The 2023 MLS TV thread

Discussion in 'MLS: News & Analysis' started by NFLPatriot, Jan 6, 2023.

  1. TheRealBilbo

    TheRealBilbo Member+

    Apr 5, 2016
    On top of that, the pre-2022 model is on shaky ground. Cable and satellite are losing subscribers down 30-40% in the past few years and growing. As a result, the RSNs are losing revenue. The largest group of RSNs are bankrupt… due to inability to service acquisition debt.

    It was time for something different. Maybe it could be argued MLS traded long term opportunity for current stability - they risk not getting a post World Cup bump up, etc. Time will tell.

    My hope is that they do a better job of telling the leagues stories… build the narrative. If the story is compelling, people will find it and tune in.

    That said, I think sports streaming has a way to go. It’s still about individual games. You have to actively seek the game in a narrow pregame window to get the kickoff. It needs to be more like the linear experience.
     
    NorthBank repped this.
  2. Ball Chucking Hack

    Jan 21, 2005
    Raleigh, NC
    This is true, and I made my point badly here. I'm trying to suggest that if they had an entry point that offered an acceptable number of games for a specific team at a lower price and/or if apple integrated MLS into their other services in a substantially discounted way, the price/cost calculations might make more sense to me. Right now, I don't know what will end up where and how much of it I might need to follow a specific team. But if I need to buy everything to follow just one team, that seems too much for me.

    So to go back to your epl v mls cost comparison. I don't just watch soccer (much less just MLS), so for me that calculation is pretty simple. The only thing out of all the stuff you mentioned that I'd need to add would be peacock's premium service. Right now, following the EPL would mostly fit into what I have. MLS is all new costs.
     
  3. jaykoz3

    jaykoz3 Member+

    Dec 25, 2010
    Conshohocken, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's easy to answer. $99 gets you access to the ENTIRE MLS and Leagues Cup season, plus team and league specific content. The games offered in front of the Season Pass paywall are listed on MLS' website. Also, the first weekend will air in front of the paywall, so you'll be able to preview the service to see if it's something you'd want to pay for.
     
    Ball Chucking Hack repped this.
  4. wantmlsphilly

    wantmlsphilly Member+

    Aug 2, 2006
    Philadelphia, Pa.
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It also gets you MLS Next Pro. I know that's not a huge selling point for a casual fan but I'll watch Union ll games and I believe so will a lot of scouts though out the world.
     
    Mike03, JasonMa and Ball Chucking Hack repped this.
  5. Ball Chucking Hack

    Jan 21, 2005
    Raleigh, NC
    So I did go to the MLS page to look at the tv schedule. My understanding though, is that this is not a finished version. On the Athletic podcast, I think Paul Tenorio said that one of the advantages of the new deal was that it let MLS change the "game of the week" or whatever they call the free broadcast, based on how the season goes, rather than being committed to particular games from the beginning of the season. So is what's posted complete? For the particular team I checked I also didn't see listings for apple+ or fs1, so either they aren't on it or that just hasn't been decided yet?

    In that case, if I was in a larger market, with a stronger team. like LAFC, I might get away with less than the whole package. But for me, if I want to follow Charlotte with any regularity at all, I'm going to need the whole thing...
     
  6. ThreeApples

    ThreeApples Member+

    Jul 28, 1999
    Smurf Village
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    They list the free games through March 18, and the Fox/FS1 games are set for the whole season. The free games through the season are going to be decided later. For Charlotte you have:

    2/25 Apple TV free
    3/4 Season Pass
    3/11 FOX and Apple TV free
    3/18 Season Pass
     
    Ball Chucking Hack repped this.
  7. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The free games will be decided and announced a couple of weeks ahead of time. I think they've announced the first 4 weeks so far, everything else is to be determined.

    Remember that Apple isn't really playing the ratings game, so the "larger market" teams aren't necessarily the ones that will get featured by default.
     
    Ball Chucking Hack and jaykoz3 repped this.
  8. NorthBank

    NorthBank Member+

    Arsenal; NYRB
    United States
    Mar 29, 2006
    Connecticut
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yes! I've been on about this for a few years, mostly on the various provider threads (NBC, ESPN, FOX, CBS/P+, etc). I really wish the people who are engineering our new streaming experience(s) would look more at what factors were good/great about the old TV/DVR delivery model and try to incorporate those factors into streaming.

    I'm not in the mood to list them all here yet again (in this thread) and probably you aren't either. :) But suffice to say there are quite a few areas where the current streaming experience has gone backwards from where we we've been with the old delivery model.
     
  9. newtex

    newtex Member+

    May 25, 2005
    Houston
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    The games on FOX and FS1 have been announced.

