Apple TV buys all MLS broadcast rights for 10 years

I'm just speculating but maybe it depends from who is gaining financially.

Hypothetically, maybe it’s more beneficial for Apple as opposed to MLS so they are not letting them out of the deal.

 

I'm just guessing but it would make sense to structure the deal so that if it's successful, both parties benefit, but if not, neither party benefits. My guess is that when they shortened the deal it wasn't looking great but that they were willing to give it another 4-5 years.

 

I honestly think their agreement will end amicably in 2027-2028 when the league goes to a Fall -Spring schedule.

 

Where did you read this? I’d like to check it out.

This too

 

And this

 

I can't remember but I think it was on Reddit or maybe in another forum.

I don't know how true it all is but that's what I read.

 

Interesting. I was watching Arsenal and Burnley today and the announcers were talking about how today’s possession-based soccer is not as exciting for the fans as the long ball kick and chase game of yesteryear in England. Today, with the ball being played side to side along the back line fans wait longer for something to happen, and it doesn’t have the speed and excitement that it once had.

 

In any case Apple was the best deal that MLS had on the table at the time so it's hard to say what they should've done instead, aside from the silly Season Pass business. Could they have taken less money from a platform with higher overall reach and a more cohesive live sports strategy (i.e. Amazon Prime)? Who knows, But it seems pretty obvious that MLS can't be the flagship property of a major streamer's live sports lineup, and it makes more sense to be bundled alongside major US sports (NFL/NBA) and/or soccer leagues (Premier League/UEFA CL). Like is anyone actually signing up for Apple TV for Ted Lasso or Severance or F1 (or getting it free through Chase Sapphire or bundled with an iPhone) and "discovering" Major League Soccer? This acquisition funnel doesn't make any sense.

 

Well there’s style of play and then there’s players’ speed. They don’t always go together. When I see old soccer or NFL, or NBA, it’s striking to me how slow the players look. And then of course in NBA they’ve gotten taller and in NFL taller and more mass in general. I think in the NFL now a QB is considered short if he’s 6’2 and under.

 

The NBA median height has remained more or less the same (around 6'7") for about 4 decades. I suspect the height variance is shrinking as the league has devalued short guards who can't defend, big guys who can't switch or shoot, and slow guys more generally. Basically everyone wants a squad filled out with 6'7 guys who can shoot and defend to complement whoever their star is. Mitty High's own Aaron Gordon might be the peak version of that archetype.

 

Sorry I derailed the thread but now that we are talking about it, comparing players and eras has been an ongoing discussion for as long as I remember.

There is no questions that the athletes today are a lot faster, more fit than they were 30, 40 or 50 years ago.

Still, I'm betting that top players in any era could still play the game today.

When the old NASL was on its demise, say 1980-84, you still had top, first division players playing on all the teams.

American players were not very good and were relegated to playing defenders and GK's.

Englishman Peter Short who coached the Quakes and who was a strict disciplinarian, hated playing American players.

Canadian players at the time were actually better than most Americans.

When comparing NASL in 1983-84 to MLS from 1996-2000, I think the NASL still wins out.

Frank Klopas who played for the Chicago Sting and later in MLS with KC and the Chicago Fire becoming their coach,also said the NASL foreigners were much better than the MLS ones were.

That was around 1996-2000.

I also have seen players who played 20-25 years that played in both leagues and and they have said the same thing.

Brian Quinn who coached the Clash from 97-99 was a long time NASL -MISL ,USMNT player and he would train with the Clash players but was far superior than any of his players.

When Ruud Gullit coached the Galaxy, he would also scrimmage with his then current Gals players and would outclass all of them.

He said he played with and against at much higher levels than MLS was at the time.

As time goes on, I'm sure the older players become forgotten.

As far as top players, I see very few top ones than I saw 25-30 years ago.

Today, you can also see may Over 38's still playing the game.

I can't believe all the older players who will be participating in the upcoming World Cup.

