2014 TFC TV ratings

[Pookie]

we have been pretty successful added 1-2000 seats every couple years and filling them. Now 8000 scares me. Thats a big jump. Tim may have overestimated the market. Maybe add a smaller second deck and alot more box suites and club seats than MLSE seems to be able to sell, plus they generate alot more revenue.

It's a big jump but they aren't building this for TFC. If they were they would build their own and not renovate the one owned by the city. This is about other events. Too risky to put all this money in just for TFC at this stage of their existence.

22,000 is just shockingly low. I know MLS isn't the big ticket in town but that's back to GolTV days. To go from 300k to that in the span of half a season? And in a good season?

Serious boardroom questions have to be asked about marketing strategy and promotion. If all these new twitter followers and website hits and wait list stuff is true, why won't people follow the team?

There is a risk that I would call the Tiger Woods effect. On the PGA, they promoted him so much that when he didn't play in a tourney, ratings suffered. When that bubble burst, they had to scramble to repromote the game itself and all the other storylines.

If all TFC is to most is Jermain Defoe, who didn't play in this game, that's risky. TFC isn't a bloody big deal, it's more than that.

They would be wise to bring back grassroots marketing like Pub Crawls and meet player events that don't involve prepurchased tickets. The odd player story or game promotion wouldn't hurt either.

[Defoe]

Curling averaged 561 k last season, so 22 k just doesn't make sense?? I mean, at least 22 K should have just happened to have their TV on that channel for background noise... This doesn't make any sense these numbers aren't accurate

[Richard]

Didnt the games on CBC have about 150k average viewership a few years ago?

Im going to say it again but not having it on the main network is whats killing the ratings, atleast if it was there you could build up viewership with it being promoted.

I sould like a broken record, but the CBC needs to get these games, I garauntee ratings would be much higher.

[Defoe]

Ownership needs to promote the LEAGUE, not so much TFC. I fully believe most sports fans in and around Toronto know of the acquisitions of Bradley, Defoe and Gilberto... but that doesn't mean anything if the league is perceived as an amateur league not much better then college. Even if its not a top 10 league in the world with great talent, they need to market it as such, people will watch what they "think" is quality. It's not what they know it's what you allow them to believe. Our brain is made up of mirror neurons meaning we mirror what other people do, when people don't pay attention to the league, people don't care... but when people see people interested, they follow. Ownership of TFC should do a better job of promoting teams like Seattle, RSL, Galaxy(?)and them SLEVES. teams with a good fan base. We actually have FANS in the stadium, so use that to your advantage and market a TFC game as a "crazy atmosphere world time experience" Show viewers their is something on the line, that there's competition and that people CARE... Show them that winning the shield or cup is a HUGE deal and Championship of MLS is a big deal and your a top team... Do this and ratings will soar. We have infrastructure and resources to be a top league, no excuse for these ratings, someone's not doing their job.

[hulkrogan]

I think it's something you have to be patient with (I sound like I'm in the Gilberto thread again.... haha).

I watch every single game, and took some buddies with me to watch them in Portland. They all had fun at the game (TFC got killed however) but one of the guys has actually started watching casually. The thing with following a new team though, is unless you know all the players and start to grow an attachment to some of them, you aren't that invested. What can really cure this?

A playoff run.

I think if TFC makes the playoffs and wins a couple games, you'll see people watching their first consecutive TFC games and starting to get familiar with the players.

I'm not a baseball fan at all, but I can still name about half the players on the Jay's World Series teams.

[BeachTory]

Well, it's easier to believe when you factor in it's an 8 year deal. So, just over $11M per year.

And it's not for a handful of US games, it's for about 10 per year for the men and 4 for the women. So 14 in total or 112 over the 8 years, including exclusive Spanish rights which is particularly handy for US v Mexico.

"ESPN and FOX Sports 1 will split the English-language Men’s National Team broadcast package of approximately 10 games per year, and will share the schedule of Women’s National Team games. Univision Deportes is the exclusive Spanish language home of U.S. Soccer, broadcasting all of the U.S. Men’s National Team games, and a minimum of four Women’s National Team matches each year during the term."

http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2014/05/12/mls-us-soccer-sign-landmark-tv-media-rights-partnerships-espn-fox-univision-deportes

… and good to know about ESPN2 and its viewership. Apparently, that is where the CFL games will go.

