261K viewers for TFC game in a country with around 36 million people. that is about 10K more viewers than ESPN2 averages for there games last year in a county somewhere over 300 million people. over TFC is averaging Overall this year, It's going to be sad/great when Vancouver vs Toronto crush Americans in terms of watching MLS soccer
Re: Canada = good for MLS Do keep in mind that CBC was broadcasting hockey prior to the Crew v TFC match and that definitely was the cause of this high rating BUT people did seem to stick with the telecast which is nice to see. I agree with you. A Toronto v Vancouver match on CBC may do very well perhaps breaking through the 500k figure which would be quite the achievement. One thing it does show is that there is a huge advantage to an over the air broadcast on a national network as opposed to Tier 2 of a cable only sports network. The door is open to the casual viewer and that is how you make the sport grow (hopefully anyway).
Re: Canada = good for MLS So, is the solution to our woes to move teams into Idaho and Wyoming where there's little population density?
Re: Canada = good for MLS This is the main reason Canada is good for us. If they really end up being so good, then they can subsidize growth of the sport here in the US. Canada's cities actually tend to have high population densities. Almost all of Canada's 33 million+ people are packed into small, specific regions of the country, leaving the rest of the country devoid of intelligent life.
Re: Canada = good for MLS Yes! However, I wonder if local TV revenue is for the team only. If so, any CBC TV national contracts once Vancouver and Montreal come on board should be considered "local" for those 3 teams. Seattle is getting pretty high ratings somewhat near to these numbers 180k households (glenn davis website). Keep it moving forward...expand BMO...sign Michael Owen...sign up some EPL teams to visit during the summer...take it to another level and leave small time players (kc, col, dal) in the dust. These Canadian teams are MLS's savior.
Re: Canada = good for MLS Try telling that to an advertiser who'll probably be stuck in the old "178,000 customers is not the same as 1.6 million customers" mode. In any case, I think all of these fabulous TV numbers just go to prove that Canada needs a league of their own. They'll obviously dominate the ratings, scoop up huge amounts of TV cash and show MLS a thing or two.
Re: Canada = good for MLS And so it's your contention that selling seats at BMO is going to "save" MLS? The thing keeping the league afloat, my friend, is sponsorship dollars. How many corporate sponsors from Canada are pumping millions of dollars into MLS? Oh yeah, I forgot: none. Don Garber spent most of the Summer trolling Canuckistan for just one big dollar league sponsor and came up empty. Why would that be, do you suppose, if Canada is "the savior of MLS"? Sorry to bust in with actual facts, stated without meaningless "take it to another level" blather, but that's the way it is. Another inconvenient factoid might be that Columbus - one of the "small time players" that you want to "leave in the dust" - has better average attendance at this point than 8 other MLS teams, including New England, Chicago and New York. But you keep on trying, Bud. I love spunkiness, even when it's based on fantasy, parochialism and, apparently, drugs.
Re: Canada = good for MLS I don't understand the penchant for grading attendance or TV ratings on a curve. The ol' "considering the size of the market . . . " argument which allows someone to argue MLS might just as well put a team in Bemidji, Minnesota, were 2,000 die-hard fans would look pretty good. Considering the size of the market, that is. 178,000 people is 178,000 people. 178,000 sets of eyeballs attached to 178,000 people who can potentially buy stuff.
Re: Canada = good for MLS No. A 178,000 average in Canada is the same as a 178,000 average in the United States. Sponsors and advertisers pay for eyeballs, not percentages of population.
Re: Canada = good for MLS canada isn't bringing anything special to the table until they provide a lucrative national tv deal, and big time sponsors. without those, seattle, dc and la have a more positive impact on the league.
Re: Canada = good for MLS Does anyone have a somewhat reliable breakdown of the revenue streams for MLS teams? I'm most familiar with TFC. For them, from what I ascertain using the usual news and internet sources, the total revenue is something like $17 million (Forbes' estimate). With an average attendance of 20 000, an average ticket cost of $30, and a total of 17 games (MLS regular season and Canadian Championship) tickets account for $10.2 million. If the average fan spends even $5 a game (half a beer ) then concessions would bring in another $1.7 million. So we're up to something like $12 million without counting revenue from friendlies or broadcast rights (TV and radio). Ticket sales for friendlies (two per year) would easily push the total over $13 million. I'm sure sponsorship money is important and the more of it the better. If any one revenue stream is "keeping the league afloat", however, it would appear to be ticket sales, not sponsorship. Based on that then adding teams that will play to sell out crowds would appear to be MLS' best option. I don't agree with the "Canada will save MLS" mentality (especially as it isn't clear the league needs saving as such) but it's hard to argue with the "Canada is good for MLS" idea.
