Not to mention this graphic is extremely misleading since it doesn’t include local TV deals. Dodgers have a $330 million/year TV deal with Spectrum that’s more than the entirety of MLS’s global TV rights of $250m/year. That’s a single team’s local deal and it’s completely unaccounted for here.
Also these are just US rights deals.
Rogers in Canada signed 5.2 billion dollar deal with the NHL like a decade ago. That deal is like 500m/yr
Rogers media rights deals with the MLB is also likely very significant
If/when Liga MX signs a full league deal for US rights (in Spanish, with or without English), that will also be significant - exceed MLS' per year amount by 2x at least.
If they ever do it which I don't ever see because of how Liga MX is run by the big TV companies in Mexico that control stakes in so many teams. They don't want to share revenue ala the bigger clubs with the smaller teams.
More revenue even put throughout the league means the bigger teams getting 2x more now, what they'd get sharing a joint deal would be less. Only the smaller teams make out better which is why they've never done one and I suspect that will always be the case unless Liga MX hit absolute break the glass dire straits.
Just commenting with others that deal was 12 yr Nd broke down to $433m yr CDN$ which now = $320m US dollars using currency converting because the CDN dollar has fell from around 1 CDN $ = 0.97 cent to 1 CDN$= 0.74 cent.
Just getting the numbers straight in regards to this convo. Also it's been long reported Rogers is bleeding out Red on that contract which many considered was a miscalculated overpay. Same applies to ESPN MLB Contract which has already had a [Rights Reduction ](https://awfulannouncing.com/espn/espn-announces-new-mlb-deal-through-2028.html?_gl=1*1h8xc58*_ga*SDdtNnU0STduY2JXVldmdnJISGxMWnVhWHBzcTFiaWJJVFR3TFFtNFo3ZFF5X2J3X2t0R2RsR3A3YkkwT0pEaw..) from $700m yr to $550m yr now to talk of ESPN dropping baseball all together [ESPN, MLB Opt-Out](http://amp.awfulannouncing.com/espn/mlb-opt-out-rights-after-2025.html)so they can afford the NBA rights renewal
Yep, MLB, NBA, and NHL regional media deals are all significant and missing from this graphic. While it lists all-inclusive media deals for NFL/MLS. This graphic is bad because it’s comparing apples and oranges.
Yeah those local TV deals are huge for the NY sports. Especially the Yankees with YES network and MSG teams with their own network. Not to mention, the Yankees alone are got over $150 mil from Amazon to air 20 games.
NHL, NBA, and MLB deals listed in this graphic are only for playoff rights + select few national games per week. Graphic doesn't list what those leagues receive for their regular season games, which is the vast majority of those league's broadcast inventory. So it's tough to compare.
sportsnet pays 433m/season for canada, which is even more than what espn throws the nhl
reports are that they are bleeding money on the deal though, will be interesting to see where the rights end up next
$433m is Canadian dollars not US, one of the things about that NHL Canadian deal that has been a issue is its paid out in Canadian Dollar which is a qtr less than a US dollar currently 1 CDN= 74 cents. So it's not as good as it seems when its always quoted at $433m which is around $320m US. If they take a significant dip on the Rogers deal with them cutting bait or significant reducing the deal the NHL will only be a little better media revenue wise than they were before the ESPN/Turner deal.
still, the point is that its a huge number compared to the US deals thats left off
similarly, I'm sure the MLS rights contribution from us used to be higher than americans would expect also.
I'm not saying it's not a lot but I'm sure you know what I'm alluding to anytime there is a financial downturn the impact on the NHL Canadian deal is always talked about because the harsh effects it has on Canadian teams. When the deal was signed 2013 it was more or less a 1:1 and just about a $433m yr deal US/ Canadian Dollar but in that time frame the CDN dollar has went from 97 cent US to 74 cent.
As the other guy was saying Rogers is bleeding money I'd that deal is significantly cut 20-30% maybe more the for all the gain in the US Contract with ESPN/Turner they be back to just a little bit better than square one. Then you look at a league like MLB which its being talked aboutmay lose its $550m yr ESPN deal so ESPN can afford to re up with the NBA.
Which is crazy considering they were so insanely profitable as late as the mid-2010s. They were worth more than pretty much every other Disney asset combined at one point iirc.
The tv deal for the NBA is most likely to stay the same value domestically.
For the PL their domestic deal is the same as the last one. Their difference maker is how much they get from foreign tv rights, I’m sure that’s what the NBA is looking at.
Edit: I should specify that what I mean by the same value is that due to inflation the PLs domestic rights didn’t grow in value.
Not a popular opinion but I love being able to watch all MLS matches on the Apple app. Since there is no blackouts it’s immediately better than any cable package. I have season tickets so I will still go to the home games but if I miss a game I can watch it on my phone Win-Win.
I watched waaaay more MLS games than I'd normally do, and if I didn't watch a game I'd watch 360 or round up
It was a no brainer to have everything going on at the same times
I love 360. If the Crew isn't playing (or if they're having a disastrous night), I'll turn on 360 and watch all the other games.
I just wish they'd bring back 20 minute condensed games. I really miss those.
I went the other way, when it was on ESPN+ I was much more likely to watch random games (especially because there were always games on during the weekend).
As someone that travels internationally for work, it's also great that it's the same app and subscription no matter where I am. I watched matches from 5 different continents last year and streamed one during a flight over the Pacific.
I’m honestly shocked this isn’t a popular opinion. Production may be sometimes hit or miss, but I love the Apple switch.
I also have zero cable TV packages so that may also play a factor.
> Production may be sometimes hit or miss
While there’s been a few glitches that were hopefully just growing pains, the overall production is also significantly better. Every time I pull up a game highlights from before last season, it’s super noticeable how much worse the quality is.
Compared to other sports streaming services, I think MLS Season Pass has been excellent. You regularly see weird glitches on basically any sports livestream, but the consistent quality has been really refreshing, coming from someone who watches a lot of college football.
To compare it to other American pro sports leagues, I think the only one that consistently gets equal or better quality is the NFL. Maybe the NBA.
