2023 TV

No, he is not saying "for free." He is saying that he is already paying a lot for television (as am I). He does not want to pay more for this niche service. I ordered ESPN+, and it had other sports I watch.

I would go further and say I really don't give a crap about MLS outside the Fire and I doubt I will watch any other games. I don't with ESPN+.

In the end, I will almost certainly add this service, and will drop another service. I just dropped Hulu and will probably drop Acorn TV. I haven't decided if I will dump ESPN+. I REALLY want to dump Dish Network now, but I cannot just rely on streaming until I find a more consistent Internet provider.

 

Agreed, it is not "horrible" and MLS definitely have a better deal for them than ESPN+. Just not a better deal for fans. ESPN+ was $4.99 a month including everything they had to offer (it went up quite a bit recently, though).

If I had Apple TV+ already, I would be annoyed that it is only a $2.00 discount for subscribers. That seems like a bad idea. I suspect we will see a "bundle" before the season starts.

The season ticket holder discount is awesome. This is my first year that I am no longer a season ticket holder and that makes me very sad.

 

No, he would drop one for MLS if he valued MLS above the other services. Since he does not, he wants MLS for free.

That just doesn’t work.

 

I hate Apple, but I think this deal is great. They have the money to make MLS games look like what we saw during the World Cup. I'm excited for the switch.

 

i pay for cable. cable companies pay the channels to show their channels. so i am not asking for it for free, but you get a lot more from cable than apple + or any other streaming service, so why am i going to pay for another for one thing?

 

We pay ~$15 for one movie. $99 for all MLS is not necessarily out of bounds. I can’t say it’s worth it for anyone but it’s not a huge burden for those that care.

 

I mean, you have to $40 to park at Soldier Field and that will be the only other option...right?
SOL for road games.

 

Interesting info on twitter about content production expectations on the clubs.

Got my hands recently on a document MLS distributed to its clubs last month. In it, the league lays out expectations for what each of its club's needs to provide in terms of video content for this new Apple deal. I'll thread some details here.

— Pablo Iglesias Maurer (@MLSist) January 10, 2023

 

"Some" people pay ~$15 for a movie not "we". I haven't been to a theater or paid that much for a movie in about 15 years. This new deal is good for for some people and not all people like it. Personally being in a single income home and having to pay for my wife's graduate school I know I will not be subscribing to it and would rather keep ESPN+ because of their content. I don't think another streaming service will fit into my budget.

 

The movie is an analogy. I haven’t been to a movie since before covid.

Right it’s not the option for everyone, and you are one of the people that need/want MLS to be free. That model has so far failed to bring the returns they want.

 

I was speaking with some friends yesterday about how much production costs are going to eat into the money from Apple. I’m sure in time they’ll find ways to save, especially when all teams have to produce the same format content. You can hire one company to do it all, let’s say. But at least right now it will be expensive.

 

I’m finally going to ditch DirecTV after more than 20 years now that MLS has moved to Apple and Sunday Ticket moving.

I’m feeling a bit liberated that I can pick and choose instead of adding on top of satellite. I’m still trying to figure out what I will land on, but I know I will be saving money from where I’m at now. Feels better that I can also skip cable if I want to.

I will probably take those savings for season tickets to the Chicago Hounds rugby at the Geek and get to a couple more Fire games than I attended last year.

 

Why are you assuming I need/want it to be free? How can you make an assumption like that? Did I ever say that? Ben you can't do that and honestly it's kind of dickish to assume that. I pay for other streaming services and can't afford another one right now. Could I give up ESPN+ and get MLS? Sure, but there is more content on ESPN+ that I will watch over strictly just MLS. Never did I want or need it to be free. I'm just choosing how I spend my money like I do with other products that I spend money on.

 

Based on your budget MLS needs to be free for you to watch it. Based on quantity/quality, vs other services, you need MLS to be free.

This isn’t something mean or rude. It’s just we all prioritize our spending and the pie we each have to split is not endless. I don’t pay for HBO Max (or whatever it’s called) because based on the other streaming services I want, HBO Max just isn’t worth it to me. I don’t pay for AppleTV for the same reason. I need both to be free if I’m going to watch anything on them.

I’m sorry if this sounds controversial.

 

I know that the easiest way to talk about these kinds of things are by using personal stories/ data, but when we do that, we only look at the small picture.

