I don't think there is any question the leagues getting huge rights payments are going to be under big pressure. However, the question in my mind is whether MLS faces the same pressure. In terms of digital related to MLS the Galaxy had by far the biggest broadcast in a $55 Million 10 year deal from a very over exuberant Time-Warner which also ridiculously over paid for the Dodgers. Let’s say for the sake of argument it was back loaded such that it started at $4.25M (2012) and increased $250K per year and was valued at $6.75M in year 10 (2021). That would mean Galaxy $19M from 2018 - 2020. LAFC with no championships, smaller stadium and no Beckham signed a $6M 3 year deal with Youtube for 18-20. One can reasonably argue that it shows no growth. But on the other hand it shows there currently is a potential market from digital media comparable to what many once considered a questionably high price. Hard to answer without ROI information. I think ESPN also dealt with MLS as MLS needed ESPN and priced the deal as such. On the other hand Fox more likely paid MLS based on their expected return. Now with ESPN bleeding subscribers and MLS maintaining their English language base and growing the Spanish language base the tables may turning. Of course with the clowns running US soccer turning off parents by saying top kids can't play High school, ratcheting up costs by mandating coaching licenses while simultaneously limiting availability through inconvenience and high costs, turning off unknown amounts of kids by emphasizing importance of Jan 1. cutoffs and trying prematurely pick the "winners" at 12 and 13 the future is far less bright than it should be. While there are certainly some good and intelligent people involved in youth soccer, they are vastly outnumbered by that are either primarily involved to make a buck, stupid or both. The closer you get to the youth national team and "elite level" (excluding better MLS sponsored programs), the worse it gets.
No worries - one should hopefully have a life besides Bigsoccer. I tend to respond in bunches when schedules permit. Actually many other sports were either stabilizing or showing a comparatively small decline. Youth soccer declined by almost 30%. I'll wager a lot of money this rate of decline wasn't happening in the rapidly growing Hispanic communities, but instead was primarily from the non-Hispanic communities. I have zero information to back this up, other than the disgust I would here from non-Hispanic parents discussing the way youth soccer is run. Parents look at the thousands of dollars in cost with the promise that if you become reasonably good you won't be allowed to play with your friends in high school. As a result many have decided no thank you. Video games are programmed to provide enjoyment (promote skill building, match challenge to ability, etc.) while youth sports programs often do the complete opposite. Most recreational programs are completely mismanaged while the rest are programmed for short term team results or misguided selection efforts. Unfortunately youth soccer has become the most monetized of mainstream youth sports programs and as a result participation is dropping off the table.
The post you quoted was only talking about TV and internet, not attending games. As for the dots, most of the area of the USA has low population density. The House of Representative has 435 members coming from districts with about equal populations. A few states have 1, and California has the most with 53. 435/50 = an average of 8.7 per state. Alaska has a giant area with a small population and one House district. Alaska has over 70 times the average area of a House district. Because of how big the rural districts are, 80.2% of the districts have a smaller than average area. It's similar to income distribution where most people make less than the mean because the richest people are farther away from the mean than the poorest people are. The 31 smallest districts, meaning the districts with the highest population density, are all near MLS clubs. The 32nd smallest district has Las Vegas. The 87 smallest districts have about 20% of the population in 0.35% of the area. While some people are not near MLS clubs, I don't think expanding to areas with low population density is the way to increase revenue made at stadiums or on TV. For the most part, leagues aren't stupid enough to ignore the biggest cities. There are exceptions like when Los Angeles didn't have NFL teams, when D.C. didn't have an MLB team, Houston and Atlanta not having NHL teams (although NHL failed there), and the NBA's SuperSonics moving from Seattle to the much smaller Oklahoma City market. That's true. For MLS, how many foreigners come for the money? There are DPs who clubs will want even if they have to cut payroll. There are players from Central America and the Caribbean who face better competition in MLS than they would staying in their country, and that would be true even if the quality of MLS declined a little. Players like Altidore and Larin could have wanted to go to Europe sooner if MLS paid less, but if MLS paid less and European clubs noticed that MLS got worse, it could make European clubs make lower offers to players coming from MLS, which could make players want to stay in MLS.
