MLS tv rating vs. EPL tv rating on ESPN2

I believe it was for the week of the WPS final, which was also shown on FSN affiliates. Hell even I watched that game because it was a final, and it was the first WPS game I've ever seen. I highly doubt they were getting 42K other weeks for WPS.

 

They absolutely can, and indeed the fact that we have so many leagues to enjoy makes the sport interesting IMO -- these are good days for fans of club soccer.

Personally, my only concern is that ESPN might be getting its ducks in a row to drop MLS, or at least the payments to MLS to broadcast the games. I know it doesn't sound like much now, but I think that revenue is important to the league and growing it even more critical. If ESPN made any effort to integrate its coverage even a little bit, I think the EPL and La Liga games could be a real positive for growing soccer fans in the US, but to my eye they almost seem to treat these foreign leagues as a separate sport, and the more separate they treat it, I fear the easier it will be to lop MLS off their schedule if the ratings stay flat.

To put a point on it, my fear here is that ESPN is trying to reach a specific audience, and if the ratings gap is too big they may conclude they don't need to pay MLS to do that. That would be a real loss IMO.

 

Doubtful on #1
Possible on #2. Who cares if you've been to a city when watching a game?

 

I am very skeptical of ESPN dropping MLS because they have the EPL, but the ratings - regardless of what the EPL gets - could alter the financials of the deal if it does indeed have two-year windows in which the deal can be altered.

While the overall numbers are probably disappointing because of their lack of growth, MLS does have consistency that some other sports just can't bring and has the opportunity to show that its expansion plans are bringing more viewers. There's also the possibility the new CBA could bring some structures which change things, either for better or worse.

I think people discount MLS' consistency too much. In this day and age, a stable product is probably pretty valued. It's not apples and oranges, but the core audience who always watched Scrubs has been credited for helping ABC keep it around - they know what they are going to get for the most part. Advertisers and networks like that. They might not pay as much as they did three years ago in MLS' case, but I don't think you turn your back on something you can count on.

Of course, all of this has to be viewed knowing we don't know anything about demographic ratings and other factors which are the really important things related to these decisions. If those 250K viewers are mostly men 18-34, that changes everything.

 

They did get those numbers for early season games.

something to note.

the Athletica had two games here in St. Louis on over the air tv.

KPLR-11(CW-11)(both home games) those games got a .3 rating and .4 rating locally...that is about 3K HH here.

the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team the other night got a 13.9(home game) rating on cable...that is 155K HH. which is just absurd for baseball...but they are averaging 8.7 for the season on cable and a 14.1 on local broadcast...which is amazing..this city is all baseball all the time. The Rams Football team got a 6.9 for there first preseason game...mind you they have been terrible for years. The St. Louis Blues hockey last playoff game last year got a 9.8 rating(home game) on KPLR and there last regular season game on KPLR was a 6.9 but it was for a playoff clinching spot..so a bit high.

Either way.....I find it weird that our local WPS team can sell out every game with 5.5K per game or so....and only get 3k HH?

I dunno....It makes me wonder if MLS would be much higher than a .5 or .6 locally since WPS games on FSC are close to MLS games.
are MLS games on FSC exlclusive?


MONSTER- I think MLS needs to say goodbye to ESPN....I don't know the nature of all the local deals teams have...but some say the NHL recent ratings explosion on the local and national level has a lot to do with Local HD tv....and NHL teams taking the grassroots approach.

the NHL is a billion dollar North American Pro sports league that in essence has it's own sports network...of course its not the same as ESPN2...but we all know ESPN has little effect on growing games...

MLS needs to stop caring about ESPN...and start getting EVERY SINGLE game locally shown in HD...even if they have to pay for it some how.....they need to push the local broadbcasts as much as possible.

in most cities....15-20K HH locally per game for an NHL team or NBA is enough to make money.

MLS can manage that with enough effort.

ESPN probably makes peanuts on MLS games...

 

exactly...of the NHL's 326K viewer average for regular season games on versus...according to sports media watch over 80 percent are 18-49.

MLS has a similiar following....even if the audience is low.

that is still reaching nearly 300K men who can buy products..who probably do not change the channel during the broadcast. I'd love to see MLS move to versus and get top billing

 

I really don't know how to respond to this. The league should walk away from a national audience in HD to focus on the local markets instead of having the teams focus on the local markets and the league handled the national market.

Why is that the league's responsibility? I though Big Soccer decided en masse that the league should keep its nose out of how the teams ran themselves.

