I know a few NYRB fans who'd love to watch games through Apple because they don't get MSG wherever they are, whatever TV provider they have. No idea how big a % of fans this would be. Also, I thought you (or someone) said that many franchises don't have good local coverage like NYRB does. Don't know what the % of the league that applied to, but surely those fans would love to watch games on Apple. Also if Apple were to allow MSG to provide the production feed, isn't that kind of what MLS has done through their website or whatever online season-pass they had in the past? If so, and if that "didn't quite work" for MLS before, then I can see why they'd be attracted to an Apple-exclusive deal. Not to mention the amount of cash on the table, which let's be honest, is really the determining factor. But like any new streaming offering, and at a given price point, it's always a roll of the dice how many will sign up.
MSG won't exist by the end of this deal. MLS on Apple is the future of sports media. If it seems expensive, niche, fan-unfriendly and kind of gross, well, welcome to the future of sports media!
most MLS fans didn’t need to buy MLS Direct Kick or MLS Live to watch their local team, now they do. And waiting for the “well they still had to buy a cable subscription” to watch the team on an RSN argument, which makes sense until you realize you get a lot more than just MLS with a cable/internet package
Agreed but think a traditional option will always be there as long as cable or pay TV gets 40 million or more nationally. MSG reportedly (NY Post) is readying a direct to consumer option for streaming that was intended to be up and running in a month or two. $20-$25 per month. This transition may get ugly since the underpinnings is everyone paying $10 a month for MSG but less than 5% avidly watch according to Comcast who is in a current dispute: “The Philadelphia-based corporation, a titan in the television industry, claims only 5% of its subscribers watched more than 10 of the 240 games broadcast on MSG Network during the 2020-21 seasons.” that math doesn’t really work long term for RSNs a la carte selling $20 per month subscriptions. Would probably need to be more like $50 if you assume you retain 20% of all customers. Or it means reduced fees
The reason these seemingly expensive packages for just sports MIGHT just work is that a lot of people ONLY have cable for sports. If you completely cancel cable (even Youtube TV,etc) you can suddenly afford a whole bunch of sports-only options. And still save money too. I'd consider it if the Lakers ever left Sportsnet.
One important thing to consider here is the track record of MLS. Regardless of what you think of Garber and company, it's hard to point to a single major strategic blunder they've made. Outside of minor issues here and there in which they were able to course correct, they've done just about everything right. My assumption is that they probably evaluated this situation extremely closely and very likely made the best decision. Also, if this turns out to be an absolute disaster for the league, I'm willing to bet that they've added various clauses to this deal which either give them the flexibility to alter their strategy (local tv deals or other accommodations) or exit the deal altogether.
they’ve never really gotten TV revenues right - grading on a curve because if Chuck Blazer hadn’t stepped in back in 2005 to bundle US rights for World Cup with SUM there may be no league - either deals have been too long or too short which cost them certain windows (too late to get on last big cable sports rights boom and too late to get ahead of Euro leagues with streamers). And local Tv never materialized. I seriously doubt MLS has an out - Apple may since they are funding it. they have sold a whole bunch of expansion franchises though!
You assume people were watching the games on local TV. As sad as it may be, a common number tossed out by people that cover MLS is that a number of teams' local ratings is so low that they are a non-factor. I don't have any specifics, or anything, but I've seen people like Goff and Tannenwald mention that local ratings for many MLS teams is in the low thousands and that the best local ratings don't crack 100k. It's also worth noting that season ticket holders for most/all MLS teams are getting this for free with their season ticket, which covers a lot of the MLS fan base.
Yeah more people are in the stadiums for MLS games than the number that watch on RSNs. It doesn't make sense, but it is what it is.
So then MLS and Apple shouldn't expect to sell many subscriptions if no one watches the games and the season ticket holders already get them, which means a zero growth MLS revenue model? Every "pro" for Apple TV usually implies and underlying "con" that undercuts MLS. They may all be accurate but that is a poor outlook being forecasted for the league.
