Not too mention the qualification process in UEFA, CONMEBOL, AFC are much more difficult. If the US had to qualify out of CONMEBOL they would never qualify.
I think the only thing certain is that a new generation of cocksure prognosticators, that have no interest in supporting soccer in the US, was born from our failure to make the WC.
Far fewer than "almost all" of the teams are losing money. What you're failing to recognize about the teams which are, though, is twofold. First, losing money means more is put in than taken out, so if you're investing extra money out of pocket as well as whatever potential profits there could be without investment, then there's a loss, but a worthwhile one if it means that value (specifically, the ability to generate more revenue in the future) increases at a faster pace than it otherwise would. Second, the individual team is not the only revenue source for an MLS team owner. They hold part of SUM, almost all own or operate a stadium, and they may have a separate arm for local TV and radio broadcasts. These things generate revenue and have value as well. Before RSL started play, the team president came and spoke to my public management class. He said that without either a stadium or broadcasting, owning the MLS team would never be sustainable long term, and with both of them, they couldn't see how it wouldn't be profitable. For reference, this was when there were still only a half dozen team owners, ticket numbers were both lower and more inflated by giveaways, TV rights were peanuts, and the Adidas deal was just paid-in-kind equipment. The national team missing the World Cup hurts. But it's not even close to the devastating, possibly catastrophic blow you seem to see. It's a missed opportunity to hasten a bit more growth and a better league sponsorship or two. Now, instead of focusing on the American team, the league website and its television partners will have to do more coverage of MLS players representing other nations. And there are plenty of them to cover.
Probably, but not by a lot. We'll get a good gauge with AFC's #5 team Australia vs. CONCACAF's #4 team Honduras. I rate Australia slightly higher, but we'll see.
I think this is an overly dramatic take. By 2019 the US missing out will not even be a hot topic of daily debate. People will be focused on Copa America and the next qualification cycle. This is the beauty of soccer. The wheel keeps on turning. Especially for national teams who don't have to worry about relegation. After each failure you get to start over with a blank slate. And success always feels more rewarding after you've tasted defeat. I'll believe the sky is falling when I start seeing aspiring owners pulling out of the expansion race. That's the gauge that actually matters.
Ok, I guess I'll take the complete opposite view, but I think this could actually be good for MLS. In the short-term, it's a missed opportunity to gain some new casual fans who take an interest in soccer as a result of the WC excitement. But how many of the non-soccer fans who attend a USMNT viewing party actually become regular MLS ticket buyers or TV viewers down the road? The die-hard soccer fans watch both, but the casual fans only watch the USMNT once every 4 years out of a sense of patriotism, just like the Olympics. Therefore, I think we tend to over-estimate the linkage between USMNT excitement and MLS growth. Meanwhile, MLS could actually benefit from this in two very important ways: Increased focus on the MLS development academies: It's not like we're going to tear that whole system down and start over. If anything, it will get more focus and investment which is ultimately good for US Soccer and for MLS as it will help develop more young, American stars. MORE (not less) investment in the MLS TV deal: Getting burned on its investment in the WC may actually cause networks to bet on more of a sure thing in the future and that would be MLS. Fox paid $400 million for the English-language broadcast rights to the 2018 World Cup. That investment now looks like a disaster since the USMNT didn't qualify. Consider how that will affect future investments. Will Fox and ESPN get into another bidding war for 2022, all for a 1-month summer tournament in Qatar, with awkward live broadcast time slots (Qatar is 7 hours ahead of the US east coast, 10 hours ahead of the west coast), not knowing if the US team will even qualify or how far they will advance? Or, might it make a lot more sense to spend that money on a league that you know for sure will offer a steady stream of 476 games, 9 months of the year, every year, at convenient US broadcast times, with a full national footprint of (eventually) 28 domestic teams in every major media market? That's is a MUCH safer investment, and one that could pay-off huge if you market the league properly. That 2nd point in particular could be big for MLS as the TV deal is key to the future growth of the league. The ticket revenue can't get that much higher as stadiums are already filled to 80-90% capacity and fans won't tolerate huge price hikes. So, increasing the salary caps, allocation money, DNP spending, facilities, and even the investment in developmental academies, all depends on getting more out of the next TV deal and I think MLS just gained leverage rather than losing it.
