2022- teams pay for some local broadcast production costs (mainly teams in smaller markets and those not getting any rights fees) - let’s say 60% of teams have to pay their own and get no rights fees. Teams do not (thru the league) pay for any production costs for games on ESPN, Fox/FS1 or UniMas (100 games total of about 500). 2023 - teams (thru the league) now pay for production costs for every game. Zero local rights fees anywhere. And I suspect it may be more expensive per game production costs since they can’t skimp as much on # of cameras, etc for Apple as they did with some Ballys channels. Which is why there was so much speculation on MLS doing remote announcing and production to save money. even back of the envelope this is a big net figure swing. Which is why there was so much speculation on MLS doing remote announcing and production to save money. It’s ignored by most of the fan boys though.
I don’t think anyone is surprised, but the amount of somewhat unique arguments that this is a better way to grow the game in many local markets while effectively capping broadcast revenue for a decade is surprising. there’s a lot of 1988 NHL SportsChannel America vibes with this deal.
Well from a mathematics view point your answer would be wrong. If 18 teams were paying before now 29 teams would be paying spreading the cost. Since USSF was taking a reported 30 million a year from the reported 90 million that would mean after local production cost they received money from 60 million. Now 18 teams are still having the burden of production cost but even if it's 70 million that means they now receive money from 180 million. . Also left out of the problem is from your 100 games scenario, maybe 30-35 are still on FOX and more than 70 will be made up by Apple for free and also more inventory with Leagues Cup. Which can also create more revenue through advertising that who knows might make up for production cost.
I'd argue its a better way to grow the game than what was happening in any market where the channel with the MLS team's rights was limited to a minority TV provider, or any market where there's a good chance the RSN that had the rights won't be in operation soon. But my original question to you still stands. What should MLS have done instead?
On a side note with so much emphasis by critics of the deal on how will they grow the game, I believe they miss the more important growing the game by taking care of the most important "hardcore" base of the fan base. Better stadiums grew the fan base because it gave the customer who suffered through a bad stadium a better experience. From that more fans came maybe just from word of mouth. Last night I tuned into watch the 76ers vs Knicks on ESPN only have a flag football game running over. That's not happening anymore and as a MLS hard core fan I'm excited by that. . The never ending improvement in play since 2010 can also be expected now with more revenue and I'm not talking about signing a Messi but the growth of homegrown players, academies and domestic coaches with more jobs supported by that extra revenue. Although an older high profile player is nice, it's the youth and moving to Europe that will generate more growth for the league. At some point there will be more players staying than leaving because it's reached a saturation point economically to move once again helping to raise the level of play.
you are trying the Roddy Piper changing the questions method. You asked about production costs and now try to commingle revenues arguments. The 70 “free” Apple games the league is still covering production costs for those. And I presume the fox games too because Apple is streaming those. And your 18vs29 argument is not relevant because all costs now are league costs and I was estimating the total pool of local costs now being spread. The fact that sat LA Galaxy is now worse off in production costs is not relevant. I’d assume that Apple is keeping or taking all of the advertising revenues, that’s generally how TV deals work when you pay for the rights.
Exactly. Capitalist greed is what drives so much in our world. And very clearly the shift to fragmented streaming services.
If it's the comparison that everyone is making, then it would seem to be a least a little valid. What is the basic cost of being a fan? The cost of being a premier league fan will be substantially less than following MLS (on tv at least). Perhaps there are good reasons why, but I think it's a hard sell. Of the sports services listed, the NHL , in terms of prestige and popularity, is closest to MLS. It looks to be about two-thirds the price. And I think MLB and NFL channels are for people willing to pay high prices for mostly out-of-market games. You don't need them to be fans. So not for fans fans, but people who need to be able to see EVERY game.. (Probably lots of sports bars?) Is that what the league wants the MLS package to be? Maybe this won't be as restrictive as it looks. Apple+ is broadcasting more games than I first thought outside the package. So if it's possible to follow your team with just Apple+, this starts to look much, much better. But if you need the full package to watch your team in a reasonable way, then I think the apple is just creating a niche market out of an already niche market.
