According to Sportcal estimates MLS is operating at a small profit and is the eleventh biggest league in the world by revenue. But the operators will have to find something to replace the $150-$200 million a year in expansion fees. Transfer revenue and an improved TV contract in 2022 (with the WC in the horizon) will contribute. Any investment scheme where the investors are aware of actual P&L is not a ponzi scheme, and as the owners run the league, and the finances are audited by an outside party, then MLS does not meet that definition. And we know that actual share transactions conducted with real money have valued two MLS clubs far higher than Forbes estimates. We also know roughly the value of SUM and the revenue and operating income of every club. We also see real people in real stadiums, whereas ponzi investments by contrast are made up. Point is that although MLS finances may be secretive to outsiders they are completely open to investors, which is the opposite of a ponzi scheme.
Without college sports, how would the NFL and NBA teams remain the best league in the world in their sports? I think the pro leagues consider themselves to have a mutually beneficial relationship with the NCAA. The discussion about NCAA players includes drafts and how the players could do as professionals. The NCAA plays Football on Saturdays and the NFL on Sundays because regardless of which one is more popular, the total ratings would be lower if they played the same day. There's a big difference between college and minor league sports. Players can only play for college teams for four seasons (occasionally parts of five if they have a redshirt season). There's no maximum to how long a baseball player could stay in the minors. Furthermore, college is a step of life to many people, most of whom are not athletes, whereas outside of sports there are companies that are bigger than others, but there are not companies designated as "major league" or "minor league" like baseball and hockey have. The best 20-year-old basketball or football player could be in college, whereas the best 20-year-old baseball or hockey player could not be in a minor league. Fans of college teams may have their favorite college players get drafted by a professional team the fans like or that the fans hate, and the fans don't know that while the player is in college. Discussion about minor league players is done by fans who know their favorite professional team has those players in their organization.
Good counter to the bogus Ponzi scheme claims, Paul Berry. Stephen Szymanski was the original contagion of the BS claim that MLS was a Ponzi scheme, and this bogus claim has been parroted by anti-MLS types ever since.
Yes, but what does not follow is that they would share this information with you and me. It isn't a measure of the overall value of the sport beyond the TV contract. You said yourself earlier that soccer has limited commercial interruption, which is not something we can say of most other sports. What that winds up meaning is that a chunk of the revenue that came from TV deals in other sports comes from the shirt sponsorship (the ad you can't fast forward through) in soccer. It isn't, but the league's overall value growth should be seen as impressive. So remarkable that one should be suspicious as to its truth, especially as it's the type of figure that comes up solely in the context of CBA negotiations. Forbes estimated that actual 2015 net operating losses for the league were around $6 million. 1) Half the us population is a greater population than Germany 2) The other half is not worth reaching considering the cost of reaching them at that dispersion.
It was always ridiculous that you'd be able to run a Ponzi scheme for ~15 years (franchise values in MLS started growing around 2004) on the guys who are actually running the league. This is not a Madoff-like hands-off hedge fund operation. The owners see the books and they know how the business is run.
The Ponzi scheme charge is really weird. The owners of the league are sophisticated business people who can hire the best accountants and lawyers available. They did their diligence before they bought into the league.
Ticket sales for the Women's World Cup: French football officials say 295,000 tickets have been sold so far for Women's World Cup this summer -- 77,000 to American buyers.— Steven Goff (@SoccerInsider) January 10, 2019
Oh, I can lay out how it happened: 1) Econ prof is used to watching soccer as it works in Europe, brought up thinking how they do it is the only way it's supposed to work 2) Becomes acquainted with US soccer, scratches his head, as they seem to be doing it wrong 3) Re-writes economic theory (which in reality would posit that while competition is good for consumers, oligopoly is good for firms) to claim it can't work 4) Sees that it seems to be working quite well, actually 5) Like any young-earth creationist when confronted with fossils, throws evidence of his own eyes out, decides evidence must all be a sham 6) Ponzi scheme is most plausible type of sham he can come up with I should add: 7) Neil DeMause hates stadiums. He runs with this argument, because he figures MLS is the easiest league to pick on.