To say that almost all of the teams are losing money is a bit misleading. Most MLS teams became profitable about a decade ago. The ones that are losing money today are mostly teams that spent hundreds of millions of dollars on new stadiums and still, temporarily, have huge bond payments on those facilities. And ask yourself this, if MLS was such a big financial loser, why do owners continue to invest more and more in their teams? Wouldn't they all be trying to sell and get out of a bad deal that was costing them a fortune? Also, why are there a dozen cities willing to pay a $150 million expansion fee and build $250 million stadiums, just to land a franchise? That's a whopping $400 million in start-up costs, yet 12 cities are aggressively competing for 4 slots, and most of them are doing it with little or no public money.
IMO, that is very optimistic. If networks start seeing the World Cup as a bad investment there is nothing that says they have to invest that money in other soccer programming. It could be they just choose soccer is a bad investment period. I don't see MLS tv broadcasting rights increasing in value because USMNT didn't qualify.
Some more facts that suggest the doom and gloom is grossly over-stated, at least as it relates to MLS... USMNT success has little, if any, impact on MLS interest. Just take the last world cup as an example. Despite the all the passion and energy around the USMNT run into the quarterfinals, with those glorious watch parties, goal celebrations, and "I Believe" chants, it didn't translate to increased interest in MLS: There was no spike in attendance: On on hand MLS average attendance did increase in by 19% in 2015 vs. 2014 (21K vs. 19K), but that had almost nothing to do with the USMNT. Expansion teams in Orlando and NYCFC boosted attendance whereas the removal of Chivas USA eliminated a team that had less than half the attendance of any other team and was pulling down the average. Meanwhile, attendance was flat year-over-year throughout the rest of the league. No spike from the WC. There was no spike in TV ratings either: TV ratings for MLS have been increasing slowly over time, but there was no spike in 2015 following the 2014 WC run and we've actually seen a bigger increase in 2016 and 2017 as we gained time and distance from the last WC. The modest increase in TV ratings has resulted from 3 things that are totally unrelated to the USMNT: Infusion of star players like David Villa, Sebatian Giovinco, Migel Almiron, Joseph Martinez, Nemanja Nikolic, the dos Santos brothers, or guys that were signed just prior to the last WC like Diego Valeri, Bradley Wright-Phillips, etc. The addition of new media markets via expansion A greater commitment from FS1 and ESPN to making the games available than we ever saw from broadcast partners previously. The Sunday night broadcast on ESPN 2 in particular has been key, especially outside of NFL season. Point being, the growth of MLS has been steady, but organic, and largely unrelated to USMNT success or failure.
They're gonna spend that money on something and a bad investment in the WC makes it more likely that they'll steer future investment toward other programming. There's always a re-evaluation of strategy when you get burned on a $400 million deal like that. MLS is still very well-positioned to get increased investment. After all, sports programming is still valued by advertisers because its one of the few things that people still tend to watch live and actually see the commercials. They also value a young and diverse audience which soccer delivers. Meanwhile, highlight shows simply don't draw viewers anymore and you can't fill the entire broadcast schedule with the current 4 major sports. So what are ESPN, Fox, and NBC going to do with those multi-channel sports networks? Are they going to fill the lineup with bowling and women's college softball? What other sport can offer 476 games over 9 months with a national footprint of 28 major media markets and a positive viewership and demographic trend? In fact, I'll bet the next MLS TV contract doubles in value over the current deal.
Fox is still going to broadcast the World Cup, the biggest sporting event on the planet. I know they'll miss the US games and their ratings, but they should still get stellar ratings.
