Major League Soccer and Versus in Early Talks

How about the other joker from STL?.. Hockey good, soccer bad..

 

I would love this deal because it instantly means I can watch more MLS games on real TV without having to buy some extra package since Vs comes with Charter Cable here. So bring on Vs.

 

True. Johnny Onenote's schtick is getting real old.

 

Source/link?

 

Re: ESPN ratings down 23%

MLS was about even on overall ratings with the EPL only because ESPN got the games FSC didn't want to air (the ones they previously sold to Sententa)

But when Manchester United, Chelsea, arsenal or Liverpool played, they got much higher ratings than MLS.

That doesn't even take into account that EPL games are on early and often way too early for those on the West Coast.

 

Soccer Hater?

sometimes I wonder if you are an adult by you inability to accept and dissect facts...no one here is making up numbers or rumors.

Your "facts' show America has 90 million soccer fans...that is way to high.

But lets pretend it is correct...90 million soccer fans and MLS get's 193K viewers per game this year on ESPN2...and 51K a game on FSC which is tied with WPS.

IF EPL gets marginally better ratings...what do those other 89 million soccer fans watch....7 yr olds?

You will post something like that as fact, call me a soccer hater because it fit's your agenda...there is no way 90 million Americans watch pro soccer in all capacities.

if they did MLS would be way bigger.

your article didn't mention the horrible tv ratings...did it?

I think MLS will be averaging 20K a game in a couple years...yes...maybe even more...that is wonderful.....

I also think mls will double or triple there ratings in Canada....and by 2015 the three Canadian Franchises will make up a rather large chunk of league revenue compared to the other 17 franchises.

infact...those three teams will make up at least 25-30 percent of league revenue...with LA, Seattle, Philly, Portland making up another 25 percent...with the rest of the league far behind.

I predict the salary cap moving up 2-3 million by 2015..

I also think the local tv ratings will go up in some markets substantially..enough to move the National needle into the 350-500K range per match....

playoff ratings will go up..exp if they revamp the playoffs to all single elimination.

MLS cup will be in the 2 million viewer range by then.

and MLS will have nice tv deals with ESPN and Versus.

There will also be atleast 1 or 2 new American stars taking over for Landon.

MLS will have the money to do this...if they don't spend it..expect MLS to be the minor league novelty show and the foriegn power house leages to be the big tv soccer

 

Re: ESPN ratings down 23%

If the EPL was prime-time I'd expect good match-ups could get over 500K a match

 

Prime Time EPL games in the states means they would be playing the games at like 2 in morning in England.

 

Of course...its just theory...but we can expect the ratings to be decently high.

if EPL cared about American ratings...which they don't

they would have 2 pm games with the big 4 every-week on ESPN or ESPN2 and try to get into a higher range.

maybe going forward espn can have the epl play at 11 am then MLS right after..for a good leadin

 

You seem to forget the large following games tend to get on the Spanish speaking channels. Granted, I highly doubt the 90 million figure as well.

 

If FSC gets rid of MLS they will be getting rid of me as their viewer as well. MLS games are the main reason I even go to that channel and keep my TV on there long before and after the MLS telecasts and end up watching their other programming. I'm not a big fan of the European games but I watch those on FSC time to time, mainly because the network is on my radar thanks to their MLS broadcasts. Without that I would have no reason to go there anymore really. I'll just catch some of the EPL and La Liga games on ESPN if I get enough craving.

 

You say that like it's a problem.

 

Largely agree. My viewership for FSC would go down a lot. I do watch other games, but MLS is the main reason I watch FSC.

With 18 teams next year, I can see properties like FSC offering up weekday MLS matches, too. I would also like to see Friday night games.

 

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/sports/africa-113036-world-irene.html

The 90 million number doesn't come from MLS or someone paid by MLS, but it's still pretty misleading.

Interestingly enough it was Nielsen that did the poll wherein 34% of respondents called themselves 'soccer fans.' Of course, only 18% of respondents said they intended to watch the World Cup, so the likelihood is that most of the rest didn't understand the question or have a weird concept of what it means to be a 'fan.' Mind, 18 percent of America is still about 55 million people, so if they all chose to tune in to the same game, it would beat everything on TV in a given year except the Super Bowl.

