News: Source: Frank Lampard will play for the Los Angeles Galaxy

Don't know for sure, but I believe they are still paying off the stadium. Like Arsenal had to with the Emirates. Once they get that paid off (or at least down), then they'll be in the black.

And also, there is accounting foolery going on, for certain. In Columbus, Hunt Sports Group owns the stadium, so all profits from non-soccer, or non-Crew events (concerts, WC Qualifiers, etc) get put in the HSG pot, not the "Crew" pot. Even though the Hunts own both groups, so there is little difference. I suspect something similar goes in in SLC, and around the league.

As for DPs and such, put me in the camp that says the year before the WC will not be the year for big signings. Despite recent gains, the perception of MLS around the world means that if a player comes here (from a Euro team) they likely get immediately put out of the WC picture. Despite the fact that Beckham can just walk back into PSG and Henry for Arsenal.

 

Agreed. I don't think it will be a huge jump, but another sizeable move with the possibility that it's a comprehensive deal where the English and Spanish rights are owned by a single entity like NBC Universal. If I'm MLS, I go no farther than 8 years on the deal with the hopes that 2 World Cups from now the league will be in even better position to demand more money with a further solidified product and hopefully a 2nd NY team and 2-4 other franchises to expand the league footprint.

 

Fair enough. When in doubt, I'll go with Sports Business Journal over a Philly sports blog any day.

I do think the issue is on the expense side of the ledger for RSL though. The article says by restructuring their debt RSL saved $1.8M a year (meaning they probably reduced the interest rate and perhaps went to a longer amortization schedule to lower the payment). It $1.8M is the annual debt service payment reduction, RSL must be carrying a fair amount of debt.

 

You've noted something important here, I think. For a team like RSL -- or KC or Portland or any high attendance team in a smaller market -- I suspect it's almost impossible to sell enough addtional tickets (or raise ticket prices) to cover the cost of a high priced DP. Nor is it likely they can recoup that money from a bigger local TV deal, as LA signed.

Increasingly, the benefit of a DP is a more marketable league IMO, and that benefit rebounds to the owners equally, whether they invest in DPs or not. KC gets the same TV revenue that New York does.

But is there really a benefit to the league?

Now, you're right, the TV ratings are flat and have been for some time. But even a cursory look at the ESPN schedule indicates they have a preference for teams with name DPs -- LA, NY and Seattle are the most televised teams again this year by a comfortable margin.

So, while they may not have increased ratings, perhaps ESPN believes DPs are needed to hold the audience they are getting and to stimulate fans' interest in the new season.

If the DPs really don't matter, I would think you would see Chivas USA and LA and New England on the ESPN schedule with the same frequency. ESPN seems to think there is a difference.

 

That's a pretty big assumption to say the reason LA and NY are on TV is because of their DPs. NY has always been on TV as has LA. It's as much to do with them being, far and away, the two largest markets in the US as it is the DPs. Beckham changed the equation a bit, but Henry really didn't. You may have an argument RE: Chicago with Blanco and without. I'm not sure the Seattle's TV presence is due to DPs or if it's due to their inordinately large fanbase, including the image of seeing that sold out stadium on TV.

Portland has as many main ESPN channel appearances as LA and NY this season. That can't be DP related. Meanwhile, the team with the most NBC appearances is DC United. That's not due to Rafael.

 

IMO, this is more attendance related than DP related. If NE was drawing 20k like the old days they would have a much larger television presence whether they had any DP's or not.

 

I don't think you can dismiss it as only the market size. Chivas is a large market team. Chicago is a large market team. New England is a large market team. Houston is a large market team.

Seattle's huge fan base undoubtedly helps them, I'll agree, but I suspect they pull good numbers from outside their market too.

As for Portland, they are on a lot, but only once (June 1th) when they are not playing Seattle, LA or NY. In other words, their crowd makes a nice backdrop for a game, but they aren't typically the headliner.

I've highlighted the games with LA, NY and Seattle and it is striking how dependent ESPN's schedule is on them. Of the 20 regular season games on ESPN/ESPN 2, 14 involve some combination of LA, NY and Seattle. Clearly they have a preference for these teams, and I suspect it is more than market size. My guess is they do better outside of their home markets as well.

Here's the list.