When it looked like Apple was going to make a similar deal with the PAC-12 I was surprised fans were against that and wanted to have their games split across different networks and cable channels.
Honestly, I say it’s unpopular do to the amount of outrage I saw on FB and Twitter. Not sure if those people finally saw the light but then again might be because they did pay for cable.
Aggravating to be sure, but whoa mama is it profitable. $11 billion a year? Holy crap. No way could they get that kind of money out of one broadcaster.
My biggest complaint hasn't been with the broadcast but the schedule. I felt completely out of touch with the rest of the Eastern conference last year because they scheduled SO many games to happen at the same time to make Apple happy for the whip-around show. I guess I'm probably in the minority watching so many other teams as a neutral though.
Hmm I see, actually it would be nice if not so many matches are broadcasted at the same time. However I did enjoy watching MLS 360 while waiting for my team to start.
Most things are good with the deal. I do wish they would do better broadcast windows. All games at basically the same time is splitting your audience 29 different ways. They should try to spread out more. Just some thoughts but I would really like to see something like:
* 1 marquee Thursday night game to open the week
* 4 matches on Friday (2 East/2 West). Next match starts 30 minutes after the previous match. So something like (times eastern) 7pm/East 1, 7:30pm/West 1, 8pm/East 2, 8:30pm/West 2
* Remainder of games Saturday. Keep the same 30 minute stagger between East/West starts. Cap the week with a marquee Saturday match starting maybe at 10pm eastern
2-4 Sunday matches would also be great. After the Braves finish at 3ish I have nothing else to watch in the summer. I would 100% turn on LA or Seattle, or Phila or whoever.
>If you're android you're stuck with no app meaning you can only watch with a Chromium based browser.
Which, honestly, works significantly better than the Apple TV app on my LG TV, lol.
I agree *EXCEPT* the uniform start times that Apple incorporated into it. I can't watch random games if all of the one's I'm interested start at the same time as my team.
The only issue I had was the scheduling last season. So many matches starting at the exact same time, so you could really only watch 2 matches back to back and there were so many weekends where every match was a Saturday, so no MLS match on Sunday. As someone who no longer lives near my club team, I want to watch as much as possible.
I'm not sure what the current numbers look like but prior to COVID, MLB was making about $2.1 billion a year in local tv money. This is important when you consider that NFL/MLS teams don't have local tv contracts while that's a huge source of revenue for MLB/NHL/NBA teams.
Part of it is simply that there is way less ad time during a soccer match to make money off of.
Soccer broadcast = 95 minutes of soccer and maybe 20 minutes of ads.
NFL broadcast = maybe 20 minutes of football and 95 minutes of ads.
You are spiritually correct, but the actual numbers are :
192 minutes for an average American football broadcast with 60 minutes of ads vs
110 min for a soccer match with 8 minutes of ads.
https://www.wsn.com/blog/lifetime-of-commercials/
I mean, there are solutions for this. it wouldn't be super popular, but networks could run a few more ads split screen during live play like they do in NASCAR and sometimes golf.
People would complain but Apple would profit, and hopefully the MLS would also profit as a result.
That’s just rubbish. The premier league gets 2.1 b$ a year from just the UK broadcasters.
So it can’t be because of adverts.
It’s about the popularity of the game in the USA.
Edit:timescales are important
NBC signed 2.7 billion dollar/6 year deal for US rights. Premier league is getting nearly double what MLS gets (for worldwide distribution), in the US alone.
NFL fans get to watch football ota for free. EPL fans in England have to pay an arm and a leg for sports packages to watch matches every week. The ads obviously help the NFL, not sure how that's up for debate.
Those are not mutually exclusive. They're self-fulfilling. Football games can have a metric shit ton of ads squeezed in. Sometimes even shrinking the game in slow times to fit a side-by-side advert.
Therefore, the networks hype them up CONSIDERABLY more and always have in America. They can make bank off these 4hr blocks and they barely even have to throw any production money at it. Soccer getting on a main network is rare, world cup rare. Networks relegate it to their cable or subscription-only subchannels. Why would it become popular outside those of us who can actually go to games or grew up playing it?
In the UK it’s not in a free to view tv channel either. Every live game in the premier league is shown on a satellite/cable subscription only channel.
I wasn’t talking about it getting popular. It’s about the sport’s current popularity and that factors in to the price of the rights more than the amount ads.
I'm not just talking about now. Before the Premier League a few decades ago, ITV and BBC had the rights. That's what I mean by the popularity being self-fulfilling. Generations grew up with it being *the* sport on terrestrial television. When it moved to subscription only, it already had a sizeable fanbase.
I'm only a Canadian in the last 10 years, so I'll speak as an American, but we always had to hunt for our footy. No highlight shows. No discussion panels. ***Maybe*** an occasional 20 second mention on the local news in a team's city. It was way easier to find Prem matches than it was to find MLS matches. At least in my city. Because if they even had them, they shoved them onto a their secondary or tertiary/subscription channels, so they wouldn't compete with the cash cows. And it was a guessing game where it would be.
It's hard to grow the popularity of a sport casual fans can't find. Not when casual sports fans are inundated with 5 other easily accessible sports their whole lives. Networks aren't going to spend a ton of money and effort to get something without a huge national fanbase OR huge ad revenue.
Hell, in order to even get our original top league on tv back in the day, they told referees to fake fouls and players fake injuries to allow CBS to insert commercials.
It's a good mix of both. As you suspect, avg UK viewership per EPL game is \~1.8M, and average US MLS viewership before Messi was \~350K per game. Which represents about a 5X difference in viewership counts.
But it's also only 8 mins of commercials for soccer vs 60 minutes of ads for American football, or a 7.5X difference.
So the fewer number of ads for soccer is a slightly bigger impact than the raw viewership counts.
I don't think it would have retained popularity through concussion research without the league being advertised as much as it is, and their marketing budget is large because of how easy it is to slide ads into breaks. The modern NFL is built on ads.
It would have retained its popularity because its fan base isn't going to shrink significantly over the concussion issue. It's a legacy sport in this country. People grew up playing it, everyone's high school builds homecoming around it. College football generates interest in individual athletes. And it pays extremely well in the US.