Craig Gordon Gk Scotland 43
Sebastián Soria F Qatar 42
Cristiano Ronaldo F Portugal 41
Guillermo Ochoa GK Mexico 40
Luka Modrić M Croatia 40
Edin Džeko F Bosnia & Herzegovina 40
Vozinha GK Cape Verde 39
Lionel Messi F Argentina 39
Tim Ream D USA 38

I don't think I've ever seen this many older players in a World Cup.

This means two things.

Either the current lot of younger players are crap or the older players are very good.

If that is the case though, they were also very good two decades ago at 20 years of age as well and that means they could and did play in both eras.

 

Could mean the World Cup is commercialized and the older name brand guys are there to increase viewership.

 

I’m thinking back longer than 4 decades. Since 1950, the average height of NBA players has gone up about 3 inches. Not as much as I thought but that’s pretty significant.

 

I think the prevalence of older players has more to do with modern training methods, diet, etc. than anything else.

I don’t find much value in comparing players from different eras. We simply don’t know how a player from era A would do in era B. The game changes. We should just compare them to the players they played against. And I hate the GOAT debates. It’s like arguing about whether an apple is better than an orange.

 

Leaving GK's and maybe even some defenders out of the equation, only true champions can play the game at a top level professionally beyond the age of 36-37.

If you go down the list of top leagues and rosters, maybe you have one older guy but the rest are all in their 20's and early 30's.

In the words of Bruce Area, the World Cup especially is a young men’s tournament.

That has been going on for as long as I remember and I doubt that will change.

I'd rather see more Under 28's than Over 35's and/or almost 40's.

 

The game was a lot rougher 40-50 years ago. Players faced much more brutality on the field and for the most part just took the hit, brushed themselves off, and got on with the game. And the condition of the pitches were abysmal compared to today’s manicured fields.

 

#nflexplainstheworld

 

Players also seem to go down a lot easier than they did before.

Now you barely touch a player and they act like their legs and ankles are broken.

Defenders were brutal back then but I can’t remember too many players complaining like they do today.

 

Yeah, like I said, it was a different game with a little different kind of athlete.

 

With the World Cup expanding to 48 countries and each team having 26 roster slots, most teams have a 3rd goalkeeper and often an aging field player who are there mostly for locker room presence. Well Messi and Modric are there on merit certainly but CR7 is pretty questionable at this point.

 

The challenge with the Apple deal is getting people to pay to watch the games.

As for the older dudes, a few factors are at play. The WC standards have steadily lowered post-Bosman. And gone are the days when players drank, smoked, and got away with jailable offenses on the pitch.

 

I don’t think the Apple deal is the first time you’ve had to pay to watch games. I remember having to subscribe to ESPN+, etc., and these services were like an order of magnitude worse. And as for including the games “for free” in cable packages, well cable packages aren’t free either and these days many people don’t have them.

 

Apple's deal is for 2.5 billion over 10 years, so about 250 million per year (very likely with a sliding scale). That's 8.3 million per team per year - minus the MLS fund.

 

The challenge is broadening the viewership beyond the cultish followers of MLS. Season ticketholders get the games for free. This year so do Apple TV subscribers. That is a step forward but there needs to be a robust parallel free TV viewing opportunity. Every MLS team should have their away games available on local TV to attract the uninitiated.

 

After everything is paid out, I read the figure is $6.6 mil per team.

Either way, I still don't see the great lure of $8.3 mil and it really isn’t that much money.

It's great for our cheapskate owner John Fisher to pay Timo Werner's salary but I doubt most of the MLS billionaire owners care about it or will do that much with $8.3 million.

Messi makes that in a few months.

Again, looking at transfer fees, it won't even be enough to cover the cost of most second rate defenders from abroad.

On the flip side, looking at the Euro leagues, a top 4-5 team that qualifies for the Champions League, because of TV rights, and match results, the total financial payout starts at a baseline of €40 million to €50+ million before a single ball is kicked.

That amounts to or $58,042,500.00 US Dollars.

Now that is real cash.