MLS All Star game got a .3 rating

Great point, I agree with pretty much everything here . That said let me point out a few things .. Many other sports football and baseball both have been around for about 100 years.. Traditions develop history is made , grandfathers and great grandfathers had their favorite teams or in some cases seating sections .. Tradition & Passion is the driving force behind this ...

How can I a houston resident be passionate about the Houston Dynamo, when they've only been around for a few years!!! or the MLS who have only been around for just over a decade , and there is no relegation or promotion to a lower league.... In contrast I have been a Boca Jrs. fan since i was 15 years old... All my family has been Boca fans for years .. If i ever live to have grandchildren or even great-grandchildren and the Dynamo is still around maybe i'll take them to a game.......

 

Why can't you be fans of both? It's not like they are playing each other every week. It's great that you hang onto your passion for Boca, but does that preclude you from enjoying some Dynamo games? Maybe something will happen at one of them that will start to hook you. Besides, there were people who were there when Boca was only a few years old, and they started that passion and excitement that hooked you. What if they had dismissed it as a fad too?

I'm a huge fan of both the Baltimore Ravens and Penn State football. The Ravens would kill Penn State. That doesn't make me any less excited for the Big 10 football season. And cheering for Penn State doesn't keep me from following my alma mater's team, which plays in Division III. And none of that keeps me from checking the paper during the fall to see how my high school did or how the high school I used to coach wrestling did or from following high school teams in my local area.

I dunno, maybe I'm a freak because I just enjoy sports at their visceral level of competition and don't see the need to paint myself into one corner as a fan of one sport or team and that's all I can identify with.

 

Beyond that, some people say they can't support an MLS team because they have no emotional connection, so they choose a team in a league that is better. Well, what has you interested, the emotional connection or the level of play? If it's the emotional connection, I don't see how it's more possible to connect emotionally to a team from another country, but that's just me.

 

i enjoyed Dynamo games , but I didn't feel the emotion i do when i watch Boca .. maybe it was the ambiance i dunno but it felt like i was surrounded by moms and dads and an ass load of kids who where only there to watch 22 men kick a ball around and chat about bullshit...Hardly a passionate crowd... really it felt like a short astros game .. very insipid...

 

I think baseball is the best example of what people are talking about, on both sides of the argument.

People with no real connection to any soccer team who end up just rooting for a Premier League team because it's the best league in the world are like people from non-baseball cities who buy Yankee caps because the Yankees are famous and win a lot. Nobody particularly likes these fans, but we know there are a lot of them; the Yankee (and Red Sox) marketing machine depends on them.

People from MLS markets who refuse to watch MLS games and instead watch Premier League teams on television because the level of play is higher are like people from baseball markets who root for the Yankees or Red Sox anyway because they're a better team than the local nine. Everyone hates these fans, including real Yankees and Red Sox fans, but again, we know they exist.

Most other people living in non-baseball markets latch onto a team for one reason or another. These reasons aren't necessarily because of a team's winning record or history of championships; they might be because of where someone grew up, or went to college, or a player they like or a random chance. Most of these reasons don't favor the Yankees over any other team, and I suspect most American soccer fans who choose on this basis are more likely to pick MLS teams than any other league, unless they have a strong connection to some other country.

 

I think being mad at people for picking a foreign team to support instead of a non-local MLS team is like being mad at a guy in middle Nebraska supporting the Dodgers instead of the Royals. Sure a lot of folks in Nebraska might support the Royals due to being closer, but there are lots of reasons they might support other teams instead. I never said that people can't support a team that's four hours away instead of the EPL, just that a lot of people won't, and it will take a while for the MLS to chip away at the "won't" folks.

It's easy to say "you should support MLS because otherwise you hate US soccer", but it's not my job to support MLS just because it's American. It's a business, not a non-profit, and I don't feel obliged to cut a check to anyone just for playing soccer in the US. I personally prefer to attend non-MLS games locally because I don't care for watching soccer on TV (too hard to follow most of the time, and I don't have cable anyway). If I do watch on TV I don't care if it's MLS or EPL, I don't watch any enough to follow teams or standings or anything, I'll just watch the best game that's on.

