I think they are talking about something like 6, 8 and 10 or 7 and 9:30. I am hoping for the best, however.
MLS and Apple Broadcasting Deal
- Thread starter Fantazma
- Start date
I think they are talking about something like 6, 8 and 10 or 7 and 9:30. I am hoping for the best, however.
MLS has made the decision that they will market to their fanbase, but that casuals are no longer worth chasing. The more I think about it, the more I dislike it. You need to be on TV -- not streaming TV, but real actual cable TV. People need to be able to flip around and find a game. This league is not big enough for a streaming platform. Their ratings are abysmal. No one watches; now all of a sudden people are going to pay extra for a service that has every game? On what planet is this going to work?
Meanwhile by the middle of next season fans are going to be screaming that they want their local broadcaster back. When the Yankees are on national TV, fans are so annoyed by the national broadcasters who know nothing about the team, parachute in for a broadcast, and move on. We're going to get that for an entire season.
One of the tweets I saw said that all games will start at 7 or 8 pm local time. So you could have games starting at 7pm, 8pm, 9pm, 10pm, and 11pm ET depending on who is home on a given night
That would at least make it palatable for me for half the season, which is nice.
I think "pending stadium conflicts" means all bets are off for the boys in blue for being in a set day/time window.
why is everyone ignoring that there will be games on ESPN, ABC, etc? They are not locking up MLS to a subscription service only. There WILL be some games on national broadcast channels not to mention the freebie games for apple TV+ subscribers. The only ones losing out will be the regional networks like YES. Casual fans will still be able to catch games here and there. I'd argue the chances of converting a casual fan into a loyal one with some TV games is pretty slim. The best way, imho, is to make your existing fans happy so they drag their friends/family to actual games and turn them into fans too.
The streaming nature of MLS games will also allow MLS to cater to a growing international fanbase. Fans in europe will no longer need to hunt for games or stay up into the wee hours of the night. They will have one place to go and be able to watch replays at their leisure.
Lastly, Apple didn't sign on for 10 years to let it wither away and die. They are investing in Apple TV and that means pushing their exclusive add-on subscriptions like MLS. People may not like it at first, especially if they liked their local announcers, but this is definitely a good thing for the league going forward. And there's nothing that says Apple won't hire some regional announcers to be part of their rotation stable.
Agreed. While I of course much prefer Gary, Keith, and Ron on the local Mets broadcasts I’ve been pleasantly surprised by Apple’s baseball broadcasts. They’ve got the money to spend, and it shows. Call me cautiously optimistic on this.
Opening section will be the Ted lasso theme song with an MLS logo at the end instead of spelling out Ted Lasso.
I wonder how much they will prioritize YS vs Wed/Sat. What happens on a week where YS is available on Fri and Citi is available on Sat?
And shudder to ask what happens when YS is available on Tue and RBA is available on Wed?
Yeah, it is a little funky. They emailed me a code I had to enter on the email verification page to create the ID using my email address, and then I had to subscribe separately. Most services you can do all at once.
I didn't have too much trouble, but I was working through a browser on a computer. I could see how it might be a hassle on a phone or tablet, especially since there was a three-hour expiration on the code. They might have to tighten that up a little.
Last edited:
Not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but it's worth checking out. Brief interview with Don Garber and Eddy Cue.
My big takeaway: it sure sounds like MLS is going to be producing the games. So, hopefully that means avoiding the pitfalls of the baseball coverage. The graphics, etc. on the AppleTV+ MLB offerings have been stellar but their on-air talent has been bloody awful.
Not too much detail beyond that, but for what it's worth:
www.usatoday.com
My big takeaway: it sure sounds like MLS is going to be producing the games. So, hopefully that means avoiding the pitfalls of the baseball coverage. The graphics, etc. on the AppleTV+ MLB offerings have been stellar but their on-air talent has been bloody awful.
Not too much detail beyond that, but for what it's worth:
Q&A: MLS commissioner Don Garber discusses media rights deal with Apple
The commissioner and Apple executive Eddy Cue took time for a brief interview with Pro Soccer Wire
www.usatoday.com
I will say the Angels game vs the Mets was more enjoyable for me at least hearing Wayne Randazzo one of the play by play for the Mets radio team call the Apple TV game last Friday. I’m sure the Angels hated it but it at least it was an informed broadcast and they just weren’t stating the obvious.