Yes, that is literally exactly what MLS wants the package to be. Every game, including playoffs, in one spot. Something no other league has (even the EPL on Peacock requires you to have NBC/USA I think, or are those games also simulcast on Peacock?). And the question still nobody is answering. What was the other option, and how does it help grow the league in a way this option doesn't?
But that's not what those services are. They're luxury products, over and above the normal cost of tv fandom. The MLS package is, as you note, unique. I don't know if EPL games are simulcast. But most people, even cable cutters, are going to have some link to a tv service that gives them nbc/usa. You're usually not asking them to spend more there. As to your question, I'm not against the move to apple. I'm saying that the pricing raises the cost of normal sports fandom above what it is for teams in other leagues and sports. They look like they're becoming the most expensive tv programing in sports. Again, maybe the details of the broadcasts on Apple TV+ will make this less restrictive. Right now, it looks really pricey, and the comparisons you've come up with don't make it look cheaper.
At a high level, I care somewhat about growing the league... I'm particular concerned with the dwindling turnouts at NYRB's terrific little stadium, where we've seen decent quality football. But my immediate concern is much more about being able to watch every NYRB game (home and away) on my TV and without paying much more than I do now for that. I don't really watch other MLS games much except sometimes during playoffs and I could probably live without those. Also, I'd like to have a consistent commentator team, week to week... those could be the same NYRB-biased ones (I've been relatively happy with the recent MSG-based team, some of whom are supposedly going to work for/with Apple) or they could be neutral ones, but I definitely would rather not listen to away-team-biased commentators. And for those of you who've seen my other posts, you'll know that I'd rather receive this to my TV/DVR which performs superiorly to streaming. Though I realize times are changing and we all have to just live in the new world of fragmented streaming... for the foreseeable future anyway. Of course the new Apple+ deal fails that last vain hope of mine, but it also fails on the economics side: I have to fork over +$100/yr to watch NYRB. As for the commentary team, I guess I can hope that it'll be consistent and to my liking (maybe even better than before????) but at this point that's a big unknown. So this is a long preamble to responding to your question: "What was the other option?" Would it not have been possible for MLS to do a deal with Apple, and at the same time allowing markets like mine to continue their reasonably good, professional, experienced local sportscasting team (MSG)? Apple could've used that as their feed for NYRB games, at least home games? Or would that have just been too messy and difficult, both legally and logistically?
that’s a pretty highly qualified answer, probably 5-6 markets which it would apply. The RSNs going bankrupt would hurt but then the teams would either get the rights back or the games would still be on Ballys. Other markets had free OTA channel carriers for games. Your Colorado experience is not typical in most markets but I get that argument. Going to Apple with no blackouts increases possible access to everyone with an iPhone, ipad, etc. what should MLS have done? Well at the end MLS had backed itself into a corner somewhat of its own doing so when you eliminate all alternatives it’s not hard to justify the last choice, problems go back years and they like the Pac 12 failed to see the shifting sands. I’m not sure it’s being visionary when you went for dollars over traditional reach
If you're a fan of a Premier League team and want to watch all of their games, you need cable or some other service that will get you USA, Peacock, ESPN+ for the domestic cups, and Paramount+ if your team is in Europe. Though for ESPN+ and P+ you can be strategic with deactivating monthly subscriptions depending on when your team actually has games.
That certainly isn't true. Anything that's primarily on cable is more expensive TV sports programming than the MLS package. Apple TV, not Apple TV+.
My personal view is that Apple wouldn't have been interested in doing the deal without exclusive rights to the majority of the games. I've got nothing to base that on other than logic, but why would Apple pay a lot for games that the majority of people watching any given game would be able to get from somewhere other than Apple (since the majority watching any given game is going to be fans of the teams involved, and this suggestion would allow those fans, largely in the home markets, to watch other ways)? What's in it for them at that point? Up thread somebody figured out 6 teams were on Ballys RSN's. Add in Colorado's issues and that's 7. Also at one point weren't the Galaxy on a channel only available on certian providers and the same thing with YES Network and NYCFC? I don't know if those were still the case but if so we're getting up to a third of the league. But that's not an answer. The past is what it is. And I'm not sure how they backed themselves into a corner anyway, unless you're suggesting the poor ratings gave them minimal options. But that's kind of the point. Doing what they were doing wasn't working.