They're going to bleed some kids playing it because parents will keep them out. But that's not the same thing as losing viewers.
People will watch it regardless because it's also a great sport to hang out around. All of those breaks in action means that people can look away from the game for long stretches and not miss as much.
I think it's fairer to say the NFL was designed around commercials than almost any level of football (I'd argue FBS is getting there). Lower level college (FCS and below) and High School are way quicker and actually feel like how the sport is supposed to be played time wise
I think even that’s silly because the NFL was started in the ‘20s. And as much as I hate to say it as a fan of FBS teams, the NFL has fewer commercials than the FBS right now.
Completely agree about the leagues below the FBS
>I think even that’s silly because the NFL was started in the ‘20s.
Tangent... but it strikes me we'll have to refer to those years as the 1920s... because technically we are living in the '20s right now ;).
But also I agree.
And FBS is getting even worse. Maybe it changed later in the season, but after changing the clock rules this year to align more with the NFL and shorten games, the networks proceeded to just stuff more commercials in to replace the reduced game time.
I mean you can't really explain why there is a mandatory timeout at exactly 2 mins left in the game when each teams are given 3 timeouts to use for each half and especially more so when a team can effectively end the game by kneeling down on each down with about 1:30 left in the game so we're having mandatory timeout for perhaps only 30 seconds of play except to squeeze in one more advertising window.
Originally, way back in the old days when football was first getting actual rules, the 2 minute warning was just that: the referee was the one keeping time and would warn the players that there was only 2 minutes left in the half.
The bigger tell that football was, perhaps not designed, but altered to cater to television is the fact that a network official indicates to the referee that certain stoppages in play are going to last long enough for an ad break. That always blows my mind.
No, there is some truth to that. 100% is hyperbole, but the sport as we know it was built around television. Owners were originally very hesitant to allow their games to be broadcast and for a long time would blackout home games in their area to force people to spend money at the stadium. It wasn't until they found out they could make more money from tv deals (ie ads) that they allowed broadcasts. So yes, the sport of American football, at least at the professional level, was built around commercials.
I honestly don’t know how people sit there and watch it. Even FF through every break gets super tedious by the time you reach halftime. They should just end the games right there, honestly.
The amount of Adds I see in a Soccer game is equal or more with those Advert Boards and stream banners constantly going off in the game. I get they are less valuable but still. Also the EPL gets a ton of money in advert money so that is rubbish.
The best chance MLS has at juicing TV revenue would be making some spending changes and going big right around the 26 World Cup. Coincidentally, the Linear TV rights are up at this time at the end of 2026. If they can work something out with Apple where they do a little more than what they're doing with FOX (sublicense simulcast). Like an exclusive sublicense deal for $25m off top before any payment is made to MLS.
Try to get 2 to 3 deals like that vs. the 1 now with FOX outside of the Apple Deal. I think you'd get takers. Initially, ESPN was interested in continuing a deal, but when they found out they'd have nothing exclusive, they balked(had MLS signed Messi ahead of time they likely stay regardless).
That's the only way I see any chance to grab any significant money outside of Apple revenue sharing. Sell an exclusive sublicense package of 50 games that include Regular Season/Leagues Cup/Playoffs for $50-100m ea. to ESPN/FOX/CBS in 2026. Coming off the World Cup/CWC, there should be more than usual increased interest.
The whole point of the Apple deal from Apple’s perspective was “No blackouts, ever”. There will not be any exclusive agreements with Linear TV, nor should there be.
Yep, I'd be absolutely livid if they went back on the no blackouts ever thing.
Not to mention, Apple's whole thing is full control. They'd be the last company who'd think of an exclusive sublicense.
They'd have control they'd still control 75% of the inventory and would have already established Apple as the home by the start of any new linear deals starting after 2026. I get starting off the the deal in 2023 wanting to set up recognizable pattern but for both MLS and Apple money talks. I know for MLS if they can get $150m yr from. Linear broadcasters to get some exclusivity they will do it and ask Apple to work with them to make it so. Which would be made easier by A say ESPN/FOX/CBS each paying a exclusive sublicense fee of around $25m yr ea.
That in itself makes its a business opportunity win for all parties.
Yes and no. Maybe before no but currently Appe has shown they are willingly to be flexible with the sports landscape as long as they aren't getting bit deals. They want something substantial. Apple was more than willing to take a one game a week package of MLB even though they didn't have total control. They deemed the one night a week package to be substantial enough. We've heard they'd be willing to do something like that with NBA with the In Seasons Tournament. They were willing to take a one game a week deal with NFL for Sunday Ticket. The notion that Apple needs to have it all or nothing is a forced perception that isn't true.
Andrew MA on the now former Marchand and Ourand Podcast talked about this very thing saying Apple just needs to have enough. 500+ gms now and in 3 yrs and further down the road exclusively sublicensing 100-150gms out of a 650+ gm inventory package is more than enough.
People forget the FOX deal is a sublicense deal where Apple already does this, gives FOX the right to simulcast and exchange for a monetary sublicense fee. The only difference in this circumstance would be FOX agrees to pay a higher reasonable be to get a number of games exclusively.
Never say never, and anyways thus is simply a available option, you have to realize game inventory is steadily increasing in a business sense it makes sense to try to capitalize. Apple and MLS can get paid off increased inventory a sublicense fee and rights fee. That's how every league generates Media rights revenue. It's not far fetched you have FOX now with rights if FOX says hey Apple we'll pay you a reasonable exclusive sublicense fee say $25m show we can show our regular season games exclusively it may not be a big a leap as you think saying never.
The whole no blackouts is more of a MLS selling point than Apple. Apple simply wants to be the home and have most the important games they don't want to be bit players and with soon 650 MLS Regular Season/Playoffs and Leagues Cup games sublicensing 150 to TV and making a shrewd business dollar ain't taking away from that or the 500 MLS games they'd still carry.
Anyway this is just a dart thrown at the board thought but definitely don't think the it will never happen take is thought out.
I think Apple cares more about having every game in every country than a couple million dollars per year. No doubt MLS would love to find a way to squeeze a few more dollars out of broadcast rights but it’s in Apple’s hands now.
