The quality of the MASL Internet game broadcasts was either mediocre (at best), or unwatchable with poor video quality and lots of interruptions in the feed. Yes, I do have high-speed internet. There was one game at Tulsa (playing the Ambush late in the year) where there was no online broadcast at all. If the MASL really did care about good quality broadcasts, they would either send their own video crews (likely not feasible) or have a league standard for game broadcasts that each team would handle. Regardless of what platform the league ends up using, continue to expect less than average broadcasts from many teams. Cable broadcasts are too much to hope for at this point. As long as the Riot and Sharx announcers have retired! Thanks to Ken for posting those comically bad announcers on another thread. Good for a chuckle.
Great question, I have often wondered myself. I will briefly list why (in my mind) indoor soccer is not televised on cable (like lacrosse, darts, bull riding, poker, & pro women's softball): -a lot of soccer talent moved to outdoor soccer over the last 20 years as Ken has pointed out correctly -constant instability of the pro indoor soccer leagues over the last 20 years -due partially to league instability, not having revenues from national sponsors -the leagues not upholding professional standards, such as insurance for & payment of players, quality arenas, vetting of team owners (look up Dion Earl & Seattle Impact, Oxford City FC) -too many teams folding each year -too many changes to rules and scoring systems -lack of visionary leadership to move the sport in any consistent direction -allowing teams in rec centers to fully participate in a 'pro' league with larger arena teams (this last item is caused by all of the above) If anyone can add to these reasons, feel free to add on. I love indoor soccer but am frustrated to see a lack of progress.
Those all great reasons why its not on tv, also would like to add: Tv is very expensive, don't know the exact numbers, but have consistently heard it is not cheap. With the lack of sponsorship, Tv is not an option. At this point, I would not even use Tv if it is going to hurt a team/the league financially and contribute to having teams fold. Which consistently has happened in the past. Espn 3 puts out a great presentation (when the scheduled game does air) and I would assume it is cheaper than TV. Youtube is not a bad option and was used a couple of seasons ago. Again,I don't know the cost. Youtube did have a fan chat board during the game, which we did not have last season and was missed. Your right, GO Sports Live is mediocre to poor at best. I even tried it on Roku and live games are poor. If they could fix this and make it right, GSL could be a great option. Also, how the league presents the sport is poor and does not look professional. Take the turfs for example, many look old, some have banners placed in the middle of field, some torn up, lines from indoor football, logos from other teams,etc. There are some very attractive turfs, but every team should have an attractive turf! Don't know if there is a type of turf in which you could erase and repaint, but that would be ideal for this league. Take a look at the MLL and AFL turfs and you will see a big difference compared to the MASL. Also all uniforms, the ball, the boards, etc, should look as attractive, professional, and marketable as possible. It is a real shame that the AFL, MLL, and indoor soccer all developed all out of the 80's and indoor soccer is at the bottom, by far, today I know the budget in this league is low, but the majority of each teams schedule should be as competitive as possible. People do not want to paid to see consistent game blowouts! People (group sales) that watch this sport for the first time and watch a blowout, will most likely be bored and not return.Take the Blast for example, as a fan I will not pay to watch them play Harrisburg, Hartford, Chicago, Detroit, etc. As I know it will result in a blowout every time. Hopefully it will be better this year, just would not bet on it. I have no problem having less talented teams in this league, but they should be separated from the more talented teams and serve as a minor league system for the major teams. There are many things that they could do to make this sport more marketable, attractive, and professional. Many ideas would not involve much expense, just common sense. Which has been missing from this league for years. Indoor soccer has over 35 years of history of what works and what does not and there is no reason why it is not done right, even with a low budget. The MASL is in the entertainment business and if people are not entertained, they won't watch!
Surprised Detroit was that bad on the road. When we went to see them play Milwaukee last year, they were tied with the Wave in the 3rd and lost a close one.
