News: MLS Consolidating Local TV rights in 2022

Discussion in 'MLS: News & Analysis' started by kirsoccer, Mar 7, 2019.

  1. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    One of the things that HSG gets right is that they put their all their local broadcasts OTA TV in D/FW and other cities in north Texas and the Texas Panhandle, enabling lots of fans to see the games with just a set of rabbit ears, which is a good thing in a market which has always had a low cable and satellite penetration rate.

    If MLS goes and makes an exclusive deal for all local broadcasts with some streaming service like ESPN+ or YouTubeTV, that'll be a big step backward IMHO.
     
  2. CMeszt

    CMeszt Member+

    Farewell Sweet Prince
    Jan 9, 2004
    Gentrification's Apex.
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    I mean, we're all going to have Flo anyway because we're all going to have CONCACAF Nations League Fever!, Right!? Right guys?
     
  3. CMeszt

    CMeszt Member+

    Farewell Sweet Prince
    Jan 9, 2004
    Gentrification's Apex.
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    That does make things a little better. Flo has the rights to USA Rugby, which I'd love to be able to follow more with the world cup coming up this year.
     
  4. CMeszt

    CMeszt Member+

    Farewell Sweet Prince
    Jan 9, 2004
    Gentrification's Apex.
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Two local TV deals ago, Chicago put games on the local CW affiliate, which was... kind of ok. I'm not sure how great it really was for exposure though because unlike a local Fox Sports or CSN regional network, you don't really have programming on either side of the broadcast that appeals to the same audience.
     
  5. JayRockers!

    JayRockers! Member+

    Aug 4, 2001
  6. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I hope this is just local streaming rights like YoutubeTV has for a couple of teams rather than a replacement for OTA/cable.
     
    jaykoz3 and eddygee repped this.
  7. eddygee

    eddygee Member+

    DC United
    May 12, 2007
    Moco, Maryland
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yeah if its just local streaming rights this is okay and that is only in the sense that there is a local tv partner involved to show games. This could work but if its and exclusive deal where FloSports becomes the end all be all carrier, hell no.
     
  8. JayRockers!

    JayRockers! Member+

    Aug 4, 2001
    So, if MSG has the local TV rights but I’m watching a couple baseball/basketball/hockey games already on my TV/DVR I wouldn’t be able to stream MSG live because...FloSports? Makes no sense it’s a local streaming rights only deal. I have to think it’s for the whole enchilada. All games but what’s on National TV. I hope they don’t do it at all, but especially not with Flo.

    Thx,

    Jay!
     
  9. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Why doesn't it make sense? How many of MLS's local broadcast partners have the ability to stream as well? Additionally, by separating local broadcast and local streaming rights, it would allow MLS to create an additional revenue source that it may not be utilizing right now.[/QUOTE]
     
    007Spartan repped this.
  10. JayRockers!

    JayRockers! Member+

    Aug 4, 2001
    #35 JayRockers!, May 10, 2019
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2019
    In theory MLS has already sold the nationwide streaming rights to ESPN. However I’ve streamed several local broadcasts via their own internet portals. The 2022 deal will consolidate all local broadcast rights under one roof. Any game not on National TV will just be streaming only, no local broadcast TV option.

    Thx,

    Jay!
     
  11. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think that's a pretty bad idea if it comes to fruition, or at least a premature idea. While chord cutting and streaming is increasing in popularity, I seem to recall that a majority of people are still getting their sports from TV rather than streaming.. That could definitely change, but... meh.
     
  12. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yeah, I'm someone who gets his TV from streaming and therefore qualifies as a cordcutter. (But somebody really needs to explain to me how getting my multichannel service from PlayStation Vue is all that different from getting it from DirecTV or Comcast.)

    With that said, I do have an large-ish OTA antenna on the side of my house to get local Denver channels that PSVue doesn't carry... like Univision and UniMas. And at the end of the day, OTA TV is still the most accessible way to get TV there is. It costs you nothing except for a one-time purchase of an antenna. It seems to me that going streaming-only would cut off a lot of viewers whose local teams (like FCD and RSL and OCSC and I'm sure others) have put their games on local OTA stations, and at this point in time, would still qualify as "being too far over the tips of your skis" or whatever cliche you want to use for being a little too far ahead of your time.

    TBH, it sort of reminds me of the NHL's disasterous exclusive deal with SportsChannel back in the '80s.

    Edit: And if MLS were to go with FloSports, that would be The Absolute Worst, since (a) FloSports hasn't demonstrated an ability to deliver streams reliably for two MLS teams' local broadcast, and (b) they're way more expensive than ESPN+.
     