So? As long as MLS can keep the contract and reap the benefits, who cares what ESPN makes? if they don't make much, then they will cut the deal or negotiate for something more reasonable.

Leave ESPN? That's just silly. If you didn't notice, Versus is in a huge fight with one of the dish networks. ESPN has every cable system and the dish systems by the nads. Why you would walk away from a partnership like that until they kicked you to the curb is beyond me.

 

<big soccer wisdom)Because ESPN hates soccer</big soccer wisdom>

 

any talk of MLS walking away from ESPN is absurd. any talk of ESPN walking away from MLS is alarming.

The fear here imo is that if the ESPN finally sees values in the big clubs in England and Spain (thus market them) and starts seeing real differences in viewership. If the Euro games really pull away I don't think think ESPN drops anyone especially because time slots are different, but this has to really hurt the business of MLS. The question for AT&T or Panasonic or some big company about to sign a major sponsorship deal, if they look at these numbers they might ask themselves if there is a better way to target the soccer audience in the US. Adidas might ask themselves if buying air time on ESPN for EPL games and Univision for FMF games is just a better plan than sponsoring a league who's viewership isn't growing as hoped.

 

Monster, you make some good points about MLS delivering a consistent audience -- I just don't know enough about the economics to know if that's worth $8 million a year to ESPN. It's probably worth something, but certainly not a lot more on the current numbers and maybe not as much as the current contract pays.

As for dropping ESPN, I agree that would be foolish. Again, if people really want to see the cap increase, maintaining and growing national TV revenue is important. Local TV money isn't shared with the league and, again, doesn't provide more dollars for payroll.

 

completely agree.

it could be alarming, but the elephant in MLS/SUM's corner of the room is Fifa.

if ESPN were to want to (or to actually) walk away from MLS in the future, how would that affect their ability to win the broadcasting rights to Fifa's events in the future?

as long as (MLS-friendly) guys like Blazer and/or Gulati/Garber hold titles and serve on key Fifa committees (and are willing/able to push their weight around in support of MLS causes), then there's something to be said of the influence Fifa can wield with their desirable international soccer tournament rights packages (and how those may be utilized to support the financially beneficial rights packages for the broadcasting of the domestic league in the US/Canada).

in my view, ESPN/Disney can/will succeed with EPL/La Liga and other imported soccer content, but I find it very unlikely that their support for and broadcast of those foreign leagues to the US market will do anything to adversely affect MLS's business and the long-term (paying) relationship that ESPN will have with SUM. (the same general idea holds for Univision/TF and their desire for Fifa broadcast rights in the future in this market and their broadcasts of both MLS and the foreign league that plays immediately across the US's southern border.)

the domestic league soccer product (assuming it properly tends to its business) can live (and thrive) alongside the imported product. (a beer and soccer analogy is not perfect, but I think the beer business to soccer business comparison can be broadly useful when looking at the US market.)

it's a crowded and big table for the business of televised soccer in the US.

but I think MLS and SUM (over the past decade) have done a fairly decent (if not outstanding) job of getting themselves a seat at that table, and as the domestic league here, I think SUM itself (and FIFA as well -- a powerful organization that will likely be interested in helping to spread and foster their game) will be able to ensure that MLS is not left out of the prime tv positions (and money-making opportunities) in the US television marketplace.

 

I have to agree with Monster on this one. If you remember the MLS deal a while back, John Skipper mentioned that this is going to be a long term project with MLS. ESPN is working with MLS to improve the game and how to increase viewership.

Actually, the more Soccer we get, the better it is for MLS rating going forward. Think of MLS as a small cap stock that trades on Pinksheet/pennystock/OTCBB. Now, think of EPL as stock that trades on NASDAQ or NYSE. EPL is well established league with so many years of history. MLS is only being around over a decade. The fact that MLS get somewhere around 300K is not bad, but not great. EPL will not undermine MLS, and ESPN has a long term vision with MLS. By 2012, we are going to see more MLS teams and more stadiums. The fundamentals of MLS are good, it is not too expensive to run an MLS team. The revenues will grow, and so well the salary cap. Some of you guys think of MLS performance like day traders and short-term traders.

MARK THIS POST: ESPN will extend it's MLS deal leading to the 2022 World CUP in the US. ESPN logic is that you need to attack soccer from both ends (Domestically and Internationally). You need to show top-notch soccer to get more casual viewers getting acclimated with the game. But in the meantime, you grow the domestic league organically and with patience.

