New TV Deal

Are those MLS numbers including Spanish Language and Canadian contracts?

 

The $720m contract was an 8 year contract that contained both the domestic spanish and english language rights for both MLS and US Soccer. The $720m does not all go to MLS. A % goes to US Soccer.

The $720m does not take into account any foreign deals. Information on those is hard to come by.

 

The TV landscape is changing significantly and quickly.

It is impossible to predict what services and formats will be gunning for sports contracts in 2023.

It could be the old stand bys like ESPN/Fox/NBC or it could be new players like youtube and other online entities that take the next step to get into the sporting world. As the years go on, more and more people are going to move to streaming models.

 

This thread strikes me as 3+ years premature...

 

Why does it "seem" like this to you? What signs have you come across, what evidence can you point time which causes you to believe that MLS is " banking on a massive new TV contract".

In a few years. In negotiations which haven't even begun yet. Negotiations in which US Soccer will also be a party.

And is US Soccer also "banking on a massive new TV contract"? Why or why not?

Or do you suppose it's possible that Don Garber, Mark Abbott, Sunil Gulati, Dan Flynn et all follow the TV sports rights market at least as closely as you do and have a pretty good grasp on the value of their product?

Which as noted above won't be an issue for at least 3 years.

Otherwise, wonderful post.

 

Loca/regional and international media rights deals (for SUM and MLS teams) will likely always accompany the large(ish, and likely regularly growing each "cycle") domestic "national tv partner" pool of money.

And don't for get the cyber dollars.

 

The traditional cable model is going to die. All media models have changed completely. Cable is the only old remnant holding on (kicking and screaming). Streaming is a major factor and will ultimately kill off traditional cable. This means filler channels will go belly up. I say good riddance. I see a day in the near future where you just pick what channels you want to stream and pay direct to the network. Things like Sling and Playstation Vue are a step in this direction but not quite there yet. They still have a bank of networks you get but then have very cheap add on packages you can choose for additions channels.

Many networks already have their own streaming platforms. I strongly feel that ESPN created theirs because they plan to go direct to customers someday. HBO has gone direct, but you can still gain access to it via another provider.

Not sure what my point is, but in 3 years a lot could change.

 

I think it's likely more accurate to say that MLS is HOPING for a big bump in TV money, but I seriously doubt if they've made strategic plans that will cause the league to crash into a pile of smoking rubble if it doesn't materialize.

Particularly in light of the ongoing collapse of ESPN and the bath they're going to be taking on the NFL package which they grossly overpaid for based on a history which is no longer relevant.

And that goes double.for the almost literally insane NBA deal they and Turner entered into. John Skipper should be fired.

Meanwhile, people are unplugging rather than pay the ESPN freight which is the highest fee in the business, something like 8 bucks a month for every single cable subscriber in the US and you can't exclude it.

So now that subscription numbers are plummeting - and not coincidentally people are sick of tuning in for scores and highlights and having social justice crammed down their throats (people have taken to calling it MSESPN) - it's only going to get worse for the folks in Bristol.

The $100 million in planned cuts for this year will bite deep into on air talent and is almost surely only the beginning. They're swimming in red ink.

So no, the days of massive rights increases are gone. But I believe MLS can do fine in an a la cartella package IF it's continually packaged with US National team rights.

 

It's over for ESPN big money days..

 

I think that may indeed be coincidental - people are cutting the cord for entirely different reasons, practical reasons. Maybe after the fact, they say something like this because it suits their political persuasion to portray their actions as part of some mass backlash, but the actual number of people who are making this decision based on politics is very small.

 

Granted, money will drive most decision making, however overarching political bias can have an effect regardless of platform - unless the platform is straight pay-per-view. If a corporate entity has an overt political agenda (I may be naive, but this appears on the rise.) I can see it having a great effect. I guess one's sensitivity to political bias depends on whether you like what you're hearing. It won't stop me tuning in to a game, but it will keep me from tuning in to anything else. And that might affect profitability. And that might keep an particular entity for winning the next rights package. The last election (regardless of politics) suggests that we might ere in our assumptions about what drives people.

 

Good thing you are here to tell us why they are really doing it as opposed to why the people themselves say they are doing it.
Thanks for filling us in.

P.S. I can't stand when people do what you just did. Because the idea of people tuning out because of sports becoming political doesn't fit your beliefs it can't be true. The same people said there was no way Trump would win.
I personally know many people that are tuning out for that exact reason and I am one of them. The number of hours I watch NFL have been greatly decreased and I am not far from completely stopping.

