I was surprised to read in the Soccer America I got today that MLS actually makes "a decent chunk of money" on the $49 MLS Shootout package, according to the MLS senior director of broadcasting. They will not release subscriber figures due to a confidentiality agreement however.
That is really good news. It also helps, although in a typically vague MLS knd of way, shed some more light on the MLS financial picture.
Shootout profits? It's good to hear that they are making money on it but is it true? I know that I am getting a partial refund because I have missed games due to technical issues. Does that money come from the cable company or from MLS? I have heard of quite a few people who have said the same thing and if it comes from MLS I'm not sure how it could be profitable.
i have been hearing for awhile that they make a profit on it i would think most technical difficulties would be the fault of the company one purchases from, so i would expect them to fork up for the mistakes... but i honestly don't know i have also heard people say that it is a pretty decent product compared to other sports packages available
I love having this package. The games are generally spread across the night. So on a given Saturday I can watch the 4 p.m. game and then tape one or more games later at night. Most of the crews are not that bad either.
I think at $49, it is good value compared to other sports packages. My only concern is that by charging *anything*, they prevent the casual viewer from seeing the product. In other words, it is preaching to the converted. It would be great to see all the games on "free tv", but I guess that is going to happen anytime soon.
I thought that MLS would have the rights for Shootout since they have the national broadcast rights. I figured that if the Shootout did good business then it would raise the overall value of the broadcast rights.
I think I paid $44 for mine. I thinkit's agood value. I usually only catch the weekends where DC's on, and away, so I miss alot of the games. I still enjoy it though. I like the weekday games as an added bonus. I also get the College Football package.
i was just able to order the package as digital cable just became available in my area. it cost me $49.
OUr local youth athletic league doesn charge. Wait, but they're not shown on tv. Ya, really, $49 is jack squat. Plenty of people piss that away in a couple weeks on stupid little things (eating out for lunch every day, etc).
I'm thrilled that it's profitable. That means it's a lot more likely to be around next year. We just got digital cable, so I'm in about week five of the Shootout, and it's awesome.
How could MLS NOT make money on the shootout? They don't show games that aren't already being televised by some team's local channel. So there are no costs taking the signal and allowing the cable companies to show it. I'm sure MLS has to give the Cable companies a cut to make it worth their time, and give the local tv channels a cut to rebroadcast the signal, but all the other money can go straight to them. No cost, all profit... nice.
I wouldn't say "no cost" because they do have to compensate iNDemand, etc., for using the bandwidth. But they certainly have little to pay for beyond that. But someone with MLS did tell me the same thing - it brings in revenue and, more impottantly, makes the fans happy. I was also told that the problems getting the package ironed out for this season shouldn't happen in coming years. in other words, the negotiations were not just for 2002.
It's nice to hear them say that they are making money, but its still just typical vaguespeak from MLS. I'd be curious as to what the subscribtion #'s are and what cities have the highest rates of subscribers (MLS and non-MLS cities). I wonder if MLS looks at this at all and thinks of possible expansion markets through a solid fan base in any non-MLS city. Of couse it wouldn't be the only factor, you need the stadium, I/O etc... That being said $49 is a complete bargain for this package. I only catch games when Columbus is away, or random WED night games, but even only seeing half the games I think of it as a great deal.
You didn't read closely. The problems shouldn't happen again next year. I was led to believe that was part of the negotiation - avoiding problems in the future. As far as lurking, yes they are. (Hi guys!) And it's not a new thing. This is free market research for them. But I doubt they would adjust the price based on a few people saying "it's a bargain." Likely, the would look at the numbers when they charged $69 last year and the numbers when they charged $49 this year and draw a conclusion from that.
Right, I said pay the cable companies (InDemand)and the local TV producers. Say they give each a 10% cut, that's still $30 straight in MLS' pocket for each subscriber. 10,000 subscribers = $300k in revenue for doing more or less, nothing.
According to a contact of mine at DirecTV Sports, there are about 20,000 Shootout subscribers. For comparison, the WNBA package has about 15,000 subs.
Well if you have Directv and the sport package you can see quite a few WUSA games without having any additional cost to our monthly bill. You won't get all of the games but you get to see a pretty good percentage of the games.
I suppose that's true. Back in my DirecTV days, I got a few MLS games that way even with the package, but as time went on they got blacked out. I assume WUSA does not have a package. My point was mainly that I have no problem (nor should anyone) with MLS charging a fee to get all/most of the games. It goes along with the philosophy of creating a demand. Having all the games for free does not guarantee you more viewers. Like having a 60,000 stadium may actually dilute ticket sales. Or something like that. 20,000 is pretty healthy number. I remember seeing numbers like 4000 - 6000 mentioned for the 1997 and 1998 seasons.