At any rate, it looks like soccer is going nowhere on ESPN but up. Question is really what form/properties that will take, and will ESPN carry MLS just to be able to say that it carries MLS. That's arguably what they do now. (And some advantages accrue to them for doing it, so it's not that implausible to believe that as long as it stays what they'd consider cheap, they might carry on.)

 

Same here. I'll follow MLS wherever they go. I think EPL is great, but living here in the US, I have a greater attachment to my team in my hometown and teams that I can potentially see live. FSC will become reruns of old EPL and Serie A games and I will definitely be dropping FSC. I'll watch the occasional big games for EPL on ESPN, but I will mainly follow MLS.

 

source/link?

again, not that I don't doubt this statement (or the root/broad idea behind the theory), but it just seems like an opinion (presented as fact) without any founding or supporting evidence.

does any US broadcaster make any kind of money by broadcasting soccer (or a soccer event of any kind)? (I assume they must, since there are business trends indicating more and more soccer on tv, and the fees associated with broadcast rights continuing to climb, and media organizations are willing to pay those fees all the while staying in business.)

and it goes back to your earlier claim to the effect that Versus has to spend on MLS (and lose money) to get in to FIFA's good graces. That's not how I see it. Versus (and Disney and Univision and whomever) could spend on MLS/SUM rights and break even (or perhaps generate overall revenue on the deal) -- FIFA doesn't care especially if there's a real (negative) "cost of entry" for MLS broadcast rights for US broadcasters who are MLS/SUM partners and wish to become/remain FIFA broadcast partners.

FIFA, I would imagine, just want to see soccer broadcasting and partnerships/support for the domestic league. it certainly isn't in FIFA's interest to have any/every broadcaster "losing money" because of their MLS rights deals. to me, it would seem that FIFA would want to help create and foster a system/reality where both sides of the partnership {a)FIFA or MLS/SUM or the soccer body and b) their broadcast/media partners} are making money and find the relationship to be mutually beneficial. (or as wildly speculated upon a bit earlier -- if broadcasting MLS is such "bad business" for US media companies, that could/will lead to less coverage of MLS, and to me that's driving and pushing the lucrative US market away from FIFA (a direction they don't want it to go). clearly there's a challenge and a unique compromise and understandings that are being worked out as the soccer tv business grows in the US. to me, I just don't see MLS (having gotten this far) every really being left out of the loop, or being unable to grow its business (with new and expanding tv money -- even if it can be 2 steps forward and then perhaps 1 step back from time to time across the cycles of deals).

tangentially, to me, it seems like media companies over-pay for sports properties all of the time.

here's an interesting read which seems to indicate that even something like the WC can be a loss-leader for a media company, but soccer can be an important part of their brand (even if just intangibly) --

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/sports/soccer/08sandomir.html

so again, that gets back to the earlier point of media companies spending to acquire broadcast rights for soccer (or any sport/event) and (potentially) not making their money back. is MLS so unique (or bad), even if we are to believe the statement that "anyone in the U.S. who has ever paid a rights fee to broadcast MLS, whether local/regional or national, whether in English or Spanish, had never made any money."?

I would say no. (and I admit that is just my opinion.) But, I don't see a lot of real evidence out there to suggest otherwise.

 

there is a difference...

if if you lose the same amount of money paying for soccer league A(32 games-1.2 mil viewers)B-32 games-193K viewers)

imagine the potential or in house growth and advertising to the 1.2 million compared to the 193K.

advertisers also want to get more bang for there buck....not fragment there money to small audience to unless it's really cheap.

One thing MLS may have going for them...even with a tiny audience is unique viewers....how many people watching MLS soccer would not watch espn much if MLS wasn't there.

 

The one thing we have yet to hear is that FSI is upset about the ratings MLS is getting on the channel. I think a lot of the viewers including me fall in to the above category and they realize without the MLS content they may lose viewers overall.

 

Great, great point. And it's the best kind of point...one that's obvious once I see it, but it never occurred to me before.