"A minimum of 17 regular season games and the Eastern and Western Finals will be televised live on ESPN, ESPN2 or ESPNEWS. The 102nd Grey Cup will be televised live exclusively on ESPN2. All other CFL games will be available to fans live on ESPN3 across computers, smartphones, tablets and connected devices."

No where near the value of the US Soccer deal but without 112 National Team games either.

http://www.cfl.ca/article/espn-cfl-reach-multi-year-us-broadcast-deal

the deal is 90M$ per year. But again, that money goes to SUM. The owners of SUM are provident equity partners and the MLS team operators. Only some of that cash will flow to MLS and the teams they operate. The MLS team operators are doing very very well by this deal. The 25% stake of SUM they sold to provident a couple years ago got them 125-150M$.
So, to summarize, MLSE owns about 4% of SUM which is worth at least 21m$ using the old provident deal as a metric. SUM now takes in about 90M$ in extreme high margin revenue per year so what is that worth now?

Recall that Garber always says that MLS does not make money? He is likely, technically, correct, since the funds that flow from SUM are "subsidizing" the operating deficits in MLS that Garber is talking about. But looking strictly at MLS, the new CBA will not likely have a bonanza of cap expansion that one might assume. The value of this league and entire structure is multiple companies, which very effectively minimizes the percentage of total revenues going to the players at % rates that are far lower than the big 4 leagues

[Beach_Red]

Didnt the games on CBC have about 150k average viewership a few years ago?

Im going to say it again but not having it on the main network is whats killing the ratings, atleast if it was there you could build up viewership with it being promoted.

I sould like a broken record, but the CBC needs to get these games, I garauntee ratings would be much higher.

I agree. I'm one of the many people who dropped cable. If the games were on the CBC I could still see them or if the TSN GO app was available for a couple of bucks a month to non-cable subscribers I could do that. TSN2 numbers will likely never be very good.

[Pookie]

BT thanks for the clarification on the 90.

[Qman]

the deal is 90M$ per year. But again, that money goes to SUM. The owners of SUM are provident equity partners and the MLS team operators. Only some of that cash will flow to MLS and the teams they operate. The MLS team operators are doing very very well by this deal. The 25% stake of SUM they sold to provident a couple years ago got them 125-150M$.
So, to summarize, MLSE owns about 4% of SUM which is worth at least 21m$ using the old provident deal as a metric. SUM now takes in about 90M$ in extreme high margin revenue per year so what is that worth now?


Recall that Garber always says that MLS does not make money? He is likely, technically, correct, since the funds that flow from SUM are "subsidizing" the operating deficits in MLS that Garber is talking about. But looking strictly at MLS, the new CBA will not likely have a bonanza of cap expansion that one might assume. The value of this league and entire structure is multiple companies, which very effectively minimizes the percentage of total revenues going to the players at % rates that are far lower than the big 4 leagues

Reading online, their are many articles that stated all the value lies in broadcasting US qualifiers, not MLS.
How does that break down, does most of the money flow to the US mens program?

Here's an example:
http://worldsoccertalk.com/2014/05/1...v-rights-deal/

[BeachTory]

US soccer gets paid and from that the men's program gets supported. You raise a very important point and that is how the money flows. US soccer is not a member (kind of like a shareholder but in an LLC corporate structure) of SUM. They certainly are a partner however. The marketing that they do for international friendly type of events for example generate enormous amounts of data for their CRM ( Google CRM and Garber together to see how important MLS understands the ticket buyers) and US soccer gets paid for sanctioning all events. We all understand that it is lucrative for Mexico for example to play Friendly's inside the United States. US soccer must sanction those games and of course get paid. SUM does the ticket sales and collects the data. I would speculate that SUM is by far more valuable than MLS by many multiples.

I have never seen the actual breakdown of cash that goes to US soccer but now I am curious and if I find something, I will post.

[mr k]

US soccer gets paid and from that the men's program gets supported. You raise a very important point and that is how the money flows. US soccer is not a member (kind of like a shareholder but in an LLC corporate structure) of SUM. They certainly are a partner however. The marketing that they do for international friendly type of events for example generate enormous amounts of data for their CRM ( Google CRM and Garber together to see how important MLS understands the ticket buyers) and US soccer gets paid for sanctioning all events. We all understand that it is lucrative for Mexico for example to play Friendly's inside the United States. US soccer must sanction those games and of course get paid. SUM does the ticket sales and collects the data. I would speculate that SUM is by far more valuable than MLS by many multiples.