I read that Detroit would send a different (or somewhat different) squad of players on road trips, because a lot of their 'A' squad home-game players could not get off their other jobs to travel. Their record was not great but I saw them play the Ambush twice (once here in STL, once at Detroit on a game video feed that actually worked for a change). Detroit almost won both of those games; even their road squad did well in that case. Granted, the Ambush were mediocre last year. Given that Detroit was based in a smaller Arena, they played better than their record showed. It was a well coached and trained team.
Allowing teams to play without midfield Glass another reason why people have lost interest in this sport
It's almost like when they put a second flavor of doritos locos tacos at taco bell which backed up the line in drive through for 5 more cars
There has been too much focus on the 'sizzle' (multi-point scoring, color of soccer balls, loud music) and not enough focus on the 'steak' (creating sustainable revenue streams and stable franchises, upholding professional standards, paying and treating players with respect, building the game at a grassroots level). Quit trying to reinvent the game - the cart is in front of the horses. Establish an identity of what indoor soccer is and build up the sport to a professional standard. Indoor players will not get rich (pro lacrosse players are not rich either) but at least have a consistent sports product presented with quality arenas, turf, officials, etc. The sport has been regressing for 20 years. At least we have a league, but I wonder what the future holds.
Sorry for the naive question -- but could you explain what you mean by this? Do you mean to say that spectators are unwilling to go to games if there is no glass in front of them?
I don't understand the comment either. The Wave sells the first two rows of seats on the sidelines with no glass for $50 a pop, and lots of season ticket holders sit there. They likely would have sat in the $30 seats if there was no $50 option. So the approximately 4 extra stops per game where the ball goes out where the glass is removed is a small price to pay for an extra $1000 per game in revenue. ETA - I've sat down there a couple of times, and the view absolutely cannot be beat. Obviously you lose some perspective of the whole field that you might get 15 rows back, but having the action just a couple of feet away from you is pretty awesome.
Couple of reasons, basically: 1 - Those entities, usually, pay to get on "actual" TV, and indoor soccer could, too (and has), but hasn't got the finances to do it; and 2 - People actually do watch those sports. TV (and by this, I mean "actual TV," not online streaming) is very expensive. It's not likely a realistic option in the current landscape. I'll give you a quick story from my own experience: In 2007-2008, the then-MISL2's teams decided to fund a Game of the Week broadcast on what was then Fox Soccer Channel. I was one of the announcers, and saw the train wreck happen in real time, about biweekly (Al Pawlowski and I split the games.) The league and its owners and leaders had little clue about how expensive a proposition this was (one owner was very, very vehement about how little they could spend for an acceptable product, because he was able to get local cable to do his games for very cheap, and he insisted we could do the same in every venue, every state, every market, despite people with more experience than him telling him "No, you really can't."). FSC gave them the air time, figuring that live soccer on a soccer channel on a Friday night was better than another replay of some random game from some other country, but the MISL had to pay the freight to produce the games and get them on the air. Which ain't cheap. And is probably less cheap today than in 2008. But the costs were either borne equally by the collective or according to the number of games a team was featured on (I can't remember the formula, but if you remember that season, there were a lot of fly-by-night clubs in it.) Well, if you remember those broadcasts, they weren't nearly as good as they could have been. (God bless the guy whose company they hired to produce the thing, he had never seen indoor soccer before, and was a prince of a guy, but was hung out to dry by the league.) They were cheap productions. Worse, almost no effort was made to offset any of the costs by selling ads or sponsorships, so the whole enterprise lost a bundle. That was why the 2007-2008 season was the last one with a regular national television presence for indoor soccer. (And if you remember the debacle with the championship game....Oy.) A similar thing happened in 2011 with USL's (outdoor) game of the week. They had a three-year "commitment," the channel (by then just called Fox Soccer) gave them the airtime, USL had to pay to produce the games, and the league (not the individual teams