The 2022 MLS TV thread

Losing Univision/TUDN is going to hurt MLS. Casual fans would see MLS when it was available there.

 

Apple!

Spanish language broadcasts of every single MLS game (a first? Gotta be a first) available on Apple.

Cable is dead, streaming is here, that is the thought process in all the boardrooms here.

I didn't want to say it and look like an idiot, but I really thought they might not be able to get linear carriage AT ALL. This exceeds my expectations.

They centralized the rights and sold the whole kit and kaboodle to Apple. It was the Big Bang for sports leagues partnering with streaming-only broadcasters. Everything else will fade away by design, probably rather quickly.

(Could this all end in total disaster? Sure. But they've done it, the button is pressed, the rockets have fired, we're going to find out one way or another.)

 

Yellowstone saw over 12 million viewers, a cable record, for their season premier last month. The two most watched NFL regular season games of all time have happened in 2022. Despite the claims of cable dying, there are still more people with cable/satellite than back in the late 90s/early 00s. Of the "cord cutters," of which I am one, more than 10 million of us have some form of live streaming TV like Sling, Hulu Live, YouTube TV, or Fubo where we watch traditional cable channels live via streaming technology.

Not only is cable not dead, there's a valid argument for saying it's in a boom period right now.

 

For the record I tend to agree with you.

And it's also entirely possible the inflection point is 2040 not 2030, which would mean MLS and Apple did the right thing, just too early.

But the people who run the industry absolutely believe linear TV is on the path of VHS and 8-tracks.

MLS is where the capital class goes to bet on the future of the entertainment dollar, it's totally in keeping with the league's mentality that they were the ones to take the plunge.

It's gonna be different, it's gonna be a bit ugly, way, way fewer people are going to watch the games and it may all end in disaster, but it's an opportunity at the same time.

And obviously people are in this thread because they're interested in ratings and different outlets for the games and all of that, but us, people who watch the league, are going to get used to the idea that clicking on the Apple app is where the soccer's at basically immediately. All of us will watch MLS Cup Final on Apple, not Fox (which is why the rights to Fox are worth so much less.)

 

People keep saying this, but there's no evidence this is happening right now. The ratings don't reflect it. So why is there a concern it won't happen in the future?

 

I actually think this is the right move for MLS, but it is early. They'll need to keep a broadcast element of some sort for the next few years. The comparison I like is FC Dallas building in Frisco probably 10-15 years before the extended North Dallas suburbs finally boomed. It was too soon, and it was reflected in low attendance for a while, but now that those areas (Frisco, McKinney, Prosper) have boomed the attendance finally caught up. I'm guessing MLS viewership on Apple will get there, though probably towards the back end of the deal.

With that said, I doubt that fully getting away from a broadcast partner will ever be viable. OTA channels are almost having a vinyl record type of resurgence. I've got a less than $100 antenna setup that legitimately gets 150 mile range (I'm in Lubbock but can pick up channels from Amarillo, Odessa, and Midland). The quality of the picture via antenna is light years ahead of the suppressed signal that you get even via streaming over a fiber connection. There's also quite a few good options for DVR of antenna TV and that market seems to be growing.

In the end, I think we'll see that CBS was the frontrunner with how they've set up Paramount+. In most locations you not only get all the streaming content but you also get your local CBS channel streaming through the app. They haven't added in CBS Sports Network yet, but I think that's the only cable channel they have that isn't included. With the recent addition of the Paramount+/Showtime bundle, you can also stream the live feed of Showtime (East & West) and supposedly some of the other Showtime channels will be there soon. There's been some minor talk already about Disney doing the same thing with their bundle, especially with the ESPN cable channels becoming part of the ESPN+ package.

What I suspect will happen during the Apple deal is that MLS will actually be featured more prominently on Fox/FS1 each year leading up to the 2026 World Cup, and after that it's anyone's guess. That might be the spot where someone like Nexstar, who now owns the CW and has expressed an interest in getting into sports, becomes the broadcast option to simulcast from Apple.

 

I'm putting my bet on the tech dystopia, but there's definitely a chance you're right and for our sake if perhaps not MLS' I hope you are.

There's nothing consumer friendly about the state of play in the streaming space.

