The problem is that there are always going to be the watfords in any super league. Going by the examples given before, in a Super Liga, Arsenal will become the EuroSL Wartford, what will happen to global arsenal fans then? In a EuroSL where each clubs keeps what they kill (name the movie), it won't be long before 3 or 4 clubs become the superclubs that everyone follows and the other 12-14 become the new Levante, Wartford, Hertha, ect. To me that is what is stopping any idea of Euro Super league from happening, no big club want to take the risk of being a mid-table team, to go the American model it means they have to agree to share revenues with each other more equally than they do now (except the English teams) that way they won't be perpetual cannon fodder in the new league. That will be a hard sell, why should Real Madrid (top of the lists that Triple1 has posted want to share their money with Milan (or whom ever is 18th-20th) the difference in the money table and social media table is huge.
The last part makes this a bit more complex. LMX is an organization to run individual teams to play each other. MLS LLC is a company that in some legal ways owns all MLS teams. So unless some Liga MX teams jump ship and join MLS in one way or another, I do not see this merger working with some many teams, some dead weight will need to be set aside in both LMX and MLS.
Playing for the NT at first is an honor for player, it is a dream, but the demands of it can get old pretty fast. I can see how a Messi or Ronaldo or other players that have been there done that and received shit for it by the NT fans (for not winning), may want to move to a league that does not allow NT play (or the players are banned from it). It will be a struggle at first to retain players that want to play in the World Cup. But if the money is there and your Grizzemans, Neymars, ect. start to go play for the Superleague, FIFA is not going to want (the sponsors will complain) to keep the biggest soccer stars out of the world cup. So kind of like the XFL and such, this will get killed right away or if it gets going it will eventually win out and FIFA will have to call in their bluff.
Liga MX wants to do this because MLS/United States will provide a better way for their game to be broadcasted in Europe/Africa/Asia and hopefully bring in more tv/digital money to the league. You can argue that Liga MX is one of the three best leagues outside of Europe and MLS (which is probably outside the top 3 right now) seems to be in better position to distribute it's rights to Europe/Asia/Africa than Liga MX is.
The question is why? I remember seeing a graphic that Liga MX is transmitted in multiple countries, at the end is about finding distributors willing to pay for your product. Liga MX clubs hold the individual rights to their home games rights, so if Club America wants/is able to sell their TV rights to BeInSports Arabia (what ever it is called) they technically can. I think Liga MX wants more of the Mexican American money and USA TV rights, and they (top clubs) also see that the MLS model may be a better way to run the league with no Pro/rel. Now English language TV rights, but in USA-Canada and around the world may be what you are thinking, and that is perhaps correct. Internationally English Language sells more than Spanish language.
Which is impossible as the rights arenot solely ManCities, unless they intend to play against their reserve team. The clubs donot play a match on their own and the portray rights of the opponents team players belong to that club. So it is impossible to arrange things alone with the ManCities of Europe. I can't believe that that basic thing of European law isnot understood by those chasing that SL Mirage.
That's why I would call the superclubs bluff and confront them with a undressed CL with the blunt message: "Take this or take a hike". I'm prepared to gamble the value of what I possess on the outcome with the lip servants of the superclubs. I really want to buy with my gains that ship Abramovitch wants to sell, because he cannot enter any port in a few years.
I think perception wise, it might be easier to sell an "American" league to China, Japan, India, Nigeria, etc than a "Mexican" league.
Well is because is different here, at least in Mexico tv rights are own by the home team. Many times we project how it is locally to others.
It's not a bluff. It completely makes sense, if not today, then soon. It's true that streaming rights dollars would be split, but they're much greater streaming rights when they're Aresnal v Milan than Arsenal v Watford or Milan v Parma. It looks as if we've passed peak broadcast as a revenue stream. Contracts will start to creep down. Now, we could say that the contracts will still provide quite a bit of cash, but look at the superclubs. What is their single guiding and shared goal? Buckets of cash. Ceezmad's point is a good one, a Super League will create super losers. But the standing of the clubs who will break away will last as long as a generation unless we change more than I think we will in the next decade, so 20 years out from conception, you would still have a large-ish devoted international following of Arse (cumWatford). There would be some sort of revenue share beyond the revenue split. Lions get full and leave quite a bit for others to munch. But the premise of this thread, which I think is pretty dead on, is that the digital world is going to lead to the same violent changes in football that it has led to in every other facet of life and business. The online world creates giants and crushes the mid-range, and tradition counts for nothing, or less.