this time, the league itself) allocated a million bucks to produce and air the games over the length of the contract. Well, we blew through the vast majority of that money that first season, resulting in a couple of broadcasts being cancelled and the plug being pulled on future broadcasts. (And, similarly, zero effort was made to generate revenue that might have offset some of that expenditure.) That was the last time the USL had a regular national television presence. (And they had originally thought about doing at least one indoor game that winter of 2011-2012, with USL having taken over the MISL3, but that never happened, either.) Bottom line: it's the bottom line. It's really expensive to do well. The clubs in today's MASL don't have the wherewithal to make the commitment it would take to do a professional game of the week on an actual network on a regular basis. They just don't. All that's true. But it's far down the list of why the sport isn't on television. There are places you could avoid and places you could do the majority of your telecasts that don't look like Norfolk's old turf. Couple of caveats: most groups go for a "night out," and the result of the game is secondary. They're normally not likely to return that season, but an annual group outing depends more on the familiarity and regularity and a lack of a major time commitment, and it's easier to say, "Hey, remember when we went last year? We're all going again." Groups are less influenced by the result of the actual game. Competitiveness is a concern overall, though, and points out the very real problem that there are clubs that have it together and a whole lot of clubs who do not. Again, it's about money. San Diego has it, Turlock does not. That's a general league issue, but the bottom feeders serve a valuable purpose (in one theory) because they give the haves somebody to play for Homecoming. I personally don't subscribe to this theory, but Syd does, and that's fine. Indoor wasn't working with six teams when four of them would cycle through over the course of a few years and Baltimore and Milwaukee would remain constant, but it's not working now, either, with 24 teams and seven of them from last fall toast a year later. You just have more bad spots. It's not advancing the sport, but then, nothing has, so I'm left to believe the sport can't be advanced. We'd love to see your plan. I'm going to guess your "many things" either ( a ) wouldn't actually move the needle or ( b ) would be more expensive than you think. I'm absolutely certain they'd be out of the range of most of today's clubs, because even common sense has to be executed by humans, and humans cost money. There is no evidence of this. At all. The Comets were, I believe, the first to take out some sections of glass, in 2004-2005. (Check me on that if I'm wrong.) Other teams followed suit. I think the Comets did it because someone asked if it could be done, and they used it as a kind of a selling point. And while I don't know that it costs slightly less in labor to leave some sections of glass out instead of putting up the "traditional" perimeter glass walls, if it does, that's going to make an owner's eyes light up. It does elongate and slow down the game, though, because the ball goes out of play now far more than it did 12 years ago. (Personally, I think it's more than four times a game, but I also think there are places with far less glass than others, aren't there? Some only have glass down at the ends and a bit of the corners? ) But pace of play is less of a reason why "people" (which people?) have "lost interest in this sport" than all the other reasons (including skill-less players, no continuity of franchises, little exposure, cheap front offices, other options being far more reliable and entertaining, etc.). But the no midfield glass thing is not a big deal. At all. You seem to be saying those things are easily done. They're not. The people who invest in this sport, or have for the last decade or so have, for the most part, zero clue about doing all those things you mention. They've either been naive, underfunded or scammers (or all three). Besides being vague, this would require ( a ) consensus, ( b ) buy-in and ( c ) money. And we'll be back to six teams toute suite. The sentiment in the bolded part has been expressed by someone (or many someones) literally every year for the last 10-12 years. Maybe the last 15. What you're advocating, while admirable and a great goal and all that, costs more money than the sport can generate. Indoor soccer is a zombie. It seems to be impossible to kill it, but it's not alive and thriving, either. I don't know that it will ever be either of those things. It seems to be constantly stuck in this purgatory of subsistence farming, teams coming and going, the occasional ridiculous soap opera drama, and low-rent teams, arenas and players. I don't know that there's a way out. I just don't.
