The All-Encompassing Pro/Rel Thread on Soccer in the USA

I see the flat circle of the pro/rel thread has revolved back to not understanding how TV deals work.

 

Yes. TV is working out gangbusters for MLS. At least they have the US*NT to prop up their value.

 

Yeah, it seems pretty self-evident that networks would rather have teams in 2 of the 4 biggest markets in the country (Chicago and Houston) than not, but that seems to be a confusing idea for some.

 

So let those networks run a league on their own with teams in a closed shop in the markets they covet.

 

And, before long, that would likely be the only surviving professional league.

Running a national soccer league in the US is like running a continent-wide baseball league in Europe.

 

With an open pyramid, they'd probably always have one in Chicago and Houston. Just not the Fire and the Dynamo. I hear Sockers u18/19 beat a SOunders team that called in USL&MLS players in the DA playoffs...things happen

 

El Tri the way our MNT is playing but sure...

 

No, it would be like running a continent-wide soccer tournament in Europe. Could you imagine a scenario where Leicester was included rather than Manchester United? Who could imagine a media company going for thatI

Or, and I realize how crazy this sounds, but hear me out: could you imagine a major US media companyoutbidding every other sports media outlet for the rights for a tournament 4 years in the future that, HAHA, it turns out the USA didn't even qualify for?

Or or or... hear me out here... Disney pays a massive amount of money to broadcast a series of football games where they cannot control against the possibility of a Texas Tech/Washington State national championship final.

 

Ok, let's stop being coy and just say SUM.

 

And round and round the circle goes...

 

Ok, but there's still no evidence that media companies are somehow allergic to dynamic situations.

I can't imagine Disney salivates over the thought of having exclusive rights to a Jacksonville/Titans pillow fight on a Thursday night vs. the idea that one or both of those teams could be replaced with teams from San Diego or San Antonio or Portland or Raleigh or Memphis or Birmingham or Salt Lake City or....

 

I mean the original quote was:

Despite the fact that there are countless examples of TV deals that don't rely on specific markets or teams being represented, to the point where it almost makes this argument seem like it might be based in bullshit!

 

We have that, it's called the Champions League.

 

The "circle jerk" response is merely a way of attempting to denigrate an argument they disagree with.

Still waiting for complete transparency from the USSF regarding the SUM deal...

 

Not actually the argument I was making, but whatever...

 

I'm pretty sure all your questions have been answered somewhere.

 

Ok, so what was your "point"?

 

I'm pretty sure they haven't. And as the SUM deal still exists, the problem of having a regulator having a financial ties to one particular league it regulates still exists.

 

Name them off.

While the NFL didn't have LA for 20 years (despite 20 years of trying to get a team back in LA with numerous stadium plans etc.) They still had a whole catalog of markets that they didn't want to part with. Every major pro sports league has to have a team or two in the top markets to even have a hope of survival. That's why even the XFL is putting a team in LA and Houston.

MLS is going to make a Chicago work because that market is much more important to its inventory than a Columbus. When MLS goes in to ESPN or Fox and starts negotiating for a new TV deal, they're going to want stable teams in the top markets. No league in the US is going to sit at a broadcast negotiation table and ask for hundreds of millions with the caveat that their New York team can be replaced by a team in Louisville or Tulsa because the New York team had one bad season. That's literally reason No. 2 why pro/rel is thankfully not happening here.

But what do I know, I've never had first hand knowledge of how broadcast rights deals work or anything.

While MLS doesn't get great ratings, it's seen incremental growth year over year. Live content is getting more valuable for both broadcast and streaming because it's binge-proof and fairly inexpensive to produce.

NBC is paying a billion for EPL rights for a few reasons. First, you have some of the biggest sports brands on the planet in that league, all of which are basically immune from relegation because money buys merit. A foreign league doesn't have the same market issues that a US league has. Also, the EPL is valuable because it fills a time slot that has no competition. No other live sports are playing in the US at 7 a.m. on Saturdays and by the time EPL games are over, college football and other sports are just beginning. It's a win-win for NBC. Fulham getting relegated has nothing to do with the league's popularity here or the value of the broadcast rights. That's why when the Euro Superleague eventually comes to life, Fox or ESPN will be willing to throw billions at it because they'll have huge sports brands filling a dead time slot.

 

That's not how it works but you know that.
Let me guess....cartel?

 

Actually it is how it works.

Let me guess... you're in denial.

 

"You're in Denial"
Track No. 3 on your album of greatest hits.

 

I'll take that as yes, you are in denial.

Having the regulator of soccer leagues in the US have a financial interest through SUM with one particular league it regulates is a clear conflict of interest.

 

I mean its funny because it's true, sadly.

 

Ah, another poster who'd rather denigrate than discuss. Sigh.