The online world is great for those that cannot access the action in person. As I see it the division will be in the SL the same as it is now in the CL with 5 clubs retaining the superclub status sharing amongst themselves the title and each year challenging with each others the crown. That given however has sent down the interest in Europe, even in the respective countries of those 5 perennial challengers, the interest in the CL. The only growth the CL and for that matter the EPL has shown is in Asia and the States to compensate the down turn in Europe. Of course one cannot close the eyes for the changes the internet brings to the viewership of matches, but what it doesnot change is the perception of a competition and the respective participants. The decline in the CL interest is due to the predictability of the outcome, in the end the same 5 make up the majority of the last 8. That same predictability is going to be manifest in that SL, but then without the fall back safety of the national league. So what is bad for the CL cannot be good for that SL. Internet isnot going to change that fact. In the end the greed of the big teams will manifest itself in that league too and when the Asia and USA crowd for 70% or more only are interested in the matches of the top 5 the same argument pops up that the big 5 want the biggest share. The whole SL idea by those investors in last years news is based on selling the matches as a package worldwide. Clubs selling their matches individually on line is in contradiction with that whole investment proposal and basically undermining the profit machine those investors want to create for themselves, not the clubs. Those investors will keep a close eye on the earnings a club generates for them in that league and cull/prune a club out for another for their profit targets. European breakaway league: Is football about to change forever? - BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35707372 Vertaal deze pagina 2 mrt. 2016 - This time, the talks were with American billionaire Stephen Ross. ... Gold told The Daily Telegraph that the plan "would destroy football as we know it", ... the head of Germany's Bundesliga, said that a "Super League" could be ... The counter article is here: https://ussoccerplayers.com/2018/10/do-things-really-change-in-european-soccer.html "Yes, it's the super league scenario, one normally associated with the super clubs in a position of strength. How about the same scenario but in a position of desperation? Things change, and that may not necessarily mean the same super clubs in the same position of power. Avoiding that might turn into the game behind the game, with the existing hierarchy maneuvering to stay there. What's almost a certainty is that the current super clubs maintain the leverage in European club soccer. For how long is the question they should already be asking each other."
This may not help sports, but it's possible to make and monetize YouTube videos. Joey Graceffa, who has 8,978,286 subscribers, made $20,211.69 to double that in one month according the range of revenue per view The Guardian gave. That's true, but it's bad if you give in to the bad guys just because of how many there are. Celebrities get bad publicity for driving drunk. Letting the top players separate because they're top players would be like letting celebrities drive drunk.
That's the premise, yes -- digital disruption. I firmly believe that digital disruption is already having a profound impact on other industries where I have seen the speed of this transformation first hand, and I am convinced it is going to have an equally profound impact on world football. That doesn't make it any easier. From my experience, conversations about digital disruption can be very heated because for companies that have historically performed well, they feel this change is unwanted and being forced on them. There's some truth to that, but in the end it really doesn't change the outcome. In the words of one popular consultant in this area, when asked by skeptical directors and management about the ROI of a digital transformation plan, "the ROI is that you still have a company in five years." Yet, despite the disappearance of many well know companies, this seldom comes as a bolt from the blue. There are signs. Football, with its global appeal and very balkanized structure with leagues and the clubs that play in them confined to national borders, seems especially ripe for digital disruption which, you are correct, doesn't respect tradition or artificially drawn boundaries. It simply tries to give the fans -- the customer -- what the fans want. Not just the local fans who buy the tickets, the global fans who will buy the broadcasts for the games which, I believe, ultimately will drive a significant part of the revenue.
