Apple TV broadcast deal discussion

[ensco]

OK so I am going to try to continue this here.

The start times suck in winter, though I'm fine with an evening kick off in summer. Definitely agree there, also surprised they're doing it since it cuts off so much of the market that would sign up for Messi games, so I suspect it won't last.

But wrecking MLS product? Sorry, I have to disagree emphatically here. The Apple deal, for all it's flaws, is *by far* the best thing to happen the leagues health overall in a long time. MLS was a failed TV product watched by less people than the average poker rerun, they now have a streaming service with 2 million+ subscribed in year 2 of a 10 year initial deal. This deal is what may/should (if they're smart) allow them to release the shackles and press the standard of the league onwards. I'd change the start times, and basically nothing else, about this deal.

Put simply, with no Apple there's no Messi. Absolutely no chance whatsoever. And any changes to salary rules going forward will be the result of Apple putting money no TV provider in the world would have given to the league.

Re "wrecking" MLS, fine, I am guilty of hyperbole. But you tell me the word to use when (i) a third to half the games in the schedule are played in slots where the game conditions really hurt the caliber of games, and (ii) a significant number of fans league wide perpetually either cannot get to or cannot watch any game.

Can you get Apple to change start times? If Apple would do it, than the league and TFC are just derelict. Which could be I suppose. I don't think it works that way. Apple paid to dictate that, it seems to me. That is what makes sense. "Full control over the product." That is how these guys think.

I note that we have an interesting team off to a good start overall, and that, since 8.20pm Sunday (it's 6.15am Tuesday as I write this) there have been a grand total of 2 posts on this site - one of which was to ask for this discussion to be moved. Whatever the reason for that is... it sure doesn't seem to me that the Apple deal is generating much in the way of new interest. It can certainly be argued it is discouraging some old interest.

Re Messi, those dots don't connect for me. If Messi wanted Saudi cash he wouldn't have come. Miami might have offered less absent Apple but the argument with high certainty that it was a dealmaker... let's not kid ourselves, this is a retirement league, still, and a lot of Messi-type guys (Giroud this week) come here to retire. If he didn't want Saudi, and he wanted more of a lifestyle deal for his family, and all Miami could do was an Insigne deal.. then I think he would have taken that. He maybe would have gone somewhere in Europe instead I suppose… but it is impossible to say that “without Apple, no Messi”. Plus, as I said, the wildest part of that whole line of argument is: they have forced his games into a 1.30am slot over there, when they could easily be in the evening in Europe.

[OgtheDim]

NFL types (MLS are just a subset of that) are very subject to techbro language & thinking. They got sold an idea that the streaming technology would in and of itself create eyeballs on their product. They are probably being pushed right now an idea of how AI could "enhance game experiences" - otherwise known as, "we can get rid of those pesky supporters and have a consistent product based on AI learning" = its all BS but you know, MBA's rule the world.

Truth is most of these guys made their billions in something other then sports broadcasting and Apple is making its billions in what amounts to a monopolistic computer environment (cell phones are just small computers). Neither of these groups really have a clue about sports entertainment beyond the NFL behemoth. Neither of them really have a clue about competing against something.



*****

Other point - no streaming service makes enough quarterly beyond possibly Disney+ - and even they are destroying product because its more ROI to destroy something then put it out there.

******

Soccer is not a profitable sport - it runs on sugar daddies at every professional level.

[ag futbol]

I note that we have an interesting team off to a good start overall, and that, since 8.20pm Sunday (it's 6.15am Tuesday as I write this) there have been a grand total of 2 posts on this site - one of which was to ask for this discussion to be moved. Whatever the reason for that is... it sure doesn't seem to me that the Apple deal is generating much in the way of new interest. It can certainly be argued it is discouraging some old interest.

You know rage posting is usually the thing that drives traffic on social media (sadly). I think we’re all generally engaged but there wasn’t much to talk about after that performance. It just sort of affirmed what we all already thought about this being a work in progress.

I agree directionally with your comment: regarding this being an “experiment” for Apple. I think Garber needed to show ownership he could ink a big TV deal or would risk being out of a job and this was his ticket. I think they’ll certainly have some buyers remorse coming out the back end.

Now that said, I think it ends up being a learning process for MLS too in terms of how they position themselves with other streaming providers. Cable TV providers, best I can tell, are stuck in the past.

Not to sound like some kind of CPL zealot (those types are nuts) but the lack of coverage for soccer on TSN / Sportsnet is crazy. Sport has never been bigger or generated more interest in this country but the amount of time spent on it seems to keep shrinking in those quarters.

