this might be in the wrong forum, but does anyone know if mls teams have tried putting the regular season games in syndication? i'm a college student so the shootout is obviously not feasible and the espn broadcasts are definitely not enough in terms of even seeing dc united road games. i'm sure local upn or wb stations have nothing excellent to show on sunday or saturday afternoons that they can't commit to showing a bunch of games. if teams haven't tried this, is there a reason why? i apologize if someone has brought this up before.
The Revolution had some games on the local WB in the past couple of years. I don't know if they will this year. I haven't heard anything about the ratings the games have had.
Do you mean you want to see more broadcasts of your local team in your local area, or you want to see other games involving teams other than your local team, be it on outlets in MLS cities or non-MLS cities? I'm going to guess that since there's not a huge interest in stations in MLS cities showing MLS games that involve the local team (ask the teams how easy it is to get games on TV), that there would be virtually no interest in an over-the-air outlet in, say, Denver, showing the syndicated MLS game of the week (even with Denver having a team) or an over-the-air outlet in, say, Des Moines showing it, either. As for your local team getting its games on TV, I'm sure they'd all like to have as many (road) games as possible on TV for their fans. But it's not like people are beating down their doors to put them on. And even in a syndication deal, it has to make sense for both parties. Sure, a UPN station could get a 1.0 for the umpteenth re-run of "Better off Dead" or something, but they would keep all the money from all the commercials (and there would obviously be a lot more commercials in that movie, or any movie, than in an MLS game), whereas in a syndication deal, they have to give up something. From a league perspective, just giving the games away wouldn't make sense, and neither would actually buying the time on an ad hoc network of stations across the country. Plus, it kind of cannibalizes the Shootout, which we have no idea of the inner financial workings of, but you'd have to think would be a revenue source. You can't do a syndication deal (with anything, not just sports) without a certain number of stations willing to pony up something to carry the programming. You'll see Seinfeld reruns no matter where you go in the country, probably for the next ten years because stations want that, and people will watch that, even the tenth time. The number of people who will do that is significantly larger than the number who will watch MLS games.
If someday in the next few years there is more interest abroad in MLS games, the league may be making more money with that than domestic broadcasts. As it is now, the league is losing money on broadcasts. Channel 5 in Britain is showing MLS games during the season, late at night at this point. Perhaps more of that will happen.
i see kenntomasch's points but it still seems odd to me that local stations and the teams (in the dc area at least) can't even put a couple of games on. due more to soccer starved selfishness than anything else. if no one's covering the game (especially a rivalry game against the metrostars), then giving a game or two away might actually be feasible just in terms of growing an audience although i guess if they're already losing money on broadcasts expansion isn't really the answer. the fact that we have games televised on a national network in britain even late at night boggles the mind. any idea how many brits follow american soccer and how mls arranged that deal? i can't imagine a significant number even think of mls as competant to the second division. (ex. ian bishop)