I wanted to expand on this idea of digital disruption that I mentioned in my previous post. The classic definition of "digital disruption" is the change that occurs when new digital technologies and business models affect the benefits a customer will receive by purchasing a particular product or service from a particular vendor. In sports, I think the disruption is going to occur on the broadcast side so fans can buy the games they want to see without being forced to take this "bloated buffet" of other games. First, let's recall some history of how broadcast deals for sports leagues evolved. Here in the United States, until the early 1960s, individual teams sold their games to the stations of their choice for broadcast on both radio and television. That's still true for many games on radio, local broadcasts and for NFL preseason football. Not surprisingly, big clubs such as the Yankees and Red Sox in baseball and the Bears in football, had and have big regional broadcast networks which allowed them to generate a lot more money than less popular teams that commanded less money for their broadcasts. With the passage of the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, however, for the first time teams were allowed to sell their games collectively to the broadcast networks in packages and split the proceeds. Shortly after that, to improve the quality of play for all of the teams which participated in this bundle of national television games, the NFL started to share this national TV money equally. It was great business for the leagues and the teams, but it also ushered in the era of essentially forcing fans to pay for games they did not want. In the early years that cost was more indirect, as advertisers paid the bill, but as the games moved to cable television, fans began to pay much more directly as I've outlined in a previous post. Today, for cable channels like ESPN which pays MLS tens of millions of dollars to broadcast its games, the cost of these sports broadcast contracts is passed along to cable customers most of whom do not watch MLS and, indeed, most of whom do not even want the channel at all. To me, a revenue model that requires people paying for games they do not want is ripe for digital disruption. The practice is so common now we don't even question it, but the digital disruptors will. Really, even for fans who do follow the sport, why should they have pay for games they don't want and may not even get a chance to see in order to get the games they do want to watch? Imagine the reaction if MLS required fans to buy tickets for every game home and away in every competition in order for them to go to an occasional home game? Now imagine if MLS required fans to buy tickets for every game game of every team, despite the fact you could never see most of those games? People would not stand for it. Yet, that's effectively what is happening with sports broadcasting rights. The teams and leagues have gotten away with it because fans' love of sports has been so great, so insatiable they have been willing to pay more year after year, but there are signs the limit has been reached. ESPN's revenues have plunged as people cut the cord and for soccer, I think the reduced fees at the most recent EPL domestic rights auction is another tipping point. Now, I think many leagues hope, and some posters here may likewise believe that in lieu of ESPN (or similar broadcasters) the leagues can continue to sell their full bundle of games to digital companies to stream them and life will go on. I don't think fans will let them get away with it. If there is one constant theme of digital disruption, people will demand choice -- and pay for it. MLS, like other leagues, will no doubt try and expand streaming. The problem is that I'm guessing there are fewer people out there willing to pay $500 a year for a full season pass for every MLS game than there are people willing to pay $50 a year for a season pass to watch only their team of choice. And I'll bet there are even more people who will pay $5.99 per game to watch certain "big games" on Amazon involving clubs from all over the world. If your MLS team doesn't have many digital followers, that's not good news. For the Galaxy and NYCFC with over 3 million digital followers, maybe that's not so bad. For Club America, with over 16 million followers, selling games directly presents opportunity. And for super clubs like Manchester United, with over 133 million digital followers worldwide, I'm not sure they care what the Premier League thinks or does if the revenue from the EPL's domestic deals continues to spiral downward -- they can probably make more broadcast revenue selling their games directly to their global base of fans provided they can keep that money all to themselves. I'm convinced that's where all of this is headed. Teams which have greater prospects to sell their games digitally bypassing these league bundles will band together with others who will agree to the proposition that each club will keep its own digital broadcast revenue. From there, I think its a short journey to the realization that leagues must and will cross borders to find similar clubs with similar digital prospects for revenue growth. Now, relatively speaking, yes every league will have a Watford, but the difference is they won't be subsidized by the others via sharing of broadcast revenue.