[JoesphNdo]

OK so I am going to try to continue this here.

Re "wrecking" MLS, fine, I am guilty of hyperbole. But you tell me the word to use when (i) a third to half the games in the schedule are played in slots where the game conditions really hurt the caliber of games, and (ii) a significant number of fans league wide perpetually either cannot get to or cannot watch any game.

I agree with the first point, but the second? It doesn't hold up. Perhaps you can't get to matches, but the latter simply is not true, and the way to look at that is simply looking at asses in seats. Has it gone up and down? That's where opinion leaves, and rubber meets road

1 - In 2023, first year of the deal, the league set a record for average and total attendance - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_...cer_attendance

2 - 2024 is set to break that record - https://www.reddit.com/r/MLS/comment...er_matchday_5/

3 - But is that all just Messi? Well, no, as the league was already on course for an average attendance of 21,897 when he arrived (And end games will always draw the most, when things are on the line) and ended with an average of 22,111. So pre messi, people were going to MLS games, and we were likely breaking that record anyway - https://www.reddit.com/r/MLS/comment...r_matchday_27/

So I agree fully winter 7:30 games are terrible, but 7:30 games when the conditions aren't bad? They may not work for you, but I'd ask for some evidence that there is a league wide epidemic of people not making it to stadiums because I'm seeing attendance records being broken in season 1, and very likely to be broken again in season 2.

Can you get Apple to change start times? If Apple would do it, than the league and TFC are just derelict. Which could be I suppose. I don't think it works that way. Apple paid to dictate that, it seems to me. That is what makes sense. "Full control over the product." That is how these guys think.

I note that we have an interesting team off to a good start overall, and that, since 8.20pm Sunday (it's 6.15am Tuesday as I write this) there have been a grand total of 2 posts on this site - one of which was to ask for this discussion to be moved. Whatever the reason for that is… it sure doesn't seem to me that the Apple deal is generating much in the way of new interest. It can certainly be argued it is discouraging some old interest.

Again, I'd want more anecdotal evidence than "one week, one time, after a home loss that was unremarkable, one forum was quiet". Here's what we do know

1. MLS tv ratings were so bad they sometimes didn't even rank high enough for the number to be reported https://deadspin.com/so-what-will-ml...ngs-1848784249
2. In year 2 (End of year 1, really, this came out in Feb), MLS' apple TV package has over two million subscribers https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/24/busin...ket%20holders.
3. Cable is a slowly dying medium. It's not dead, but half of people as 'young' as under 44 don't have it https://cordcuttersnews.com/cable-tv...t-a-high-rate/ and that rate of cord cutting is growing. Imagine where this is 10 years from now, when this Apple TV deal ends?

MLS is in fact more accessible to your average Gen Z person than cable. It's the difference between saying "Want to see Messi? Download Apple TV. Hey, this week it's free" vs "Want to see Messi? Call Rogers/Bell. Negotiate a 12 month deal mostly paying for crap you don't want. Oh and hope the game is on one of the channels you actually subscribed too. Or even on at all". Now the latter isn't necessarily fair, but that would be the perception that person would have. I can tell you as someone who has never had cable (And I don't know alot who do, and I'm on the oldest end of that demographic, you have to assume the young end is massively driving that average up), and am pushing 40, MLS is infinitely more accessible and interesting to me now for my own anecdotal evidence. I went from only watching TFC, on a dodgy stream for away games, to watching the whole league.
So I'm all for hearing interest in the league is down, but I need evidence. Crowds are at an all time high, a dead TV product has 2 million people subscribed to a service that exclusively shows it - where's the evidence interest is being discouraged?

Re Messi, those dots don't connect for me. If Messi wanted Saudi cash he wouldn't have come. Miami might have offered less absent Apple but the argument with high certainty that it was a dealmaker… let's not kid ourselves, this is a retirement league, still, and a lot of Messi-type guys (Giroud this week) come here to retire. If he didn't want Saudi, and he wanted more of a lifestyle deal for his family, and all Miami could do was an Insigne deal.. then I think he would have taken that. He maybe would have gone somewhere in Europe instead I suppose… but it is impossible to say that “without Apple, no Messi”. Plus, as I said, the wildest part of that whole line of argument is: they have forced his games into a 1.30am slot over there, when they could easily be in the evening in Europe.

