Can I ask a question here. What is the reason cord cutters cut their cords? To save money. So after they pay for Netflix and Hulu and the three or four other streaming services are they really going to pay another what is it $10 for MLS, a second tier sport? I just don't think so, the whole reason they cut the cord was to not spend money.
Not many "casual" fans are going to pay $99 to watch matches. Heck when games are free on ABC last season, I'm pretty sure the viewership was not that high. Most bars will not pay the $99 to show matches, heck on most weekends you have one tv showing a free MLS match if that at a bar. So I'm thinking most bars near me will not even be an option. Heck when matches were free to watch, ABC, ESPN, FS1, I still had to ask bars to put games on. MLS is so low on the sports bars list of sports they show, I have seen cornhole on and not MLS.
You could just as easily be asking why people don't listen to AM radio anymore. It's just not how people under the age of 60 consume media anymore.
The bar question is interesting. For Thursday Night Football, now on Amazon Prime, Amazon cut a deal with DirectTV that gave DirectTV their feed to give to business accounts such as bars. Bars don't have to subscribe to Amazon Prime, they get the Thursday night game as part of their business subscription to DirectTV. Will be interesting to see if Apple/MLS do something similar.
As someone who is 72 and cut the cord a few years back, I guess I'm in the wrong demographic. Seriously, the major difference is the lack of lock in contracts. You literally can subscribe for one month, drop the service and resubscribe months later. My daughter always has been a cord cutter, she subscribed to YouTubeTV for a month to watch the World Cup. After it ends, she'll unsubscribe. We don't have FIOS where I live now, but I remember when we had it, you had to use the Verizon router which was complete dogshit for wireless connectivity. But if you didn't use their router, the cable lineup would be all screwed up (I found that out when our son "improved" the router and we couldn't find our favorite channels). I would rather have someone deliver the interwebs to my wall and then I'll do the rest.
Fox Sports will carry at least 34 regular-season, eight playoff matches and the MLS Cup championship game. At least 15 regular-season games will air on Fox, with the remainder on FS1.
more Apple Streaming news https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...s-leaving-amazon-and-google-as-the-finalists/
Wondering if anyone here has any connections to Apple +. Would like to present an unscripted content proposal to feature MLS culture going city by city, club by club.
I love this idea. I've even pitched something not 100% dissimilar. But it's not typically Apple you want to be talking to. You'd try the idea out with a production company, who would make a pilot, with which they'd approach Apple (or whomever). That's usually how it works.
Agreed. I have partnered w a production company already. We can't make a pilot until the season starts but that's the plan. Still need contacts. The team I'm working with has no contacts at Apple+. Have a meeting in Jan w a large potential sponsor though who could underwrite the entire thing and we put it on YouTube only if we go that route.
I'm sure they will create content that will tote the company line like good politbureau toadies do. While our content will be overwhelming favorable for MLS we would like to reserve the right to offer adverse comments, which in turn boost credibility. Hopefully MLS will be on board but if not I hope we can move forward, perhaps funded by a sponsor or even a GoFundMe.
I agree. I don't see the negative focus on this compared to some many others. Actually if you have Apple TV already the cost is $79 for the whole season of EVERY game with no blackouts. Also the Leagues Cup and all the MLS Next games. This is about the cost of going to one game when you factor parking, food, drink and transportation.
I don't see it that way. Cord cutters drop cable and other services because they don't want to pay for content they have no interest. The idea of streaming services is to pay for the content you want and not for content you don't want. I don't watch cable tv at all these days; it has nothing I am interested in that I can't get from a couple of streaming channel that align to my interests.
Certainly. For those few of us who are already MLS fans (and not season ticket holders) it's not huge amount of money for the whole season. I think the point most folks are making is that casuals aren't likely to pay. And new fans aren't going to be very plentiful given that the games won't be so easily available. How many subscribers does Apply TV have? But I think the argument that they also haven't been plentiful for the 25 years the league was on ESPN either is definitely true also. So trying something different makes sense. For MLS it's a decent amount of money but it will likely mostly be eaten up by production costs. I'm not sure what Apple really is getting out of it other than some experience streaming sports.
Isn't this the exact argument against paying for the entire MLS package when all you want is coverage on one team?
Dave Johnson won't be part of the initial Apple TV MLS crew, according to The Athletic. MLS's first broadcaster announcement can be found here.
They're going to need to add a number of people, especially PBP, given how short that list is and how many matches they will need to cover. Shame about Twellman, but I suppose that's not a huge surprise.