So why would MLS and Liga MX want to combine? It's a fair question. I put together a list of the teams in MLS and Liga MX by valuation based on Forbes articles -- note the MLS values are more recent and the Liga MX data isn't published as often: 1- Club Deportivo Guadalajara (aka: Chivas) Value - $328.1 million USD 2- LA Galaxy Value - $315 million USD 3- Seattle Sounders Value - $295 million USD 4- Toronto FC Value - $280 million USD 5- Orlando City SC Value – $272 million USD 6- NYC FC Value - $275 million USD 7- Portland Timbers Value – $268 million USD 8- Sporting KC Value- $260 million USD 9- Club de Futbol Monterrey Value - $248.9 million USD 10– New York Red Bulls Value - $245 million USD 11- Chicago Fire Value - $240 million USD 12- San Jose Earthquakes Value - $235 million USD 13- DC United Value - $230 million USD 14- New England Revolution - $225 million USD 15- Club de Futbol America (aka: Club America) Value - $219.2 million USD 16- Houston Dynamo Value - $218 million USD (Note, there were not yet values for Atlanta United FC, Minnesota United or LAFC) Scan the list, and only three Mexican clubs, Chivas, America and Monterrey make the top 16 on the combined list. Given that the typical MLS team is worth a lot more, why look at a closer relationshp with Liga MX? For the answer, look at the top 16 clubs on the combined list of MLS teams and Liga MX clubs measured by digital followers (the number represents the rank in the world wide football club listing): 20 – Club America – 16,334,010 29 – C. D. Guadalajara (Chivas) – 11,706,921 41 – C. D. Cruz Azul – 6,303,648 49 – UNAM Pumas – 5,478,129 62 -- UANL Tigres de Monterrey -- 4,582,839 68 – CF Monterrey – 4,091,557 74 – Los Angeles Galaxy – 3,755,641 79 – New York City FC – 3,270,048 89 – Club Leon – 2,881,011 97 – Santos Laguna – 2,657,834 100 – Deportivo Toluca – 2,435,280 104 – Club Tijuana – 2,362,486 121 – Atlas Guadalajara – 1,971,628 127 – CF Pachuca – 1,874,952 129 – Seattle Sounders -- 1,829,026 149 – Qerertaro FC – 1,540,111 http://digitale-sport-medien.com/global-digital-football-benchmark-summer-2018/ Exactly the opposite result -- only three MLS teams make the list, with 13 from Liga MX. MLS has been more effective at developing stadiums and monetizing various aspects of its business, hence it has a lot more teams with higher values, but the Mexican clubs have much bigger followings and a much better prospect for digital growth, at least in the near term. They could benefit from a closer association, and, yes, eventually a merger IMO.
Wait, so bad guys doesn't refer to FIFA (UEFA. Concacaf, etc) here? The road we're talking about here is pretty packed with drunk drivers. They've been hitting up the drive through dacquiri bars pretty hard for a long time now. In fact, I'm not sure anyone is blowing under .3.
At the beginning of the digital disruption of my industry, there was a graphic we produced with a bit of dark humor, that showed us as miners trapped in a traditional revnue mine. There was enough air to keep us alive for a while, but it was dwindling, and the only hope for long term survival was to drill shafts up to the open air of digital revenue streams, and escape. There was a lot of anger about this graphic. The mine we were drilling in, after all, hadn't just been paying off, it had been leaving us with more cash that we knew what to do with. This was an industry that was absolutely perfect for online transformation. We just didn't quite get how quickly we had to move. By the time we, at my place, got serious about drilling the air was almost gone and we were killing off breathers at a very rapid pace to survive, which of course meant the drilling slowed down. Those major players who made the transformation successfully became giants. New kids who didn't have to worry about digging out of the old infrastructure were able to hop in and thrive and become the second tier, very quickly. It wasn't that we totally misread the fragility of our situation. We assumed certain contemporary facts were natural constants in our setup. We assumed local still had the value local always had. We were wrong. So, to relate this to the point, I have no doubts that football clubs will survive and people will continue to turn out and pay cash money to see them play. but the modern game has been defined, financially at least, by access to broadcast revenue, and broadly speaking broadcast revenue has now passed peak, and will decline. It might be a slow decline, that's what the Watford sized clubs will hope. It might be a very rapid decline. The intertubes are global, and the global audience will watch what they want to watch. When ManU did it's figuring a decade back on this they were looking at billions a year in streaming revenue potential. The numbers elsewhere at the elite clubs are no different. They've been willing to stick about these last 10 years because, well, streaming is uncertain and you do need teams to play, and the revenue growth available in the current model was less but hardly something to dismiss. Today, that is still the case, but it the signs are this won't last. The global audience wants to watch ManU play Real Madrid etc. Clubs right now are positioning themselves to be among the super clubs, because everyone who is actually paying attention can see what's coming. Postscript: I don't hide who i am on here, so some might remember that my industry was something called "newspapers." I didn't specify in the example because I think the lessons there actually do apply on a much broader base, and apply to sports clubs, though the difference being we consistently had enormous profits.