"The 70 “free” Apple games the league is still covering production costs for those. And I presume the fox games too because Apple is streaming those". And receiving revenue from at least a three times larger minimal national pay out. This deal has a clause that can grow with subscriptions sold but can't go down. If Apple is taking advertising revenue they aren't losing money because someone else was before. The Galaxy signed off on the deal just like they did by having to share the market with LAFC. I'll guess that decision helped them in some way since they joined the league. . My bottom line is this deal caters to their most loyal consumer of the league. More games nationally are available for free than ever before for casual fans. You won't except that somehow they should do worse revenue wise and mentioned the NHL deal. The NHL came out ahead when it was all said and done and there is no disputing that is there?
I'm an old man so maybe I have thins wrong. but I think in addition to every game being available on the MLS package, they're putting a share on games also available on Apple TV +, in addition to the games that will also be available on fox.
Correct. Also, it's unclear but it seems they also promised some games completely outside any pay walls.
The vast majority of games will be either exclusive on MLS Season Pass or free on Apple TV. There have been reports that some will be made available on Apple TV+, but it seems like that will be not very much. MLS has listed the streaming availability for the first few weeks of the season--everything is either "Free" or MLS Season Pass. https://www.mlssoccer.com/schedule/scores#competition=all&club=all&date=2023-02-27 Apple's poor branding distinction between Apple TV, the platform/app, and Apple TV+, the streaming content package where you can watch Ted Lasso, does cause some understandable confusion.
So in the example of NYRB, I was trying to suggest that MSG would still handle their coverage (no idea whether they pay 100% of production costs... see below) and provide the MSG feed to Apple for them to stream to everyone in the country/world, who presumably have no way of watching MSG content. And since MSG is a fairly regional channel I believe (but again that's not anything I have any/deep knowledge of) maybe it wouldn't hurt Apple too much to allow MSG to broadcast it as they've been doing, over CATV. It also saves Apple(+MLS?) the headache of having to produce every single match/venue. Obviously some downsides to this are that Apple(+MLS) loses complete control over the NYRB broadcast production (but they also lose the burden and possibly the cost?), and it complicates the situation I was mentioning in my previous post about home-team-biased-announcers that might not be ideal for watchers who are not fans of that home team. IDK, I'm way out of my league here. I just know that if they did something like the above, I would save $100/yr, and still get to watch NYRB games in a way which is dramatically superior for me than any streaming alternative. I do realize that all of this is 100% hypothetical dreamland, but you asked so I answered. p.s. Earlier in this thread there was mention that MLS has partly or fully susbsidized the costs of local TV coverage. Is that true? And would that have applied to NYRB & MSG? MLS was defraying MSG's production costs for NYRB games?
Don't forget AppleTV, the hardware you plug into your TV to get access to the AppleTV app so you can watch AppleTV+.
Right but why would Apple agree to that? As you just said, if they did that you wouldn't pay Apple. And how many people would pay Apple to get RBNY games who couldn't get MSG? Now multiply that across 29 teams/29 local TV deals. What's left for Apple to make money on?
Exactly its the same price basically as MLS Direct Kick/MLS Live. It's a ridiculous talking point. So to a person its like so because you don't find enough value in MLS they should lower their value. So you want MLS to charge a lower value than basically they were charging 5 yrs ago while providing increased coverage and productions. I hate to be that guy but there is a bit of people wanting everything for essentially nothing as cheap as they can get it. Sometimes you pay for quality, this happens whenever you buy a mid to high level phone. you know you're paying $400-1200 for a decent Galaxy or Iphone. I can get the folks online who are noobs and never really followed MLS and don't know any better but if you're on this site you know better. You either haven't really thought through what you're saying or just being a contrarian to be one while showing dissatisfaction about the Apple Deal.