From Deloitte's 2018 Football Money League report... Revenue Sources for Top 20 Teams in Europe: 45% broadcast rights (i.e. TV, radio, live stream, etc.) 38% commercial (i.e. jersey/kit and other corporate sponsorships) 17% matchday (i.e. ticket sales, concessions, merchandising) Revenue Sources for MLS: 10% broadcast rights 40% commercial 50% matchday Let that sink-in. Half of all revenue in MLS comes from the gate and concessions stands on matchday, yet only 17% of revenue for the big European clubs comes from those same sources. They make the majority of their money on broadcast rights and corporate sponsorships which are closely aligned. The more people that watch your team on TV or internet, the more a company will pay to put their brand on your jersey and the like. So, although MLS is doing pretty well at the gate (now 6th in the world in both aggregate and average attendance), the key to future revenue growth is all about getting people to watch on TV. The current national TV contract with ESPN/Fox/Univision expires in 2022, thus the rush to expand to 28 teams by then. Note that the value of the MLS national TV deals tripled in 2015 because the league vowed to do the following... Add a 2nd team in NYC, the nation's largest media market Replace struggling Chivas USA with a new team in LA, the nation's 2nd largest media market Add at least 3 teams (Orlando, Atlanta, and eventually Miami) in a massive and rapidly-growing southeast region that previously had ZERO teams Add another team in the heavily-populated Midwest (turned out to be Minny) That's certainly not a coincidence. And although Nashville is a relatively small market, it's a rapidly-growing city in a region that is still significantly underrepresented in MLS. So, that pick was all about establishing a true national footprint for TV as well. In short, media market size and national footprint are key metrics and arguably more important than whether a team can draw 18,000 or 25,000 at the gate. For example, LAFC certainly won't lead the league in attendance this year due to their small stadium. But they will be featured on national TV as much as any other club in the league. Again, not a coincidence.
So in your view, if media markets are that important, who get in the last three spots (assuming Miami is a given)? I've got my money on Detroit, Phoenix, and either Raleigh if the Crew stay, or Cincinnati if the Crew leaves..
Even the people that casually follow the league have a difficult time finding them on TV. It's a total cluster. First, games are spread out over 6 TV channels. Second, the schedule has no set times. One should be able to say it's XDay at X:00, MLS is on. That's not happening. Regular season FOX & FS1 (Mar-May) Friday, March 3, 9:30 PM ET Portland Timbers vs. Minnesota United FS1 Sunday, March 5, 7:00 PM ET Atlanta United vs. New York Red Bulls FS1 Sunday, March 12, 7:00 PM ET LA Galaxy vs. Portland Timbers FS1 Sunday, March 19, 7:00 PM ET Seattle Sounders vs. New York Red Bulls FS1 Friday, March 31, 7:30 PM ET Toronto FC vs. Sporting Kansas City FS1 Friday, March 31, 10:00 PM ET Seattle Sounders vs. Atlanta United FS1 Sunday, April 9, 7:00 PM ET Sporting Kansas City vs. Colorado Rapids FS1 Saturday, April 15, 3:00 PM ET Orlando City vs. LA Galaxy FOX Sunday, April 23, 1:30 PM ET New York City FC vs. Orlando City FS1 Sunday, April 30, 3:00 PM ET Atlanta United vs. D.C. United FS1 Sunday, May 7, 1:30 PM ET Minnesota United vs. Sporting Kansas City FS1 Sunday, May 14, 6:00 PM ET FC Dallas vs. New York City FC FS1 Sunday, May 14, 8:00 PM ET New York Red Bulls vs. LA Galaxy FS1 Sunday, May 21, 7:00 PM ET Orlando City vs. New York City FC FS1 Saturday, May 27, 3:00 PM ET Seattle Sounders vs. Portland Timbers FOX Sunday, May 28, 8:00 PM ET FC Dallas vs. Houston Dynamo FS1 So, the season starts with 3 weeks of games on Sunday night at 7:00. Awesome, now I know that that's when I can see an MLS game. But wait, they don't have another Sunday 7:00 game for 3 weeks and then the next one is7 weeks later. In between are random Friday, Saturday, Sunday afternoon games which directly complete with NFL. Playoffs are a joke. Knockout Rnd - W, Th Conf Semis - S,M,T Conf Champ - T,Th,F, Final - Sat How do you build a base without consistency.
Those are certainly fair points. I happen to think there should be a national, Sunday "game of the week" broadcast every week, just like MNF. If there's enough interest, create multiple, yet predictable, broadcast windows, just like college football. That said, the vast majority of the games will continue to be aired via local or regional broadcasts just like any other sport. So, it's not the ESPN/Fox/Univision contract that is most critical. It's all the 2nd tier rights contracts in local markets that will be the game-changer. The reason the Dodgers are now able to out-spend the Yankees and Red Sox for example is because of their $7 billion local TV deal in LA with Time Warner cable. In any event, the point is that getting people to watch on TV is critical. MLS is doing pretty well at the gate but to accelerate growth and really compete with other major sports leagues, domestically and abroad, they have to get people watching the games on TV (or streaming). That's what will drive up the value of the broadcast rights and corporate sponsorships and thereby facilitate more rapid growth in player payrolls.
Liverpool is a wee bit smaller than Cincinnati. the problem isn't media markets right now, the problem is getting people to watch at all.
Correct. But choosing between Detroit and Sacramento doesn't make a dent. The big markets that the MLS should aim are Mexico, Brazil, China and India. And that can only be done by attracting current soccer stars.
You make some real interesting points, and I am not trying to say media markets don't matter at all. I agree they need to part of the equation. But here is an interesting point. Liga MX, The English Premier League, and the UEFA Champions league all get higher ratings than MLS. Yet those leagues have 0 American media markets. By focusing just on the size of the media market it feels a little like the tail wagging the dog. I think the league really needs to be focusing on bringing in viable franchises with best chance of developing a large loyal fan base, and then using those fan bases to drive the TV contract.
The product itself certainly matters as much, if not more, than the media market. But if you're choosing among a dozen expansion bidders, media market will be among the top considerations, not only in terms of size, but how it adds to the overall national footprint for the league.
------------------------- 1 game on Friday night 1 game on Saturday night DH on Sunday. It's too bad that 1 network for each date couldn't be arranged for consistency I am making this up as example; Friday - FOX Sat- FS1 Sun- ESPN 2 This would be the English side, I don't think there are 4 Spanish networks, so maybe Telemundo gets 2 and Galavision gets 2 as an example or Fox and Espn's Spanish partners pair up . I would like all game dual language. Yes, i have watch plenty of games in Spanish. But once again for consistency, all games should be in both languages. If the game is only in Spanish, you might find casual fans or even some regular fans will not watch in Spanish. Or your cable/satellite provide doesn't have the SAP function to translate. Bottom line consistent dates and times all the times. Yes, there will be days the games come up against some other big event or game, but if your a soccer fan, you should be watching soccer, right ?
I think the footprint/market thing is mostly a done deal. Every region is pretty well represented and virtually every major market has a team. In the past I think this was a major driver, but going forward, I think other factors (ownership $$ & commitment, stadium locale, SSS, attendance track record) will be more important. MLS will want success story after success story. That will inflate expansion fees & push prospective cities to try to land a team. And push for more favorable new stadium deals. Or push existing franchises to improve or lose their teams ( SJ, Columbus). In terms of footprint: In the northeast you have NY (2), NE, Philly & MTL with DC & TFC "borderline." No major markets missing. West coast has LA (2), SF/SJ, Seattle, Portland, & Vancouver. Sac is in the running as is SD potentially. Mostly covered with 2 bidders out there. Great Lakes/Midwest has Chicago, Columbus, TFC, Minny + SKC & Nashville on the border. You have some big cities without a team (Detroit, Cleveland, Pitt, St. Louis, Cincy, Indy) but all are in the running save Cle/Pitt. With only Detroit a true heavyweight & they could have a team soon. I guess you could say Milwaukee & Buffalo as well. Southeast: DC, Atlanta, Nashville, Orlando, Miami with Houston & Dalls on the border. Again, the tier 1 markets are all covered with some tier 2 cities bidding (Tampa, Charlotte, Raleigh, SA, Austin). Who isn't? Baltimore, Memphis, NO. You have Colorado & RSL in Mountain time. Not much else there save for Phoenix & Vegas. Again, the footprint angle is DONE. Mission Accomplished. As is market. There are 12 North American cities with a combined statistical area over 6 million (OK, Toronto is 5.9 but Canada uses a different metric): MLS has teams in all 12 with 2 in NY/LA: NY(2) 23.7 mil, LA (2) 18.7 mil, Chicago 9.9 mil, DC/Balt 9.7 mil, SF/SJ/Oak 8.8 mil, BosWor/Prov 8.2 mil, Dallas/FW 7.7 mil, Philly 7.2 mil, Houston 7.0 mil, Miami/Ft. Laud 6.7 million, Atlanta 6.5 million, Toronto 5.9 mil (CSA). Those are the big dogs and MLS has them covered with 14 teams. Between 4 & 6 million there are only 5 cities. MLS has teams in two: Montreal 4.1 mil & Seattle at 4.7 mil. The other 3 are bidders: Detroit/Windsor at 5.3 mil, SD/Tijuana at 5.1 (1.7 in TJ), and Phoenix at. 4.7. There are 7 more CSAs over 3 million and MLS has teams in 5: Minn/St. Paul 3.9 million, Denver 3.5 mil, Orlando 3.2 mil, Portland 3.2 mil, & Vancouver/Victoria/Abbotsford 3.0 mil. Tampa at 3.0 mil is a bidder. Cleveland/Akron/Canton at 3.5 mil is not. Of the 24 north american areas over 3.0 million, 19 of them have MLS teams. 21 of MLS' teams are in these markets, including all of the top 12. Of the 5 top 24 markets without a team, 4 are bidders, the only one that isn't is Cleveland, which is the only market among the top 24 with negative population growth. There are 16 more NA markets over 2 million (40 total), if San Juan, Puerto Rico (2.3 mil pre hurricane) still does. MLS has teams in 4: SLC/Provo 2.5 mil, KC 2.4 mil, Columbus 2.4 mil, and now Nashville (2.0 mil). Columbus sits 32nd. Of the 25-32 group, MLS has teams in 3 (RSL, SKC, Crew) + 3 teams are bidders (St. Louis, Charlotte, Sac). And the two non-bidders (Pittsburgh and San Jose) both have negative population growth. Of the top 32 markets, MLS has teams in 22 (24 teams), 7 are expansion bidders. The 3 who are neither (Cle, Pitt, SJ) are the only top 32s with negative population growth. There are 8 more areas over 2.0 million. 1 has a team (Nashville 2.0 million). 4 are bidders (San Antonio at 2.4, Indy at 2.4, Cincy at 2.2, Raleigh at 2.2). One is Austin at 2.1 mil. The others are Las Vegas at 2.4 mil and Milwaukee at 2.0. Only 5 of the top 40 markets are not bidders, not trying to steal a team, or don't already have one. Clev, Pitt, San Juan, Vegas, and Milwaukee. The markets are covered.
I happen to agree with all of that, but you just explained why MLS picked Nashville and refused to give up on Miami. Having a significant presence in the Southeast is crucial. You can't maximize fan interest, broadcast rights, corporate sponsorships, etc. if you ignore an entire region of the country. Thus my point about how media markets and "national footprint" have been a major component of the expansion strategy.
It is true that Cleveland and Pittsburgh are both losing population in their main cities and in their metros, but San Jose is gaining in both population and in its metro. So is there a reason why you're including San Jose in your list? Just wondering if you're looking at a different set of census count than we all are.
Agreed. A major media market is of little use to MLS if there's no fan or media interest. Except for New York, of course. New York City FC & the Bergin County Red Bulls are all but ignored by the New York Times but MLS has to be in New York.
Does anyone read the New York Times for their sports coverage? My recollection is that they have about 2 pages at the back of the second section dedicated to sports. This is the kind of soccer coverage I'd expect of the Times... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Cosmos-t.html
The Times' baseball coverage of the New York Yankees and Major League Baseball in general is massive. The Times also gives decent but not overwhelming coverage of the Mets, Knicks, Giants, Jets, and Nets. There's so-so coverage of college basketball, the Rangers, Islanders & Devils. Occasional coverage of European soccer. Coverage of NYCFC & the Red Bulls is almost non-existent.
San Jose is in the Bay Area television market, which is one of the nation's largest. Of course, even us fervent fans never know where to look for the telecasts of the away games from game to game (I'm in the stadium for every home game, and at least a couple away games). SportBilly's point about consistency gets to the heart of the matter with MLS' woeful TV ratings. Also, it bears mentioning that smaller cities are often better TV markets. For example, Buffalo was the top TV market for the most recent Super Bowl, exceeding even Philadelphia or Boston, who had teams in the game. And a decade ago, the New York Times reported Buffalo TV ratings outdrew New York City for a Sabres versus Rangers playoff series, even though New York market is twelve times larger and the Rangers are a popular team.
I am late to the party and there are many things I still don't understand about MLS. Being watching MLS since last year. I have a very difficult time following any game as the schedule, as someone posted above, is not what I am used to seeing, for example in Liga MX. If MLS had schedules where teams play Friday, Saturday and Sunday, as most leagues do, it would be easier to follow. Yes, there would be many games but fans would only follow their team or see any interesting game played on that day. I just don't get this uneven schedule and the play offs schedule is just as bad. It is something I am just not used to yet. Hopefully with better TV deals this is something MLS fixes. You can't reach out to people and make new fans if you don't show them your product. It is easier to see games from other leagues than it is to see MLS games and that is hurting them by not converting new fans to the league.
100% of them are listed in various sports apps and you can subscribe to team schedules in most calendar apps. From there, it's a few clicks to ESPN+ or the media outlet broadcasting the game. I'm kind of glad all the games aren't played at 3pm Saturday afternoon. You can watch more of the games this way.
Univision owns Univision, UniMas, Galavision, and Univision Deportes. NBC Universal owns Telemundo, so they won't share games with the others.
Late to this but I was going to post some expansion news elsewhere here so.... media markets are important, but not for the reason of attracting broadcast for the time being...of that makes any sense. Large markets = bigger gate + commercial prospects, which = more money which = better talent via higher salaries. There are enough eyeballs in the current markets to support strong broadcast fees for MLS. Two problems: 1-cultural acceptance, which takes time and is occurring. 2-quality of the product. People watch the best product and there is no shortage of high quality soccer product to watch between the European Big 5, Champions League, Mex, etc. MLS is a quality league globally, but it’s still a third tier league. Broadcast money will flow with a) time and b) elevation of the league standard to second tier, which is a much less crowded place to be. I’m thinking of Mex, Turkey, Portugal, etc. The league is simply too obscured in the pack right now for it to get the eyes it needs. It won’t be a Big4/5 league with a lot of intl broadcast eyes driving up that revenue figure, but it doesn’t really need to be.