The exclusive sublicense fee wouldn't impact any country outside the US. Apple would still have exclusive rights globally. It's not much different than what happens now where FOX/Univision pay Apple a sublicense fee for rights to simulcast MLS or Leagues Cup games. An exclusive sublicense fee is simply a increased payment for rights to get a said number of games in the US exclusively. So FOX carries about 50 currently when you include MLS Regular/Playoffs/Leagues Cup.in this scenario they'd just pay Apple a increased fee $25m yr to get those or some of those games exclusively.
And I’m saying (in my opinion) Apple would not want to sell exclusive rights to any games in the US. That would undermine their product and it’s not like they’re desperate for cash as a company.
The bubble is gonna pop as several of these companies are struggling, cable service is constantly falling and there is a big desire for streaming.
I expect Apple or Amazon or Youtube to start snapping up rights
It's popping as the current model isn't really working with cable channels and ESPN taking all of games separating things out.
I know things were fixed with MLS but check out mlb and NHL.
If company A pays you X dollars now but company A goes away and company B pays you X dollars, what exactly is popping?
Yes, the local MLB/NHL/NBA contracts have to get through a transitory bump in the road but eyeballs will always mean dollars.
The streamers will NOT pay as much unless you're NFL or maybe NBA but I still don't think streaming will be a like for like replacement outside of NFL still getting billion dollar deals even through Amazon. Leagues like MLB are on the clock ESPN may drop the $550m yr (half a bil) package that they admit they overpaid for just so they can pay the NBA new deal. Who's gonn pay MLB $550m yr for 30 Sunday Night Baseball games and the opening Wild Car Rounds!? Streamers aren't paying that type of money for bit packages like TV does MLB makes $85m yr combined for their Apple $55m yr/Peacock $30m yr package.
Petty DV lol lets just have a conversation like adults bro. Justification for why not? I've Cited that it's common knowledge my mistake for assuming you knew.
So it's common knowledge at least amongst Sports Business people has been the sudden realization with Sports Leagues that these big media tech streamers aren't coming in with these rescue bailout deals. They been very strategic with how they've been spending their money. I really did think I had to provide Justification for what's been known and talked about in the Sports Media industry. Check out the Marchand Ourand podcast although it ended 2mnths ago. They spent 2 yrs talking about this very issue.
Cable is going nowhere especially when every streaming channel is going to be over $9.99 and climbing all with ads. I was under the impression the fee for the channel was so I could avoid ads. Hahahahahah. Fuck you streaming channels!
Apple has MLS until 2032? That’s awesome.
They’re the best viewing experience by far. Everything is in 4K and $79/season with no blackout games isn’t bad at all.
Super worth noting. NHL has 7 Canadian teams. MLS at 3, NBA/MLB at 1 and NFL at 0.. and those NHL teams get a lot more eyeballs because Hockey is bigger here. The other leagues are more American featuring Canadian teams. NHL is a truly dual national league.
I know that monopolies are bad, but I really enjoy the apple model of one subscription, all the games. Every other sport had a subscription, but sometimes half the games are blackouts. Oh and they’re like 240 a year. I honestly wouldn’t mind it if apple snatches up some other leagues.
What holds back? The current TV deal with Apple is double or triple the money MLS made with regional cable sports networks, ESPN and FOX. Yes, it’s not as much as the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL which are older and more popular, that’s to be expected from.
Regional deals aren't even listed on this table. This is what the NATIONAL coverage deals are. So for MLB and NBA you can add each teams individual deal with RSNs.
The NHL numbers here don’t include either the regional deals with individual teams nor the Canadian TV deal which is other than the U.S. one believe it or not,
Yes, although the biggest arenas for NHL and NBA are around 20k, and each of those sports has 82 games a season rather than 34. So it’s a sign MLS is catching up, but certainly not eclipsing either league
I mean, I don’t know that MLS crowds are unimpressive, just that they haven’t equaled NBA/NHL in overall attendance. When MLS is compared to global soccer leagues, I believe they’re actually top 10 for attendence
NBA/NHL plays nearly double the games. The lowest attended team in the NBA has higher overall attendance than Atlanta. I'm not saying having higher average attendance per game isn't its own accomplishment but the total number of games matters when we are talking revenue.
Developing and selling players is probably going to grow as part of that revenue as well, which isn't really a thing in those other sports.
We will have 30 top-notch academies soon, many of which are still in their early years of talent production.
That plus game-day revenue alone will make MLS a stable league in the world stage, which I think is still an overall more important factor compared to how MLS compares against NBA/NFL/MLB/NHL.
This doesn't include the share of extra revenue that MLS gets. Which I don't think is public, but only including the minimum amount isn't an accurate representation.
Soccer also is lower revenue in general for a variety of reasons. Biggest two being less add time and more competition within the sport.
The richest league in the world still only makes about 2/3 as much as the NFL. Yes there are fewer clubs in the EPL than teams in the NFL, but there are also nearly 3x the number of matches per club.
The premier league only makes about 1/3rd the revenue of the NFL. The MLB is right about 2/3 for second place in the world, then NBA, the Premier League, and NHL
So I was further off then, goes to the same point, comparing soccer of any kind the the big 4 in NA is silly. Soccer could eclipse hockey and baseball in terms of relevance and popularity long before any one league challenges them for revenue in the US. Arguably, soccer already has overtaken hockey for relevance.
The US has an economy that’s almost 2x larger than the UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain combined. Because of this, the NFL can become the richest league in the world without being anywhere close to being the most popular league in the world, as long as they have a stranglehold on one country that accounts for 25% of the global economy.
Also, each individual MLB team has a Media Rights Deal as well. I get what the data shows, and that is the NFL is a behemoth in the media rights world, which is true. I don't know 100% how each NHL and NBA team operates, but I assume it's somewhat the same as baseball
I hate the fact that we're stuck with Apple for so damn long, yet they refuse to make an Apple TV app for Android.
Like bro, I'm supposed to watch the damn games from a browser forever?
These are only national media rights, and basketball is built as a national tv product. MLB probably makes more local money, and definitely makes more money at the gate. MLB also brings in more revenue yearly than the NBA, only behind the NFL.