Would Messi have taken a contract at like 5% of what he's earning now? I don't think so, but sure, there's always a chance. But I don't buy it. If he's okay earning fuck all relative to his market value, he's either back in Barcelona or playing in Argentina. He doesn't need a contract to enjoy the lifestyle here

But my main point was, and you seem to agree, he would have had to have been paid a fraction of what he earned before. Here's my argument as to why the economics on this deal make sense, but ONLY in an Apple world, made before he signed when many couldn't believe his signing was possible - http://forums.redpatchboys.ca/showth...=1#post1980874 The only way he could earn what he earns is with a billion dollar TV contract, on top of that Apple kicking in some money and on top of that Apple kicking in a % on new subs. There is no ROI on this type of money in a previous TV deal world, MLS couldn't monetize even close to as effectively as they are doing now

I do agree the timing of Miami games is fucking weird, though, and likely costing them. I expect alot of early Miami kick offs for the bigger games, games where they can market them a bit

---

My main takeaway is change will be impactful for everyone, but you can't assume your interest = the worlds. I'm open to evidence this is all bad, but every single metric on this thing is not only not bad, it's very, very good. And MLS is generating far more revenue from their TV than they were, so if they can convince their cheapest owners and don't blow this opportunity, this should be the start of big increases in the cap - increases thatwill further raise the standard of the league

Again, the winter 7:30 starts are a disgrace, but that is the only part of this I'd change. Everything else seems to be working. I'm open to evidence it's not, but all the evidence I see says it is.

[ensco]

^Good post. I will take some of this on when I have some time, one or two things I disagree strongly about. But this is coherent generally.

[Canary10]

I agree with the first point, but the second? It doesn't hold up. Perhaps you can't get to matches, but the latter simply is not true, and the way to look at that is simply looking at asses in seats. Has it gone up and down? That's where opinion leaves, and rubber meets road

1 - In 2023, first year of the deal, the league set a record for average and total attendance - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_...cer_attendance

2 - 2024 is set to break that record - https://www.reddit.com/r/MLS/comment...er_matchday_5/

3 - But is that all just Messi? Well, no, as the league was already on course for an average attendance of 21,897 when he arrived (And end games will always draw the most, when things are on the line) and ended with an average of 22,111. So pre messi, people were going to MLS games, and we were likely breaking that record anyway - https://www.reddit.com/r/MLS/comment...r_matchday_27/

So I agree fully winter 7:30 games are terrible, but 7:30 games when the conditions aren't bad? They may not work for you, but I'd ask for some evidence that there is a league wide epidemic of people not making it to stadiums because I'm seeing attendance records being broken in season 1, and very likely to be broken again in season 2.


Again, I'd want more anecdotal evidence than "one week, one time, after a home loss that was unremarkable, one forum was quiet". Here's what we do know

1. MLS tv ratings were so bad they sometimes didn't even rank high enough for the number to be reported https://deadspin.com/so-what-will-ml...ngs-1848784249
2. In year 2 (End of year 1, really, this came out in Feb), MLS' apple TV package has over two million subscribers https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/24/busin...ket%20holders.
3. Cable is a slowly dying medium. It's not dead, but half of people as 'young' as under 44 don't have it https://cordcuttersnews.com/cable-tv...t-a-high-rate/ and that rate of cord cutting is growing. Imagine where this is 10 years from now, when this Apple TV deal ends?

MLS is in fact more accessible to your average Gen Z person than cable. It's the difference between saying "Want to see Messi? Download Apple TV. Hey, this week it's free" vs "Want to see Messi? Call Rogers/Bell. Negotiate a 12 month deal mostly paying for crap you don't want. Oh and hope the game is on one of the channels you actually subscribed too. Or even on at all". Now the latter isn't necessarily fair, but that would be the perception that person would have. I can tell you as someone who has never had cable (And I don't know alot who do, and I'm on the oldest end of that demographic, you have to assume the young end is massively driving that average up), and am pushing 40, MLS is infinitely more accessible and interesting to me now for my own anecdotal evidence. I went from only watching TFC, on a dodgy stream for away games, to watching the whole league.
So I'm all for hearing interest in the league is down, but I need evidence. Crowds are at an all time high, a dead TV product has 2 million people subscribed to a service that exclusively shows it - where's the evidence interest is being discouraged?