ESPN:

Sunday, May 12: Houston Dynamo vs. Sporting Kansas City, 4:00 p.m. (ESPN/ESPN Deportes)
Saturday, June 15: Portland Timbers vs. FC Dallas, 5:00 p.m. (ESPN/ESPN Deportes)
Sunday, June 23: Philadelphia Union vs. New York Red Bulls, 5:00 p.m. (ESPN/ESPN Deportes)
Sunday, July 7: Chicago Fire vs. Sporting Kansas City, 3:00 p.m. (ESPN/ESPN Deportes)
Sunday, September 29: Seattle Sounders vs. New York Red Bulls, 9:00 p.m. (ESPN/ESPN Deportes)
Sunday, October 13: Portland Timbers vs. Seattle Sounders, 9:00 p.m. (ESPN/ESPN Deportes)
Sunday, October 20: Los Angeles Galaxy vs. San Jose Earthquakes, 9:00 p.m. (ESPN/ESPN Deportes)
Sunday, October 27: Seattle Sounders vs. Los Angeles Galaxy, 9:00 p.m.. (ESPN/ESPN Deportes)

ESPN 2:

Sunday, March 3: Portland Timbers. vs. New York Red Bulls, 7:30 p.m. (ESPN2/ESPN Deportes)
Sunday, March 10: San Jose Earthquakes vs. New York Red Bulls, 10:00 p.m. (ESPN2/ESPN Deportes*)
Sunday, March 17: FC Dallas vs. Houston Dynamo, 1:00 p.m. (ESPN2/Deportes)
Sunday, April 7: Chicago Fire vs. New York Red Bulls, 5:00 p.m. (ESPN2/ESPN Deportes)
Sunday, April 21: D.C. United vs. Philadelphia Union, 5:00 p.m. (ESPN2/ESPN Deportes)
Sunday, May 15: Los Angeles Galaxy vs. Houston Dynamo, 11:00 p.m. (ESPN2/ESPN Deportes)
Sunday, May 19: New York Red Bulls vs. Los Angeles Galaxy, 1:15 p.m. (ESPN2/ESPN Deportes)
Sunday, May 26: Los Angeles Galaxy vs. Seattle Sounders, 11:00 p.m. (ESPN2/ESPN Deportes)
Sunday, June 30: New York Red Bulls vs. Houston Dynamo, 2:00 p.m. (ESPN2/ESPN Deportes)
Wednesday, July 31: MLS All-Stars vs. TBA at Livestrong Sporting Park (Kansas City, Kan.), 8:30 p.m. (ESPN2)
Sunday, August 11: FC Dallas vs. Los Angeles Galaxy, 8:00 p.m. (ESPN2/ESPN Deportes*)
Sunday, August 25: Seattle Sounders vs. Portland Timbers, 10:00 p.m. (ESPN2/ESPN Deportes)
Sunday, September 8: San Jose Earthquakes vs. Philadelphia Union, 11:00 p.m. (ESPN2/ESPN Deportes)
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/...occer-national-television-games-unveiled.html

 

From what I've heard, it's a combination of market size and past team ratings. Some teams get better in-market ratings, which boosts national ratings. New York and LA are big enough as markets that any local interest at all will boost national ratings, but smaller markets with good penetration can also make a difference.

Here are the total numbers for national TV broadcasts:

Red Bulls: 19
Galaxy: 17
Chicago: 16
Seattle: 14
Houston: 13
Portland: 13
Kansas City: 13
Chivas: 12
DC: 12
Philadelphia: 10
Dallas: 9
San Jose: 8
Colorado: 7
Columbus: 3
Salt Lake: 3
New England: 2
Montreal: 1
Vancouver: 1
Toronto: 0

The Canadian teams aren't interesting to US broadcasters, so that's no surprise. Some of the other low-broadcast teams are small markets (Salt Lake, Columbus, Colorado). I'm guessing the others (New England, San Jose) are teams that are underperforming in their local markets.

Likewise, the small-market teams that have a lot of broadcasts are likely the ones with good in-market penetration (Portland, Kansas City).

 

I think San Jose, who is actually getting a decent number of broadcasts, is being held off of TV in part due to still being in the tiny stadium for another season. I'll be very interested to see how their numbers look once they get into a real stadium.

The above list looks a lot like market sizes followed by successful teams as the primary means of determining who is on TV.

 

I think you have to be careful when you lump all national broadcasts together. It's the smallest contract now, but I think ESPN gets first choice and reaches the largest audiance -- and you see the DP impact here more than with the others.

But I'm convinced the DPs were intended to provide this buzz.

Nelson Rodriguez talked about the various stages of MLS player acquisition in a recent interview I've mentioned in other posts. He says:

“The third phase [of MLS development] clearly has to point to David Beckham and the designated player. We went back and said, ‘We need sizzle. We are competing against that, we are competing against that and we need to change the dynamic.' It’s becoming harder to retain the American player. The success of the national team, while it gave us a boost, also opened the eyes to a lot of scouts around the world saying, ‘I can get that lad for a lot cheaper than I can get him and he’s just as good.’ So greater competition for our players, so we go back to this designated player concept trying to bring in high-end players."