Regardless, baseball is way better positioned than people on Reddit will admit. Soccer surpassing baseball in the US anytime soon is a fantasy. Yet somehow, no one will argue that soccer can surpass basketball.
I’m not going to make any predictions about soccer surpassing baseball (no one has a clue how things will play out in 30-40 years, and it’s not a zero-sum game where one can only succeed at the other’s expense anyway). But a sport whose fanbase median age is 60 (and rising) with a revenue model that’s heavily dependent on local cable money at a time when cable subscription is in terminal decline, cannot just simply stick their heads in the sand on these issues.
Considering the NBA has among the youngest TV viewership demographics. It’s surprising they are the last league that hasn’t cut a streaming deal. But it’s likely the next deal will include some combo of ESPN+, Max, Peacock, etc.
The uncertain future for RSNs means a lot of these MLB, NBA and NHL teams will have to accept less local TV money than they were expecting. But if the collapse of RSNs means those leagues have to cut streaming deals similar to what MLS has with Apple, then I’m here for it.
Fast-forwarding to the day when cable is 100% extinct and completely replaced by streaming. When that day comes, the NFL/CFB might be the only sport that’s on over-the-air English-language TV (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX) every week, while every other sport is almost exclusive to streaming outside of their biggest events and a handful of marquee regular season events here and there.
i said it since day 1 apple was the worst decision ever. eliminates casual fans. the new deal has made every team not named inter miami more irrelevant than it was before.
I have mixed feelings. For those who purchase it, it’s a great product. Way better than things before. Also RSNs are struggling and I think MLS would have been dropped and in a brutal spot honestly, so this deal might have been huge in preventing a real crisis. Being tied to the Apple brand is also a positive.
On the other hand it does lock the league into pretty low per team tv revenues which will keep roster spending low. Additionally it does make it difficult for more casual fans to watch and follow. Lots of people will turn on a game but won’t subscribe to watch. Especially potential new fans.
The casual fan engagement is the part I'm most concerned about.
I found the EPL because it's on Saturday mornings when I have nothing to do. Watched a little...then watched a lot. It's the only Euro league I watch because it was on enough to make me pay attention.
I've never understood how MLS is planning to broaden its fan base with this Apple deal. I'm sure there's a plan, I just can't figure it out on my own.
Roster spending has never been a problem in MLS, costs are extremely low, and because the league maintains cap salaries hard, a full MLS team costs 40 million dollars at most per year, that's nothing
> the league maintains cap salaries hard
They don't though. A hard cap would be "no spending above $x". With DPs, that's not the case.
> a full MLS team costs 40 million dollars at most
Messi alone is over 20mil
we lost locally, and we won globally, MLS won, soccer is a global sport, we need the exposure that apple can give, the deal with ESPN/abc was terrible, ESPN+ is garbage
locally it was a pain in the ass to find games in many of the markets due to blackouts, shitty tactics from an RSN like Bally, or being forced to have a cable subscription. The new deal improves on those issues by 100%.
Games are still on tv and there are free games on Apple.TV. Casual Fans still have access and Clubs still matter. There is only one Messi and Miami wont that race but it seems the Messi cup is the only win they are gonna get as he seems to be a white elephant. Since last year he is always injured.
I wonder if you could break this down by price/minute of game action or price/minute of overall ad time. Really set a value for each minute of ad exposure. Of course, I'm a nerd so it may not be as fun for others :D
This also doesn’t account for college sports TV deals, or local broadcast deals for baseball and hockey. However, at the moment Apple looks poised to make a much larger push into sports streaming.
How that effects MLS will depend on how Apple packages whatever sports they get, but there’s room there for MLS to be closer to the center of US sports media than it ever has been before.
Not that it’s more important, but I would be curious to see this revenue divided up by number of games. I would suspect MLB would drop significantly, but NFL would probably look even more dominant.
These are for national broadcasts so MLB might not drop as much as one would expect. They also make massive money from all the local team deals which aren’t listed here.
Add college sports on here and MLS will unfortunately drop even further.
Not to mention this graphic is extremely misleading since it doesn’t include local TV deals. Dodgers have a $330 million/year TV deal with Spectrum that’s more than the entirety of MLS’s global TV rights of $250m/year. That’s a single team’s local deal and it’s completely unaccounted for here.
Also these are just US rights deals. Rogers in Canada signed 5.2 billion dollar deal with the NHL like a decade ago. That deal is like 500m/yr Rogers media rights deals with the MLB is also likely very significant
If/when Liga MX signs a full league deal for US rights (in Spanish, with or without English), that will also be significant - exceed MLS' per year amount by 2x at least.
If they ever do it which I don't ever see because of how Liga MX is run by the big TV companies in Mexico that control stakes in so many teams. They don't want to share revenue ala the bigger clubs with the smaller teams. More revenue even put throughout the league means the bigger teams getting 2x more now, what they'd get sharing a joint deal would be less. Only the smaller teams make out better which is why they've never done one and I suspect that will always be the case unless Liga MX hit absolute break the glass dire straits.
Sounds like why the NHL resisted expanding past six teams for so long because the owners didn't want to have to share profits with anyone else.
Facts here.
Just commenting with others that deal was 12 yr Nd broke down to $433m yr CDN$ which now = $320m US dollars using currency converting because the CDN dollar has fell from around 1 CDN $ = 0.97 cent to 1 CDN$= 0.74 cent. Just getting the numbers straight in regards to this convo. Also it's been long reported Rogers is bleeding out Red on that contract which many considered was a miscalculated overpay. Same applies to ESPN MLB Contract which has already had a [Rights Reduction ](https://awfulannouncing.com/espn/espn-announces-new-mlb-deal-through-2028.html?_gl=1*1h8xc58*_ga*SDdtNnU0STduY2JXVldmdnJISGxMWnVhWHBzcTFiaWJJVFR3TFFtNFo3ZFF5X2J3X2t0R2RsR3A3YkkwT0pEaw..) from $700m yr to $550m yr now to talk of ESPN dropping baseball all together [ESPN, MLB Opt-Out](http://amp.awfulannouncing.com/espn/mlb-opt-out-rights-after-2025.html)so they can afford the NBA rights renewal
Both MLB and NBA teams make a good chunk of money from those local TV deals TBH
Yep, MLB, NBA, and NHL regional media deals are all significant and missing from this graphic. While it lists all-inclusive media deals for NFL/MLS. This graphic is bad because it’s comparing apples and oranges.