Would Messi have taken a contract at like 5% of what he's earning now? I don't think so, but sure, there's always a chance. But I don't buy it. If he's okay earning fuck all relative to his market value, he's either back in Barcelona or playing in Argentina. He doesn't need a contract to enjoy the lifestyle here

But my main point was, and you seem to agree, he would have had to have been paid a fraction of what he earned before. Here's my argument as to why the economics on this deal make sense, but ONLY in an Apple world, made before he signed when many couldn't believe his signing was possible - http://forums.redpatchboys.ca/showth...=1#post1980874 The only way he could earn what he earns is with a billion dollar TV contract, on top of that Apple kicking in some money and on top of that Apple kicking in a % on new subs. There is no ROI on this type of money in a previous TV deal world, MLS couldn't monetize even close to as effectively as they are doing now

I do agree the timing of Miami games is fucking weird, though, and likely costing them. I expect alot of early Miami kick offs for the bigger games, games where they can market them a bit

---

My main takeaway is change will be impactful for everyone, but you can't assume your interest = the worlds. I'm open to evidence this is all bad, but every single metric on this thing is not only not bad, it's very, very good. And MLS is generating far more revenue from their TV than they were, so if they can convince their cheapest owners and don't blow this opportunity, this should be the start of big increases in the cap - increases thatwill further raise the standard of the league

Again, the winter 7:30 starts are a disgrace, but that is the only part of this I'd change. Everything else seems to be working. I'm open to evidence it's not, but all the evidence I see says it is.

One thought on this post. I'll preface it by saying I like having Apple streaming MLS games. I don't think I lose anything by not having TSN commentators and in fact TSN's streaming is so poor I actively avoid subscribing to anything TSN. Like you, I don't have cable and no desire to go back to it and I'm definitely on the older end of the streaming versus cable divide. I also only saw TFC games on crappy illegal streams prior to Apple. So on the whole I'm supportive of the change.

However, I question the extent to which Apple subscriptions show improvement. The only reason why I have a subscription is because I'm a season ticket holder. I absolutely would not pay for a subscription to watch MLS without that. The quality is still so far off the EPL that it's hard to watch. If I'm spending time watching games, it will always be EPL first. I rarely have watched any other game besides TFC. The breakdown of the subscription base between the free ones and paid ones would be interesting to find out. Not sure if they do that.

[JoesphNdo]

Thanks, Ensco. I apologize as I realize I came off a little strong. I just think there's significant potential on this deal, and that there wasn't really much else MLS could bleed from traditional TV. My long term vision, and there's alot of steps to get there so this likely sounds insane, is the only league in the world that, in the extreme long term, represents a thread to the premier league effectively becoming a monopoly of elite talent is MLS. This is decades from now, but having the ability to sell directly to consumer anywhere in the world is a huge step if they use it right

One thought on this post. I'll preface it by saying I like having Apple streaming MLS games. I don't think I lose anything by not having TSN commentators and in fact TSN's streaming is so poor I actively avoid subscribing to anything TSN. Like you, I don't have cable and no desire to go back to it and I'm definitely on the older end of the streaming versus cable divide. I also only saw TFC games on crappy illegal streams prior to Apple. So on the whole I'm supportive of the change.

However, I question the extent to which Apple subscriptions show improvement. The only reason why I have a subscription is because I'm a season ticket holder. I absolutely would not pay for a subscription to watch MLS without that. The quality is still so far off the EPL that it's hard to watch. If I'm spending time watching games, it will always be EPL first. I rarely have watched any other game besides TFC. The breakdown of the subscription base between the free ones and paid ones would be interesting to find out. Not sure if they do that.

This is a really good call out for sure, I'm also one of the free tiers, though I'd definitely sub if they removed that perk next year - but many wouldn't. I actually way prefer MLS to any European top league which I've really fallen out of watching, but I'm 100% the minority there! Also keep in mind, free subscribers still generate revenue in some small way - at least if they're actively watching, anyway. First if they can convince them to sign up for regular Apple TV, but also as they have ads on the service (In the US, anyway, in Canada we seem to sort of get them and sometimes get a blank screen. In the US, those blank screens are all ads)

For Apple & MLS it needs to be the long game. That's why it's imperative, to make this whole thing work, that we finally shut down the cheap owners and start to go nuts with the salary cap. The time to gamble and try to rapidly increase the quality of play is now. Their goal needs to be at the 8 year mark of this 10 year deal that they have a genuinely compelling product that has a small, but growing, global subscriber base. If they're able to sell the package globally one billion will be cheap, but to do that, they need marketing and mostly they need a higher salary cap. It's definitely not a sure bet, but that needs to be the goal if they want Apple to renew or for the media rights of the league to be worth anything in 10 years time.