People should watch whoever they want to watch, and if the MLS wants more viewers it should earn them (which it's trying to do). I don't get the sentiment that anyone who doesn't watch MLS is spitting on US Soccer. I just want to enjoy soccer without worrying about the political implications of my decisions.

 

Sure it is, but don't you think the bar is higher? Someone in, say Grand Forks can follow MLS, but if they can't see their team play in person, how is MLS any different in their eyes than any other league they can watch on GOL TV or FSC? For most people, I don't think it is, and what's more I think that's understandable.

I'm pushing you a bit only because I think a TV fan is inherently different, and even harder for MLS to attract. Simply put, MLS must complete for those viewers without its greatest asset -- the chance to see the teams live. For example, if I"m living in Denver, MLS can offer me something I can't get from the EPL -- a chance to watch my local team live in a nice stadium, beer in hand. I can connect with the Rapids in ways I can't with Chelsea on Saturday morning TV broadcasts. But if I have to follow the Rapids only on TV, well, personally I find their broadcasts almost unwatchable (and not uniquely so, as lots of local broadcasts are less than appealing IMO). Given that choice, I'll take Chelsea and a great SKY broadcast every time.

I think that difference has major implications for the league if it really wants to grow its TV audience and encourage people in markets with MLS teams to adopt a team. If the competition is only one channel away, MLS has to do more to capture and hold a TV fan's imagination, and it won't typically get a lot of time to make a good impression before a viewer moves on IMO. There is very little incentive for that fan to watch average players hoofing around a half empty stadium.

 

No, what you said was "if you're a pro soccer fan why would you watch or follow the MLS?" That's the part I had a problem with. I don't care if people follow teams in Europe. I never said I did.

What I have a problem with is this notion that if you follow MLS either as a companion to a European team or have more interest in the domestic league than a foreign league, you are somehow less of a fan, which is the direct implication of "why would you watch or follow MLS?"

 

I don't see why people must choose between one or the other. That's been my point from the beginning. Not every game is "average players hoofing around a half empty stadium."

Yes, MLS needs to compete with lots of other choices for viewers, but I don't see how a game in the EPL at 10 on Saturday morning being presumed to have more things to entice a viewer prevents that viewer from deciding to sit down at 7:30 and watch and MLS match.

The line in the sand, either/or framing of the topic that is horribly disingenuous.

 

True, most of these games don't directly conflict and people can watch FSC and GOL TV all weekend long if they wish. I'm sure some people here do. But there are practical limits to how many games a casual fan is going to watch on a Saturday.

There's another issue too -- what will attract those TV fans to MLS in the first place? Sometimes curiosity, what Kenn calls the freak shows, bump the numbers up for a period (Adu, Beckham and Blanco all did to some degree), but after that? GOL shows games and highlights from Columbia and Central America, but absent some connection, how many American soccer fans consider those shows must see TV?

So yes, it doesn't have to be an either/or, but with minimal star power and average quality, what does MLS offer to draw those remote TV fans to their games that will make them want to spend another 2 to 4 hours of their time each week watching MLS too?

 

Well, this kind of thing is going to vary from one person's experiences to another's. But, while I've of course met people who can be described as you do above, that is not the typical person who might follow European soccer to some extent but not MLS. From my experiences, most such people would say something along the lines of "I dunno", or "Never really thought about it" when asked why they don't follow MLS. Most aren't arrogant about it. And most aren't snobbish about it.

I think the point was, if you don't really have a local team, then basically georgraphy means nothing. So you're just as likely to pick a team from across the planet as four hours away. Anyway, proximity matters. Whether or not it should is a different question, but kind of a pointless one as it's hardly the kind of thing worth any kind of value judgement.

And no, location is not critical for everyone of course. I've followed MLS since day one and have been overseas, Alaska, and pre-MLS Seattle most of that time.