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-t...player-behind-the-lines-with-nelson-rodriguez

He's pretty clear this wasn't just a Beckham strategy, the rule was intended to provide MLS with some "high-end players" who contributed "sizzle" because younger American stars were becoming too expensive for what they contributed. He doesn't directly say it was a TV strategy, but that is the area where MLS is clearly "competing against that."

I'm not sure this is really even a controversial point. The DPs were intended to help sell the league and give it more elan. MLS is run by pretty smart guys IMO, and I think this was clearly calculated. I still think it is.

But I also sense we are now moving from what Rodriguez calls the third phase to something else, as he hints at in the interview.

"At the same time as the designated player phase, though, we finally started the foundational work that is so crucial — which is all of the academy staff, all of the youth development . . . In the other great countries, that player pool is far deeper with far more options. And we are not there yet. And we do think that Major League Soccer will be a big contributor and should be today."

Clearly, that's where MLS is headed. Rodriguez, who with Todd Durbin was charged to formulate the 2022 plan, seems to have put a heavy develpomental emphasis into it. Absent the funds to buy great, technical players, MLS is going to try and grow their own. Again, he talks about this in the interview and I won't repeat it all here.

With Rodriguez's comments as something of a road map, I agree with those who have suggested that we are already seeing signs of a shift in emphasis, where a few teams are still looking to sign the big money DPs who contribute the "sizzle", but most are looking at the strategy where they look at younger players and DPs who are designated as such only because a small loan or transfer fee makes them one, not because of the high wages they command because of their "sizzle value", if you will.

Personally, I'm convinced part of the reason for this is economic, as I've suggested above. It's hard for many teams to justify big name DPs given their financial situation and their direct return on that investment. A small transfer fee for a younger player who has re-sale value is another matter, especially if the financial outlay from the I/O is modest.

The great unknown here is the TV deals. MLS can't turn itself inside out chasing TV money IMO, but I would think it would be good to show some ratings growth -- more "relevance" in Garberspeak. I just don't know if people will tune in for teams laden with younger players. Or, if like ESPN, the strategy will simply be to focus on the teams with sizzle players and largely ignore the others in almost an EPL-like strategy.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

ESPN does not reach a larger audience than NBC (not NBCSN). Let's get that straight from the get go.

Who is the "sizzle" player for Chicago now? They don't have anyone who moves the TV meter at all and still have the 3rd largest number of broadcasts which nicely coincides with them being the third largest US market.

 

Of course not, but here again look at the three games slated for NBC:

NY in one, LA in the other, DC United v. Houston in the third.

http://www.mlssoccer.com/schedule?m..._type=347&op=Search&form_id=mls_schedule_form

 

CHIVAS USA gets a lot of U.D. games, they have no brand name players, but they do have the Latin brand, that is probably why.

 

That would matter if the MLS matches were on NBC rather than having 3 select matches on NBC. They aren't though, they're on NBCSN. That's kind of a big point.

 

Except that the original, erroneous, point is that TV games are being selected because of DPs. NBC, the largest outlet for any games, features DC more than anyone else this year. That certainly isn't due to DPs at all. The ESPN schedule clearly lines up more with market sizes being the driving force than DPs as well.

 

So in your opinion if NBC were basing their coverage on DPs all we would see on ESPN and NBCS would be LA, NY and Seattle?

Sould not DC be shown the 7th most amd Seattle the 15th most?

Edit: To be fair, Seattle is only shown on ESPN when they play the big 2 or Portland (and that makes sense).

Also looking triplet1 numbers, Portland was shown 1 time on ESPN even if they did not play Seattle-LA or NY; Seattle was never shown with out playing one of those 3.

 

I don't think it's just market size, at least not with respect to LA and NY.

Last November, Jonathan Tannenwald did an interesting analysis of MLS TV ratings in the Philadelphia Inquirer, focusing specifically on NBC and NBCSN. Not surprisingly, he concluded "New York and Los Angeles matter, whether you like it or not" in consistently drawing some of the league's best TV ratings. That's consistent with Brian Lewis' story in the New York Post in 2011 where he noted that the Red Bulls had become "without question the league's top television draw."

What was interesting in Tannewald's report, however, is that if you look at metered ratings by market, NBC/NBCSN MLS games didn't get particularly good numbers in LA or New York -- or many of its big markets for that matter.

Here's what Tannewald said:

"These were NBC's top metered 10 markets for MLS broadcasts in 2012:

1. San Diego
2. Seattle
3. Portland, Ore.
4. Salt Lake City
5. Kansas City
6. Norfolk, Va.
7. Philadelphia
8. Buffalo
9. New York
10. Fort Myers, Fla.

Among the noteworthy absences: Washington/Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston and Houston. Philadelphia beat all of those and New York too, which is a testament to the foothold that the Union have gained in our region."