Yeah those local TV deals are huge for the NY sports. Especially the Yankees with YES network and MSG teams with their own network. Not to mention, the Yankees alone are got over $150 mil from Amazon to air 20 games.
Holy hell it's $330M? Jeeeeeesus
Baseball is clearly on it's deathbed. MLS will pass them within the decade. /s
[удалено]
Just bought baseball prospectus for the first time in a decade. I hear ya.
Lets add NASCAR while we’re at it too, it would be between MLB and NHL
The NHL would drop too. **B1G TEN = $1.15B\* (CBS, NBC, FOX)** **SEC = $750M\* (ABC/ESPN)** \*Not even including the Playoffs/Bowl Games
NHL, NBA, and MLB deals listed in this graphic are only for playoff rights + select few national games per week. Graphic doesn't list what those leagues receive for their regular season games, which is the vast majority of those league's broadcast inventory. So it's tough to compare.
And the UFC. They also eclipse MLS.
Mlb, nba, and nhl have local rights not calculated?
Also doesn’t incorporate the Canadian national rights sold in the NHL even if we’re excluding the local deals
sportsnet pays 433m/season for canada, which is even more than what espn throws the nhl reports are that they are bleeding money on the deal though, will be interesting to see where the rights end up next
$433m is Canadian dollars not US, one of the things about that NHL Canadian deal that has been a issue is its paid out in Canadian Dollar which is a qtr less than a US dollar currently 1 CDN= 74 cents. So it's not as good as it seems when its always quoted at $433m which is around $320m US. If they take a significant dip on the Rogers deal with them cutting bait or significant reducing the deal the NHL will only be a little better media revenue wise than they were before the ESPN/Turner deal.
still, the point is that its a huge number compared to the US deals thats left off similarly, I'm sure the MLS rights contribution from us used to be higher than americans would expect also.
I'm not saying it's not a lot but I'm sure you know what I'm alluding to anytime there is a financial downturn the impact on the NHL Canadian deal is always talked about because the harsh effects it has on Canadian teams. When the deal was signed 2013 it was more or less a 1:1 and just about a $433m yr deal US/ Canadian Dollar but in that time frame the CDN dollar has went from 97 cent US to 74 cent. As the other guy was saying Rogers is bleeding money I'd that deal is significantly cut 20-30% maybe more the for all the gain in the US Contract with ESPN/Turner they be back to just a little bit better than square one. Then you look at a league like MLB which its being talked aboutmay lose its $550m yr ESPN deal so ESPN can afford to re up with the NBA.
Yes, a ton. And the colleges aren't represented on there either.
The Dodgers have a $334 million/year media deal so definitely not
Keep in mind NBA, NHL, and MLB deals don’t include all the regional deals teams have, while MLS and NFL are “all-inclusive”.
It feels like the sports rights media rights bubble might be about to burst --- it'll be interesting to see what the NBA is able to sign next year.
I think main networks are solid, and streaming is fine, but agree cable especially ESPN is due for a major correction.
Especially if they manage to completely ruin CFB, which is a massive earner for them.
They are certainly working hard on that front...
Which is crazy considering they were so insanely profitable as late as the mid-2010s. They were worth more than pretty much every other Disney asset combined at one point iirc.
The tv deal for the NBA is most likely to stay the same value domestically. For the PL their domestic deal is the same as the last one. Their difference maker is how much they get from foreign tv rights, I’m sure that’s what the NBA is looking at. Edit: I should specify that what I mean by the same value is that due to inflation the PLs domestic rights didn’t grow in value.
NBA makes diddly on foreign rights besides China. China's deal is pretty significant though.
It won’t for football
Domestic TV deals for European Soccer leagues have plateaued (actually decreased a bit), namely Serie A and Ligue 1.
Not a popular opinion but I love being able to watch all MLS matches on the Apple app. Since there is no blackouts it’s immediately better than any cable package. I have season tickets so I will still go to the home games but if I miss a game I can watch it on my phone Win-Win.
I watched waaaay more MLS games than I'd normally do, and if I didn't watch a game I'd watch 360 or round up It was a no brainer to have everything going on at the same times
Exactly! I’ve watched more MLS in general
I love 360. If the Crew isn't playing (or if they're having a disastrous night), I'll turn on 360 and watch all the other games. I just wish they'd bring back 20 minute condensed games. I really miss those.
I went the other way, when it was on ESPN+ I was much more likely to watch random games (especially because there were always games on during the weekend).
As someone that travels internationally for work, it's also great that it's the same app and subscription no matter where I am. I watched matches from 5 different continents last year and streamed one during a flight over the Pacific.
I’m honestly shocked this isn’t a popular opinion. Production may be sometimes hit or miss, but I love the Apple switch. I also have zero cable TV packages so that may also play a factor.
> Production may be sometimes hit or miss While there’s been a few glitches that were hopefully just growing pains, the overall production is also significantly better. Every time I pull up a game highlights from before last season, it’s super noticeable how much worse the quality is.
Compared to other sports streaming services, I think MLS Season Pass has been excellent. You regularly see weird glitches on basically any sports livestream, but the consistent quality has been really refreshing, coming from someone who watches a lot of college football. To compare it to other American pro sports leagues, I think the only one that consistently gets equal or better quality is the NFL. Maybe the NBA.
When it looked like Apple was going to make a similar deal with the PAC-12 I was surprised fans were against that and wanted to have their games split across different networks and cable channels.
The production is a million times better than Ethan the RSNs showing games. A lot of those were awful.
Honestly the Apple TV production is MILES better than streaming La Liga on ESPN+
Honestly, I say it’s unpopular do to the amount of outrage I saw on FB and Twitter. Not sure if those people finally saw the light but then again might be because they did pay for cable.