 

I think something like the Tivo Stream 4k, that takes everything you watch/subscribe to and puts it into a more familiar TV guide type of presentation, will be the next big thing. The one item most people miss from traditional pay TV is the ease of finding content. It's also quite telling that Fox has essentially shunned the streaming space and the biggest name of them all, Netflix, has decided to include and ad-supported tier to try and boost revenue. For all the talk about how great streaming is, it still hasn't made a profit for anyone (Disney lost $1.4 billion in a quarter where they exceeded subscription growth expectations).

On the network and cable programming front, the tricky thing is for them to figure out what will be really popular on a more consistent basis. Ratings show there's still room for the next big sitcom, drama, procedural, etc., but the merely okay to good shows have no chance. You used to be able to get 4-5 seasons, or more, out of something just by airing it after a hit like Seinfeld. Now there's no chance of a Veronica's Closet pulling in ratings just by proximity to successful shows around it. People are much more inclined to change the channel, switch to streaming/DVR, etc.

 

But why? I think there is a 90 percent chance I just get this MLS package from Apple after grandstanding for a while.

 

Fox gets 34 regular season games (none per round), and 8 playoffs games.

TSN / RDS get an "extensive schedule of regular-season matches"... but just "one match per week featuring a Canadian club". Also 8 playoffs games.

 

34 regular season games and 8 playoff games for Fox, so more or less they keep what they previously had, and ESPN and Univision disappear.

The scheduling may wind up different though, we'll see. You could imagine they want to take the whole doubleheader on Saturdays in the summer and then have nothing during football season.

The four year term and no mention of money, also notable here.

 

Did you watch those via antenna or did you pay for cable to get them?

 

Right, and one assumes that instead of the Uni networks games being different games than Fox's, which are different than ESPN's, the Fox Deportes broadcasts are just Spanish presentations of the same games that are on Fox.

 

Is this true? I saw a metric saying that there had been a 30% drop in cable/satellite subscribers since 2014 and that trend is, reportedly, accelerating.

100%. Chord cutting is a pretty big misnomer. For the most part chord cutters are just replacing their cable/satellite chord with an internet chord or, in some case, OTA. Not all go for streaming TV, but they'll replace it with something.

 

Were they dual broadcasting? Roughly 1/2 - 3/4 of Timber games were on Root when they first started. Not so much anymore, mind you, but one of my big complaints about the Sounders is that for WA soccer fans outside of Seattle it was easier to watch Timber games than it was to watch Sounders games.

 

So, cable/satellite subscribership exploded in the aughts. And obviously US population has increased. Plus of course it all costs way more now. So if you go far enough back as a comparison point, numbers are still larger.

That said, wire-in-the-wall cable is rapidly collapsing. Most of that subscriber base is just switching to cheaper (and IMO better) streaming app-based services like Sling or Youtube TV offering essentially the same product with all the live TV and local channels and whatnot.

Most but not all. More air is leaving the balloon than entering.

 

2014 was the peak subscriber total. With that said, there were almost 30 million more households in 2022 compared to 2000 and the overall population growing over 50 million in that time (and over 80 million since 1990). The % of households is dropping, but the total number is still higher than those late 90s and early 00s. For instance, in 2003 the % of households with cable was 60% and there were 111 million households, meaning about 66 million households had cable. The numbers for 2022 are closer to 123 million households, but when you add the streaming "cable" of YouTube TV, Hulu, etc. you still get about 75 million households with subscriptions.

 

I think RSNs will be the final nail for traditional cable. If the idea of having to get a Bally's/NBC Sports/Root channel to watch local games disappears, then there's nothing left to give traditional cable an advantage over streaming cable options.

 

I don't know if it's true in every case in every market, but most local RSN's are pretty broadly available on streaming cable.

I personally have FuboTV because it's the only one that carries the Cubs' Marquee Network, but all of them (that I know of) have Comcast Sports Net, where all Bulls/Blackhawks/White Sox games are.

Though I think some streaming cable providers offer cheapo packages without the RSN's, which is a big threat to the RSN's financial viability over time.

 

I remember a friend telling me the same thing about Netflix when they stopped mailing DVD's to the house.