MLS 2013 TV Ratings

Probably not the in the minority here in the MLS N&A forum. But maybe (probably?) a minority for the "average" MLS fan, maybe even average MLS season ticket holder. (To judge from tv ratings.)

I'm a season ticket holder but I don't watch many MLS games on TV not involving my team. I tend to be doing other things, or if I'm watching TV, I'm usually watching other sports or other programs with my family. I watch other soccer leagues on TV though, and do care about some of those clubs more than random MLS clubs. Which should not be too surprising as I've seen more games, read more articles regarding those teams, been in more conversations about those teams, etc. I do keep up on what's happening around MLS (for which this forum is a great resource) as that obviously impacts the chances of my team to have success. But it just doesn't add up to big TV numbers.

 

The "University community," which includes not only alums, but also people either directly employed by the University or whose employers depend on the University for survival, is a lot of people, though. It's not the whole of the fanbase, but it's key in getting the culture kick-started.

 

Every team's fanbase runs the gamut from the super passionate hardcore through less passionate but still dependable fans through casual fans through fans going to games or even watching on TV as an excursion through folks who self identify with a team but don't even understand the rules of the sport.

People fall into these and many other categories for different and often highly personal reasons.

The eurosnobs who reject MLS are themselves part of a very small niche grouping in this country.

Level of play is an issue for some though I'd venture a fairly significant portion of the eurosnob crowd are into "their team" and even the sport for reasons totally divorced from play on the field and sporting considerations (though they'd be loath to admit it).

I'm hardcore RBNY while understanding there are better leagues out there.

The key issue to me is length of MLS history. When you're introduced at a young age to a sport and team and get hooked general quality of play isn't very significant going forward IMHO.

 

I never compared Eastern Europe to a specific metropolitan area like NY nor did I state people would laugh in your face for saying your favorite club is from whichever Eastern Euro city you're from.

What I said was this eurosnob factor is basically fabricated nonsense in regards to people acting like it's just an issue with just the American fan, and in my experiences in Eastern Europe, and from people I know in Asia, it's very common for fans to root for their favorite EPL club and watch them regularly, despite not seeing them in person. The point is it's not a eurosnob issue when the same dynamic exists in Europe with European fans, or Asia, or other places. When I was recently in Eastern Europe for a month, and it happened last winter when I was there as well, it was basically non-stop EPL on the tv. There were very few domestic matches on tv. In bars/cafes, EPL, not the domestic league. And when talking/hanging out with footy fans and discussing favorite EPL clubs there was no discussion of, "well you're an EPLsnob, support our local league, don't you realize our league won't grow as fast as it can if you don't support it more". There's more of an acceptance that footy fans in general will gravitate towards the best leagues, probably because it's more the norm than not among sports fans.

This is just my experience though, I'm not saying it's a black/white situation or even that I'm correct. Just my opinion based on my personal experiences. But whether it's an EPL fan living in Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia or parts of Asia, an NBA fan living in China, France, Italy or Russia, an MLB fan living in Cuba or Japan, fans gravitating towards towards the top league(s) is not just an American MLS issue as is heavily implied at times.

It's an issue many leagues confront. That doesn't mean to whatever extent it exists doesn't vary from city to city, country to country. It also means it's a very tough issue to tackle and multiple countries haven't found a solution. But I also think MLS has a better chance than most other leagues at improving on the situation, it'll just take time. Slow and steady. Goes against the 2022 goal but that's not my problem.

 

That's because the ground reality is totally different. Domestic club soccer in the US actually has a lot of potential for growth. In Eastern Europe, it's trapped by the economies of the countries it represents.

At the very least, in NYC it is true that if every European soccer fan would go to MLS games even occasionally--and they wouldn't have to do that to the exclusion of watching European football on TV--that would likely be enough, alongside the more local-oriented fans, to fill the stadium and at the least score the three league-allowed legitimately talented DPs. Or at least that's what NYCFC is going to bet.

 

imo the biggest reason mls made it where nasl failed, is the economic growth that took place in the meantime.
that said, the u.s. economy would have to perform untold further leaps and miracles for mls to have spectacular success on an entirely new level.
the league already benefits from being in the world's best economy.
and for plenty of reasons which in eastern europe don't exist, it's just as 'trapped' as those soccer leagues.
soccer here never will be at the top of the sport heap like it is in europe.

 

Like Jond, I'm a moderator on a large site for another league... people form all sorts of weird attachments. I know a guy from Minnesota who cheers for the Eagles, Red Wings, Cubs and T-Wolves. That's not front running, it's just the weird connections he's formed. On NHL sites, every team has at least a few fans from both Europe and Canada. There are people from Canada, from cities with NHL teams even, who cheer for the likes of the Florida Panthers, and there are Swedes and Russians and Finns who stay up until 3 am watching the Anaheim Ducks play as opposed to their local teams. This is reality.

I agree with what Stan Collins said... unless they're actively trolling MLS, people having a favorite European club isn't a problem. I'd wager a large percentage of people at every MLS game have a favorite team in the EPL or LMX at least. The question is how do you get the casual soccer fan to watch MLS in addition to those leagues, and there are no easy answers. Castigating them for liking a superior product isn't one.

