MLS asking FSC for $20M a year

A great point. Apparently each national broadcaster would want a unique day/timeslot, to avoid direct audience fragmentation within any 2-hour block.

And for each national partner slot, the league would limit the size of packages for potential local tv partners.

But remember MLS is adding teams and games in 2011.

And I'd argue that MLS is at a stage where expanded coverage and exposure would likely have a net positive of growing the overall audience, and not just fragmenting that small existing base of viewers.

 

It's not strange. It happens.

Hell, viewers on Spanish channels don't even get counted when ESPN does it's numbers. ESPN has never tried to win, or is to pathetic to work for that crowd, so it doesn't exist. There can't be much more growth. It's all a bunch of Spanish people watching! Hell, count me as a gringo who watches that more than ESPN telecasts. The dreck we have had to deal with is painful and embarrassing.


I hope never to run into John Harkes again. All I would ever be able to think about is a skillfully placed shot to the throat.

 

How does ESPN Deportes factor into your argument?

 

That's not true, it's called exposure and we all know that majority of soccer fans don't even know there's a soccer league here in the USA and since the level of play has been improved from 1996 , those that simpled MLS in early days might give them another look.

 

You, sir, need a new TV.

 

The NFL is on NBC, CBS, Fox, ESPN and NFLN.

Is it hurting them?

Heck, if it wasn't for some stupid laws, they'd have every game nationally televised.

With its expansion, MLS should be easily able to handle 4-6 nationally televised matches.

After that, the number of the channel carrying those games won't really matter.

ESPN2 can have its one (not that they really want it, unless it's a late West Coast game).

Telefutura can have its choice on Saturday afternoon.

Which leaves 2-4 more to Versus and FSC and, as far as I am concerned, they might as well split it down the middle.

 

Exactly.

Oh great. When he says it, it's a great point. When I say it, you want to argue.

Yes, and since MLS is exactly as popular as the NFL as a TV product, you bring up a great point.

 

Being on TV is what every sport league wants.

It means more money and more exposure.

I am really not sure why you are against it.

In terms of actual in-game attendance, the games can be staggered enough to have minimal negative consequences.

And that is, if you believe that having matches on TV has them.

To me, this represents the old Bud Selig owned Brewers teams and I don't think that is the proper stance to take.

Selig never televised the local games.

The Cubs did.

The Cubs win.

Cubs win.

Cubs win.

 

I'm not sure that it's such a good idea to base an argument on these particular words.

 

Seems like FSC ratings for MLS games average about 55k. Does anyone know what their average is for CL and for EPL games? Thank you

 

ESPN Deportes is small potatoes...isn't it? When compared to Univision, etc.

 

For Mexico's home qualifiers, the Spanish rights holder normally acquires all language rights. That's why Telemunda was able to keep the Mexico-USA game away from ESPN and put it on mun2. For their myriad friendlies in the USA, I don't know. I would guess that the Spanish rights holder acquires the English rights as well in order to maintain exclusivity.

 

Maybe it is compared to Univision, but ESPND is on most cable packages nowadays. And I've also watched ESPN deportes in hotel rooms in each of the last three Latin American countries I've traveled to (Mexico, Honduras and Cuba).

 

neck punching john harkes and marcelo balboa is the reason i have made the switch to projection tv's....

 

However, prior to the FinSyn rules, it did make the Cubs and the Braves very popular.

 

going back to the $20mil report, imo this has garber's fingerprints on it. tv contracts is an issue he seems qualified to be in charge of personally. and the 'windbag' approach is something we've come to recognize. garber seems never to have met an hyperbole he didn't like.

interesting is the question of who gave this out to the press. of course fsc may have in order let the world (us, anyway) judge what a bloated request this was. but it also might have been garber himself who leaked (again, assuming he's running the mls front). opening the mouth is something he's never shy about. and although 'negotiating in the press' might seem a basic no-no, remember brian cashman with the jeter contract and the pursuit of cliff lee. it was like he thought he was teaching a case study in business school. iow, 'experienced' negotiators do funny things too.

or, garber may have leaked to the public for some specific tactical reason he has in view.

it'll be interesting how this goes forth, how they get to an end game and of what kind/numbers.

 

It's definitely as clear as mud who has the English rights. SUM only says they have marketing rights. The story about Univision getting rights says they won "the Spanish-language TV and digital rights in the U.S. to Mexican national soccer team matches, leading up to the 2014 World Cup." No mention of the English rights.

So my supposition is likely wrong but it would be nice to know.

 

About 90,000 viewers for the EPL in 2008/09 according to MLS Talk:

http://www.majorleaguesoccertalk.com/major-league-soccer-is-losing-the-tv-ratings-battle/9925

 

The only English language broadcast of FMF games I'm aware of is on Mun2 -- and it's awful. Is there any other network offering MFL games with PBP in English?

 

discuss, not argue.

and maybe he said it "better" (and less assuredly) than you did, and included words like "might" and other speculative thoughts.

you're "won't happen" stance was what I was wondering about and not considering a "great point" -- (although it might still turn out to be an accurate take depending on how the upcoming SUM deals get finalized, or not).

 

I'm not.

Predicting something and favoring something are two different things.

 

and that gets back to what I thought was my initial question:

when would your prediction change?

when (in your opinion or prediction) would MLS merit or be ready to handle/satisfy "four (paying) national tv partners," if not in 2011?

do they need 19 teams? 20 teams? do other things have to happen? is it all tied to "improving ratings"?

for national tv partners for MLS/SUM, why does it have to be either/or (but not both) of FSC and Versus (given that Disney and Univision are in place as MLS broadcast partners at least through 2014)?

 

Positive rep if anyone tther than tab5g is the first to respond

I don't believe so. As far as I could tell, the mun2 stuff was just because Telemundo held all rights to WCQ through CONCACAF rules. Did they do friendlies on mun2 as well? You might find this crazy, but I don't exactly rush to watch the Mexican national team play friendlies.

 

stopping all Positive rep for anyone

not that I know of, although I remember reading that they were considering making mun2 the channel that could/would show more sporting events (assuming they had or would maintain those rights).

right, and not many US fans do (but what do I know?). so I kinda doubt the idea that SUM may/could be packaging English-language Mexican NT friendly rights into a potential new deal with FSC. (although, I don't totally discount the idea either, as I do think FSC might see that content as a valuable or worthwhile property, given that there could actually be a decent sized audience of people who do care about the Mexican NT but either don't speak Spanish or would rather not watch their friendlies on Univision -- or don't even realize that they receive a Univision signal. again, we have no idea if the new SUM/Univision deal included or excluded English language rights, as far as I know.)

 

Re: stopping all Positive rep for anyone

Well, Telemundo = NBC = Versus.

So, that may be another package, though El Tri rights went back to Univision.