Digital disruption affects industies that before the internet existed dictated when, where and how their product/service was available to the customer. So when the table turned and the customer got the choice between them deciding when, where and how to get the services/goods the businesses that didnot want or could adjust to the wishes of the customers were the ones that would be hurt. So how does this apply to soccer? Does digital disruption exist in soccer the way it exists in retail etc.? Can digital disruption change the time the fan can watch his match? Nope. The match is only played at a specific moment that cannot be changed/customized to every fan's need. The internet can provide delayed watching of it, but so can the old school media. The essence of watching a match is being in the same time frame, so you're present when it happens, the drama unfolds itself real time, not as yesterday's news. Does internet change the how of experiencing soccer? Nope. There are 3 ways to do so. Watching it in the stadium, listening to an audio football report, watching it on a screen. The only way internet makes a difference is by liberating the screen from a fixed place. Can internet disruption change the where of watching soccer? Yes, by delivering it to a multitude of gadgets like phones, tablets, laptops, pc screens. But does this matter? No, as most fans want to watch a match with other fans to share the emotion of the event. So the big screen aka as the tv is the one used for that, if the stadium isnot an option. All other options are simply for people on the move as a second best. Does the internet disruption give competitors a chance? No and yes. No, for fans of a specific club. Internet may give access to more clubs matches than for instance cable tv, but that doesnot matter for that fan. The clubs he can watch via cable are the most wanted matches already. The added choice are matches of clubs he wasnot interested in in the first place. Yes for casual fans, as these can choose whatever match the want. But then again, casual fans go for the known brands, so ... For soccer itself, as the product in it's most desired form, real place in real time or at least real time, internet disruption doesnot exist or doesnot add to it. The real digital disruption fight however is between the deliverers of the content, cable tv or internet giants.
Really a great post, thanks for sharing it. I think until you have experienced this first hand, you can't appreciate how quickly things can change. I can tell you that commercial banking is tracking very similarly right now and the speed of transformation is about twice as fast as even the most aggressive pundits predicted. Amazon is now a major lender to small businesses, replacing community banks that never dreamed they would face digital disruption: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/16/amazon-plans-to-crush-small-business-lending.html Which is really why I started a new thread for this discussion. Like in Game of Thrones, when you've seen the enemy, you know this is different. This is the outline. The big clubs are playing a long game. As long as the money has continued to grow from broadcast deals, they've been content to push for a bigger share of the spoils and grow their international brands. As the broadcasters get disrupted and the money starts to drop, the big clubs will simply consolidate their positions. I don't think you have to be Nostradamus here to see what's coming. Still, I give MLS and Liga MX credit for facing it early. It's getting lost, but, again, this press release stressing the need for more cooperation in order for these leagues to compete was on the MLS website. These are smart people. But even really smart people sometimes don't have the means to make the transformation because of the drag of tradition. That's the biggest problem MLS and Liga MX will face IMO.
I think I've covered that along with some other posters. Yes, the broadcasters are being disrupted, but they provide a huge amount of the revenue to the leagues around the world that is divided up among the clubs. Given the importance of broadcast revenue to the game, when that revenue drops significantly it will set off a scramble to replace it. But it won't be replaced, at least not for every club. Instead, in the streaming world, there is every indication that consumers will demand more choice in what they buy, which means the broadcast deals won't be these league wide deals where customers have to buy an entire season worth of games IMO. As the the benefit of a league selling bundles of games shrinks -- meaning each team's share of the money drops -- the data will show exactly which clubs and games fans prefer to watch, and that's the final straw where individual clubs will move to take back their broadcast rights and sell direct. That favors the big, popular clubs. Financially, the super clubs will get even bigger and separate even more from the others, but without this shared broadcast revenue the quality of the games won't be very competitive, and when you are selling individual games to a global audience, the big clubs will have to respond to make the games more watchable by finding more marketable opposition. Wenger's right, the global audience wants Real Madrid v. Arsenal, not Real Madrid v. Getafe. I think we'll look back and see we are well into these changes already. Back in 2008, Garry Cook, then of Manchester City, said there were only ten clubs in the Premier League that appealed to a global audience and the EPL should respond accordingly to position itself for the future. People were outraged, but if anything he was too optimistic. A decade later, there are probably six EPL clubs that appeal to a global audience, as even big clubs like Aston Villa, Newcastle and Everton have struggled to keep pace. The customer will demand choice. It's the world the clubs will have to live in.