I will also say I think they're dropping the Messi ball a bit as is, by not releasing the shackles now - since he's only going to be here for a couple of years - and by their late kick offs on Miami games. It'll be interesting to see if we have a global marketing campaign and earlier Miami kick offs for decisive and play off games towards the end of the year

[613reppingTFC]

Yeah I doubt Apple would release the numbers for the amount of free subscriptions given out to season ticket holders vs actively paying subscribers. The only way we will know is if they drop that feature in a future year and then we see that the subscription numbers drop when they release those figures. Not sure it would be in their best interest to drop that feature just yet though.

[Mr. Inbetween]

IIUC, most total SSH numbers in MLS are between 400K and 450K. So, at least?

[ensco]

Picking this up ... Joseph, no worries, I think we have all learned who the generally "reasonable" posters are, and heartfelt shouting from rooftops, when it is heartfelt, is always good! We obviously agree that night games in the northern winter are terrible/stupid.

Re the viewership results, we obviously can't say, but I am deeply suspicious. People who take these sorts of approaches generally would share some numbers if they were actually good. The NFL has no problem disclosing streaming numbers.
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.co...ple-viewership
https://www.nbcuniversal.com/article...d-game-success

I am also not sure that any league is a bigger joke than MLS when it comes to reported attendance. This has been discussed here ad nauseam, some will disagree, no need to restart that here. The question won't go on for much longer, there are AI applications that will solve this once and for all.

Best I can tell, the only metric supporting your argument is expansion fees, which is in part about buzz. The Apple deal is generating good buzz, so in that sense, it is absolutely "successful". They are going to get $500M for San Diego, vs $325M for Charlotte. That is genuinely a "success" metric.

I think this is simple. The TFC FO, no matter how bad we think they are, would never voluntarily play all these games at night in March and April in our climate. They had control of that call taken away from them by the league, who sold it to Apple. Apple is using this MLS schedule for reasons that suit Apple, whatever they may be (I have speculated that it is about generating data for bidding for the NBA and NFL). As a true fan, I resent being used in this way, and I question arguments that playing an inferior product is good for developing interest in the league. It objectively isn't good to ever degrade your product, or make access to your product persistently difficult, voluntarily.

Where you are right: streaming is the future. We have to figure it out. It is easy to get driven into obscure corners of the streaming world (Exhibit A: Canada Soccer). I don't really have enough info to have a great idea about what they should have done.

But this ain't it.

[barticusz]

Here's my review of AppleTV vs local broadcaster as a fan who lives far away.

I am able to watch all TFC matches, whether live or on demand at any point in time. The quality of AppleTV streaming is so much better than anything that was previously put our by our local broadcasters. I get access to ALL other matches. Before Apple TV, I could never watch a Montreal game and barely watched Vancouver. Now I can watch both of those which I find some myself going more often than I thought. As the league is growing and we get players like Messi it is making my son come to me and ask to watch other teams play instead of only asking me to check the scores of teams in Europe. If MLS continues to add more accomplished players, this will only be better.

I do not have cable and I no desire to pay for streaming on our local "sports" channels which put all of their efforts into hockey. I don't care about hockey.

Are there annoying things about apple such as the game start times, no doubt. Would it be even better if they spread this over the course of the day and especially helped out the northern teams by not having to start in the evening, sure. Overall though, as a viewer it is so much better and I'm gladly spending money for the service for the second year in a row.

[Mr. Inbetween]

Picking this up ... Joseph, no worries, I think we have all learned who the generally "reasonable" posters are, and heartfelt shouting from rooftops, when it is heartfelt, is always good! We obviously agree that night games in the northern winter are terrible/stupid.

Re the viewership results, we obviously can't say, but I am deeply suspicious. People who take these sorts of approaches generally would share some numbers if they were actually good. The NFL has no problem disclosing streaming numbers.
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.co...ple-viewership
https://www.nbcuniversal.com/article...d-game-success

I am also not sure that any league is a bigger joke than MLS when it comes to reported attendance. This has been discussed here ad nauseam, some will disagree, no need to restart that here. The question won't go on for much longer, there are AI applications that will solve this once and for all.

Best I can tell, the only metric supporting your argument is expansion fees, which is in part about buzz. The Apple deal is generating good buzz, so in that sense, it is absolutely "successful". They are going to get $500M for San Diego, vs $325M for Charlotte. That is genuinely a "success" metric.

I think this is simple. The TFC FO, no matter how bad we think they are, would never voluntarily play all these games at night in March and April in our climate. They had control of that call taken away from them by the league, who sold it to Apple. Apple is using this MLS schedule for reasons that suit Apple, whatever they may be (I have speculated that it is about generating data for bidding for the NBA and NFL). As a true fan, I resent being used in this way, and I question arguments that playing an inferior product is good for developing interest in the league. It objectively isn't good to ever degrade your product, or make access to your product persistently difficult, voluntarily.

