS/SUM earns, I would suspect a good portion of it goes (or could go) back into (the league-controlled portion of) MLS player salaries.

Now, do owners/teams "get a bigger piece" of the SUM revenue pie if they bring in DPs who do in fact help draw more viewers to MLS on TV, and/or more specifically (or potentially) help the league be able to sign bigger media deals with their broadcast partners?

maybe not, as apparently DPs can be or are paid for with local/team-controlled revenue (shirt sponsors, other sponsorships and more/better friendlies), and are not really a part of the overall league salary budget considerations. so, in the future it would seem that more "national tv" money would/could be pushed to raising the league-controlled per-team salary budget, without considering or affecting the local/team items that are DPs.

 

I think this is the first shot of the PR campaign - "we couldn't come to terms".

 

which side fired that shot? (or which side(s) would be ok with the business reality of the two sides not coming to terms for 2011.)

or, this could be a joint first shot before some agreement is reached (potentially in the range between those $3million and $20million per year figures).

such an agreement would/could make both sides look like winners, even if the deal winds up being the $6-10million range:
MLS/SUM: we got significant growth over the last 4-year cycle when we earned only $3million per year from Fox.
FSC: we got a deal and didn't have to pay that $20million they were asking


or as you suggest, this is such an outrageous (for MLS) figure ($20million) that it may be the start of a "we couldn't come to terms" PR campaign.

 

If it happens they need to raise the salary cap by 500k or 1 million then. This would be a straight off net gain for the league of 20 million. You would expect at least 50-60% of revenues to be put into salaries.

I don't see how FSC doesn't bargain that down though. As an earlier poster said 40-ish games + production costs requires them to earn over half a mil each game. If a game only has 4-5 commercial slots then each commercial segment would have to be bringing in revenue of 100k. Not likely. Unless Garber is selling the value of the package as a brand and image one for FSC in which case the reasons for paying 20 million would be intangible brand value that they have all things soccer.

 

1) They don't have to do anything with the salary cap. They could just as well just give teams extra allocation money which can be used to either raise a team's individual cap number or buy players. Allocation money is much more flexible, lasts longer, and can be moved around like cash (which you can't do with just cap space). People need to stop fixating on the cap so much when there are so many other things in the league that make the cap less relevant than they think.

2) It isn't a net gain of 20 million. FSC already pays MLS to show the games, so the net gain would be 20 million minus whatever FSC pays now.