I have never seen the actual breakdown of cash that goes to US soccer but now I am curious and if I find something, I will post.

I was going to write that people were missing a big chunk of SUM's revenue which is the Mexican national team playing in the US + US tv rights to Mexican national team matches. Mexico plays more in the US than they do in Mexico. All of their World Cup prep matches were basically in the US. It's why Cowboys stadium is also known as Azteca North.

[shwade]

140k for Montreal game. Hopefully they liked what they saw and stumble upon the All Star game tonight - MLS side has to be strong for the viewers to stick around and be interested in the next Toronto game.

[TFC07]

140k for Montreal game. Hopefully they liked what they saw and stumble upon the All Star game tonight - MLS side has to be strong for the viewers to stick around and be interested in the next Toronto game.

I am assuming that's only English TV ratings, so I except there was probably over 200K viewers in total if you include French TV ratings for this game.

This just shows how huge of difference Canadian content makes if you have two Canadian teams playing against each other.

[Pookie]

I am assuming that's only English TV ratings, so I except there was probably over 200K viewers in total if you include French TV ratings for this game.

This just shows how huge of difference Canadian content makes if you have two Canadian teams playing against each other.

Well it's just math. As the Argo-haters like to point out, fans of the other team watch the game too. Impact fans added to the usual total.

I was very surprised that the Whitecaps - TFC didn't draw more than 200k. WCs generally are always in the 100k range.

[TFC07]

Well it's just math. As the Argo-haters like to point out, fans of the other team watch the game too. Impact fans added to the usual total.

I was very surprised that the Whitecaps - TFC didn't draw more than 200k. WCs generally are always in the 100k range.

They didn't draw 200K? I know ratings posted from Yahoo only post TV ratings from weekend games.

Let's be real honest, playing on main network against Canadian club will draw a lot better than playing against American club on secondary channel. Also keep in mind that we're playing against weak Montreal team that doesn't draw well (probably worst than TFC) on English channels.

Speaking of Argos, if you look at CFL ratings, best ratings they got last weekend was all western game while Argos-Montreal game got 550K which is below average for CFL TV ratings. So there's some truth about Argos TV ratings argument that people are making on here.

[Qman]

They didn't draw 200K? I know ratings posted from Yahoo only post TV ratings from weekend games.

Let's be real honest, playing on main network against Canadian club will draw a lot better than playing against American club on secondary channel. Also keep in mind that we're playing against weak Montreal team that doesn't draw well (probably worst than TFC) on English channels.

Speaking of Argos, if you look at CFL ratings, best ratings they got last weekend was all western game while Argos-Montreal game got 550K which is below average for CFL TV ratings. So there's some truth about Argos TV ratings argument that people are making on here.

I note that a Montreal game is generally the lowest rated CFL game every since Montreal fans (usually 150,000-200,000) watch on RDS.

So the same could be said for the Impact game, you can probably pro-rate the TSN rating by the same amount to get the total TSN+RDS for TFC ... probably closer to 200,000.

[prizby]

Well it's just math. As the Argo-haters like to point out, fans of the other team watch the game too. Impact fans added to the usual total.

I was very surprised that the Whitecaps - TFC didn't draw more than 200k. WCs generally are always in the 100k range.

lets not forget the tfc ratings got a pump with roughriders fans jumping in near the end of the game

[Carts]

MLS All-Star game on TSN = 180,000

1/2 Breakdown was;
126,000
248,000
216,000
187,000
125,000

Carts...

[ensco]

I think these TFC ratings have to be a major topic of conversation behind the scenes, and a real threat to Leiweke's vision. These numbers are not trending up and don't look very different from previous years.

Been away for a couple of weeks - that 22K number from 2 Saturdays ago, wow. I don't care what network showed it. Wow.

[TFC07]

I think these TFC ratings have to be a major topic of conversation behind the scenes, and a real threat to Leiweke's vision. These numbers are not trending up and don't look very different from previous years.

Been away for a couple of weeks - that 22K number from 2 Saturdays ago, wow. I don't care what network showed it. Wow.

Raptors were in similar position as TFC when came to TV ratings until they started to win games. So maybe seeing TFC playing in the playoffs will help them get better ratings in the future.

