The 2022 MLS TV thread

ShowBuzzDaily has the final number for Charlotte vs LAG at 475k: https://showbuzzdaily.com/articles/skedball-weekly-sports-tv-ratings-2-28-3-6-2022.html

You sure you didn't just see the overnights (which are loose estimates)?

 

Not much difference. Games on broadcast need be hitting at least 600k.

 

May be they did, including Foxdeportes

 

Why is that random number you just pulled our of your ass so important?

 

Because that's his schtick.

 

I’ve seen some consternation over the low ESPN ratings. On the other hand I watched that Miami vs. Austin game and my attention was wavering throughout. One team looked clueless and no real star power or names for casual fans. I don’t think “newish teams!” is much of a hook on its own anymore (if it ever was).

 

Also, with the trend towards streaming (even streaming live TV) the idea of major TV markets is losing its luster a bit. There aren't many people who care about Miami if they aren't good, just like there probably aren't many execs who were willing to pay more for Big 10 TV rights because Rutgers in the the NYC metro.

The most watched non Super Bowl game for the NFL happened this past season, and it was between KC and Buffalo. KC is the 31st biggest MSA and 34th biggest TV market. Buffalo is the 49th biggest MSA and 53rd biggest TV market.

Would Austin vs Cincinnati really do worse TV ratings than Austin vs Miami right now? Even if it did, would the difference be statistically significant?

I would love to see the numbers on ESPN+ streaming games, especially if it could be broken down by metro/city.

 

I'm well aware, I'm just annoyed that the obviously disingenuous approach to everything is something he's still allowed to do. We've got years of zero meaningful input and "the sky is falling" hysteria with no substance behind it. It's beyond tiresome at this point.

 

The projection in this post is basically Trump level... I hate blocking people but you're the only person I ever considered it for. Complete waste of air.

 

No, the numbers on Showbuzz don’t include FOXD. Also, Fox didn’t put the Charlotte game on FOXD. So, FOX only.

 

Some more gut wrenchingly horrid ratings for ya...

Audiencia en TV de #MLS, semana 3:

🇺🇸359.000 Galaxy vs. Seattle (FOX)
🇺🇸158.000 Atlanta vs. Charlotte (FS1)
🇺🇸97.000 Miami vs. LAFC (TUDN)
🇨🇦64.000 Atlanta vs. Charlotte (TSN)

TBA los # de Fox Deportes (español) para LAG-SEA y ATL-CLT, y la audiencia en Univisión del MIA-LAFC.

— Jaime Ojeda (@jaimeor96) March 15, 2022

 

I only watched the first half of the USL game on ESPN 2 last week.

I’d say MLS needs some true “event” teams, like a modern day version of what the Galaxy used to be. The main selling point for neutrals these days seems to be “look at that great crowd!” or a reliance on showing new(ish) teams just for being new.

 

The good ol galaxy are on national TV almost every week...

 

You didn’t read what I wrote.

 

According to The Athletic the new TV deal doesn't seem good at all as MLS has been doing poorly in viewership. $150-200 at best per year is what they are looking at.

EPL has a $400M TV contract here in the states while MLS struggles to find networks. I don't want to beat a deadhorse but if MLS would have put a better product on the field maybe things would have been different. Teams are already spending the money anyways (some around $20M in salaries) but they just have too many restrictions and rules to build a good well balanced team and it shows in the field.

 

Wait - I was told MLS was going to blow these Euro leagues US TV rights out of the water!! what did I miss? You mean all of those local TV rights that only a handful of teams get rights payments for aren't worth much? I thought the current broadcasters were just completely insane for not paying for local rights?

The full article is actually worse than your summary.

 

I guess this is the article you are talking about.

https://theathletic.com/3194631/202...-not-likely-to-be-a-game-changer-sources-say/

That is a pretty negative article but we shall see what happens.

 

Still sticking with that after today's Athletic article?

 

MLS has also done a terrible of job of f marketing there league nationally just bragging how young your fan base hasn’t done crap for the league

 

Its always hard to predict. Serie A and La Liga get much lower ratings than MLS but got surprising rights deals.
I'm no network executive, but my take has always been "MLS ratings are terrible, but someone is going to pay up big time" and I still expect $250m plus.

 

- It will probably be $200 million because Garber won't want to announce a deal less than that for optics even if there is some funky math to get it there. Its an ego thing, and since the pie is split about 10 additional ways now, the per team value will not be a huge increase.
- MLS had some bad timing in that the short window where streaming services were gobbling up soccer rights at high prices seems to have closed - or maybe early returns for streamers indicated that soccer packages aren't worth as much as they thought to drive subscriptions
- There is probably already an oversaturation of soccer available to US viewers now. The incremental soccer package has to have a hook, not just more bulk soccer.
- Fox as company sort of breaking up and splitting up over the last few years probably hurt the value of the package to them.
- ESPN/Disney knows that MLS really has no other place to go.
- Garber kept talking up the gambling data aspect of the package which was always odd to me
- bundling up the local rights seems to drive no extra value to the media companies, which was easy to predict because as of now very few teams get local media rights fees and the ratings are microscopic. Many of the games on local RSNs often only have commercials for team sponsors which clearly were sold as part of club sponsorship packages so they are more time-buys by the teams vs. traditional TV rights bought by local stations. Sounds like MLS hasn't decided if it wants to in-house the production of games since that cost is expensive so why would a media company want to take that cost on?

Bottom line, sports TV rights are valuable to the extent they can drive either ad sales or subscriptions to cable/streaming and MLS has been judged to not be a needle mover in that area. Maybe Turner comes in late and blows the number up. If I was MLS all things considered if the money was lousy, I'd sell the secondary package to Apple or Amazon to get a higher profile streamer on-board now and maybe it picks up from there.

 

All I heard for years was that the "young, urban, educated with disposable income" demographic was going to offset the broader attendance and TV ratings problem. Being hip and having Garber speak at SXSW was some sort barometer on popularity. Guess all those in the social media echo chamber were wrong.

For everyone who constantly craps on baseball on Twitter as a "dying sport", do any of them know the highest rated evening programs on all of local TV in the summer in many major markets? An MLB game on a local RSN. That's why they get so much in local TV rights fees for now.

 

A slightly bigger deal isn’t the worst outcome. MLS will just have to keep inching its way to more relevancy. Maybe things could improve for the next deal. Perhaps Leagues Cup works surprisingly well or some landmark incoming transfers happen.