I've been watching MLS for many years (even decades) prior to it moving to a pay-per-view format. It was great when it was easily accessible and all the games were on TV, and the games were put in front of millions of eyeballs. But now, I feel as though MLS has reduced the amount of "eyeballs" available to watch by 99% and this will severely harm the growth of the league, casual fan, and pulling-in new fans.....despite seeming like a financial win in the short term. Imagine if the NFL or MLB in the 50's or 60's was somehow a pay-per-view league, there's no way it would have come close to embedding its roots into popular culture. Kids would not have grown-up with it, and potential new fans would be blocked-off and not willing to jump through the hoops of obtaining the league that they aren't really into yet. In a hypothetical scenario, what would be better? 1,000 people paying $50,000 for a total of $50M, or 1,000,000 people paying $50 for a total of $50M, or 50,000,000 people paying cable fees of $1 for a total of $50M My point is, the best way to entrench yourself into culture and grow is to get in front of as many eyeballs as possible by easy access.
I t definitely hasn’t helped in my book. I simply refuse to pay for another streaming service which requires a new account, new password, new spam to add to my block list, and more headaches. Netflix, peacock, paramount, comcast cable, espn+, prime video…. Recently got rid of HBO after typing that list, I realize I rarely watch most of them outside of soccer
not me, its just the trend that all sports are following at different levels. MLS is the main sports league I watch… having it all consolidated on 1 spot and with no blackouts is amazing. At least for me its the major stream I pay for (wife does Hulu) so im good with it The external effects as far as how it creates a wall from converting “casual” fans and channel surfers does suck… it may indeed hurt the overall expansion of the league, but at this point MLS is healthy enough that they created generational fans so the health of the league is not in danger
Ummm.... Cable TV is technically pay per view..... Most MLS gamesd weren't available on TV before either. We got maybe 2-3 games a week, if we were lucky. Now instead of having to pay for 2-4 different services, we pay one price and get EVERY game for EVERY team. The price is also in line for what the previous MLS Live/Direct Kick services were being offered at (with less games as well, and blackouts). Ditto the cost of ESPN+.
I like this better. I don't have to worry if the game I want to watch will be televised or if I even get the channel it is on.. I don't have to worry it will get blacked out. I don't have to worry they will show the end of a basketball game for 1/2 the match. I don't have to worry if I work etc. I can replay all games anytime. It is affordable, I could give plasma twice and that is enough to pay a whole year.
It's different though, especially when games were put right in front of your face and included with local sports channels with no additional steps to subscribe, pay another bill, create accounts, etc. It's definitely a pay wall.
Not much has changed for me. The Fox games are still on Fox. Instead of ESPN I watch some free games on Apple.
In addition, there's a pregame show and more postgame than 15 seconds with a random player. It's definitely great for the diehards. For the casuals though? Yeah, it's not ideal for them.
I'm watching more MLS than ever. Let's not kid ourselves: MLS has ALWAYS been on PPV. As have most sports. If you want to watch a package that has all the games for a league, you need to, and have ALWAYS needed to subscribe to said package. I've changed cable/streaming providers several times over the years in order to get whichever channel had the contracts for certain teams. If you're a fan of an MLB, NBA or NHL team that was on Fox Sports regional, now Bally's, you had to subscribe to cable and possibly buy a tier with a sports package on it as well. And that only got you the local team's games. This package costs double-digit dollars for a whole season and gets you EVERYTHING, plus a whip-around show, plus MLS-dedicated pre-game shows. When have we ever had that before, except for the very short time ESPN did MLS Wrap on monday night? I think the people complaining about the switch to Apple+ are just noticing this because the avenue they had to watch their OWN TEAM no longer exists, and they have to change their viewing habits, which people don't like to do. It's also likely because it's exclusively streaming, and some people are hesitant to embrace that over cable. But objectively speaking, I don't see how anyone can compare the current situation to what MLS has had over the years and complaing about quality.
I don't watch MLS any more for the reasons mentioned by others. When MLS decided that I would have to jump through hoops to "stream" games by my Columbus Crew, they lost me. I'm retired and I just can't be bothered. Now I just watch the EPL each week on regular cable.