Sports are, in general, a loss leader, aren't they? BTW, how would ESPN do if they broke even on EVERY live sporting event, and even the yapfests, and just made money from subscription fees and SportsCenter.

Point being, I'm not sure the ESPN business model has profits from live sporting events at its core. Or even its periphery.

 

Didn't Fox establish itself as a true national network by paying what at the time was considered an insane amount of money for a piece of the NFL? I remember that the talking heads said that they would never make money on it, and in the short term, the length of the initial contract, they were probably right.

I also seem to recall reading somewhere that NBC always takes a bath on the Olympics, but keeps buying them just to associate themselves and their programming with the Olympic Games, and use the five-ring logo.

 

exactly (and thanks for the kind words), and as a consumer/viewer (who does have an interest in learning about and understanding the "business side") I do realize there certainly is a limit to what I can know/learn about the details of ESPN/Univision/FSC/Versus/FIFA/MLS/SUM/etc and their businesses. at some point, I don't really care that I don't know how the sausage is made, or why/how some/many games are available to me on channels I receive/pay-for, as I don't think there's a simple and readily understandable standard for the business of soccer (and soccer broadcasting) in the US.

I just like watching soccer on tv/online/in-person and I happen to live in the US. and we're getting more and more of that broadcast presentation (on more an more readily available -- if not necessarily/always less-expensive channels/platforms) of the sport (and MLS specifically in the US).

and to me, that overall point is the most important one. the league isn't going anywhere, imo. and if it is going somewhere, it is likely, imo, going in a positive direction (i.e. in my case perhaps in 2011 from a non-standard/not-included-in-my-base-package channel like FSC/FSE to a channel like Versus which I do currently pay to receive). the league is (sometimes slowly) becoming more accessible and mainstream as a product -- and that has to be good for their business, and certainly can be great for me as a consumer/viewer.

so personally, I've reached the point where all the doom and gloom (or even excessively rosy) projections or suspicions don't mean all that much about the actual business of soccer and soccer broadcasting. in other words, I'm a happy consumer, and I'll take what I can get. and as the seasons go by I apparently am getting more and more soccer on my tv (and that does seem to regularly include MLS soccer, which I particularly enjoy -- for some reason).

so in summary, Go FIFA!!!

 

Can you show some proof to back that up...considering the NHL on NBC made 20 million in profit in 2008..Bettman said they have made money every with NBC..and in hockey circles are saying the NHL's salary cap will go up more then 2 million this year...partly due to NHL tv revenue with NBC up dramatically.

the Superbowl fetches 3 million dollars per 30 sec ad spot..the nba finals is getting 400K per 30 sec ad spot..MLB got 450-500K last year for the world series for 30 sec ad spots..the NHL is getting 125-150K per 30 sec ad spot for the SCF.

I Understand those are high end events....but the NBA Finals alone..makes 20-30 million in in game profit...now after the rights fee is included that may not be....but from a production cost to ad revenue cost..the nba makes that much per game....

so please site me where these networks pay all that money just to lose money...


this is the typical versus sports ratings flow:

like every other versus property they may lose some viewers at first...but always rebound

 

I believe NBC was expected to lose upwards of $200 million for the Olympics, based solely on what they paid vs. the revenue they generated from ad sales. I'd have to look up the actual numbers, though...

I do remember Vs. offered quite a bit for the rights to NHL games...far more than ESPN was willing (or anyone else, for that matter.) The reason they did so, though, was to build Vs. (or whatever it was originally called) into a sports-programming network that could compete with ESPN down the line. I don't know if they've ever managed to turn a "profit" from the NHL rights...but it has definitely helped them gain exposure, leading to being carried on more cable/satelite providers (which, I imagine, is where they make the majority of their income.)

 

There was extensive discussion about how FOX lost a lot of money on either their first or second NFL TV deal. They acquired it pretty much strictly to raise their profile to 'real' network.

Also, whichever network lose the NFL completely (NBC?) said they just couldn't justify losing money on the NFL contracts anymore. Once there was another bigger involved the prices got to the point where they had to walk away.

 

That was probably the NFL when it left NBC daytime's and went to CBS.

however they are back on Sunday night.