Where you are right: streaming is the future. We have to figure it out. It is easy to get driven into obscure corners of the streaming world (Exhibit A: Canada Soccer). I don't really have enough info to have a great idea about what they should have done.

But this ain't it.

I am not so sure about this. Unless CFM’s situation is happenstance. Last year, the club played only one home match before their 7th match day which also was at home on 15APR23. While this season they do not play their first home game until their 7th match day on 13APR24; one match behind schedualing? In comparison, TFC will have played 3 home games before their 7th match day on 06APR24 which is away. Last season, TFC also played 3 home games before their 7th match day on 08APR23 which was away. I suspect cold climate clubs have some say. I think TFC made some sort of business calculus. Unfortunately, correlating with costly cold climate play injuries for a number of players?

[OgtheDim]

IIRC, Montreal's stadium is not winterized so can't be used until mid April.

I agree with ensco in that Apple has no clue about European eyeballs and what they are missing out on - neither do the NFL/MLS types. I would not be surprised if they saw Messi, saw Argintinean and thought all the eyeballs would be in the Western Hemisphere

[ensco]

I agree with ensco in that Apple has no clue about European eyeballs and what they are missing out on - neither do the NFL/MLS types. I would not be surprised if they saw Messi, saw Argintinean and thought all the eyeballs would be in the Western Hemisphere

Either (i) you are right, they don't know - plausible, I really hope you are right, because this can be addressed in a spirit of goodwill, or (ii) Apple know - but don't want to contaminate the purity of their experiment, because to them, maximing viewership is not the reason they did this, because MLS actual viewership is crumbs to their cake.... If it's the latter, MLS has made the very definition of a bad Faustian bargain. Apple will move on to the next shiny object, what will MLS do then?

[ensco]

By the way, this is turning me into a 7 minute game watcher (which is what I have done more often than not on Sunday morning, because I can). Is 7 minutes engagement instead of 120 minutes engagement OK here? Is it different in sports? Or for Apple in terms of what they want? It sure isn't causing me to watch something else on Apple on Sunday morning...

It sure isn't OK over at Netflix, they talk a lot to analysts about viewing engagement. Declines in engagement (total minutes watched) in aggregate get series cancelled over there.

[OgtheDim]

Aaaa...but I BETYA the eyeballs for MLS 360 are where Appple want people to be for 120 minutes rather then on individual games.

BECAUSE

and here is the deeper play I think is going on here


You get people watching the individual moments across games, they will find more things to bet about in 120 minutes then they would watching a single game with its ebbs and flows.

[JoesphNdo]

Picking this up … Joseph, no worries, I think we have all learned who the generally "reasonable" posters are, and heartfelt shouting from rooftops, when it is heartfelt, is always good! We obviously agree that night games in the northern winter are terrible/stupid.

100%!

Re the viewership results, we obviously can't say, but I am deeply suspicious. People who take these sorts of approaches generally would share some numbers if they were actually good. The NFL has no problem disclosing streaming numbers. https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.co...ple-viewership https://www.nbcuniversal.com/article...d-game-success

Suspicion is warranted, but we can only go on what we know, the 2m+ subscribers. And again, it's competing with TV viewership that was 'rerun of bowling world series from 2007 shown at 2am' level. If it's dogshit, that's par, anything beyond that is an improvement. I think TSN had to show something in the range of 5-6 TFC games to get the eyeballs of one Argos game, and the Argos are lucky if the numbers on the bench are smaller than the numbers of people in the stands. It's hard to emphasize enough how poorly regular season MLS did on TV.

Keep in mind on viewership of the games - it actually doesn't matter. It's a good signal for retention, but this is year 2, so we have a better signal on that. Beyond that, this *isn't* netflix, because Netflix isn't using engagement to measure success of their product (Again, except as a retention signal, they absolutely use it for that) - they're using it to measure success of a show. EG they can't tell if a Netflix sub is an 'orange is the new black' fan, they need to see how many people actually watch that show to know if it's worth x million for another season. For MLS, it's a single ticket sale, if they're signing up, they're an MLS fan. If they never watch a game, but keep signing up, the product is successful monetarily. So engagement is a good predictor of retention, but not as good as, well, actual retention. So if we're at 2m in year two, and unless we assume we were at 3m in year one, retention is pretty good. Ratings don't matter like they do for traditional cable, except selling ad spots, which I assume bring in less revenue per user than a sub.