Remember that TFC never played in the playoffs or had winning record before, so I understand why interest isn't there right now especially after what MLSE did last 7 years with TFC (example: pricing out fans). It's going to take time and consistent winning seasons to turn this thing around and get TV numbers up.

[ensco]

Raptors were in similar position as TFC when came to TV ratings until they started to win games. So maybe seeing TFC playing in the playoffs will help them get better ratings in the future.

Remember that TFC never played in the playoffs or had winning record before, so I understand why interest isn't there right now especially after what MLSE did last 7 years with TFC (example: pricing out fans). It's going to take time and consistent winning seasons to turn this thing around and get TV numbers up.

There is some truth to this in tone, but the Raps did not go to the cap (let alone quadruple their payroll, like TFC just did) at any point.

When you spend ginormous, someone will ask what the results are.

[TFC07]

There is some truth to this in tone, but the Raps did not go to the cap (let alone quadruple their payroll, like TFC just did) at any point.

When you spend ginormous, someone will ask what the results are.

Results are increase attendance (one number source of revenue for TFC and every other MLS team) and sponsors (increase few million dollars this year, and probably more next season if we play in playoffs end of the year).

I am just happy that it's fun going to games again and going home happier than before.

[Pookie]

TV ratings and the playoffs.

That's an interesting one. Will TFC get a ratings bump if they make the playoffs?

In October? Up against the NHL and Leafs locally? MLB playoffs? NBA Season start? NFL? CFL Playoffs?

It's not like many of us watch the MLS cup playoffs regularly and we actually follow the league and TFC.

Seems like it would be a difficult feat to get a ratings bump against most of that competition with fans that aren't already engaged.

As you say though, the fun is in going and that's the main thing.

[TFC07]

TV ratings and the playoffs.

That's an interesting one. Will TFC get a ratings bump if they make the playoffs?

In October? Up against the NHL and Leafs locally? MLB playoffs? NBA Season start? NFL? CFL Playoffs?

It's not like many of us watch the MLS cup playoffs regularly and we actually follow the league and TFC.

Seems like it would be a difficult feat to get a ratings bump against most of that competition with fans that aren't already engaged.

As you say though, the fun is in going and that's the main thing.

If you look at Vancouver, their best TV rating was their only playoff game (in fact, their playoff game was highest TV ratings for MLS game on TSN before this season). Since then, their ratings have been over 100K game unlike TFC where their ratings have been all over the place (again, playing on so many channels instead of one channel doesn't help).

I think TFC making it to the playoffs will only help them get more exposure even they're going against big boys (Maple Leafs and this year's Raptor team). I think 300K for TFC playoff game isn't too much to ask.

[ensco]

Results are increase attendance (one number source of revenue for TFC and every other MLS team) and sponsors (increase few million dollars this year, and probably more next season if we play in playoffs end of the year).

I am just happy that it's fun going to games again and going home happier than before.

Revenue, sure, call it 5K incremental people at $40 ticket, that is $200K/game, generously $4M incremental for the season.

Sponsorship, that's not millions. TFC had sponsors, with total sponsorship of probably $5M coming into this year (I'm basing that on Portland's disclosed $3.5M in sponsorships). Incremental amount this year post Defoe/Bradley signing is probably in the hundreds of thousands.

TV - zero incremental.

Cost of new players - incremental $15M/year.

It is just a question of when not if Leiweke will face very tough questions at MLSE board on this.

He needs that new stadium deal, to build the story that he is changing the paradigm, because the early returns on whether signing big players works without changing anything else, is that it doesn't. Not that I personally see how a bigger, sexier stadium deals with the real issue here, which is that this is minor league soccer, and it's facing increasing pressure from big league European football, who are getting all the growth.

[Pookie]

Re: playoff tv ratings

I think you are right.

I say think though in that Vancouver's playoff game was against LA... or should I say it was against David Beckham.

That Beckham guy draws. I remember when TFC played LA in the CCL. Huge crowd at Rogers Centre. The next round, after they advanced, couldn't sell out BMO for the game v Santos Laguna.

So I think you are right. Probably. But I wouldn't call a TFC playoff ratings boost a chip shot by any means.

[Pookie]

Revenue, sure, call it 5K incremental people at $40 ticket, that is $200K/game, generously $4M incremental for the season.

Sponsorship, that's not millions. TFC had sponsors, with total sponsorship of probably $5M coming into this year (I'm basing that on Portland's disclosed $3.5M in sponsorships). Incremental amount this year post Defoe/Bradley signing is probably in the hundreds of thousands.