I also appreciate Kenn's feedback and insight on this board. He should be on the MASL board or serve as an consultant to the MASL! He is right! High expense is the number 1 reason why this league should not and does not use TV. Hopefully they will continue to learn their lesson. I did like they idea of local TV for some of the games, again only if this was financially possible and if it would serve as an effective way to market the team. I don't like game replays either(a day or two later). Presentation and competition are reasons why they should not be on TV. But I do like your idea of only showing teams with attractive turfs only. Actually, the turfs in this league are starting to improve. Anyone know the approx. cost for a turf in this league? Norfolk was one the worse Turfs! Norfolk didn't have a bad team, but another prime example of how not to start an expansion team. That is the perfect analogy "Indoor Soccer is like a Zombie"! It is neither alive or thriving! He is soooo right! But actually zombies aren't impossible to kill, you just shoot them in they head (according to the walking dead). As for some of my ideas, I will post them later.
Kenn always has great insights and analysis. He should be the MASL commissioner. I certainly don't think and did not imply that any of the necessary steps towards sustainability are 'easy' or inexpensive. I remain chagrined that so many leagues and owners are obsessively focused on things that have little to do with creating a better future for indoor soccer. Ego trips, breakaway leagues, infighting, constant rule changing - none of this is productive. How about moving the sport in one direction forward for a change? It is kind of amazing it has survived so far at a pro level. I agree that television broadcasts are too expensive and the league did not even have good quality online broadcasts for many games. How about starting with making sure that each game has a high quality online broadcast (such as YouTube)? Create an attractive product (including decent turf) with decent watchable broadcasts online. Maybe some sponsor revenues could eventually come out of it. Bloom where you are planted, start where you are and get better. The MASL survived the first season, and the playoffs were competitive. Other than that, there is a long way to go.
The USSF does have standards for an indoor league (even though MASL isn't affiliated with USSF / FIFA), but a quick read shows mostly reasonable standards (notable, almost laughable exceptions, are noted in red): VIII. Indoor Professional League: a. Composition; Play i. League must have a minimum of 6 teams to apply. By year three, the league must have a minimum of 8 teams. b. Stadia and Fields i. League stadiums must meet the following parameters: 1. All stadiums/arenas must be enclosed. 2. Playing surfaces for all teams must be at least 75 feet at their widest point and 175 feet at their longest point. ii. All league stadiums must have a minimum seating capacity of 1,000. c. Financial Viability i. League must demonstrate adequate financial viability to ensure continued operation on a season‐by‐season basis either in the form of a performance bond or similar instrument for each team in the amount of twenty thousand US dollars ($20,000), or readily‐available league funds representing such amounts. The funds will be used to cover the costs of the teams’ operations (including, without limitation, player and staff salaries and wages, stadium lease commitments and third party vendor obligations in addition to commitments by each team to the league) for a season, should that become necessary. Any team whose performance bond is used during the season will be required to replenish it at least 120 days prior to the next season. ii. Each team ownership group must demonstrate the financial capacity to operate the team for three years. As part of the process of demonstrating financial capacity, each ownership group must provide detailed financial history (if applicable) and projections (including a detailed budget) for the team to the Federation in a form satisfactory to the Federation. In addition, each team must have and its governing legal documents must designate one principal owner with a controlling interest who owns at least 35% of the team and has authority to bind the team. Such principal owner must have an individual net worth of at least three million US dollars (US $3,000,000) exclusive of the value of his/her ownership in the league or team and his/her primary personal residence. Federation shall have the right to require an independent audit to establish that the principal owner’s net worth meets this requirement; the cost of such audit shall be the responsibility of the team or league. The Federation will take reasonable steps to protect from disclosure and limit access to financial information provided under this section.
Those are excellent standards, though the 'cash reserve' requirement should reflect the actual operating cost of a pro indoor team for one season. For a properly staffed operation & paid players, Arena rent, etc., that cost is likely over $200,000. That money would be held is escrow by the league & would only be used to assure continuity of the team through the end of a season, if the owners could not continue to fund and manage their team. Great info, thanks for posting! I will refrain from pointing out recent MASL teams that obviously had no backup funding.
Indoor soccer is a zombie. It seems to be impossible to kill it, but it's not alive and thriving, either. The only way to make indoor soccer viable at this stage is to link up in some way with MLS. ("Hey, guys, it's the Los Angeles Indoor Galaxy!") It's highly unlikely MLS would want such an albatross around their neck, though.