    2/25 - NSH v. NYC on FOX
    2/26 - SEA v. COR on FS1
    3/4 - LAX v. POR on FOX
    3/11 - CLT v. ATL on FOX
    3/18 - SEA v. LAX on FOX
    3/25 - POR v. LAG on FOX
    4/1 - LAG v. SEA on FOX
    4/8 - LAX v. AUS on FOX
    4/16 - LAG v. LAX on FOX
    4/23 - ATL v. CHI on FS1
    4/29 - NSH v. ATL on FOX
    4/30 - MIN v. FCD on FS1
    5/7 - SEA v. SKC on FOX
    5/14 - LAG v. SJE on FS1
    5/17 - PHI v. DCU on FS1
    5/20 - STL v. SKC on FS1
    5/28 - NSH v. CLB on FS1

    5/28 - SKC v. POR on FOX
    5/31 - ATL v. NER on FS1
    6/3 - SEA v. POR on FOX
    6/11 - STL v. LAG on FOX
    6/11 - POR v. FCD on FS1
    7/2 - ATL v. PHI on FOX
    7/15 - ATL v. ORL on FS1
    8/20 - CLB v. CIN on FS1

    8/27 - MIN v. SEA on FOX
    9/3 - PHI v. NYR on FS1
    9/17 - AUS v. POR on FS1
    9/24 - ORL v. MIA on FS1
    9/24 - AUS v. LAG on FS1
    10/1 - LAX v. RSL on FS1
    10/4 - NSH v. ORL on FS1
    10/4 - LAX v. MIN on FS1

    The free games on Apple TV have been listed for the first 4 weeks.
     
    eddygee, Dyvel and Ball Chucking Hack repped this.
  10. NorthBank

    NorthBank Member+

    Arsenal; NYRB
    United States
    Mar 29, 2006
    Connecticut
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's good to know. Thanks for sharing!
     
  11. NorthBank

    NorthBank Member+

    Arsenal; NYRB
    United States
    Mar 29, 2006
    Connecticut
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's an interesting point, a function of the subscription model I suppose. So are you implying that there are no ads or very minimal ads within the Apple game broadcasts, because they're not chasing eyeballs and ad dollars??
     
  12. NorthBank

    NorthBank Member+

    Arsenal; NYRB
    United States
    Mar 29, 2006
    Connecticut
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's a interesting list. My team NYRB only shows up once, in September. Where as others, e.g. LAX, show up like 6 or more times.

    Is that an example of what @JasonMa was just talking about? How FOX will be chasing the biggest market teams, eyeballs and ad dollars? Where as Apple's list of free games might be more evenly distributed, more "democratic"?
     
    JasonMa and Egbert Sousé repped this.
  13. Westside Cosmo

    Westside Cosmo Member+

    Oct 4, 2007
    H-Town
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    On that same Athletic Soccer podcast, Sam Sjetkal relayed his conversation with an MLS club executive who said that after the league responsibility of production costs that the club will actually get LESS broadcast rights revenue than last season. Now I assume this year is higher than normal due to startup costs, but clearly these production costs being absorbed are not as minimal as some claim.

    That podcast had a very fair look at pros and cons of the Apple deal.
     
    Ball Chucking Hack repped this.
  14. Egbert Sousé

    Egbert Sousé Member

    NYCFC
    May 25, 2013
    nyc
    Club:
    New York City FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Unless I missed it, NYCFC is one and done as of 2/25.
     
  15. Westside Cosmo

    Westside Cosmo Member+

    Oct 4, 2007
    H-Town
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    there was an article last week about Apple selling sponsorships/ads in Bloomberg:

    “Apple hasn’t been guaranteeing advertisers they’ll reach a certain number of viewers, a standard practice in TV. It’s also not accepting ads from sports-betting companies, at least initially, according to two of the people. “

    “Apple has been selling three MLS sponsorship packages. The most expensive, called “Gold,” costs about $4 million per season and includes the playoffs and integrations, like sponsoring a “Player of the Match,” the people said. Less expensive packages, called “Silver” and “Bronze,” cost about $3 million and $1.5 million per season”
     
    JasonMa repped this.
  16. jaykoz3

    jaykoz3 Member+

    Dec 25, 2010
    Conshohocken, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This. The league doesn't want situations like what happened in 2021 and 2022. Where no one outside of Commerce City and the Rapids faithly knew that the Rapids were the second best team in the league. Or last season where Philly and Montreal were arguably the two best teams in the league yet no one really talked about them. The league doesn't want to have Atlanta and Seattle crammed down people's throats based on prior years results. They want to highlight the best teams and players the league has to offer consistently.

    Fans have been begging for the league's stories to be told....well it's difficult to do that when all we were getting nationally were new expansion teams, recent expansion teams, and matchups between non-playoff cascadia teams ad nauseum last season. Add in the pre, post and half time coverage largely focusing on the LA teams, Atalanta, Portland, Seattle and Austin....

    Ir should also come as no surprise that the LA teams feature prominently in Fox's slate of games. If they choose to send their own team to them for the calls....it's in their backyard, reduces costs.
     