I always wondered how much of a boost TV ratings for the biggest soccer matches would get if out-of-home viewership was measured, and now we have an answer. Even without throwing in Univision numbers, that OOH-to-home viewer ratio is very interesting. Champions League Final with no US teams > Stanley Cup Final among OOH viewers. It's interesting.— Sports TV Ratings (@SportsTVRatings) June 3, 2019
Europhiles have adopted the pub culture that goes with the beautiful game. I think American sports fans are much more likely to watch the game in other people's home.
There are different categories of out of home viewing, and I don't know if they can all be measured. People can watch alone while riding, when they are supposed to be working, or other times alone out of their home. People can watch in groups at a relative or friend's house or at a bar/restaurant.
WWC group stage match: #USAvCHI on Fox averaged 5,408,000 viewers, making it most-watched group stage match ever on U.S. TV. Almost exactly double viewers for #USAvTHA.— Paul Kennedy (@pkedit) June 17, 2019
Interesting, considering the WWC in Canada 4 years ago better matched US time zones: The numbers are in, and metered market ratings for the #FIFAWWC are UP +21% over 2015 through the Round of 16 🙌🙌🙌 pic.twitter.com/jpy57R55C6— FOX Sports PR (@FOXSportsPR) June 26, 2019
bUt nO OnE WaTcHeS WoMeN'S SoCcEr pic.twitter.com/UtzORwmXxJ— Alexis Ohanian 🇦🇲 (@alexisohanian) July 2, 2019
Through the semifinals, @FOXSports viewership for the #FIFAWWC continues to be ⬆️ over the 2015 and 2011 tournaments. pic.twitter.com/aWCAfY7uGM— FOX Sports PR (@FOXSportsPR) July 5, 2019
Full 2019 #FIFAWWC metered market average:☑️ Up 1% over 2015☑️ Up 19% over 2011#USA win over #NED in final:☑️ 10.0 metered market rating☑️ Up 20% over 2018 men’s World Cup final pic.twitter.com/Bbzrfr74HE— FOX Sports PR (@FOXSportsPR) July 8, 2019
The 2019 final was the third most-watched Women's #WorldCup game of all time in the U.S. https://t.co/z06Ww80C6O pic.twitter.com/xfeaVqubwr— The Hollywood Reporter (@THR) July 8, 2019 total of 15.87 million on all platforms The 2019 final is third all-time for Women's World Cup games, behind the 2015 final and the final match of 1999 (18 million). The cross-platform audience is a good distance ahead of the 2011 final's 13.5 million viewers. Sunday's telecast also ranks sixth all-time for any U.S. national team World Cup match, men or women.
That seems to be a hell of a swoon over the last couple of weeks. A bit surprised that it was only up 1% overall from 4 years ago. Even more surprised they were transparent about the apparent falloff.
Helps that the numbers come from 2 different networks. Fox spun the numbers in comparison to the men's WC last year: 1148573575546376192 is not a valid tweet id
Telemundo holds Spanish language rights for 2019. So, for this year, Fox and Telemundo were the 2 sources. The article was from a neutral source, so they weren't paying much attention to the spin, but pulling the info together from multiple sources.
I remember someone here created a chart tracking soccer's progress in chasing down the other major boys' high school team sports, so here are the latest numbers for 2018-19. 2018-19 High School Boys’ Participation in Team Sports (Change from 2017-18) Football (11-player): 1,006,013 (-30,829) Basketball: 540,769 (-10,604) Baseball: 482,740 (-4,374) Soccer: 459,077 (+2,715) -- Football (8-player): 20,954 (+1,400) Football (6-player): 5,275 (+173) Football (9-player): 4,992 (+21) How have @NFHS_Org high school sports participation numbers changed over the past decade? Big gains in a number of sports, including lacrosse. 10% drops in football and women's basketball participation. pic.twitter.com/LJO5IndXXX— NCAA Research (@NCAAResearch) August 29, 2019