I am also not sure that any league is a bigger joke than MLS when it comes to reported attendance. This has been discussed here ad nauseam, some will disagree, no need to restart that here. The question won't go on for much longer, there are AI applications that will solve this once and for all.

I mostly agree with this, with one crucial difference. Reported total attendance numbers, yep, you're dead on - anyone who saw our allegedly 90% full BMO field last year knows that. But I don't think they're making it up, I think they report tickets sold (or tickets moved), not bums in seats (And I think they're peppering the shit out of it, like giving 500 tickets to a business where no employees takes them up is 500 extra in attendance). In other words, when TFC report 27,000 and we see it half full, is that accurate? Not for attendance, but I do believe if 5,000 people unexpected showed up at the gate some are getting turned away, despite the abundance of seats, as I do think all 27,000 seats are spoken for even if they are liberal with how that happens. And I *do* believe that number is consistent, and reflective of something, where the baseline doesn't change.

The reason that's crucial is I don't believe the absolute number is true, but I do believe the relative number. When MLS reports x% up year over year, the total number they report is likely inaccurate, but I see no reason to doubt the increase unless we think they're going full North Korea to try and make the Apple deal look good. I've a hard time buying that, and my eye test this year and last says roughly yeah, probably slightly more people there than before, definitely don't see less.

Also in the leagues defence, I think this is how every entity that has a live event reports on attendance, but you will notice it more in more niche sports where the demand to go is lower.

I can understand if your response to that is just 'nah', and you're not wrong, but there's no real way to dig any deeper short of yeah some new technology. I'm confident attendances are better than before, and definitely see no evidence they're worse, and therefore no evidence there's a swath of previous fans out there unable to go. Again, not 100%, for sure. But if a key argument is 'this is hurting fans ability to goto games', and the published numbers say the opposite, I think you'd need to show a reason to believe there may be an issue

Best I can tell, the only metric supporting your argument is expansion fees, which is in part about buzz. The Apple deal is generating good buzz, so in that sense, it is absolutely "successful". They are going to get $500M for San Diego, vs $325M for Charlotte. That is genuinely a "success" metric.

I think expansion fees are a leading indicator about where the future of the league is seen, yeah. One of many. There's alot of factors that go into it, though, but it does signal people with moneny believe the leagues prospects are better than they were a couple of years ago

I think this is simple. The TFC FO, no matter how bad we think they are, would never voluntarily play all these games at night in March and April in our climate. They had control of that call taken away from them by the league, who sold it to Apple. Apple is using this MLS schedule for reasons that suit Apple, whatever they may be (I have speculated that it is about generating data for bidding for the NBA and NFL). As a true fan, I resent being used in this way, and I question arguments that playing an inferior product is good for developing interest in the league. It objectively isn't good to ever degrade your product, or make access to your product persistently difficult, voluntarily.

Right, but none of this is new. TFC never picked our kick off times in isolation, and no major sports team does, sadly. TFC had rotating kick off times all the time, and not just because of seasonal differences. If there was no TV at all, there'd be one kick off time, maybe two (one for cold weather one for hot). That's how it always worked in football before TV existed. Any divergence from that is not about match going fans, but about appeasing TV/media overlords. So that ship long sailed. It sailed in England the minute they moved from Saturday 3pm games, objectively a pretty optimal time for match going fans in a country with an away culture, as one example. La Liga, a country known for loving late kick off times, was showing games before noon their time (Which is like kicking off at 8am here for how the fans would react) in an attempt to capture Asian support. Sports have been used to suit the media companies showing them for at least three decades now in an extreme way, and in some way for longer than that. for MLS, it's the entirety of their existance, again the proof there is kick off times rotated at all. That wasn't for TFC, that wasn't for the match going fans, that was for TSN.

But is access difficult? Your anecdotal evidence, given later, is it is for you. Mine is access is infinitely easier. I went from watching 0 legal MLS minutes a week (120 pirated ones, when we played away) to consuming probably 300+ minutes every weekend legally. I know, and follow, the full league now - that is a huge jump from where I was, personally. I bias towards me representing the majority, you naturally bias to you, but to know the truth I'd need to see evidence. Anything else is just " I love the new setup, so it's good" "well I hate it, so it's bad"

I do think to young people, though, there's no argument. A 25 year old whose never had cable in their life ain't calling Bell or Rogers and signing up for Cable. So we went from 0 chance of ever capturing them legally, to a small one.

