MLS and Apple Broadcasting Deal
- Thread starter Fantazma
- Start date
Yayyyyy one less benefit of being a STH
So, technically it get's more expensive to stream MLS next year unless you have AppleTV (I'm talking about AppleTV, not an AppleTV or the AppleTV app) anyway.
I have mixed feelings about this. I currently get ATV included in a separate bundle, but I might not keep that one.
I have mixed feelings about this. I currently get ATV included in a separate bundle, but I might not keep that one.
I think this is smart. It will let casuals who have AppleTV just switch over out of curiosity and watch if they want.
I don't see it as being more expensive for anybody. Currently, if you don't have AppleTV, MLS Season pass is $15/month or $99/season. With AppleTV it's $13/month or $80/season. Currently AppleTV is $13/month or $99/year. As a non-STH, you'd be saving money or paying the same and have the benefit of additional AppleTV content. For STHs, I would imagine they'd turn the free Season Pass benefit into a redemption code that either lowers your AppleTV subscription cost by a defined amount or gives it free for 6 months.
ZYanksRule
Registered
I think we are 1, maybe 2 years away from MLS letting local cable networks like YES license the games to air live in addition to airing them on Apple.
If I’m reading the Times/Athletic article correctly, season ticket holders get Apple TV for free. Can that be right?
sounds like something they could do considering they do it for season pass. as of right now, it's the same price for an annual sub.
ZYanksRule
Registered
Yep, that was part of the league's announcement today.
It's win-win-win. MLS gets exposure to everyone who gets AppleTV+. The latest numbers on that are about 75M worldwide. Apple gets MLS fans to look at their content. Subscribers to either service get the other for no extra cost.
Also AppleTV and Peacock just started a discounted bundle as of last month so you can get MLS and Peacock's Premier League content in one deal.
You're closer to that industry than me but I have to say I doubt it. Traditional linear bundled pay TV is in an ongoing major decline.
nscreenmedia.com
In contrast, AppleTV is experiencing subscriber growth. A good portion of that is free trials and bundles and partner deals like the Chase Reserve deal Lion mentioned. But since they are chasing subscribers by giving their content away for free or at major discounts directly to consumers, I will be surprised if they offer it to competing services. It would just undermine everything they are doing.
Something is going to give with sports programming, leagues, networks, and linear TV services. The latter is a shrinking industry whose biggest assets are sports and news. The main value that industry offers to sports IP owners is bundling: every subscriber pays for ESPN and FoxSports and YES and SNY regardless of whether they watch all 4, 1 or none. But the IP owners keep raising rates which the linear bundlers pass on and that accelerates the linear subscriber losses. Disney stock is down almost 8% today on an earnings report that highlighted revenue declines from linear TV fees, and the YTTV fight isn't helping either. YES has not been on YTTV for years. I don't know how that all shakes out but it's not a happy growth story.
Also AppleTV and Peacock just started a discounted bundle as of last month so you can get MLS and Peacock's Premier League content in one deal.
You're closer to that industry than me but I have to say I doubt it. Traditional linear bundled pay TV is in an ongoing major decline.
By year's end, only about a third of US homes will have traditional pay TV
In Q1 2025, traditional pay TV is in only about a third of US homes. vMVPDs push penetration above 50%, but it will slip below half by 25Q4.
nscreenmedia.com
In contrast, AppleTV is experiencing subscriber growth. A good portion of that is free trials and bundles and partner deals like the Chase Reserve deal Lion mentioned. But since they are chasing subscribers by giving their content away for free or at major discounts directly to consumers, I will be surprised if they offer it to competing services. It would just undermine everything they are doing.
Something is going to give with sports programming, leagues, networks, and linear TV services. The latter is a shrinking industry whose biggest assets are sports and news. The main value that industry offers to sports IP owners is bundling: every subscriber pays for ESPN and FoxSports and YES and SNY regardless of whether they watch all 4, 1 or none. But the IP owners keep raising rates which the linear bundlers pass on and that accelerates the linear subscriber losses. Disney stock is down almost 8% today on an earnings report that highlighted revenue declines from linear TV fees, and the YTTV fight isn't helping either. YES has not been on YTTV for years. I don't know how that all shakes out but it's not a happy growth story.
Last edited:
Looks like they chopped a couple seasons out of the original deal, but took away both sides opt-out clauses. MLS will net slightly more during the remaining term.
Renegotiation was required partly due to the calendar change and to rectify the sprint season issue, but also because the original deal had incentives for Season Pass subscription numbers, which is now moot because of the inclusion into the main package.
Renegotiation was required partly due to the calendar change and to rectify the sprint season issue, but also because the original deal had incentives for Season Pass subscription numbers, which is now moot because of the inclusion into the main package.
Good article just dropped in The Athletic on it.
MLS, Apple rework terms of media rights deal for earlier ending, in 2029
The development comes on the heels of a number of major structural changes MLS revealed on Thursday. Here's what it all means
www.nytimes.com
ZYanksRule
Registered
I just say that because YES (and other local sports networks that were previously airing MLS) are currently airing encores. YES airs NYCFC encores from Apple broadcasts later in the week -- so for me, it isn't much of a reach that they would augment that with live games.
NBC just brought back NBCSN to air games currently airing on Peacock so that they can reach fans who don't want to pay for streaming. Reach people where they are. While the cable sports business is shrinking, it still has a majority of sports fans and if you reach more people by being on cable, it's worth it.
Maybe the Peacock will pick up on my idea from years ago and make it the NBC Soccer Network and grab as much of the game as they can before Paramount gobbles the rest of it up.
ZYanksRule
Registered
Considering how much better NBC's coverage is than CBS's, I'd be all for that! NBC getting the Champions League is the dream scenario.
Full article:
Apple, MLS Deal Will End in 2029 With Revised Payment Structure
MLS and Apple's streaming rights agreement will now end three and half years early, letting the league explore new partners after the 2026 World Cup.
www.sportico.com
Deal now ends in 2029 instead of 2032, but Apple's 2027 buyout option is gone, committing both parties to 2029. Apple's fees are increased by reported $50 million. Modest but upwards. If Apple is paying more and extending 2 guaranteed years it's not unhappy with the current arrangement. Neither is MLS. MLS will look to sell for more money in 2029. With this extension of guaranteed carry, there's close to zero chance MLS will be able to undercut Apple and start selling rights to regional sports networks in 2 years, but linear could be on the table with rights open for bid in 2029. But it looks like the game is national carry, not regional. Plus linear world likely be bundled with streaming and the only way to get everything would be to subscribe.
Last edited:
Just another day on X/Twitter, chatting with Eric Wynalda about the MLS/AppleTV deal.
The only possible flaw in your position is regarding the Apple opt-out clause. We don't necessarily know if it was an unrestricted option, or a benchmark based option that could have been subjected to litigation.
If there was a threshold to be met, MLS could have sued and claimed Apple limited subscriptions by various means. Apple could have wanted out, but both sides compromised to avoid legal uncertainty.
Just a theory.
Similar threads