FYI, I use my big screen TV to stream content. I don't have a cable or a Sat providers, just internet, but I have live content from every major German provider and a crap ton of others. And internet disruption doesn't apply to football, until it does. There was a very strong case to made that people were not meant to travel faster than 20 kph. This was against the laws of God and nature, and yet, here we are in fast cars and trains and planes. Hell, our electric bikes cruise at higher speeds that folks thought safely possible just 100 years ago. There was a strong argument made that people enjoyed live actors in live performances, and would see as too sterile and therefore never willingly pick moving pictures. After this was proven a bit of an overstatement, and moving pictures far and away replaced live theater, just as recorded music replaced live music, there was an argument made that streaming would never replace the already then existing entertainment methods. That was wrong. I could go on, and on. It's not that there are more examples of tech disruption, it's that there are so few examples of industries that have escaped it (can't think of any, but there have to be examples). We can complain all we want, and make the same arguments buggy whip manufacturers made about their long term viability as the horseless carriage came around, but it is coming. Professional teams will continue to exist. Gate revenue will remain as a primary revenue source, and gate revenue can be substantial. An upside, gate revenue as a primary source kind of levels the field, so it's back to the 70s where Ajax can be considered a rich club. But the broadcast revenue that has created superclubs (who in turn have created super leagues) is falling and there is no example of a turnaround. Digital history very clearly shows a few brands will survive and they will dominate the market. A super league makes sense, in that case. BTW, as for your game time argument, that's already an issue that's being dealt with.
In regards to digital disruption the EFL has already taken the next step. With iFollow people outside England can buy a subscription to watch every game of their team from an online stream (games selected for broadcast in the viewer's country, such as on ESPN+ here in the U.S., are blacked out). But the ~$140 a year only gets you the games of that one team, not all the games iFollow streams. You can buy individual games for ~$7. Its also available in England as of this year, but with greater restrictions of what games can be streamed.
As I posted no team in Europe can do that without the permission of the other team. So how exactly are they going to accomplish that? In the league package the clubs have surrendered their grip on the players portray rights for that generous contribution from the epl pot. What do you think will happen if the big six want almost all of it and the rest are being offered crumms? It is easier to say no to almost nothing in comparison to what you now got, which would leave the big six with a huge gap in income. ManUnited plays 19 games at OT and I guess the big six waiver the compensation for the broadcast of the away games, as they then can keep the home revenues themselves. But that leaves for each of the big six with 14 matches without streaming revenues. I guess ManUnited charges/wants to charge the same amount for all matches, but even if these 14 matches donot generate half of the 5 matches against the 5 other big sixers revenues it will be a devastating blow. The reasoning is far too simplistic by leaving out judicial difficulties. You can try to extort the powerless, but if that means for them they can hurt you harder by getting nothing instead of the offered peanuts, they will do it.
The bundle gets more compelling when the league is stronger across the board. A European super league will strengthen the bundle. If the super league can ditch pro/rel, revenue sharing/parity controls will be more acceptable to the big clubs when the smaller clubs in the league can also pull their own weight. It then becomes a question of where to draw the line on expansion; i.e., does the last club added increase or decrease each team's take. I do think individual team and game options will be sold like the NBA currently does, but a bundle offer will make so much more sense with a super league than it does right now.
Or on line gaming. Who is to say that in 20 years, soccer football, basketball,ect. won't be nitch entertainment, while the money and rating will be on some type of overwatch league, where people watch other people play video games. It is still relatively small, but who knows https://seekingalpha.com/article/4184342-video-games-taking-will-esports-become-larger-sports