I also believe that the friendlies come with it too, not all the ones from this summer, but a bunch of them.
MLS games also start at other times (such as 11PM EST) and outside of prime (in EST). Now I'm not going to argue which league(s) have the "better" start time for the US tv audince, but just the geographic width of North America (versus say England or Spain) does add to the variability of MLS match start times (and can/does affect the business of broadcasting MLS and consistently reaching/building an audince).
There seem to be more tie ins today the with the MLS game tonight (LA/Chivas), which is nice to see. BTW, I believe this was an ESPN UK broadcast (with SKY Pictures), which gives us a glimpse of their presentation.
It must be the atmosphere. MLS isn't slow. It's not as skillful, but it's actually fast, high work rate soccer.
I total agree as long as these big name sponsors stay with mls then i don't see any problems for mls. 300k for a oversee league is not something that will impress big name sponsors much. As for EPL, if they were making fsc a lot of profit then fsc would be stupid to lease out so many of their games to ESPN and Setanta so i am not buying that statement. However mls owners needs to do more with their on field product. Let the owners who want to spend more money on players do so.
yes they do. ESPN have to pay FSC to show games on ESPN in USA. show me the real numbers on how much profit FSC receive. If it wasn't for MLS FSC main sponsor would still be wallbangers. Now they have most of the same sponsors mls have because of MLS and not EPL.
THEY DO NOT LEASE GAMES TO ESPN. As for whether they make a profit on the EPL there have been numerous reports here that they only moved to nielsen ratings because of the EPL. Please do your research before posting here fanboy.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't MLS stated with this season, that ESPN will have the flexibility to change some of the games. If that is the case, we could see some of the October games being changed to better match-ups to get the maximum rating possible. At this time, i see one or two games in October that should be changed with better match-ups (we have 4 games scheduled in October). Fri. Oct. 2 Chicago Fire LA Galaxy 11:00 p.m. ESPN2/Deportes Wed. Oct. 7 FC Dallas San Jose Earthquakes 10:00 p.m. ESPN2/Deportes Wed. Oct. 14 New York Red Bulls Real Salt Lake 10:00 p.m. ESPN2/Deportes Thu. Oct. 22 Chivas USA Chicago Fire 8:00 p.m. ESPN2/Deportes Those those Wednesday games need to be changed, and we need to have better match-ups, to get the momentum leading to the playoffs. This what NFL does with it's flex Schedule in November and December. So what do you guys think? Don't you that makes sense?
There is a Sunday game that is scheduled between Houston vs LA Galaxy that should get moved to Oct 14th. That game could decide who wins the Western Division (that game is scheduled for Telefutura), Or Columbus vs DC United. I would think it would be stupid for MLS and ESPN not to make those changes.
I did my research FSC own all of USA tv rights of EPL games maybe you need to do your research. The reasons why they when to nielsen ratings is to attrack more sponsors so maybe somebody in FSC upper management think that they may needs to make more Ad money to pay their rights fee.
ESPN bought the rights from Fox Sports International for the 7:45AM est games and the Monday game. They didn't lease them out like Setanta did. The Premier League is the most profitable venture on the Fox Soccer Channel http://bleacherreport.com/articles/63202-sky-sports-to-lose-premier-league-rights-to-espn-in-2009
Your link didn't say that Premeir League is the most profitable venture on FSC but i will agree thats its there main product.Fox Sports International is call FSC in USA so if you want to get techical then fine. Fox Sports International is shown all over the world so if you want to lump all the money they make around the world and then says it is made by FSC then that wouldn't be correct. Espn doesn't really wants EPL for usa market or else they would make EPL an offer they couldn't refuse. The reason i use the term lease is because Espn doesn't own EPL rigths in USA. Espn is expanding all over europe and EPL is one of their corner stone for this expansion.
Basically, the author believes that many soccer fans that live outside a local MLS markets (Miami, San Diego, Detroit, St. Louis etc...) will follow La Liga and EPL because the high quality soccer now available to anyone who have cable (ESPN2).
By next year FSC will be in HD and hopefully DirectKick wil show their content in HD, which might be a wishful thinking. If people out there looking for any sport in HD, soccer is readily available in HD at any cable provider. As far as EPL on ESPN, I think this is still a good turning point for MLS's audience on ESPN, because those who are watching EPL in early hours on Sat and Sun will give MLS game on ESPN a try, some might come back and make MLS match a must see in their sched.
The author presents a hasty generalization. He may end up being right, but there's no real evidence to support his conclusion. It is equally possible that MLS fans will simply add EPL or La Liga to their DVRs, right along with MLS. It's also possible that the EPL and/or La Liga will simply replace Champions League viewing on ESPN with little or no net impact on MLS.
ESPN has been deep into soccer for a while now. They are just getting into it in the UK and expanding their brand in the US.
So these astute soccer fans somehow never had access to FSC or Gol TV so just now will replace MLS with the other leagues? They are so much more discriminating, but have been sitting around just settling for MLS instead of seeking out the better leagues? It's so cool nowadays that someone can buy a URL, make a fancy page and equate their feelings with "most Americans." But that doesn't make them right.
I know you all don't want to hear it, but personally, I can see doing this myself. Thanks to Direct TV, Direct Kick and Setanta, there are probably 25 odd games a weekend now to pick from. The ESPN broadcast isn't new, since an early EPL game was available on Setanta, but the HD broadcast makes it much more enjoyable IMO, and at least so far I'm watching it even though I typically didn't watch the Setanta game. For those of us not in an MLS market, the blogger has a point. It's nice to get an EPL HD broadcast early on Saturday, take in a second EPL game or Bundesliga game after that and get on with the day. With four hours of soccer in the books, I find I tend to be more choosy about watching MLS games later on Saturday. Sunday there's more EPL, the Eredivise, La Liga, the MFL, Brazilian League, Agentina, French League -- again lots to pick from against the MLS TeleFutura broadcast or something on Direct Kick. Even though they don't compete directly, just in terms of hours to devote to watching soccer I think I'll end up watching more EPL and La Liga now on ESPN and less MLS, especially the Direct Kick offerings. Yes, I could TIVO the games, but personally I find that less enjoyable, especially if I can't get to them for a few days. Besides, I think can get my MLS fix from the ESPN game and one FSC game (if its a good match up) each weekend. I was already leaning towards not renewing Direct Kick next year, but the added ESPN telecasts probably tipped the scales.
But I'm someone who never watched the EPL early game, and I am adding that to what I watch usually while still watching my usual dose of MLS. There are all kinds of viewers. The blogger is falling into the trap of projecting his desires, i.e. more EPL and less MLS, onto others and defining them as a certain class of fan. That's no more true than if I said that MLS ratings will definitely go up because more fans will be watching soccer and getting hooked thanks to the EPL. The reality is that until we have a semblance of data, we can't just assume our personal viewing habits are how other people are treating the two products. Some people may cut back on other matches because the early EPL match is more widely available. Some may not. Neither group is more of a fan as some bloggers and posters will try to imply. We're all snowflakes, unique and individual.