MLS has been behind a paywall for over a decade........So are every other sport....people have to PAY for cable TV afterall....
But it isn’t a paywall unique to MLS. Using your example, MLS’s paywall is more equivalent to paying for the NHL special channels on cable. Great if your an NHL fans, but not so much if your a random person.
Even the NFL has moved away from free TV except on Sunday. It's just how things are now. IndyCar is a bit of an exception, with 13 of their 17 races on NBC again next year, but they've also got 3 on USA and 1 that is a Peacock exclusive. It's just not realistic to expect anything else.
MLS Live and Direct Kick.........ESPN+......... How many games did MLS have on FREE television every week? As in available to all?
The difference between a cable bundle and a separate payment has been explained to you quite clearly. Especially since we're talking about leagues cup not direct kick.
Okay....Leagues Cup, Champions League, MLS Play.......what difference does it make? In order to watch it you have to pay for it. Either for a direct specific package, or a specific channel that';s part of a specific "channel bundle."
The difference is that most people already have cable (albeit a shrinking amount as GenZ/Millennials are mostly not getting cable) and already aren't dropping money for DirectKick or MLS Play. It is an inaccurate statement to say that MLS games are already behind a paywall due to people needing to pay for cable because this is an expense most people already have. As a result, the statement that MLS games will now be behind a paywall is accurate because, even local matches, will require people to pay the $100/year fee to watch the matches.
The disadvantage for Apple+, at the moment, is that MLS is essentially the only sports option other than a small number of MLB games. If/when they land NFL Sunday Ticket, the Dutch Eredivisie, etc., then it becomes less of an inconvenience.
That's only true for people that don't already have cable and don't have any other streaming services. Up until the mid 2010s, 80%+ of Americans had cable. Admittedly, the US is currently down to 56%, so that is rapidly changing. However, the people who have cut their cable are, in many cases, paying more for the splintered streaming services than they were when paying for just a cable account. So it isn't a matter of exchanging $100/year for the MLS account for $100+/month for cable. It's an additional $100/year on top of the $100+/month they are paying for Netflix, Disney+, HBO Max, Crunchyroll, etc, etc, etc.
I think this is very fair. The issue with Apple+ vs cable (or ESPN+) is a matter of discoverability right now. Apple+ is currently one of the smaller "major" streaming services, so, for a vast majority of households, MLS just vanished. If/when other sports packages are added, that discoverability will absolutely become less of an issue.
I can't fathom that being true. With the number of services that are being given away (I've got Prime Video and HBO Max as part of other subscriptions with no added fee), and the still very low cost of most streaming options, it doesn't seem possible unless the people who got rid of cable were the ones with the lowest level entry package. For instance, I'm saving about $30/mo by having YouTube TV and a combo of Apple TV+, the Disney Bundle, Paramount+/Showtime, Peacock, and Netflix w/ads compared to the cable/satellite packages offered here that would replicate my channel options and the only thing I'm missing is RSNs. It was closer to $50/mo, but the addition of Showtime to the Paramount+ plan, the slight increases in the Disney Bundle and Apple TV+, and adding Netflix back in with the much cheaper w/ads package, ate into that a bit. That's all with an increased internet speed, moving from the 400mb max that the cable company offered to 1GB fiber through AT&T.
Back to MLS, I've heard some sports media podcasts that Apple would love to see a Lionel Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo join a MLS team, so they can sell subscriptions worldwide. However, there's the small detail that Android is much more popular than iOS in third world countries, including Latin America and a large part of Asia.
The problem with the MLS is that it draws few fans in any case. They could have free streams on YouTube and Twitch, and still not make a dent. The MLS just lacks world stars, and a few designated players wouldn't really change the situation much.
I used to pay $120 / month for Directv, now I pay less for internet, peacock, ESPN+ Disney Hulu bundle, paramount + so adding Apple TV still will be less.
I don't. Its not fair at all because having Sunday Ticket as a separate payment does nothing for the MLS specific option which is a totally different fee. Apple can have all the sports in the world, but as long as its a-la-carte then the situation is literally nothing like cable. I don't understand how this is hard to comprehend. Clowns must be trying to troll.
Good news! Apple TV+ works on DroidOS as well. Downside, it's not an app, so people have to use their browser.
My experience, and I recognize the plural of anecdote is not data, when In looked at this 2 years ago was that to get the channels I cared about and all the sports coverage I wanted there was no savings to snipping the cord and going streaming only. Looking at it again now (since my 2-year deal with Comcast is ending) I'm still not seeing a big difference. Part of that is because with Comcast I can't just cut my costs towards cable and keep my internet price. I'm getting a deal by having them bundled together and if I dropped the cable my internet costs would rise a bit (plus if I was going to full streaming I'd probably want to go from a capped plan to unlimited).
It probably wouldn't have been much of a difference when I first moved to Lubbock 5 years ago. At that time Optimum (named Suddenlink at that time) was the only internet provider unless you were willing to use satellite internet. AT&T came in and undercut the price significantly, while introducing fiber and not just old cable internet, and that's when I made the switch. Optimum was charging more for 400mb then than AT&T is charging for 1GB fiber now. Optimum just offered their own 1GB deal as a Black Friday price that's still more than what AT&T is charging. The big issue is that Optimum holds channels like ESPNU, CBSSN, FS2, and the college networks (B1G, ACC, Pac-12) in their most expensive package only. The current "special" internet and TV bundle to stay at 1GB speed and have those channels that I actually do watch, is $165/mo before taxes and fees and I would lose my free HBO Max ad-free subscription ($14.99/mo). That's up to $180/mo without all the extra fees. The last time I asked someone who has Optimum here, the taxes and fees for that top package of internet and TV was close to $25/mo. My current deals have 1GB fiber and YouTube TV at just under $151/mo and HBO Max is included with AT&T internet. The total of all the streaming services I actually pay for is less than that $50+ difference, even with the two that are increasing prices this month. The kicker, of course, is RSNs. I'm not from this area so I don't care one bit about not having access to any of the Texas pro sports teams that put most of their games on them. FC Dallas was carried on an OTA channel here the last 3 years and now they'll be on Apple+. I would probably look at the math differently if it was the home market for the teams I follow.
You can watch AppleTV on Android through a web browser: https://support.apple.com/en-au/guide/tvplus/apd4c1442653/web
Top five markets for Fox World Cup coverage of USA v Netherlands 1. Cincinnati 2. St Louis3. Washington DC4. Kansas City5. AustinOverall: almost 13 million#usmnt— Steven Goff (@SoccerInsider) December 5, 2022