TV - zero incremental.

Cost of new players - incremental $15M/year.

It is just a question of when not if Leiweke will face very tough questions at MLSE board on this.

He needs that new stadium deal, to build the story that he is changing the paradigm, because the early returns on whether signing big players works without changing anything else, is that it doesn't. Not that I personally see how a bigger, sexier stadium deals with the real issue here, which is that this is minor league soccer, and it's facing increasing pressure from big league European football, who are getting all the growth.

Agreed. Keep in mind too that they only keep half of ticket revenue.

[TFC07]

Revenue, sure, call it 5K incremental people at $40 ticket, that is $200K/game, generously $4M incremental for the season.

Sponsorship, that's not millions. TFC had sponsors, with total sponsorship of probably $5M coming into this year (I'm basing that on Portland's disclosed $3.5M in sponsorships). Incremental amount this year post Defoe/Bradley signing is probably in the hundreds of thousands.

TV - zero incremental.

Cost of new players - incremental $15M/year.

It is just a question of when not if Leiweke will face very tough questions at MLSE board on this.

He needs that new stadium deal, to build the story that he is changing the paradigm, because the early returns on whether signing big players works without changing anything else, is that it doesn't. Not that I personally see how a bigger, sexier stadium deals with the real issue here, which is that this is minor league soccer, and it's facing increasing pressure from big league European football, who are getting all the growth.

To your first point, gate revenue (on paper) is going to increase next year because BMO field expansion (8,000 more seats) so money there to afford to sign higher quality DP's. Of course, we're excepting price increase for current SSH next year. That's how they will get their money back from spending so much on DP's this year.

Second point, Tim Leiweke said their sponsorship increase by couple of millions this year alone. Also keep in mind that our jersey sponsor and stadium name rights going to expire soon (in couple of years?) so except more money from that.

Lastly, the whole point of new stadium is host bigger events (winter classic and international soccer games) and have bigger home for TFC so they can make more money from their investment while spending a lot of money to sign higher end DP's.

[TFC07]

Re: playoff tv ratings

I think you are right.

I say think though in that Vancouver's playoff game was against LA... or should I say it was against David Beckham.

That Beckham guy draws. I remember when TFC played LA in the CCL. Huge crowd at Rogers Centre. The next round, after they advanced, couldn't sell out BMO for the game v Santos Laguna.

So I think you are right. Probably. But I wouldn't call a TFC playoff ratings boost a chip shot by any means.

Actually, ticket prices were more expensive against Santos at BMO field than it was LA-TFC game at Rogers Centre. Also, TFC had three months to promote LAG game unlike Santos game. Sure, Beckham had some influence, but if you were at the game, it was filled with TFC fans. You rarely saw someone with Beckham/LAG jersey at the game. Rogers Centre was bleeding red in that game!

[ensco]

To your first point, gate revenue (on paper) is going to increase next year because BMO field expansion (8,000 more seats) so money there to afford to sign higher quality DP's. Of course, we're excepting price increase for current SSH next year. That's how they will get their money back from spending so much on DP's this year.

Second point, Tim Leiweke said their sponsorship increase by couple of millions this year alone. Also keep in mind that our jersey sponsor and stadium name rights going to expire soon (in couple of years?) so except more money from that.

Lastly, the whole point of new stadium is host bigger events (winter classic and international soccer games) and have bigger home for TFC so they can make more money from their investment while spending a lot of money to sign higher end DP's.

Sorry, but none of this stands scrutiny.

Ticket revenue: where are those 8K new TFC ticket buyers coming from? Any review of ticket trader here will prove that demand remains well below what it was in 2007-2009 (when the stadium was genuinely full), let alone what it would be for a 30K stadium.

Sponsors: I posted this before - what new big sponsors are there? This is a game Leiweke (and especially the guy who works for him, Dave whatever his name), are playing. They are bloviating hard about how wonderful TV and sponsors have been since they arrived, but I call BS.

Other events: agreed. Those who know me know I argued that the BMO plan has always been about outdoor hockey from the beginning. But what has that got to do with TFC's salary budget, which needs to be sized to TFC's revenue, ultimately?

My conclusion: just "winning" isn't enough - only a run to the 2014 MLS title game will change the TV and ticket revenue picture for 2015, imho. Even that may not do it - a lot of these seats are expensive.