So....there weren't any better paths for MLS in terms of broadcasting deals? Is that the consensus? Because since @JasonMa posed this question, haven't seen any responses or ideas of what the league could/should have done differently. So....$99/year gets you EVERY match. PLUS team specific content, pre and post game shows, and a whiparound show. Oh, and Spanish and English commentary for ALL games and French Commentary for games involving the three Canadian teams. Pretty sure the similarly priced MLS Live and Direct Kick got you none of that. Just so we're clear, the ESPN+ deal showed the out of market MLS matches that weren't part of the National Schedule (Fox/UniMas/ESPN). They featured one of the local broadcast teams calls and feeds. Which, let's be honest were quite a mixed bag in terms of quality. ESPN+ also had no MLS specific content outside of the games. Same with the old MLS Live and Direct Kick. Fox and ESPN didn't do anything of MLS specific substance outside of the game broadcasts too. The majority of teams weren't sending their announcing crews to road games, those were called off of monitors in the studio. So road broadcasts lacked something too. Hell Fox and ESPN weren't even sending crews to every game they were broadcasting the past two seasons.
The question posed was what was the better path at the end (June of 2022), when they had exhausted avenues to get a better offer and were running out of time for 2023. Part of it was timing and part of it was they wanted $300 million annually for the entire package (and assuming no production costs) and that probably scared off some bidders with the proclamation. In retrospect, would they have been better off chopping up into smaller packages spread across networks? Maybe. Timing: poor but that goes back to 2014, they should have done somewhat shorter deals. ACC and Pac-12 learning that lesson right now. COVID was out of their control. Relationship misread: I think Garber thought no matter what ESPN would bail them out with a best offer for others to beat and they misread the room with Disney financial issues, investment in NHL deal, CEO challenges, acceleration of cord cutting. Disney for the first time ever has started to walk away from deals or just not overpay to claim part of rights (Big 10). Some soccer Context: Serie A got a 3-year $221 million deal from Paramount Plus in 2021 for US rights - a league that the vast, vast majority of non-hardcore fans probably couldn't name more than 4 teams in and probably hadn't watched a game in years unless they were Italian and from the Northeast corridor watching RAI on their local UHF channel or cable system. That's flabbergasting compared to what MLS got.
MLS may use an 18-team playoff format for the 2023 season, sources tell @samstejskal and @PaulTenorio.As part of the proposed format, the eighth and ninth seeds would contest a play-in match before the winner moves on to a best-of-three quarterfinals.https://t.co/UFHkikfRQA— The Athletic Soccer (@TheAthleticSCCR) February 6, 2023
No? Apple is getting paid for the STH subscriptions, even if it is from the MLS teams. My point is that losing out on cable or OTA’s better discoverability is a non-factor for many MLS clubs, because their previous TV ratings likely meant the MLS club was paying to get their games on cable/OTA.
That was not the question. You know that. You're adding your own spin on things to fit your narrative as always.
For me and many others this is a terrible idea after MLS just had one of their best playoff rounds since the league started ratings wise. The fact that they are still taking about this makes me think it's going to happen and make the regular season irrelevant.... Unless you could unofficially merge MLS & Liga MX. . In 2024 the format for making Leagues Cup could be the 18 teams that made the playoffs in 2023. The incentive for making Leagues Cup could be prize money of (how MLS) GAM/TAM added to teams for the next season to be used anyway the team wants. Tier the prize money for where you finish at the end of the playoffs. You could even have it carry over and increase as long as the team keeps qualifying for the playoffs rewarding teams with an escalation of GAM/TAM year over year. So as an example maybe one million to the Cup winner for next season and who knows maybe a team like LAFC could have kept the team together this year. It would definitely make the season more relevant at the same time and help compete in Leagues Cup. You could call it softcore Pro/Rel.