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/...ason-of-broadcasting-Major-League-Soccer.html

Without question, Seattle fans watch the Sounders, both in the stadium and on TV. By contrast, NY and LA matter not just because of their local markets, but because they draw well elsewhere too. They are indeed the league's top draws.

Perhaps their high profile DPs have nothing to do with that, but given what the league has said about why it allowed them, I think it's likely they do matter.

Link to Brian Lewis' 2011 article:

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/socce...nza_draw_yaiNswku0MC67UlSv82UbI#axzz2Kd9iao4K

 

San Diego tops the list?

Has there ever been any interest in putting an MLS franchise there?

 

they have one ... it is called Club Tijuana. MLS waited and waited and waited and lost the chance to win the San Diego market (if it ever existed) .... it is Xolos territory now.

 

I think people would rather watch a local team than drive to Tijuana.

TJ isn't that far I'll grant you, but you still have to cross the boarder into Mexico and back again, that's got to be a pain in the ass.

 

Are the metered draws within a city being ranked by "rating" or by number of people watching? I'd love to see the raw numbers of people who view in a particular city. I do find it interesting that the top 4 markets are all out west and the 5th market is in the middle of the country. I'm not sure what it says about the league that random places like Norfolk, Buffalo and Fort Myers are in the mix.

As far as LA/NY drawing on TV no matter where they play, there are transplants from LA/NY everywhere in part because they're the two biggest markets by a wide margin. NY is twice the size of Chicago, the #3 market. LA is twice the size of DFW, the #4 market. There are LA/NY people watching from everywhere.

Is there a difference between the NY ratings now and before Henry? If the answer is no, then the DP doesn't matter in both the draw and the scheduling. The only DP who has made a real difference at the gate, or on TV, is Beckham. When he showed up, they opened the upper bowl at RFK for the Galaxy vs DC United match. That didn't happen with RBNY and Henry.

 

Becks (and Blanco) had a great affect on the gate.

But no one has ever really moved the tv needle over the course of even a few games. Freddy had a huge number (respectively) on his debut on ABC. But outside of one or two blips, the tv numbers are not any different than they were before the DP rule.

And to be fair, the league had plenty of DP's in the early years, we just did not have a name for them. Safe to say Donadoni, Zenga, Mattheus, Campos, Lalas, Stoichkov, and many others were paid significantly higher the max.

 

That's true -- MLS ratings have remained flat for years. But that doesn't mean games featuring name DPs don't draw better ratings than average.

As for LA's motivation, as someone mentioned earlier their new Time Warner local TV deal requires them to continue to invest in DPs in the post-Beckham era:

"Leiweke insisted that there is no component of the deal that makes certain Beckham will return after his current contract expires at the end of this season. What it does require from the Galaxy, however, is a continued focus on acquiring star players even after Beckham someday leaves MLS.
“There is a component in this that gives [Time Warner] some certainty to our commitment to having Designated Players,” Leiweke said. “We don’t name specific players because players come and go and this is at 10-year deal, but they know that we’ve made a commitment towards maintaining the quality . . . We are committed to DPs, and this organization will always be committed to DPs.”

http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2011/11/19/beckhams-influence-huge-galaxys-new-tv-deal

Time - Warner clearly thinks DPs matter in generating an audience. I think it's a mistake to dismiss the impact they have.

But I concede this debate may already be over and it looks like the Galaxy will be an exception to the rule. For most teams I agree with the sentiment here that the era of the big name DP may be coming to an end (before it even began for most of them).

Dom Kinnear said this to Fox Soccer last year:

“I think the college game and bringing players through the academies is very important and I also think bringing in sometimes relatively unknown young players with potential [from abroad] is an option. I think the age of aging superstars has happened and is in the past so I think that’s not going to happen so much anymore as it’s such a gamble. I think the first two is what I hope the league will focus on. I think that’s what the fans are going to want. They’re going to want to see good football and they’ll want to be surprised sometimes with the players coming through.”

http://msn.foxsports.com/foxsoccer/...-david-beckham-major-league-soccer-era-120412

It remains to be seen if the fans are really "going to want" to see a bunch of college and academy kids and "relatively unknown players with potential" from abroad. It may be cheaper, but I'm skeptical -- very skeptical -- that a broader audience prefers it as Kinnear suggests.

 

Except the part that ESPN's contract gives them choice of matches .... which was mentioned. Those games DO reflect DPs (and market size).

 

It's not entirely clear from the source...but I believe that list is ordered by rating, not by viewership. In TV, ratings are normally expressed

In other words: market size still matters. Unless Philadelphia's rating is three times New York's rating, there are still more eyeballs on the game in New York than in Philadelphia.