This is apropos of nothing, but my family in England complains MIGHTILY about the fact they can only get a couple of EPL games per weekend without paying exorbitant amounts to get greater access. I get more EPL games on regular cable here than they can get there on a similar cable tier. In other words, what many think is a problem here concerning access to MLS games is what others in their own countries are saying about access to THEIR league's games. That said, I pay for the service to get all the MLS games and I love it. I do understand that, as always, there will be a certain number who are priced out, unfortunately.
Columbus will stream for free this coming weekend. The only hoop to jump through is an Apple ID and accessing the app on a TV, which isn't exactly some ridiculous form of gatekeeping in this day and age. If you like MLS in general Colorado vs. Seattle will be on Fox this weekend. Sounds like you might just prefer the EPL, though. Nothing wrong with that, although Peacock has EPL exclusives so even then sticking to cable won't get you everything there.
We continue to have regular cable because there are several channels my wife and I watch every day that are not available via streaming. But also, as I said earlier, I'm just not willing to jump through hoops or pay anything to "stream" something I used to get just by pressing the "system" button on my remote. I don't want to download an app and create yet another bleeding account with another user name and another password. Everybody wants me to download an app for something. The doctor. The specialist doctor. The dentist. The eye doctor. The grocery store. The pharmacy. Etc etc. I'm sick of the proliferation of apps. I'm retired and I want to simplify my life as much as possible. And I don't want to junk my existing big screen TV and buy a "smart" TV. Back when we had to place my mother in a nursing home they told us she could not use a "smart" TV with their cable system. We were going to give her our TV and did some research and found that our TV is not "smart." In the end, we just bought my mother a non-"smart" TV. I have to give the entertainment companies a lot of credit for being able to convince so many people that "streaming" is now the way to go. I get along fine without MLS. I watch EPL games on the USA network and Mexican soccer on Univision and don't miss MLS at all. When the EPL games eventually go "streaming" I will just watch Mexican soccer. When that goes "streaming" I will simply read more books. I know a lot of people are quite happy with our new "streaming" world. More power to them.
Meanwhile I’ve been watching so much MLS for free this weekend I haven’t felt the desire to switch on any other league.
MLS League HQ gets a financial windfall with the Apple TV deal, good for their coffers. We get this. MLS league games are easy to find with said deal and a MLS junkie can watch every match there is week after week plus pre and post game coverage. Which is ideal for any sports fan. However, the local TV broadcast is now not available in my market and while perhaps not the most robust TV presentation, it was available to the local fan base, which does indeed include the newbies to soccer and the casual sports fans of all the teams in their city. These folks are now blacked out for their local MLS coverage save the token highlights from the local evening news and that is usually hit or miss. Thus the growing of the sport, the cultivating of new fans is not at the forefront via a streaming only option. Take from this what one will. End game is actually going to your local MLS team's home games to not miss any action if one does not want to pony up for an additional streaming platform.
Yeah, the lack of local access sucks. We used to get Charlotte OTA here in Raleigh. That was nice. Now you have to click on the apple app and sign up. Bally also is no longer on Hulu and YTTV. People in Raleigh who ditched cable spent an entire season with no access to Hurricanes games. Thank goodness for illegal streams. Now we have to pay $20 a month to get the Hurricanes and Hornets along with more money for a streaming service if we want cable. I feel like this Apple deal definitely hurts. On top of that they start all of the games at the same time, so you can watch your team at 730 or 830 et and then watch one 1030 et game. So in the end you really can't watch all of the games.
MLS should've signed a deal with ION or the CW. Those channels have multiple slots. Plus they're free as well.
Yeah, with all of the regional sports problems with Bally going on, they gave the tier 3 ACC football and basketball games to CW. They also signed a contract with NASCAR to broadcast the entire Xfinity Series starting next season.
So you want them to go back to musical channels? The way it was? Where hardly anyone watched? The ratings numbers indicate that that approach is not sustainable, nor was it growing the league.
Between Season Pass, Leagues Cup and engineering financial deals so that it can stack Miami's roster, I'm struggling to stay interested in MLS.
I am surprised so many feel Season pass is too expensive! To get all the channels that were needed before I had to subscribe to several streaming services all with a monthly fee. It was way more expensive that way.