Pirlo Movsisyan Lucas Melano Cristian Coleman had a what, 2m fee? Demidov Ibarra Diskerud Gonzalo Veron Those guys are either are or have been platoon, bench, or gone this season and all were paid 1m or more, or had a multi-million fee. Simon Dawkins is a DP Kenwyne Jones is a DP .... Cubo had a hell of a time getting on the field at Houston Giles Barnes at ORL (was a platoon/bench guy before KAKA went down at the season's start, was till late season) Ciani isn't exactly just waltzing on the pitch Jay Simpson Will Bruin The league doesn't have a problem with not playing guys that make $$$$ (relative to the league). Now, that's not USMNT players, yes *save Dix. Though the effort, form, etc for Altidore/Bradley are NIGHT AND DAY at TFC and when in the USMNT kit. How has their "guaranteed playing time" diminished their ability in the USMNT shirt? That doesn't make sense seeing as how they play well in the league.
People will justifiably analyze whether MLS is helping or hurting the development of USMNT players. But the CONCACAF teams that have been beating us lately are loaded with MLS players and it sure doesn't seem to be hurting them. Besides, the guys we have in their prime who are good enough to play in Europe generally go that route. The ones that are truly Big 5 European league quality only play MLS before and after their prime years. So, I suspect the bigger issue is how well our guys are developing from age 16 to their early 20's. Is the MLS Academy System adequately developing them? Is their growth limited by NCAA soccer? Are all the international players in MLS taking PT away from young, developing Americans? Meanwhile, nitpicky point, but Kenwyne Jones is not a DP. Atlanta's 3 DPs are Miguel Almiron, Joseph Martinez, and Hector (Tito) Villialba. All three start when healthy and they lead the team in scoring.
i wonder if the ratings for MLS games in June might increase with passionate US NT fans wanting to tune into MLS or perhaps casual fans who watch the US and then peek into MLS might be turned off with no US games to motivate them.
It's an opportunity for MLS to finally unhitch it's cart -- which has a bigger engine, more passengers and more cargo anyway -- from the destinies of the USMNT. LA Galaxy are shit this season, but normally the playoffs would offer the perfect opportunity to escape the gloom and doom surrounding the NT discussion right now. Time to see if Americans can love soccer on its own merits, detached from the boner-inducing tease of potential World Cup glory.
I suspect casual fans won't be swayed to break their normal routine. Bar-crawlers who cheered for the U.S. the last time around and came out remembering Howard and no one else will just root for some European team they're vaguely familiar with. Probably wouldn't have been that interested in MLS even if the U.S. was there. Passionate NT fans could probably go either way, either swearing off MLS because of blame or actually doubling down on league support if they still crave the U.S. based experience first and foremost.
The TV ratings for MLS probably won't change much based on USMNT participation (or lack thereof). However, I think it could actually help in the next round of TV negotiations for MLS. Fox spent $425 million on English-language broadcast rights in the US whereas Telemundo spent $600 million for Spanish-language broadcast rights. That's over $1 billion for US broadcast rights to a 4-week tournament that won't even involve the US. So, those investments are bound to suffer, especially the one by Fox. That experience may cause them to re-assess the investments they make going forward. The 2022 World Cup in Qatar will be occurring on approximately the same timeline as the expiration and renewal of the current MLS TV deal with ESPN/Fox/Univision. Will any of those broadcast partners bid aggressively on the rights to a 4-week tournament in a time zone 7-10 hours ahead of the US, when they can't even know for certain that the USMNT will qualify? Or might they instead steer greater investment into a "sure thing" like a guarantee of 476 regular season MLS games per year in a 28-team league with growing interest, attractive marketing demographics, and an expanded national footprint? Might be better to invest in MLS and help the league grow to generate a steady, predictable stream of revenue, than to roll the dice on another brief tourney that only happens every 4 years. Plus, if MLS viewership is in any way tied to WC viewership, the far bigger issue would be for North America to win the bid to host the WC in 2026. MLS was born as a result of the 1994 World Cup in the US and could experience a huge boost if we were to host again.
Found this today: It reads like from our boards a decade ago, but still worth some look. Fall to Summer concept with playing in the South and indoor stadium North in February type ideas. https://www.starsandstripesfc.com/2...s-soccer-mls-schedule-fifa-fall-spring-summer