Now, is a motivation for Apple bidding for other rights? Naturally. But that doesn't matter. For MLS, this either works or it doesn't. 10 years from now, is it making money? If it is, Apple may want to renew, if they don't, no worries - we'll have options. There are other streaming providers and selling a proven profitable service is a manageable task, or, again if this makes money, then you don't actually need streaming providers - there's nothing stopping you building your own network and going direct to consumer. If you';ve already proven it's profitable, you can do that & MLS isn't short of access start up capital for something that has proven to be profitable. Those are the options streaming brings that cable could not. It's upto MLS to make it work, the league lives or dies on its own merits. If it does, Apple are just one of many options. On TV, we didn't really have any, none that could get this kind of money and provide this quality of a service, anyway. That's why I don't see it as mattering why Apple is doing this, they handed the league an opportunity on a silver platter. MLS was a failed TV product, 10 years from now it could be a profitable streaming option, if they are, it doesn't matter if Apple moves on - MLS will have proven all it needed to prove. Basically, it doesn't matter what the other parties motivation is, if the deal suits you either way. Taking advantage of that is not just not bad, it's savvy business. This is one such occasion. If it fails, well, we were already a failed TV product. In gambling terms, this is basically a freerole. Apple took a flyer on us because they want to impress the big boys, well, the outcomes for MLS are 'huge success' or 'Right where you were before, but with 1 billion in your pocket.'

Where you are right: streaming is the future. We have to figure it out. It is easy to get driven into obscure corners of the streaming world (Exhibit A: Canada Soccer). I don't really have enough info to have a great idea about what they should have done.

But this ain't it.

I think this is it, actually I absolutely love the changes and think it's a huge, huge step up, but time will tell. It's success and failure won't be down to whether I'm right to like it, or you're right to not like it, though, it'll be born out by whether it makes money or not. The rest is fun speculation. From my seat, my speculation - I think engagement is up, more fans are at games, it's easier to watch the league now, the coverage is infinitely better (No more pre empted for curling), more are watching, and the league has an opportunity to directly sell to consumer globally which, if they take it, will be revolutionary and could actually turn this into a top league.

[ensco]

^There have always been people who don't like day games, or who don't like weeknight games, or who don't like games on summer weekends. You can’t make everyone happy.

There will of course be a group who don’t care about the clustering of games in that slot, and who value the rest of the offering.

My comments aren’t about expressing preference for a particular group (that happens, it so happens I lose when games are on Saturday nights) … it's the conscious decision to cluster to this extent.

That's changing the message from: “sorry, we have other fan groups that we need to take care of that are pretty important too” to: “change your life or you cannot be part of this”.

[ensco]

Aaaa...but I BETYA the eyeballs for MLS 360 are where Appple want people to be for 120 minutes rather then on individual games.

BECAUSE

and here is the deeper play I think is going on here


You get people watching the individual moments across games, they will find more things to bet about in 120 minutes then they would watching a single game with its ebbs and flows.

This could be true, I see your point ... they are a LOOOOOONG way aways from MLS mattering in the gambling world .... doesn't make me feel any differently about it.

[OgtheDim]

This could be true, I see your point ... they are a LOOOOOONG way aways from MLS mattering in the gambling world .... doesn't make me feel any differently about it.

Admittedly, memories of the CSL might be behind my musings here

[JoesphNdo]

On clustering, I've actually wanted them to do that for years. Since way before Apple. To me it makes sense.

MLS biggest issue as a tv product was they couldn't even convince MLS fans to care about the league, nevermind anyone else. I think the majority of people in my section historically couldn't name the current MLS champions. To me, schedule played a part in that. The commitment to watching the rest of the league was too large. Your team plays at one, then you're asked to watch Colorado vs San Jose , next up is Dallas vs Orlando...most people just aren't doing that. So they watch their game when it's an away game, and switch off

By clustering you make it bite sized. MLS 360 is fun as hell (could be better, but that's a production quibble, not a concept one). So you watch TFC, switch to 360 at half time and maybe again after and watch wrap up maybe the next day. That's doable. That's digestible. And it always being on the same time is great, my partner knows that's typically game time, and we work out Saturdays around it.

It helps ease people in, get a feel for the league as a whole, get a sense for whose who, the storylines etc. that makes the whole thing seem so much more approachable. And then slowly you're suddenly interested in the LA derby, suddenly you'll watch that if you can.

I'm biased as that's how I grew up consuming soccer, so it feels natural to me. But clustering and not being beholden to a million local TV networks where MLS is bottom priority is the biggest win to me as a viewer. It's made the league so much better, and gotten me far more into it than I ever was