The reporting is that ESPN will get a pared down schedule of games, somewhere in the range of 23-25 games a season. That's less than one game a week. Odds are NYCFC will have 1 or 2 games on ESPN over the course of the season. So to watch probably at least 30-32 games a season, you'll need to have Apple TV.
Casual NYCFC fans will get to watch maybe 2 games on TV next season. We complained about YES app games the last few seasons, but we're now OK with only 2 games being on TV?
Paul Tenorio was surmising on the Allocation Disorder podcast that MLS may have strongly hinted to Apple that Messi will be joining the league in a year or so, probably Inter Miami. So hypothetically you could have Messi fans all around the world clamoring for access to matches.
What you're saying is certainly not wrong, but in a way I don't think that's the way the world is any longer. You're saying "not on TV," but the fact is that only a couple of matches a year are on "regular" TV currently, the vast majority are on cable. And a chunk of your cable bill is basically an ESPN subsidy fee, whether you watch sports or not.
But the important point here is that you're paying for cable, except that a lot of young people are no longer doing that. The world is headed for everything being online, and that means things like this Apple TV+ deal.
Take the EPL, for example. I got into the Premier League when the Fox Soccer Channel started up. For somewhat random reasons (blame Rick Wakeman) I became a Man City fan. But they only showed three games per match day, so if your team wasn't one of those you were out of luck. I had a Setanta subscription for a while too. And now that I think of I'm not sure which of those came first to be honest. But the point here is you couldn't see all the games. Then years later it went to NBC, and they had so many cable channels that they *did* show all the games, but then they started Peacock, so now we're back down to the three matches again. So if I want to see every Man City match I have to pay for Peacock, which for some reason I just can't bring myself to do, although I certainly pay for (far too many) other networks.
Bottom line is that without the regional sports networks on cable we would see hardly any MLS on TV. And it's exactly the same with baseball. There's maybe one game a week that's on an over-the-air channel. So if you live outside of New York, where you can't get the RSN, and are a Mets fan your only option to watch the games is MLB TV. And that's where we're headed with MLS. So you either pay for it to be on your local RSN via cable or you pay for it next year on Apple TV.
Bottom line: the yoots are online, not on cable. Cable and the RSNs are where the puck is now, not where it's headed.
Also, what Apple has that ESPN doesn't have is a device in most people's pockets to which they can push any kind of news alert and/or marketing they want in addition to making it very easy to tap a button and see any MLS content you might want anywhere in the world. It won't just be matches... It's (probably) also going to be ESPN-style documentary content and panel discussion shows, etc.
There's still the big question mark of how wise it is to put a niche sports league with poor viewership almost entirely behind a paywall, but I'm sure the calculus is something like "the 2026 World Cup is going to drive new fans to the platform" or whatever.
Also, clearly Apple doesn't care if this specific venture loses them money. The amount they're committing is negligible to them*, and it helps get them into the Sports Space to prime the pump for landing a league people actually watch.
*Apple reported $30 billion in profit for just the final quarter of 2021. $250M per year is $62.5M per quarter, or 0.002% of that profit. If you net $100K per year at your job that's the equivalent of spending $200 on something fun.
Last edited:
Between ESPN and Fox, we have 4 games on TV this season, and that's as the defending MLS Cup champs and contenders for the Supporters' Shield that play a very attractive brand of ball.
This is my biggest concern. MLB could do this. NBA could do this. NFL could do this. MLS is not at the stage where this makes sense. This league is going to be out of sight, out of mind for the vast majority of U.S. sports fans.
I disagree. Anybody with an Iphone who is checking on any soccer league in the world is going to be getting a steady stream of MLS related content to click on (or not) from Apple as they try to enhance their investment and drive subscriptions to their Apple TV platform
Some good information here. Not too much in addition to what's already out, but it confirms MLS will be incurring production costs. There are a couple other good points.
www.forbes.com
Judging Major League Soccer’s New TV Deal With Apple May Take Years
Grading the financial impact of the new deal is not as easy as comparing the new $250 million annual price tag to the previous $90 million annual figure on MLS’ previous pact.
www.forbes.com
Similar threads