How much does youth participation, particularly at the higher levels, matter for MLS? Almost all my friends' kids played soccer at the elementary school level but dropped it soon after that. Still, it was enough for them to become aware of the game and learn the rules. Is participation at the lower levels falling in the same way? Soccer has a huge advantage over football, where hardly anyone I knew played on an organized team and none of their kids do. Still, football is a pretty popular sport. While video games could be hurting sports participation, I expect a lot of 18-30 year old's would prefer to play video games than watch sports in general.
Youth soccer's massive decline is due to virtually all local clubs focusing on their competitive program in detriment to their rec programs. The USSF is ok with this because it has meant an increase of kids doing soccer exclusively or primarily.
That's correct -- in the 18 to 25 demographic, more men watch e sports than traditional sports. Some of the numbers are eye popping: "In 2017, more than 111 million people watched the Super Bowl, traditionally one of the most popular sporting events on television. But that figure is eclipsed by the number of people who follow a different type of sports event live or online. Esports, also known as electronic sports or professional video gaming, has been booming. More than 250 million people follow the competitions, according to the technology consulting firm Activate, and most of those viewers also play. The company estimates that by 2020, 70 million people will watch an esports final, which is more than the viewership for the American professional baseball, soccer, and hockey finals. By that time, consumers will watch 3 billion hours of esports, or 10 percent of all sports viewing." https://onlinebusiness.syr.edu/blog/esports-to-compete-with-traditional-sports/
I wonder what that's going to do to the price of ESPN+. It's a hell of a deal right now. It also makes me wonder if MLS and LMX couldn't jointly revive the MLS Live platform to bundle both leagues' games, possibly adding the CPL too once it gets up and running.
Over here they do. For Ajax there's a Yank playing. Eredivisie launches official eSports competition for FIFA gamers: the E ... https://eredivisie.nl/.../eredivisie-launches-official-esports-competit... Vertaal deze pagina In the E-Divisie eSports players from the 18 Eredivisie clubs will virtually compete for the championship in FIFA 17 Ultimate Team. The E-Divisie, one of the first ...
I think there is a communication issues as I'm not sure how higher levels of participation factor into my comments. If kids participate in something there is a much higher likelihood they will have interest as adults than if they don't. Similarly if their parents take them to a football game even if they never played they will have interest than if their parents did not. As a result a 30 percent drop is a huge loss.
Club structure varies quite a bit across the country. Southern California is very different from Northern California which both are very different from places like Minnesota or New England. I'm not familiar with FL so I can't comment about that. US soccer's leadership is incompetent and don't have a clue about what is happening.
My kid who was a pretty decent real world player has encouraged me to invest in esports properties. Considering my capstone B-school project was building an esports business I had to chuckle at the irony about being about 2 decades too early.
Was wondering if anyone was going to link that interview. As I recall, they were forecasting the MLS TV deals to double. Not exactly knocking down the doors of the EPL (BTW - everything I'm reading about Brexit has ranged from bad mistake to dire), but not the doom and gloom that has concerned Triplet1. I personally think to best solution is a merger with Mexico with a closed 2 or even 3 tier league. One of the problems they are having is that that there is not enough pressure on the bottom feeders to push the league forward. On the other hand, I think it is hard to deny that the mitigated risk from the business structure has helped attract long-term investment.
Probably not a huge crossover between esports fans and bigsoccer posters. Likely a lot more geezers on BS.
That's probably true, but it also makes it possible to stroll around in the league without consequences and there's no pressure on the better to become top.
The US population isn't distributed like Europe's. The cities are big, and the spaces between them are extremely sparsely populated. For example, Montana is larger than Germany and has just over a million people. Wyoming is larger than the UK with under 600,000 population. 80% of Utah's population lives in and around Salt Lake City. Almost 70% of New York's population lives in and around New York City. As a result, over 70% of the American population lives within a 2-hour drive of a current MLS team or an already-announced expansion team.
Yup, has been said before. It also means that within those markets competing clubs are viable with a 1 hour drive. However the closed league set up favours those that donot like competition and keep the market to themselves.