    Ismitje, TheJoeGreene and JasonMa repped this.
  13. eddygee

    eddygee Member+

    DC United
    May 12, 2007
    Moco, Maryland
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #38 eddygee, May 10, 2019
    Last edited: May 10, 2019
    My understanding is the league is looking at multiple options. Yes in theory ESPN was sold the local broadcast rights back in 2014 when the new deal was signed and they took over MLS Direct Kick. ESPN later turned in that production into a streaming option only when they created ESPN+. The leverage will go back to MLS in 2022 when the deal is up because MLS can de-link and reform the package of games they produced and carried in Direct Kick/MLS Live. They can also sell exclusive streaming rights. Right now ESPN just has it all bundled into ESPN+.

    The thing we are missing here is the fact there are suitors for the rights package already regardless of how crappy they are FloSports only drives up the negotiation price. So that's FloSports & ESPN+ who want MLS streaming digital content. Don't forget that Soccer Fan/ Former ESPN & Current Executive Chairman of DAZN John Skipper will be most assuredly be in the hunt to secure it first US Major League package of games. DAZN could put together a similar deal that they gave the J-League in 2016 a $205mil yr (10 yr US $2.05bn) to be the exclusive rights holder to stream all J-League games.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/...-deal-could-raise-jleague-soccer-profile.html

    So all in all MLS is in the drivers seat on the streaming content. Obviously we want the most distribution and dollars to balance out. ESPN wisely in a smart business move packaged it all together. Garber mentioned in a stitcher podcast with Yahoo Sports that the ratings on ESPN+ continue to grow and if you ask ESPN's new President Jimmy Pitaro ESPN loves having the MLS package on their new platform with MLS being one of there first major packages on ESPN+
    Lots of good stuff in this interview with Don Garber specifically talks TV/Streaming deals 27:00-32:40
    https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/yahoo-finance-sportsbook-podcast/e/59837029
     
    Element 7ero and C-Rob repped this.
  14. crookeddy

    crookeddy Member+

    Apr 27, 2004
    To me, this gives up on MLS being a top level league and moves us permanently into a niche. (talking about streaming being the only local option)
     
  15. JayRockers!

    JayRockers! Member+

    Aug 4, 2001
    I can’t imagine what our house used to get pre-HD OTA, but we can barely get all of the big four HD with an antenna on the reg, despite living within 40 miles of DC and Baltimore. I guess if that was my only choice I could hook a monster antenna up on the roof and run the line down to the pre-wire for the house. It’s not, so I don’t.

    Thx,

    Jay!
     
  16. JayRockers!

    JayRockers! Member+

    Aug 4, 2001
    Is the J-League televised anywhere in the USA?

    It’s not a bad deal if it brings new content to your audience. It’s a very bad deal if it takes away previously paid for content from your audience. Specifically how ESPN handled The Championship last season. Also how the AAC just essentially lost TV coverage for their conference sports which went to ESPN+. Last year things were on ESPN3. Now it’s an additional charge to watch what was included in my cable/sat sub.

    Thx,

    Jay!
     
  17. CMeszt

    CMeszt Member+

    Farewell Sweet Prince
    Jan 9, 2004
    Gentrification's Apex.
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Have to say I hate this. I've used Sling for a couple years and recently switched to Hulu. Back when the Fire were with the traditional regional sports network, I couldn't watch them since my primary TV source was considered "streaming" even if on my regular TV. This really really screws over a lot of fans.
     
  18. eddygee

    eddygee Member+

    DC United
    May 12, 2007
    Moco, Maryland
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No it's not the most logical spot would've been ESPN+ but since that is streaming thats a no go as the streaming rights won't be available until 2027. Someone could come and get the TV rights but the recent and I suspect long lasting trend has been for non Tier 1 Soccer property to be moved to and bought by streaming properties.
     
  19. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Is there a reason why DAZN isn’t making it available in the US? Seems a bit odd for them to own the global rights, but to jot actually do anything with it.
     
  20. ThreeApples

    ThreeApples Member+

    Jul 28, 1999
    Smurf Village
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    DAZN isn't making what available in the US?
     
  21. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    DAZN bought the global streaming rights for J-League back in 2017, but only carries boxing , MMA, and MLB in the US.
     
  22. lurak

    lurak Member+

    Aug 24, 2007
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Someone better let DAZN know that we love J-League goalkeeping here in this part of BigSoccer in the US.
     
    Dirt McGirt repped this.
  23. tigersoccer2005

    tigersoccer2005 Member+

    Dec 1, 2003
    North Bergen, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If DAZN-- got the rights to stream/archive/on-demand Aussie Rules Footy i might consider subscribing.
     
    Allez RSL repped this.
  24. jaykoz3

    jaykoz3 Member+

    Dec 25, 2010
    Conshohocken, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Fox sports has the US rights. Or you can subscribe to the AFL's subscription league pass. Has every game including playoffs and grand final live and on demand, though a bit pricey. Same goes for the NRL too.
     
  25. EvanJ

    EvanJ Member+

    Manchester United
    United States
    Mar 30, 2004
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    How did you try to watch? If you go to watch online that requires authentication, as long as you provide a username and password for a TV provider, the website doesn't know if you have a second TV provider.
     

Share This Page