    JasonMa repped this.
  17. Westside Cosmo

    Westside Cosmo Member+

    Oct 4, 2007
    H-Town
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    then why would MLS ask for linear TV bids if that method of distribution was not going to work in the future to grow the fanbase? Wouldn’t they just have made bidders conform to a streaming only proposal? Why did they do the Fox package?
     
  18. newtex

    newtex Member+

    May 25, 2005
    Houston
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Throwing out Week 1 where every game is free and looking at weeks 2-4 shows that every team in those three weeks has a free game except for New England and Orlando. Those teams have all three games behind the paywall.

    9 teams (LAX, POR, MIA, NSH, SJE, VAN, AUS, SEA, COR) get two free games but no one gets 3.

    It's a small sample size but it is hard to see a trend other than spreading things around the league.
     
    JasonMa repped this.
  19. jaykoz3

    jaykoz3 Member+

    Dec 25, 2010
    Conshohocken, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So if you were in charge how would you have done it? Would you have taken LESS money than previous deals in order to keep the status quo to keep NOT growing the fanbase"

    What they were doing before clearly wasn't working and/or moving the needle.

    Great, who was the exec and what team was he from? Oh, they didn't say....for all we know it was was one of the two LA teams that actually DID have a good local TV deal. That would make sense. Now let's say it was Columbus or Houston, then that would be concerning.

    The Athletic folks have been crapping on the Apple TV deal since it was announced, so I would take a lot of what they pontificate on with a grain of salt.
     
    eddygee repped this.
  20. Ball Chucking Hack

    Jan 21, 2005
    Raleigh, NC
    #420 Ball Chucking Hack, Feb 7, 2023
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2023
    Yes. Highly recommended. Two other random points from the same episode:
    1) Paul Tenorio voiced some worries that if Apple did not see sufficient returns that they could lose interest and they'd be less invested in the end product, even before the end of the term of the contract. So even though they'd still make games available, they wouldn't care how or when they were displayed. The league could get buried in apple's platform to a degree. This wasn't something he predicted, per se. It was just a potential pitfall or danger for the league.

    2) I can't remember whether this was Sam or Paul, but one of them also noted that Apple wants to bid on the premier league tv rights (at least of some sort) in the near future. This is good for MLS in the sense that the product apple displays needs to look good, at least for the near term. On the other hand, I sort of wonder if apple might just use this as a kind of rehearsal/display product to show to a more prestigious league.

    Though I should also say that I thought the general tone of the episode was upbeat about the deal, in general, and both hosts made points similar to posters here concerning the lack of movement in past tv ratings prior to the new deal.
     
  21. Ball Chucking Hack

    Jan 21, 2005
    Raleigh, NC
    I can't say that I've listened to every podcast on the feed (or even every episode of allocation disorder), but I don't agree with this point. It hasn't been my impression, anyway.
     
    JasonMa repped this.
  22. blacktide

    blacktide Member

    Feb 25, 1999
    Just for clarity, I think the Premier League streaming rights to which Sam and Paul were referring Apple was considering bidding on are the domestic (i.e. in the UK) rights, not the US streaming rights, which are with NBC/Peacock through 2028.
     
    Ball Chucking Hack and jaykoz3 repped this.
  23. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You're looking at this too black and white. There are some benefits to being on linear TV as we've discussed. But just being on linear TV with games on a variety of channels is what they've done for years with no real success. A combination of linear and streaming was probably their ideal package. Until Apple showed up with their offer which was a game changer. For good or bad we don't know yet. What we do know is not going with Apple and taking the only other offers on the table would have been sticking with what hasn't worked well for 25 years.

    Which is the question nobody seems to want to answer in this thread...
     
    jaykoz3 repped this.
  24. jaykoz3

    jaykoz3 Member+

    Dec 25, 2010
    Conshohocken, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    On point number 1....you mean exactly what happened with ESPN+???? They buried MLS on that platform.

    Despite Apple's riches, does anyone honestly believe that they will simply stop caring about a service they are paying $250M/year on to have? They're a publicly traded company, that would/should certainly piss off shareholders. Especially considering that services is where Apple is looking to make significant gains in.

    Point number 2: Apple is looking to get the domestic rights to the EPL in the UK, not the US.
     
    blacktide repped this.
  25. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    [QUOTE="jaykoz3, post: 41170770, member: 183300"
    Despite Apple's riches, does anyone honestly believe that they will simply stop caring about a service they are paying $250M/year on to have? They're a publicly traded company, that would/should certainly piss off shareholders. Especially considering that services is where Apple is looking to make significant gains in.\[/QUOTE]
    Honestly, I don't think MLS is even a drop in the bucket to them. Everyone is losing money hand over fist in streaming right now. The two that don't really care are Apple and Amazon, because their streaming costs are very secondary to their main business focus. So yeah, I can see Apple writing off MLS if they decide its not worth it. But I don't expect that to happen.
     

Share This Page