Those predictions aren't hard to find. The problem remains coming to grips with where the money is going to come from. Two days ago, Disney filed its 10k that noted ESPN has lost another 2 million subscribers. This is from "Outkick the Coverage", and I recommend it: https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-loses-two-million-more-subscribers-in-fiscal-2018/ Some highlights: "Yesterday Disney announced in its yearly 10K filing that ESPN lost another two million subscribers in fiscal year 2018. ESPN now has 86 million subscribers, down from over 100 million subscribers in 2011. Now the positive for ESPN is that the rate of subscriber decline seems to have slowed this year, but the negative is that since 2011 ESPN has now lost 15 million cable and satellite subscribers. Those 15 million lost subscribers equate to $1.44 billion a year in lost yearly revenue that ESPN will never be able to book. (This is based on an $8 a month subscriber cost for ESPN multiplied by 12 months in the year.) Again, this isn’t just a one time yearly revenue loss, this is a loss in yearly revenue forever. Now every cable and satellite channel is losing subscribers — as dumb Twitter users who don’t read this article will immediately respond in my mentions — but the impact disproportionately impacts ESPN for two reasons: 1. the network makes far more in revenue off the cable bundle than any other channel so it stands to lose, by far, the most off the collapsing business model and 2. the network has guaranteed tens of billions in sports rights fee payments over the next decade and more to sports leagues. . . . And as ESPN’s revenue continues its yearly decline, eventually the costs for sports programming are going to overwhelm the revenue produced by the channel and turn ESPN into an earnings albatross for Disney. What’s more, that decline will rapidly accelerate as ESPN’s declining revenue leads to a decline in quality of game programming." As for ESPN+, the article notes that isn't likely to be a long term solution: "This is why there is so much focus on the promise of ESPN+, which ESPN hopes can stem the revenue losses they are booking in the main cable and satellite business. The problem, of course, is that ESPN+, at least so far, is a finger in the dam of a collapsing business flood. ESPN+ presently brings in revenue of $4.99 per month. Recently ESPN announced they have one million ESPN+ subscribers. (They included ESPN insider subscribers to reach these numbers). Even assuming all of those million subscribers are paying $4.99 every month that’s just $60 million a year in revenue, or about what ESPN pays to air one single half of Monday Night Football on ESPN this year. Maybe ESPN+ will turn into a significant business one day, but right now it is likely losing several hundred million dollars a year and providing no help in turning the negative tide facing the larger ESPN business." Again, it's a good read. ESPN, the largest of the sports channels with the highest subscription prices, is especially hard hit, but the problem is shared by other sports channels that, like ESPN, have guaranteed big sports rights deals based on subscription revenue that is in free fall. The numbers for FS1 and NBCSN aren't great either: https://awfulannouncing.com/espn/ma...big-drops-espn-fs1-nbcsn-league-networks.html So we come to a basic question, if MLS broadcast rights are going to double in the new broadcast deal as some project, who is going to pay? Perhaps if bundled with the USMNT, the prospect of a US/Mexico/Canada World Cup might bring a premium from NBC or Amazon, but after that it's hard to see how MLS can reverse these broader trends. Again, it's not unique to MLS, the revenue to support these sports broadcast deals just isn't there any longer. But in the coming scramble for the remaining dollars, MLS will face formidable competition from stronger sports leagues. So, unless an Amazon comes in and essentially buys or replaces ESPN and some of the other sports channels, most sports leagues are going to see broadcast revenues decline. And it seems inevitable to me that MLS will have to live with a lot less broadcast revenue, if not in the next deal, the one after that.
It simply does not make it impossible. There are issues, but the folks at the massive clubs planning this thing know a hell of a lot more about what is and is not possible than we do, and the fact that they are pursuing it means it is possible. Amazon is now worth more than $1 trillion.