MLS ratings will rise in time. I think there will be a little bump after the 2010 World Cup, and leading to the year 2012. I'm thinking that by the year 2012, MLS ratings will rise to 0.4-0.5 area. But, i can tell you this much, MLS will not be trading around the 300K level for long time. It will change, and ESPN is patient with their investment in MLS.

One of the caveat for ESPN to win the rights for 2018 and 2022 World Cup will be continuous support from FIFA to make sure ESPN is investing in MLS as well to help the domestic league. FIFA and ESPN have a good understanding and a good partnership. They will continue to work together to help MLS grow.

 

Lets break it down real simple

Bad: Ratings are not where they should be. If they are where they are now in '14, don't expect a bump in rights fee, or even the same amount in a new contract.

Good: Plent of time to fix this, and having the EPL on TV may help, the end.

 

Sums it up well. I just don't know how MLS can "fix" it, or if it's even fixable. It's worth the effort though.

Yes, $8 million might seem like nothing to the NFL, but it is a lot of money to MLS. Put it this way, MLS teams would have to collectively sell another 35,500 general admission tickets each week at $25 a ticket to generate $8 million a year for MLS. (35,500 x 30 games x $25 x .3 = $7,987,500) It's not easy to replace these dollars.

 

So MLS in 3 seasons will go from 265K viewers per game.....to 400-550K viewers per game?

 

What mls needs is more big name players. Beckham was good for ratings
but mls needs more big name players to play in the league. Those EPL
ratings don't really impress me. MLS could pass those ratings with about 10 big name players. Beckham alone did bump up mls viewers to over
400000 when he got here but those cheap owners don't want to spend
the money so that mls could go to the next level.

 

I have honestly tried watching MLS games but for the life of me I just find them so slow. I will still tune in to the saturday night MLS game and have it on but I rarely sit down to watch.

However, when I watch the saturday morning games on FSC and now ESPN I am glued. I really think it's the atmosphere in the stadium. The songs, the chants, etc. The game is so much faster too.

I don't know exactly but I just find MLS slow. I know the play is getting better and the stadiums are getting built.

Although I love the seattle games. It has to be the atmosphere for me I guess.

 

I just read a post recently saying MLS was a league with very fast play, but not as much skill. And now that I've thought it over, this makes a lot of sense to me. I've watched the Premiership lately, and the players are a lot larger. But I don't agree that the speed of play is noticeably different.

 

Since MLS has no big time games to drive the ratings.


ESPN probably is losing money on MLS.

ESPN has to send a full crew to televise 26? MLS games plus a few playoff anywhere in the USA once a week in HD...and they have to sell the sponsors on 260K viewers......It would be nice is MLS playoffs went up substantially.


There is no way ESPN gets 8 million dollars in gross profit from ad time to cover the rights fee.

 

I would correct that to say that, without being as skillful, MLS would play nearly as fast as the Prem were it not for the climate. Summer heat slows players down and is a challenge to the endurance.

 

As I recall, some rights to some non-World Cup US National team games came with that. Also, when that bid was made, arms were twisted and other favors cashed in with respect to the relationship with FIFA. A lot of it will come down more to that stuff than to ratings, I suspect.

Lastly, MLS does really well with sponsors, this because the people who do watch tend to buy a lot of gear (most important mls sponsors are a sporting goods manufacturer and a sporting goods retailer). That's another reason to be neither over the moon nor over the ledge about the Prem numbers, their 300k likely won't drive as many sponsor buys as MLS's 200k.

 

Goes to show that people like quality soccer in America. They will get up in the mornings to watch it. I think they will most likely pay to see it live, as we saw in the summer friendlies. MLS needs to be patient and build to get home grown talent to stay here. In a way we are a development league for the youth (Altidore, Gooch, Dempsey), but also a 'retirement' league for the older(Ljundberg, Beckham, Blanco)... Kind of sucks...

 

The preview page of the Chelsea/Burnley match posts the starting time at 9:45 EST. Hmm...another ESPN worker sabotaging the soccer ratings perhaps? I wonder how many thousand people will tune in at that time and find out that the game is over. The game is at 7:45 EST from what I have heard. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/feature?id=670876&sec=england&cc=5901

 

Sportsfan, that would be a decent number for MLS regular season games. Now, what i would like to see is higher Playoff ratings. MLS has to find a way to make the playoffs more important. But that will happen with time as we add more teams and better stadiums (soccer-specific). So, if MLS starts to average about 500k viewers for regular season games (with some key match-ups with the Beckham like players could even stretch the ratings a little higher). But what the sponsors like is the young demographic of MLS and it's appeal.