OK, so the deal is actually worse than some claim - its now MLS covering production costs and paying for STH subscriptions in year 1. I actually thought Apple was throwing those in for year 1. But secondarily, if the "better discoverability is a non-factor for many MLS teams" then how are teams supposed to build out their local revenues by making them less discoverable? Other than the Apple halo effect its hard to see how this enhances local revenues, which are still a big part of MLS teams' revenues. Its not the NFL or even the NBA where TV money can cover a lot of payroll and operating costs.
So, the same thing they've been doing for 25 years and not seen the needle move, and for less money than Apple was offering. So, why?
If you want you hometown teams hockey games, it the price of a cable sub (paywall) for six months. Minus a few selected games. If you want your favorite out of town teams games it’s ESPN+ for six months, minus a few games, if you want EVERY MLS game it’s $100. Thx, Jay!
You are asking the question as if they were looking for a car to buy immediately and Toyota was sold out so they had to go buy whatever Honda had at closing time. They had years to negotiate and package this!! They ended up effectively eliminating some of the bidders from the marketplace by trying to sell the whole total bundle of global broadcast rights (plus gambling data). And then they locked in for 10 years which caps the upside for a decade. I'd love to know what they were offered by ESPN and Fox in the exclusive negotiation window with those two as compared to the end. This deal almost disappears them from regular TV except for one game a week on Fox (and for the Dynamo, not even that). I've yet to see or hear how this helps them with local revenue other than the Apple halo effect. It seems more like a deal to extract more dollars out of a fixed customer base than growing the customer base. That's not a healthy sign.
The first two options give you a lot more than just the products you cite - the third one gives you just MLS games. If your sole reason for buying products 1 & 2 are just to watch a singular team's games ONLY and not watch anything else then the comparison may be applicable.
Ok, lets say they get the same Apple money for your suggestion. Its still the same thing they've been doing for 25 years without moving the needle. So again, how is that an improvement? Your statement that I originally responded to was: We already know the model up through 2022 hasn't been significantly growing the fanbase, so why would it do that going forward?
Im probably one of the biggest TV traditionalists. I buy the Direct Kick package so I can watch games on my TV’s which aren’t internet savvy. For the same price as being able to record usually four of the 15 games each weekend, I can now stream every game, and watch them all on an actual television via my AppleTV ready TV box, this is a no lose situation for me, The only loss MLS has right now is the casual eyeball that would catch a game in a bar while heading out for a weekend night. 25 years in, if that casual hasn’t developed a fandom, then I don’t think they’re coming. People today are using their phones/apps to get into content, NFL & NBA don’t have to pander to the webz. MLS does. Christ, EPSN is breaking tradition to show Wrexham on linear because of the streaming numbers. Just a few years ago they moved the final weeks of the Championship season off of linear and to ESPN+.As a pecursor to ‘streaming only’ premiers of the shows your kids love to watch. We as a people haven’t fought back against these moves enough. And I laugh at everyone who cut the cord only to find out it costs more now than it ever would have if everyone had stuck with cable, Thx, Jay!
When there were 10-12 MLS teams I would watch every game I could, every weekend. Now that there’s 15 games a week, all spoiling results, I’ll watch what I want to watch. No one is watching roughly 2000 NHL games a year. Impossible. And I’ve tracked years where I watched 300-500 soccer games. So yes, you get more content for your $$$ with ESPN. But if your outlay used to be a cable sub plus a package for MLS, it’s actually cheaper now including monthly streaming. If you like watching on your phone I guess even cheaper. People pay meaningful dollars a month for even the most basic of cable subs. They’re not running a TV 24/7 to maximize their purchase. View the MLS/Apple as the same thing. You paid X for Y content. Which sometimes didn’t add up to 100% of the content produced. Now you’ll get all the MLS for that X. And if you have the 1500 hrs available you can watch all the games. I have access to hundreds of channels though my subs. Not crying I missed nearly every series on HBO the last 25 years, even though I’ve paid for them. Thx, Jay!