And speaking of Seattle, there are thousands of fans there who previously barely knew MLS existed. A lot of these folks had some awareness of European soccer at its highest levels or international soccer, but awareness of MLS was pretty close to nil for most. Today such people make up a significant chunk of the folks in Qwest.

There are surely some genuine, arrogant Eurosnobs in Seattle too - the type who would never follow MLS under any circumstances out of some ridiculous elitest "principle". But like in all MLS areas, I think this is really a tiny population. Most people who at least casually follow European soccer but not MLS (at least who I've met) are not "snobs" at all. They can be reached by MLS teams, if teams can just figure out how. But they are not going to support MLS just because it's soccer, or out of some kind of moral imperative that many here think they should feel regarding support for MLS.

Anyway, that's based on the folks I encounter. I'm sure others have different experiences.

 

The point is to not define anything as "must see TV."

MLS has the same thing that all sporting competitions have to offer to the casual viewer - the chance for something special to happen, the potential to connect with a team or player you hadn't thought of supporting before, and, yes, the possibility of an utterly shitty game where everyone involved wonders why they even bothered.

But the fact that some people feel the need to be proven those things before the fact merely bolsters my belief that some people - and yes I know it isn't everyone and I don't think it's a lot of people, but I think it is a very vociferous minority - are more in love with the notion of being a discriminating soccer fan than they really are with soccer.

Those are the fans saying "prove you are worth my precious time, MLS." The rest, the majority of people, are secure enough to give the league a chance and might actually get hooked.

Alls I have said from the beginning is that people need to be open-minded and not always talk about MLS in such pejorative terms. Of course, there will be some who see that kind of talk as being an "apologist," but I have come to grips with the sad need a small group to focus only on the negatives of one thing to justify their preferences.

 

I pretty much agree with all of this. You said, "they are not going to support MLS just because it's soccer" but that wasn't the original point some posters were making. They were saing "why would you ever support MLS," which I think is a horrifically arrogant statement.

I never said everyone has to support MLS. I just think people who know about MLS, have seen MLS and try to declare that it's not just beneath their standard, but it should be beneath the standard of anyone else are idiots.

basically, do what you want, but don't tell me I'm wrong for my decisions.

 

Can I just note that this is the stupidest comeback that I have ever read on these boards?

It's one step above: "I am rubber and you are glue, everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you." Ridiculous.

 

Are you telling me Everton isnt a big draw?!

 

comparing mls ratings to ratings for other soccer events is a little bit of an apples-to-oranges thing, although the fact of it being the same sport may hide the differences. i think the one-time soccer extravaganzas that do well even on american tv owe most of their popularity to their uniqueness. otherwise, the big-name summer friendlies i've seen of late wouldn't hold many people's interest over the long-run either, as the pre-season quality becomes all too obvious after a couple of viewings.
the arguments that mls quality is simply too poor to merit solid numbers, also should apply to some considerable degree to those tours of european teams.

or if a strong euro-side even in pre-season mode puts on a show, you get a lop-sided game like nyrb (last year) or sea (this year) against barca. those kinds of games wouldn't draw consistently either.

the problem of mls quality is real, but it's not the only thing killing mls ratings. people in the u.s. tend to do soccer on an infrequent basis. this helps the special tours while making it very difficult for mls to generate interest week-in week-out.

 

I want to take a step back and reaffirm why I think this matters. I can't remember the thread, but recently there was a discussion comparing revenues from the EPL and MLS. When I pulled them, I was surprised to see that some MLS teams are probably (given what limited information we have) not that far off in terms of match day revenues -- ticket sales, sponsorships, etc. The huge gap is in TV revenues, and it's an ocean wide.

I know there is a sentiment that TV revenues aren't critically important to MLS, and as it is currently constructed that may be true. But if MLS really wants to be a big league with top players some day though, it has to have much larger TV revenues to afford those players.

The ASG is just another game with flat ratings. This isn't a new storyline. Even though MLS has expanded into new markets, which you would think might help a bit, the ratings haven't moved. So where can MLS find more eyeballs? I think part of the league's answer is to focus on these fans who haven't yet embraced MLS, which brings us back to our discussion here.

