As a soccer fan of more than a quarter century, and one who has been in the Stadium for TWO World Cup Final matches (and two MLS Cups and an Olympic gold medal match and an NASL Cup final and a lot more . . . ), I have to say that despite the wonderful showing of the USA at World Cup '02, AND the increased attendance of MLS 2002, AND the slightly increased ratings on espn2 of MLS, I will truly miss MLS when it folds after the 2006 season. And unless things change drastically, MLS will vanish. After all, what is left of MLS investors has not committed beyond 2006; ALL the stadium "rumors" have been nothing but (rumors, that is); and the ONLY stadium being built isn't "Galaxy Park," but is ALWAYS referred to as "the National Training Center" --- even by the Galaxy and its broadcasters. But what is most telling is that despite the FACTS of increased ratings and attendance, AND the success of the USA in WC '02, MLS will have all of ONE playoff game nationally televised before the October 20 final. ONE. Of a possible EIGHTEEN. How pathetic. Even TAPE DELAY would be far more palatable than NOTHING. Even the inclusion of the Oct 6 ABC national broadcast (listed repeatedly in MLS' national TV schedule this spring) would be a treat . . . but it AIN't gonna happen. Sports money -- and thus viablility -- today comes from TELEVISION. And all MLS gets from its broadcast "partners" at ESPN/ABC is the shaft. I will miss MLS . . . and American soccer fans for a generation will miss the excitement of World Cup 2002 ------ for without a domestic league, US Soccer is going back to the disco era.
You need TV money to pay $100 Million dollar contracts, but not for $2M team budgets. In fact, tv money is overstated. NHL did perfectly fine for years and years without much tv money. MLS could fold, but it will do so only if it can't get the stadium situation in order. I don't give an F what the stadium is called. MLS now controls 40% of the stadia. We need one every couple of years. Kind of like what we've been seeing. BTW, what suddenly got you worked all up??
Now that is stupid. I think MLS should change broadcast partners to NBC, they don't have any sports they show anymore (except the olympics), so maybe we could get them to show a whole bunch of MLS games. (Just a wishfull thinking, won't happen because of saturday night television is going to be sitcoms instead of an iffy sport)
Re: Re: Fare thee well, MLS NBC doesn't have many sports for a reason. They don't want them. They basically only have the Arena Football League because they are an investor. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/business_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_82_1344778,00.html The MLS rights have been available before. Why does anyone think that someone else would be better now if they never showed a serious interest before? Yes, it sucks that the playoffs aren't on national TV, but ABC/ESPN is the only national broadcaster who has shown even lukewarm interest in MLS.
Or possibly to the 'I couldn't think of an original thought so I decided to post the same tripe over and over again' forum. F-whiners.....
Re: Re: Re: Fare thee well, MLS That said, how important is a so-called national broadcaster? Doesn't something like 80% of US hoursehold have cable or satelitte TV? Of that, surely all have ESPN and most all have ESPN2. So it's practically national the way it is.
Alright... have the finals at the home of the team with the best record. My reasoning is that the playoffs are a financial drain. I was just thinking that by reducung the playoff schedule the league could save some money. Besides this time of year people are generally more interested in other sports -- college and pro football. In addition, an extensive playoff format dilutes the importance of the regular season.
Sure, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but opinions need to be backed up by facts (and using all caps sdoesn't make something more true). There are several ways to look at this. First, let's try simply breaking down revenue and operating costs: 1. It costs around $70M for the league to operate. The actual numbers are unknown--the best gues is somewhere between $50M--Garber's March preseason contraction pres confernce supports this number--and $85M--Express sports recent release support this number. So, let's be conservative and guess $70M. 2. The average ticket price to an MLS game is $18 (again, I'm being conservative). This year, MLS will total around 2.5M paying cutomers. That totals $45M in revenue. 3. New England, Colorado and Columbus have varying controls of their revenue. By 2004, even if there are no more stadium deals, LA and Colorado will also acquire varying control of their revenues. Even if there is somehow no increase in attendance in 2004 compared to 2002, that means at least another $4.50 increase per paying customer to MLS, for another $11.25M in revenue. (I arrived at the $4.50 number by assuming that parking and concessions equal roughly the same income as gate. I then assumed the five teams with revenue control keep half of that revenue and, as a group, total 50% of all MLS attendance). 4. Right now, the LA Galaxy receive $3M per season in sponsorship revenue. Thisis the most in the league, but the league total for advertising revenue is around $15M per season. 5. $45M + $15M + $11.25M = $71.25M So, in a conversative scenario such as this, MLS is making a small profit by 2004. Perhaps the ultimate doomsday scenario would have MLS losing $20M in 2004, although that would require no ticket price increase, flat attendance, loss of several advertising partners, and the highest estimated total to run the leageu to all be true / take place. Let's try a second method of looking at this: 1. MLS actually has scored several new stadium deals recently: New England and Colorado this year, LA in 2003 and Chicago in 2004. that means that fully half of all MLS teams are in a position to control revenues and make a profit own their own. Soon as more and more teams make a profit on their own, more teams will make a profit overall, as they will have to write off fewer losses from other teams. 2. As of 2003, all three major MLS investors, Hunt, Kraft and Anschultz, will own a stadium that an MLS team plays in. All three of htese people make money off of this situation. Why would they fold a league that is making them money? I think the outlook for profitability in 2004 is quite positive. If just two more SSS come through, there will be no need to have this discussion anymore, as MLS's economic fate will be obvious.
The Disco era huh? From what I'm told, the Disco era was pretty good for US Soccer, with that Pele fellow and all. But being such a grizzled vet, you already knew that. *rolling eyes*
Re: Re: Fare thee well, MLS It's a lot better now, though. The key word is "US" The only thing I'll say for NASL is that it was much better known than MLS currently is, which is sad given that I believe MLS is of better quality overall, powered by American players, far more stable, and actually has a better avg. attendance.