 

were you around in the 1970's? you wouldn't even recognize the landscape compared to now. i mean literally. are you suggesting the u.s. economy circa 2003 was the same as the u.s. economy circa 1978?

 

fine. i won't bother lobbying gdp stats to compare the '70's to th '00's. again: did you live through these different realities, as i did? do you really not realize how much economic growth there has been, regardless of your 'eighteen month' stock market windows? the long term economic cycle (typically lasting one generation, for reasons that involve natural demographics) was overwhelmingly positive. there couldn't be a fifth pro sport before. there can be one now. that's the biggest external reason why mls has made it. there's more money than forty years ago, albeit spread more unevenly. but there's a lot more money, and mls accessed it through sponsorships, tv deals, paying customers, cash calls, expansion fees.

 

fine. and i say that person making that decision couldn't happen in the 70's. and let's agree to disagree.

 

One shouldn't overplay the 2001 recession. I think it had something to do with contraction in that a lot of economists thought it was going to be worse than it eventually was, but in reality the economy shook it off and was at least superficially (buoyed by the housing bubble) in expansion for all of the mid-2000s.

I think the claim is true that the economic difference between the US economy in the MLS era versus the NASL era is a significant help to the newer league. Total disposable income in this country has grown quite a lot since the 70s. And that increase has, even though the NFL has just gotten bigger and bigger all this time, helped create a vacuum into which other leagues were drawn in that time. First the NBA, then the NHL, then NASCAR. Next, maybe, MLS.

I don't think it's the only or maybe even the biggest factor, though. I suspect a lot of it was differing attitudes towards the game, caused by a few factors. First, it's easy to miss how shocking the success of World Cup 1994 was, both in attendance and TV ratings. The organizers were having to beg both venues to host and broadcasters to show that tournament, and a year or two out it still looked like there was significant possibility of total disaster. Second factor in that is the surge in the Latino market. The 1970s was actually one of the lowest immigration periods in US history. It was followed by one of the highest, from the Reagan amnesty of 1986 through to the Great Recession. 1986, coincidentally, was also the year that the Spanish International Network (SIN) was renamed to Univision, and began assembling a real TV empire.

Another factor separate from the evolution of attitudes was that new ways to make money were opening up. The NASL was looking basically at only tickets and TV. In particular luxury suites and shirt revenues were just getting started as major money sources during the NASL's decline.

For a lot of reasons, I think if the NASL had made it another 5 years or so, it might very well still be here today. The overarching reason that the NASL failed, I think, was that it was trying to sell soccer. . . to the USA. . . in the 1970s. The fact it came as close as it did was a near miracle, and it's only regarded as such a 'big failure' because for a second there it looked like it would succeed.

 

For example, the WC94 organizing committee wanted to use Husky Stadium in Seattle as a venue. Its artificial turf and surrounded by a track. The organizing committee told they would rip out the turf and track, put in grass, then put in a brand new turf and track before the '94 football season started, all at no cost to the school. The Athletic Director (Barbra Hedges, may she never return to the UW) turned them down, not wanting soccer to mess with the crown jewel of the athletic department.

 

All this info about the struggles of soccer in those days (90s, world cup and MLS in particular) is so interesting and puts the current "struggles" of MLS into perspective.

 

Soccer - The Satanic Game!

Alright America I hope you're happy.............

 

the '94 wc was a relative success. the upper deck at gs was half empty for the semifinal.
i went to a bunch of games without ever buying a ticket in advance, paying below face value in the parking lot, and getting mid-field mezzanine seats, semi-final included.
the ticket windows were open with nobody in line.
tix had been 'distributed' to all sorts of people that had no interest in using them except to cash in for whatever they might get.

 

Huh. If I had to guess, it would be much different were the US to host another one now.

 

And at any rate, by the time the average NFL stadium has a half-full upper deck or you're bending over backwards trying to use the last tickets up, you're still at a crowd level that's far beyond what the average soccer stadium can even hold. I think the stadium seating 'requirement', which is occasionally fudged, is 40k. Contrast to the ultimate for World Cup '94, Saudi Arabia-Morocco, which drew 76,322 to East Rutherford. That's on paper probably the least appetizing game in the whole World Cup, and they got the stadium close to 90% full.

That's not even a moderate difference in degree from what would have happened had the WC gone to another country, it's a whole different ballgame. USA '94 still holds the all time record for attendance, even though there were only 52 games compared to 64 now. That was enough to change a lot of minds about the potential marketability of soccer in this country. MLS coming out of the gates with more attendance than most people would have expected helped too, they just weren't able to keep the momentum going in successive years.

 

were you there? i was. the center of the upper deck was empty. the end zones were full. at the game's opening whistle there was a swoosh of people running into the good seats. i'm 'reduced' to giving an accurate first hand report. repeat: i. was. there.
were you?
ps - the other semi, which i saw on tv, wasn't full either. i didn't mention that because i only wanted to give direct testimony.

as for the people of ny studying the wc, the super bowl setup will be nothing like the wc's, regardless of what 'mycentraljersey' says. i mean, really, 'reduced' to quoting mycentraljersey. stick with me.

 

Thanks for the link. I love this part:

It seems there's just no end to FIFA's decadence.