You're probably correct that some fans won't give the league the time of day no matter what MLS does, but are they others who could be reached? Would more stars or higher payrolls or both matter? Can anything be done to move these numbers?

Again, the league can survive without these revenues, but if it's going to thrive it has to get more of these TV fans engaged with MLS.

 

you're kind of saying that soccer is not a sport, or not considered as such....since sports engender fantacism and fan loyalty...how about this analysis...the reason for the sense that these super-friendlies' fans wont stick around for soccer is because they feel the sport is only intermittently around. NASL is gone, World cup caliber games are gone, some teams folding, some looking like they will fold (dallas). where did all those NY cosmos fans go? they died and their kids became americanized? in fact, the country has a higher immigrant percentage and a much higher hispanic percentage. Its the quality, the quality, the quality. Of course, every MLS teams could sign a Ruud, as Checketts was hoping to, and it would still take a few years for the soccer fans to fully believe. If you look around and say, "how did obama get elected, everyone around here voted for the other guy"....its the same phenomenon with soccer...whole vast areas where it wont work, yet if US won the world cup...easily 1 million would line the streets of Seattle & NY, maybe even Pasadena. There are also whole areas where a guy in his mid 20s-to late 30s could say, "i dont know anyone who plays baseball". Garber has been good for the economics of the game, still ticking though its lost 400mil. However, MLS now needs someone who push quality and international presence...the thing that soccer fans in US are using to judge MLS by. Gazidis has played ball as a college kid, he needs to run things now.

 

Yes; more stars and higher payrolls absolutely could move those numbers. That's why the Galaxy sold 3,500 more tickets per home game, on average, the year after Beckham arrived. The rise in away attendance was even more dramatic, and the TV numbers also spiked.

I don't think anyone is questioning whether signing Messi, Skinny Ronaldo, Fat Ronaldo, Francisco Torres and Rio Ferdinand would get more butts in seats and more TV viewers tuning in. It's a question of cost-benefit analysis.

In other words: if we pay a second Beckham another $6.5 million a year, the league will make more money than if we hadn't. The question is whether that "more money" will add up to more or less than $6.5 million.

 

The thing is that Beckham is really a special case (in ways that don't need to be repeated again). If there were more players like him that were available to MLS I have no doubt they'd pick them up.

The question boils down to if the players MLS could actually get (and stay a solvent business) would move the needle enough to make it worth doing.

I'd like to see them be more aggressive and I hope the new CBA will be a clear message that the league is going to spend a bit more money.

 

i have a great deal of skepticism that mls could 'launch itself' by going the route of importing foreign stars. i feel this way because it's too difficult to execute the plan of stacking the league persistently with a sufficient number of truly top-rate foreign players. where persistently means forever, and not just for five years or so after which all the pieces of the the juggling act go smashing to the ground.
i also have doubts that there would be a large enough public, again on a persistent basis, even for a professional soccer league that managed to 'jump-start' its quality development.
therefore i'm a believer that the success of mls, such as it can be, depends on what i would call the ability of the cook. that is to say, the ingredients are what they are, find a way to make a decent dinner out of them.

 

absolutely not! sure there has to be a timing to the signing, but others creating a similar affect in their signing is possible At 1.5 mil, that was a good deal for Sea. No one would refute that Lundberg has added some panache to Seattle. RSL had bad attendance to start off the season, but of late they've gone up to 19k for several games in a row. When I recently heard that Checketts tried to sign Ruud, I knew that had they done so it would've been perfect timing and would've solidified RSL support to capacity or near capacity. Would he make RSL & MLS the 6mil that would've been his salary? most likely. of course, the issue here is: if you're too cautious, you'll lose alot of money; if you're too liberal, you'll also lose alot of money.

 

Lieweke said of Beckham in a 60minutes interview that DB easily made back the money spent on his wages...I believe his words there, or elsewhere may have been "several times over". So if DB made 12mil-20mil for LA, surely Ruud could make that for RSL & the league combined (from higher attendance on road trips).