Looking at the bigger picture, you are basically saying, "hey, if you want to watch mls/ the fire, you should pay for it." the problem with that is that mls and soccer in america, in general, still isn't the big player in the room and is still growing its fan base. If the only way to see your local team play is to either go to the game (which you probably can't do each week) or pay for a streaming service that you may not already have, if you are a potential new fan looking to be interested in watching your local team, it might be hard to do so.

The "free tv" you talk about isn't just something that is done by teams because they think their fans are cheap. It is a marketing tool. Even on cable- which you have to pay for- it is a marketing tool, and it will be for AppleTV too. The problem is, over the air tv is available to everyone, cable tv only have one option (you either have cable or you don't), and but there are over a dozen streaming services, so if your potential fan base has to pick and choose which steaming services they want to use, a person who doesn't have Apple TV and MIGHT be interested in watching the Fire probably isn't going to pay for a new streaming service just to check it out.

By doing the league this way, MLS is basically eliminating a very large promotional option that is easily accessible. So now- I'd have to think- a lot of teams are going to have to put a lot more money into promotions to get people to games in order to get potential new fans interested. I am not sure how well that is going to work out.

 

You're not wrong and this is part of the gamble, but it's also why MLS is making 40% of their games literally free on the Apple TV app. One won't happen on a game on WGN while flicking through stations, but then again, MLS' target audience doesn't click through stations anyway--they seek out content specifically.

I'd be curious what the market research reveals, but my guess is that MLS/Fire fans are less general sports fans and more soccer fans, who specifically sought out their local team. In fact, if it's more likely to be free on Apple TV+, then maybe this works out better for attracting new fans versus having to pay any sum for ESPN+.

FWIW the ESPN family of networks is the biggest share of any cable subscribers bill at $9/month ($19/month if you count ESPN+). The benefit of cable is that the price of every channel is spread across all subscribes irrespective of their interest in any particular station (hence why Big10 expanded to New Jersey even though Rutgers sucks).

It'll be interesting to see how this all works out, but it looks like cable is completely dependent on live sports to maintain subscribers.

 

I don't think they are making 40% of their games for free.
https://www.mlssoccer.com/season-pass/
"A selection of MLS and Leagues Cup matches, including some of the biggest playoff matchups, will also be available at no additional cost to Apple TV+ subscribers, with a limited number of matches available for free on the Apple TV app."

 

i'll add an anecdote to the pile:

I'm fairly new to soccer fandom, starting around five years ago or so

I never had any criteria to pick a European team to follow without feeling like a frontrunner, but I traveled to Berlin, loved the City, and learned about the history of FC Union

only reason I was able to actually start following them is because they were on ESPN+, for which I already subscribed for college sports

no way I'd follow the Bundesliga as a new fan if I had to pay for something like the MLS Apple package -- EPL on Peacock is also annoying (though I now have my brother's login)

MLS package is a good deal if you're already a fan of the league or a team, but I don't see anyone who is a recruitable fan paying for it

leaving ESPN+ is a loss for a growing sport -- perhaps the money from Apple makes it worth it

 

I got that number from The Athletic: (https://theathletic.com/3736063/2022/10/27/mls-apple-tv-broadcasts/)

"Essentially, the league document outlines that six out of 14 matches in every round will be in front of the paywall and available to watch for free on Apple TV. That’s 210 out of 493 regular season matches that will be available for free — more than 40 percent of the yearly total. A source noted that the total number of games available for free in 2023 will be significantly higher than at any other point in league history."

 

I'm not really making an argument for or against anything. Folks are going to assign value based on their preferences. I certainly appreciated when all Fire/MLS games were on ESPN+ as I didn't need to pay anything more to watch these games. Now I'll have to come out of pocket another $79/$99 for MLS Season Pass. (Although I'll mention that a benefit of steaming is that you aren't locked into any long term contracts, so you can start and stop services to watch certain shows as you like--saves a lot of money versus just constant cable bills).

I do think it's worth noting however the TV rights dynamics that are distinct between these leagues in that MLS is getting $250 million per season on Apple and the Bundesliga is getting $30 million per season on ESPN+.

 

agreed on all points

 

I’m not advocating for it, but it’s just the reality now. And this:

I don’t pay for Amazon Prime so if MLS went to Prime Video it would be a struggle for me.

 

That is really good news.

 

Perspective from an MLS fan: