Will FSW show MLS?!?!

No news here, just supposition from MLS's blind columnist.

I renew my same objection to these stories: 1) MLS has a deal with ESPN already. Any national broadcast would be precluded by the current deal between SUM and Disney. 2) FSW, while in increasing numbers of cable systems, has nowhere near the household penetration of any of the ESPNs. 3) FSW is, in most cases, on a digital tier where it's on cable. Putting your games on a network that's not available to mass cable audiences is suicide. If you're MLS, you already have those people. The key is to be available to new audiences. 4) Until the Fox/Comcast pissing match is resolved re: OLN, there is a serious viability question here. If the largest cable company in the US has stated it has a vested interest in not putting your network on the air, you've got problems.

Return to your lives citizens.

 

I can confirm that the network turns a profit, which is nothing to sneeze at.

 

i think they'd be crazy not to do this

 

Garber on the exclusivity aspect of the deal:
"The MLS agreement is exclusive with ABC. It is not exclusive with ESPN. We do have the opportunity to find a new home for 'MLS ExtraTime'. We are exploring that. We also have the opportunity for other games that we might want to air. We do have some open windows."

As long as it doesn't keep the game from also being on a local channel and from being carried on the Shootout, I say why not? Points 2-4 are true, but if the league can just get in a few extra million homes - particularly if it somehow strengthens SUM in the long run - this is a no-brainer.

I only worry about them taking a game away from a local channel and the MLS fanaticos. But if they just send the signal to another channel and can do it cheaply, more power to them.

Of course, the ultimate would be getting an ExtraTime type show like Garber mentioned last year.

 

FWIW, in the San Francisco Bay Area ESPN2 is only available with digital cable, putting it on par with FSW in terms of availability (i.e. not very widespread). In fact FSW is slightly more accessible (FSW is channel 401 - leading off the premium sports channel grouping, while ESPN2 is 412? or something a little harder to remember)

Off the top of my head, I think some of the advantages of having MLS on FSW is having MLS on a network that is decidedly pro-soccer, mixing MLS with the likes of EPL, SPL, La Liga and other leagues, with the hope that they will produce better coverage and news shows (ala MLS ExtraTime), run more stuff live and in prime-time (the Soccer Saturday time-slot is pretty shite), have more knowledgeable on-air talent, provide a little competition with ESPN to help USSF et al's bargaining position, lead to more advertising of MLS over broadcast and basic cable (TV commercials for MLS on FSW), etc. I would also imagine that FSW has a more international footprint and so MLS would begin to creep outside of North America - something that will help build the league in the long run ($$, reputation, transfers, etc.)

 

Here's the problem with this, if FSW gets a Saturday night MLS game it devaules the shootout package. If the game isn't available on the package, then those on cable systems without FSW, lost one of a potential four games. If you have FSW, then why shell out the money for the shootout if you get an extra free game each weekend? Most times you can only watch one game on the package a night anyway. You might not get to choose the match up you want to watch, but it saves $50.

Either way, and I agree that the PPV package is a bargin, an extra free game on FSW increases the cost per match of the PPV package so someone will feel screwed. I wouldn't have been keen on the idea when I didn't have FSW, and I'm still not despite having it.

If MLS did go this route, my suggestion would be a Friday or Sunday night game. That way, the potential audience isn't split amongst the ppv offerings, and it gives ESPN the only free game on Saturdays. On weekends when ESPN doesn't have MLS, then FSW can take that slot.

 

1. FSW does have a domestic soccer package. It is A-Leauge, and it started last year.
2. MLS does not have an iron clad deal with ESPN. They pay ESPN to show the games. Like any customer, MLS can get up a leave any time they want.
3. FOX is losing on the NFL, and wants out. What FOX wants is NASCAR all season. If they get it, they will put extra bucks into NASCAR programing on all of their cable networks.
4. I think what Garber, St. Phil, and 'em would really like is an all-soccer channel. MLS, World Cup, A-League, a few select Euro leagues, lots of SA and Mexican games, WUSA, Women's world Cup, Highlights, pay-per-views, the works. That puppy would make some bucks.

 

1-Correct.
2-Dead wrong. ESPN and MLS have a contract. Yes, it's a time buy, but that doesn't mean MLS can take their ball and go home whenever they want.
3-Wrong. FOX won't mind losing money on the NFL as long as shows like Joe Millionaire can be pumped up during the telecasts. FOX has been screaming about the NFL so when the next negotiations come around, they've sufficiently scared off other networks (seems to be working).
4-No real disagreement there.

 

As long as the St. Phil channel has empty slots to play half a dozen infomercials a day it might make money. We really have to be realistic here. FSW makes money off of subscriber fees and those damned infomercials. I despise them but as long as they are the price for its continued survival let 'em roll.

Of course I like FSW as much for its other offerings as much as its soccer.

PatK

 

I meant to post this on Sunday, but the Baltimore Sun had a very good story on the trouble with starting up a network. Not all of these things would be relevant for an MLSTV since the story focuses on the Comcast/Radio One effort to povide BET with a challenger.

But if people are concerned about the viability of a metwork run by the nation's largest cable system and an established radio network it shows that MLSTV is a risky proposition, even if it is one I wholeheartedly support.

http://www.sunspot.net/business/bal-bz.radio19jan19.story

If prompted - username: big soccer; password: bigsoccer

 

Re: Re: Will FSW show MLS?!?!

Especially in today's economy. I would definitely be interested to see some hard figures on FSW's revenues and expenses.

 

Someone already hit this, but no, it's not exclusive. It was a big thing when the deal was announced, because BSers were all speculating about FSW picking up some games.

My hope is that we'll get more playoff games. Alternatively, FSW could just show Wednesday games. That would still leave some value with the shootout package.

OH yeah, and the bestest best thing of all would be a return of ExtraTime.

 

My kid watches the Disney Channel at various times of the day. I don't think I have ever seen a commercial on that channel. The only commercials I recall are one promoting other shows or events on the channel.

I have to assume that they make their money on subscirptions alone. If they can sustain on this, then FSW must be making some money on their commercials and infomercials.

IMHO.

 

It's through their partnerships with other Disney properties. As in, "You carry the Disney Cartoon network and something else we own or you don't get the Disney Channel."

From e-mail discussions with my cable company's GM, this is exactly what Fox is not doing with FSW. He said he was amazed at their demands in order to get FSW, not making people add FSW in order to get FX (which runs some NASCAR races).

The reason a lot of fringe channels are on certain cable networks is because they are packaged with another channel. Which is why anything owned by Disney scares the bejesus out of cable execs because it can be tied to ESPN in some way, shape or form.

 

monster...would that kind of blackmail have been legal before the Telecommunications Act of 1996?

 

Bring back Extratime, put it on ABCfamily for all I care, but bring it back.


-VON

 

I have no clue. I realy don't. I don't even know if my scenario is exactly how it happens. I should have made that more clear.

Then I found this nugget while trying to find an answer - you know I can't live without trying to find the answer. And this thing is just four days old.

The American Cable Association has threatened for the better part of a year to ask for regulatory and/or legislative relief from rising programming costs and "bullying" tactics the association says is killing its members--small and independent cable operators. It's not just rising rates that irk the operators. Tying retransmission consent deals to carriage of new or fledgling networks and/or forcing operators to buy a bundle of networks they have little desire or capacity to carry has left many ACA members at the mercy of the programmers. Larger operators have experienced some of the same problems with programmers but have more leverage. Cliff Duncan, owner of Duncan Cable TV in Wilmington, Vt., says he is hit doubly hard when programmers play hardball with carriage deals and rates. "I'm paying more than Comcast or Adelphia because I have fewer customers," he says. "Then, [networks] promise me two minutes an hour for advertising. But with 1,100 customers, I can't get the rates I need to offset the increase in rates."

http://www.cableworld.com/archive/cableworld/2003/01/13/cwd03011307.shtml

All I know is that when my system when digital, we slowly got channels. And all are channels affiliated with the big players - first Discovery, then MTV and VH-1, finally Nickolodeon and Lifetime.

This worries me because my company is a regional one. And Comcast does their advertising.

 

i agree. i waited all last season for them to start that again.

 

If FSW would show re-runs of the past week-ends MLS games like it does for euro leagues, it would be great for MLS.