That is one way of looking at it. Another way might be that the challenges of a national league in the US are significantly different, and the costs much higher than they are in Netherlands. Travel from point A to point Z in there is simple and cheap. Consider Gronigen to Eindhoven a longish trip in Nethlands, at 219 k. While the LA Galaxy can get from the Stub Hub to Banc stadiums in only 17k, the next closest place to play is 400k away in San Jose, and after that the numbers go way up. SKC's nearest oppenent is in Denver, just about equal to trip from Amsterdam to Vienna. It's also worth remembering that MLS is only 22 years old. Before MLS, Kansas City, population 2 million according to the 2010 census, had zero outdoor professional soccer clubs. Denver, population 2.5 million, had a semi-professional side. I mention these sides because these are considered relatively small markets in the US. while the Amsterdam metro has a 1.6 million, and in which Ajax had been around for 96 years when MLS formed. MLS had nothing to do with holding US communities from creating functioning professional clubs before it began, there was just very little interest in them. My point here is simply that what works in the Netherlands doesn't really mean anything as far as what works in the US, where the Netherlands would be the 43rd largest state and is 1/10th the size of California.
If all the American and Canadian cities with as many people as the smaller cities with Eredivisie clubs could support MLS clubs, there could be a league in the northeastern USA and eastern Canada with as many clubs as the Eredivisie with every flight being under 2 hours. A website says the flight time from Boston (near New England Revolution) to Los Angeles is 6:22. Americans who live in small cities and rural areas not near top level professional teams in any sport may have chosen that they like farms or "wide open spaces" (a Dixie Chicks title) knowing that where they live will not get much attention in many ways. If you had a time machine and could tell people in 1995 how many clubs MLS has now, the people back then could have guessed what cities would get clubs. Some guesses would be wrong, but everybody then would have known that with 24 clubs MLS wouldn't have a club in Montana. There are some cities like Detroit and Phoenix that have teams in MLB, NFL, NHL, and NBA, but not MLS; but it's not like MLS has excluded a bunch of cities who expected to have MLS clubs when MLS started.
It's very easy to be a massive gamer and at the same time watch your team play once a week, or follow them (and the whole league) by reading Reddit or ESPN for 5 minutes a day, watching one or two clips, and so on. Most people don't watch 10 games a week, and this has been the way of things forever. Most fans watch their team play when they can, and they may catch another high profile game if the opportunity arises. The rest of their consumption in all likelihood comes from news outlets online. The participation is less important than people think. Participation is only important in that you need professional players in a league, and the better they are the better your product will be. More participation does lead to a greater pool of better players, no doubt. But soccer doesn't really have a problem here, in that the US is only one avenue out of hundreds for this pool of talent. MLS could be the best league in the world overnight, with not a single player produced in the US. All it would have to do is have a budget of hundreds of millions per team. Video games help kids to understand the game, but not in the way people think. The rules themselves are quickly learned, and understanding them is not going to get people to invest their time watching games. The most important thing is that they learn the soccer ecosystem at an early age. What I mean by this is that they get accustomed to the names and storylines within the sport. When you learn the key names, and more importantly, when you understand what the expectation is for those players, everything falls into place. Soccer then becomes a soap opera on a level that most people consume their sport. You can see this easily reflected in shows like Undisputed, Cowherd, First Take etc. That's the level that most people consume sport at. They have a grasp of the main characters and underlying storylines, and when watching a game can relate their understanding to what's happening on the field or the court. Of course, the media plays a huge role in shaping these storylines and making them accessible to people. But to get back to the point: participation isn't all that important to soccer's future success here. In fact, it's only really important to the USMNT. USMNT plays a role in creating new fans, no doubt, but I think this effect will diminish over time, particularly as what I wrote above plays a bigger role in MLS. That's also one of the reasons why MLS ratings are poorer than they could be. The national media doesn't pay any attention, which means that most soccer fans have little understanding or appreciation for the characters and storylines in MLS. If you don't have that, you're simply not going to care about watching a game as a neutral.
That's a good post. Playing soccer doesn't tell you who the top players and teams are and what expectations to have of MLS. Playing a video game with the names of players (I don't know from experience) would tell kids some things, but it could make them fans of Messi without knowing many of their La Liga opponents or what days and times they play most often. Being covered in media that covers many sports would help MLS get fans in a way that playing on a field or video game would not. Furthermore, my mom said there is a lot to follow. Americans who watch many sports but little to no soccer won't know that Messi could play in La Liga, Copa del Rey, Champions League, and World Cup Qualifiers in the same month. Some MLS fans don't know that either.