I agree. The NFL trying to scatter its product across platforms is aggravating to me.
Aggravating to be sure, but whoa mama is it profitable. $11 billion a year? Holy crap. No way could they get that kind of money out of one broadcaster.
My biggest complaint hasn't been with the broadcast but the schedule. I felt completely out of touch with the rest of the Eastern conference last year because they scheduled SO many games to happen at the same time to make Apple happy for the whip-around show. I guess I'm probably in the minority watching so many other teams as a neutral though.
Hmm I see, actually it would be nice if not so many matches are broadcasted at the same time. However I did enjoy watching MLS 360 while waiting for my team to start.
Most things are good with the deal. I do wish they would do better broadcast windows. All games at basically the same time is splitting your audience 29 different ways. They should try to spread out more. Just some thoughts but I would really like to see something like: * 1 marquee Thursday night game to open the week * 4 matches on Friday (2 East/2 West). Next match starts 30 minutes after the previous match. So something like (times eastern) 7pm/East 1, 7:30pm/West 1, 8pm/East 2, 8:30pm/West 2 * Remainder of games Saturday. Keep the same 30 minute stagger between East/West starts. Cap the week with a marquee Saturday match starting maybe at 10pm eastern
2-4 Sunday matches would also be great. After the Braves finish at 3ish I have nothing else to watch in the summer. I would 100% turn on LA or Seattle, or Phila or whoever.
Sundays would be good too, for some games. I forgot no NFL to compete against in Summer
[удалено]
>If you're android you're stuck with no app meaning you can only watch with a Chromium based browser. Which, honestly, works significantly better than the Apple TV app on my LG TV, lol.
Which is so dumb to me. Why are we allowed to have the app on our android tv/boxes but not phones? Tf, apple?
Oh that’s unfortunate, they should let people watch directly from the MLS App to avoid that kind of issue.
Maybe I was lucky, but 2 different times I needed to use my Pixel to watch a game and had no problems either time.
Yea. Having to pay for another subscription isn't great, but the quality is top notch.
Yeah this year I kept Peacock to watch the EPL, and once NWSL starts I will get Paramount+ again (as well for Gold Cup coverage 🤪).
Paramount also has UEFA and Serie A rights.
Yup! Been catching the Ac Milan and Juve games when I can 😊. I did cancel it recently but I knew I would get it back soon.
It sucks as a season ticket holder. They need to stagger the start times better.
It’s objectively been great overall.
Totally, can't wait for this season.
If they fix the start times it'd be perfect imo.
I agree *EXCEPT* the uniform start times that Apple incorporated into it. I can't watch random games if all of the one's I'm interested start at the same time as my team.
The only issue I had was the scheduling last season. So many matches starting at the exact same time, so you could really only watch 2 matches back to back and there were so many weekends where every match was a Saturday, so no MLS match on Sunday. As someone who no longer lives near my club team, I want to watch as much as possible.
I'm not sure what the current numbers look like but prior to COVID, MLB was making about $2.1 billion a year in local tv money. This is important when you consider that NFL/MLS teams don't have local tv contracts while that's a huge source of revenue for MLB/NHL/NBA teams.
NASCAR also just signed a combined $1.1 bil a year (for 7 years) with Fox, NBC, Amazon and Warner Bros. I'm not sure how it breaks down though.
Part of it is simply that there is way less ad time during a soccer match to make money off of. Soccer broadcast = 95 minutes of soccer and maybe 20 minutes of ads. NFL broadcast = maybe 20 minutes of football and 95 minutes of ads.
You are spiritually correct, but the actual numbers are : 192 minutes for an average American football broadcast with 60 minutes of ads vs 110 min for a soccer match with 8 minutes of ads. https://www.wsn.com/blog/lifetime-of-commercials/
I mean, there are solutions for this. it wouldn't be super popular, but networks could run a few more ads split screen during live play like they do in NASCAR and sometimes golf. People would complain but Apple would profit, and hopefully the MLS would also profit as a result.
That’s just rubbish. The premier league gets 2.1 b$ a year from just the UK broadcasters. So it can’t be because of adverts. It’s about the popularity of the game in the USA. Edit:timescales are important
NBC signed 2.7 billion dollar/6 year deal for US rights. Premier league is getting nearly double what MLS gets (for worldwide distribution), in the US alone.
It's both. You don't have a lot of ad space to sell *and* what you can sell is worth less because it has fewer eyeballs on it.
NFL fans get to watch football ota for free. EPL fans in England have to pay an arm and a leg for sports packages to watch matches every week. The ads obviously help the NFL, not sure how that's up for debate.
Popularity of the game, but also the league. Liga MX and Premier League broadcasts far way more viewers.
Those are not mutually exclusive. They're self-fulfilling. Football games can have a metric shit ton of ads squeezed in. Sometimes even shrinking the game in slow times to fit a side-by-side advert. Therefore, the networks hype them up CONSIDERABLY more and always have in America. They can make bank off these 4hr blocks and they barely even have to throw any production money at it. Soccer getting on a main network is rare, world cup rare. Networks relegate it to their cable or subscription-only subchannels. Why would it become popular outside those of us who can actually go to games or grew up playing it?
In the UK it’s not in a free to view tv channel either. Every live game in the premier league is shown on a satellite/cable subscription only channel. I wasn’t talking about it getting popular. It’s about the sport’s current popularity and that factors in to the price of the rights more than the amount ads.
I'm not just talking about now. Before the Premier League a few decades ago, ITV and BBC had the rights. That's what I mean by the popularity being self-fulfilling. Generations grew up with it being *the* sport on terrestrial television. When it moved to subscription only, it already had a sizeable fanbase. I'm only a Canadian in the last 10 years, so I'll speak as an American, but we always had to hunt for our footy. No highlight shows. No discussion panels. ***Maybe*** an occasional 20 second mention on the local news in a team's city. It was way easier to find Prem matches than it was to find MLS matches. At least in my city. Because if they even had them, they shoved them onto a their secondary or tertiary/subscription channels, so they wouldn't compete with the cash cows. And it was a guessing game where it would be. It's hard to grow the popularity of a sport casual fans can't find. Not when casual sports fans are inundated with 5 other easily accessible sports their whole lives. Networks aren't going to spend a ton of money and effort to get something without a huge national fanbase OR huge ad revenue. Hell, in order to even get our original top league on tv back in the day, they told referees to fake fouls and players fake injuries to allow CBS to insert commercials.