 

In my house....you couldn't be more wrong! I'm not cutting the cord. And we still watch games on ESPN. But the rest of their programming is indistinguishable from MSNBC. So we don't bother. I like the old days when they actually focused on sports!

 

I didn't say it can't be true because it doesn't fit my beliefs - I said it seems bogus as a major reason for the decline in sports viewership. For example, sports viewership is declining fastest among the age demographics least likely to support Trump, and slowest among those most likely to.

Most (white) people I know and am friends with support Trump, and I frequently hear the same complaints about liberal sports television. I brought this up specifically because I've run into this exact phenomenon - people initially saying they made a political decision, and then you probe a little deeper, and hey, turns out they really cut the cord for the same reasons as I did.

 

What I've been trying to say is that while conservatives are genuinely ticked off about "social justice" coverage (maybe we can dispute that one in another thread), it's not a primary driver of cord cutting or not watching games. People do those things mostly for other reasons.

 

Sorry if you see this as Evil Liberal Condescension Against Real Americans or whatever, but people do this sh*t all the time on both sides.

They're all on Facebook like, "I will NEVER AGAIN eat at Chik-Fil-A because of their disgusting bigotry and opposition to gay marriage!" And then you probe a little deeper and it turns out they never eat there anyway. And the ones that do, they quietly sneak back a month later and get the same sandwich they always got before.

So yeah, I'm skeptical of people's stated motives. People love to do something they were gonna do anyway and then score a few political points on the way out.

 

Mmmmmmm. Chik-fil-A.

Ain't nothing wrong with that.

I have to admit though that for a corollary I personally would have gone with gone with a flannel shirted Womyns Studies grad who works as a barrista at Starbucks part time who threatens to boycott Nordstrom if they don't drop Ivanka Trump's clothing line.
Really do some damage to the corporate bottom line there.

 

Well, I just flat out told you it's THE reason why I don't watch ESPN. Other than occasional game coverage. I can't be any more specific or direct in my reasoning. Now, it has not motivated me to cut the cord...YET. I have other reasons to stay connected. But it is THE reason I don't typically watch ESPN.

You can hang on to your theory if you want to. Maybe you are right. But folks in the Northeast don't exactly have their finger on the pulse of flyover country. My good friend from Brooklyn, NY was lamenting after the November election. "I can't believe Trump won! I don't know a single person that voted for that A**Hole"....exactly!

 

Fair enough - but still, you're paying for the channel and watching the games, which I think are the key metrics for this thread. ESPN may have a separate ratings issue to contend with, but the initial comment I was responding to was about subscriber numbers, where the movement doesn't seem to show much correlation with politics.

It's true that people live in bubbles, but it's not just an urban, coastal thing. I live in rural NC (near the Triad) and know quite a few people who really can't bring themselves to believe anyone voted for Obama except illegal immigrants and poor inner city voters who were bused to the polls by "the Democratic machine". I'm like, hey, you've known me for years, dude...

 

Where is your proof? You are stating it absolutely.

I am also telling you that i absolutely have limited my watching of NFL and ESPN because of the political stuff. I know many others doing the same. Some are/were hard core NFL fans. The NFL knows this too. A guy like Kaepernick would have been picked up or at least had interest if it wasn't for his political comments/stances. He is a young super athletic player. Not saying he won't be picked up but it sure is taking a while for teams to show interest in him. NFL's core fan base is not very far removed from NASCAR core fan base.

 

IMO, Cord cutters "on average" are people who don't have the money to purchase over priced cable, it's why they are finding other entertainment avenues. If by chance cable does go away of the dodo bird I would look for Internet fees to go way up and replace the revenue cable once had. Sorry guys nothing is for free.

 

I feel I used softening words like "mostly" and such instead of stating it absolutely. To be clear, there are obviously some people on the planet who've cut the cord entirely because they didn't want to hear about "social justice".

What I'm saying is that the only real demographic info we have about cord cutting shows the highest rates among the demographics least likely to support Trump (which I'm using as a proxy here) and the lowest rates among his best demographics.

Of course, it's possible that the rates would be even higher, and even lower, if not for the nightly Special Snowflake Hour of Identity Politics and Microaggression Awareness...but I would like to see some proof there myself.

 

Declining ratings and cord cutting are 2 completely separate issues.
I don't think people are cutting the cord for political reasons. I do think people are tuning out of sporting events because of it. I am discussing declining ratings which is what I thought was being discussed.