Not sure if you're asking in good faith or not--let's be honest, the snobbery goes in both directions--but I'll offer up a good faith answer. I have full season tickets for the Rapids and enjoy seeing the games in person. As for tv, I don't watch that many MLS games involving neutrals...I'll tend to watch baseball (a sport I've followed closely for years) and soccer from other leagues if a choice needs to be made. The reason is that for the most part I find games from the other soccer leagues to be more entertaining. In some cases, it has to do with greater familiarity with those teams and leagues than with neutral MLS teams--I've been watching them more than the neutral MLS teams. For the most part though, I find the level of play to be far better, I like the standard of reffing more (less contact is allowed) and thus for me, the games are more entertaining. I don't see why so many find this to be difficult to understand and feel the need to posit less palatable motives. People like this fellow: seem to think the difference between MLS and other leagues is just branding or popularity. I don't know what to say about that other than I disagree, and so do plenty of other soccer fans. As for people who are soccer fans but don't go the game frequently, well, Americans do seem to do most of their sports viewing via the tv.
The reason MLS has such a small reach is simple. It only exists in 16 US markets, some of which are very small like Portland, Salt Lake and Columbus. The entire SE quarter of the country has no reason to follow MLS. These are significant states like Florida, Georgia, Tennessee and North Carolina. The far North is also not represented ... Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. The SW also unrepresented, especially Arizona. Those are the problems with where MLS isn't. Now let's analyze the problems with where MLS is. Namely New York and New England. I don't want to get into an argument here, but it's hard to dispute that those 2 clubs have not succeeded tapping into two metro areas that should be nr. 1 and nr. 2 in the country for soccer fans. For whatever reason MLS screwed the pooch in the 2 markets that should be the driving force for MLS ratings.
I also think that injuries to exciting players like Zakuani and Ferreira do not help either. Also the expansion IMHO has caused a dilution of talent. I do not see the talent level as any better as too many players remain in MLS who are not first division quality. Also we need to get better quality Brazilian and Argentine players. Some MLS games I've seen this year are unwatchable.
Scott D. Pierce: MLS' TV schedule is stupid, short-sighted Salt Lake Tribune I have agree with him,yesterday they had two of the worst teams on national TV.
Agree with him also. Don't know the details of the contracts and why they aren't flexible. In reality though, I was just happy that most of the games this season will be in 'full' stadiums. Am hoping that 'flexibility' is on the horizon soon.
Looks like someone else has figured out that MLS isn't the NFL. Honestly, this is how all the NBA, NHL and MLB national TV deals work. Comparing anything about MLS to the NFL is just idiotic. My only real complaint about the current national TV deals is that their is not constancy to the scheduling. The games are on different days at different times every week.
They tried that with Thursday night and the ratings/attendance sucked. It would be awesome if MLS had a Saturday night game every week, but for now Thursday is probably the best they're gonna do as a "steady" night.
Which is part of the reason they've picked these games, I'm sure, but Kansas City has enjoyed full stadiums for awhile now too. What Philadelphia also has, however, is strong local viewership. The teams with the best local TV ratings are (in order) Seattle, LA and Philly. http://www.ussoccerplayers.com/ussoccerplayers/2011/10/mls-and-local-television.html I don't know where RSL and Kansas City fall in that order, but, again, they are two of three smallest Nielsen markets in the league (KC is 31, Columbus 32 and Salt Lake City is 33). http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/.../tv/nielsen-2012-local-DMA-TV-penetration.pdf So, when the Salt Lake newspaper reporter wonders why broadcasters have chosen to put Philly and LA on TV so much despite their slow starts, the answer is pretty simple IMO -- they think they'll get more people to watch because they have strong local TV markets. And right now, that's probably more telling then the the teams' records in an early season game.
He's wrong when he says this though: The local NFL game still trumps the "national" game on CBS and FOX. The Sunday night game is only flexible in the second half of the season and they still have to decide a week+ ahead of time. So when he asks the question: The answer would be "Only if it was scheduled for Sunday or Monday night before the season started or if the local team in your market isn't playing at the same time Sunday afternoon as that game". And that's the NFL, the most popular league in the country and one of the most successful leagues in the world. If the Cardinals were set to play the Yankees as the leading teams at the 40% mark of the season on a Thursday night that game isn't on national TV.
https://twitter.com/#!/NBCSportsPR/status/192258136676110336 NBCSportsPR: After 6 games, the MLS on NBC Spors Network is up 56% compared to last year's average on Fox Soccer (106,000 vs. 68,000). #MLSonNBC
Still doesn't make me happy about the ESPN ratings. Overall this year could be a big drop in viewership if the ESPN1 ratings don't go up.
NBCSN is in not quite twice as many TV households, isn't it? Still, good news. More eyeballs is good news. I just wish NBC would quit calling it "The MLS."
Don't like that article. A lot of unfair comparisons. Only thing worth anything in that article was that we finally know the rating for Union vs Crew. 126,000. The ESPN ratings for the Barcelona game were interesting. You'd think the English version would get higher ratings than ESPN deportes.
Meh. Just goes and proves that if you tripled the cap and started spending like crazy it doesn't mean that you will all of a sudden get huge viewing numbers. Despite the fact that there were zero household names in that game it still pulled half the English audience that a game with Messi, Xavi, and Iniesta did.
Reach is one thing. But only one thing. The demographics of the country and of the international soccer fan in this country are another. ESPN Deportes does really, really well within the demographic its aimed at, despite having far less penetration than ESPN's primary channel.