Re: Canada = good for MLS ...but a national deal is much less likely with only one team in the nation... with a second and, especially, with addition of Montreal, we will find out whether the league achieves a national status in Canada, and whether Canadian businesses and broadcasters will support a national league... FWIW, I believe that they will...
Re: Canada = good for MLS Not sure if it is worth responding to this as most people probably don't take this poster seriously, but it is worth noting that the talk of finding corporate sponsors in Canada was in relation to exploring whether a business case could be made for future Canadian expansion where a national broadcast deal is concerned. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=557435&sec=mls&root=mls&cc=4716 But even though Montreal and Vancouver are making stong cases for inclusion, and even though TFC has been a smash hit on every level (except, ironically enough, in the win column), with six American cities also in the running for just two spots, a second Canadian team -- let alone a third -- being added during the next three years is hardly a forgone conclusion. "We understand that this country is passionate about the sport, but that passion is not enough," Garber said. "We need to make sure it makes good business sense here in comparison to adding those teams down in the United States." People can draw their own conclusions from the fact that since then Vancouver has been awarded a franchise and Don Garber told the people of Ottawa that it was "almost inconceivable" that they would not get a franchise if Eugene Melnyk's stadium deal had gained the necessary support from the city council. Also worth noting that under NAFTA Canada and the USA form a single economic space as far as many/most potential sponsors are concerned.
Re: Canada = good for MLS The thing that many don't know (or have forgotten) is the breakdown of revenue distributions in MLS... National sponsorship/broadcasting deals go to the league central coffers to run the league administration and to pay players... local sponsorship/broadcasting deals mostly go to the team (to run operations, etc)... revenue from tickets are split (25% to the league) and concessions/parking and most local merchandise sales goes to the team... The only way that the great financials for TFC help the league is a percentage of ticket sales and a small amount of sponsorship... and, in return, the league has to pay another entire team's worth of wages... unless there are national sponsorship/broadcasting deals in Canada, TFC is a relative drain on the league...
Re: Canada = good for MLS Yeah, that's why Vancouver got a team, because TFC is a drain on the league.
Re: Canada = good for MLS Really? You have a breakdown of total MLS revenue that shows sponsorship dollars are the largest part of the equation?
Re: Canada = good for MLS I wouldn't say Canada is good for MLS per say. Strong markets are good for MLS. Be they Canadian or American. Sure Toronto is good for MLS, but Seattle is good for MLS too. I have no doubt Vancouver will be good for MLS, and if Montreal gets a team they will be also. But I also think Portland will be good aswell.
Re: Canada = good for MLS Considering teams have to send 30% of their ticket revenue to league HQ, TFC contributes more to the league then the other 90% of teams and probably by a wide margin. Most teams sell like 10k tickets a game at 20 bucks a piece. TFC sells 20k a game at much higher prices. As far as sponsorship in Canada goes I'd be willing to bet that if Vancouver and if/when Montreal joins and if they do well that would change because it would represent a far greater percentage of people in Canada and sponsors will probably be more willing to join then they would be now with just one team in the league.
Re: Canada = good for MLS I think the Canadian clubs are great for the MLS/USL, which is part of the reason why I am so annoyed the Canadian Cup is not being televised in the US!!! Montreal, TFC and Vancouver have some of the best support in their leagues, we need that on TV more than the ESPN2/FSC doubleheader coming up on a Saturday night IMO.
Re: Canada = good for MLS Any place that gets excited FOR MLS is a must-have. Teams in the interior of US with their sucky attendance only really exist for some measure of regional representation. They were never being banked on for one day being able to pad MLS coffers anytime in the future. The real probable financial action for MLS was always supposed to happen with coastal cities and chicago (and canada once tfc came in). RSL, COL, KC, Dal, with 9 or 11k in attendance is not as much of a drain as equal numbers in Chi, NY, NE, or SJ. As great as TFC or Seattle's numbers are, when a coastal city frequently gets 10k thats super sad.