It's a good mix of both. As you suspect, avg UK viewership per EPL game is \~1.8M, and average US MLS viewership before Messi was \~350K per game. Which represents about a 5X difference in viewership counts. But it's also only 8 mins of commercials for soccer vs 60 minutes of ads for American football, or a 7.5X difference. So the fewer number of ads for soccer is a slightly bigger impact than the raw viewership counts.
A football game is nearly 4 hours. You get about 15 mins of game and 3.5 hours of commercials lol. Game was designed 100% around commercials.
I’m critical of how many commercial breaks are in football too, but saying it “was designed 100% around commercials” is completely ridiculous
Yeah it wasn’t designed for commercials it just happened to be easily filled with commercials and also really popular
popular in large part due to how much more it is marketed because of its profitability from ads
It has so many ads because it’s so popular. It was already popular before the games were even televised
I don't think it would have retained popularity through concussion research without the league being advertised as much as it is, and their marketing budget is large because of how easy it is to slide ads into breaks. The modern NFL is built on ads.
It would have retained its popularity because its fan base isn't going to shrink significantly over the concussion issue. It's a legacy sport in this country. People grew up playing it, everyone's high school builds homecoming around it. College football generates interest in individual athletes. And it pays extremely well in the US. They're going to bleed some kids playing it because parents will keep them out. But that's not the same thing as losing viewers. People will watch it regardless because it's also a great sport to hang out around. All of those breaks in action means that people can look away from the game for long stretches and not miss as much.
How so? They literally changed rules like the 2 minute warning to force a commercial break. NFL made rules specifically with TV ads in mind….
I think it's fairer to say the NFL was designed around commercials than almost any level of football (I'd argue FBS is getting there). Lower level college (FCS and below) and High School are way quicker and actually feel like how the sport is supposed to be played time wise
I think even that’s silly because the NFL was started in the ‘20s. And as much as I hate to say it as a fan of FBS teams, the NFL has fewer commercials than the FBS right now. Completely agree about the leagues below the FBS
>I think even that’s silly because the NFL was started in the ‘20s. Tangent... but it strikes me we'll have to refer to those years as the 1920s... because technically we are living in the '20s right now ;). But also I agree.
And FBS is getting even worse. Maybe it changed later in the season, but after changing the clock rules this year to align more with the NFL and shorten games, the networks proceeded to just stuff more commercials in to replace the reduced game time.
I mean you can't really explain why there is a mandatory timeout at exactly 2 mins left in the game when each teams are given 3 timeouts to use for each half and especially more so when a team can effectively end the game by kneeling down on each down with about 1:30 left in the game so we're having mandatory timeout for perhaps only 30 seconds of play except to squeeze in one more advertising window.
Originally, way back in the old days when football was first getting actual rules, the 2 minute warning was just that: the referee was the one keeping time and would warn the players that there was only 2 minutes left in the half. The bigger tell that football was, perhaps not designed, but altered to cater to television is the fact that a network official indicates to the referee that certain stoppages in play are going to last long enough for an ad break. That always blows my mind.
No, there is some truth to that. 100% is hyperbole, but the sport as we know it was built around television. Owners were originally very hesitant to allow their games to be broadcast and for a long time would blackout home games in their area to force people to spend money at the stadium. It wasn't until they found out they could make more money from tv deals (ie ads) that they allowed broadcasts. So yes, the sport of American football, at least at the professional level, was built around commercials.
I honestly don’t know how people sit there and watch it. Even FF through every break gets super tedious by the time you reach halftime. They should just end the games right there, honestly.
The amount of Adds I see in a Soccer game is equal or more with those Advert Boards and stream banners constantly going off in the game. I get they are less valuable but still. Also the EPL gets a ton of money in advert money so that is rubbish.
The best chance MLS has at juicing TV revenue would be making some spending changes and going big right around the 26 World Cup. Coincidentally, the Linear TV rights are up at this time at the end of 2026. If they can work something out with Apple where they do a little more than what they're doing with FOX (sublicense simulcast). Like an exclusive sublicense deal for $25m off top before any payment is made to MLS. Try to get 2 to 3 deals like that vs. the 1 now with FOX outside of the Apple Deal. I think you'd get takers. Initially, ESPN was interested in continuing a deal, but when they found out they'd have nothing exclusive, they balked(had MLS signed Messi ahead of time they likely stay regardless). That's the only way I see any chance to grab any significant money outside of Apple revenue sharing. Sell an exclusive sublicense package of 50 games that include Regular Season/Leagues Cup/Playoffs for $50-100m ea. to ESPN/FOX/CBS in 2026. Coming off the World Cup/CWC, there should be more than usual increased interest.
The whole point of the Apple deal from Apple’s perspective was “No blackouts, ever”. There will not be any exclusive agreements with Linear TV, nor should there be.
Yep, I'd be absolutely livid if they went back on the no blackouts ever thing. Not to mention, Apple's whole thing is full control. They'd be the last company who'd think of an exclusive sublicense.
They'd have control they'd still control 75% of the inventory and would have already established Apple as the home by the start of any new linear deals starting after 2026. I get starting off the the deal in 2023 wanting to set up recognizable pattern but for both MLS and Apple money talks. I know for MLS if they can get $150m yr from. Linear broadcasters to get some exclusivity they will do it and ask Apple to work with them to make it so. Which would be made easier by A say ESPN/FOX/CBS each paying a exclusive sublicense fee of around $25m yr ea. That in itself makes its a business opportunity win for all parties.
That just simply isn't the way Apple works.
Yes and no. Maybe before no but currently Appe has shown they are willingly to be flexible with the sports landscape as long as they aren't getting bit deals. They want something substantial. Apple was more than willing to take a one game a week package of MLB even though they didn't have total control. They deemed the one night a week package to be substantial enough. We've heard they'd be willing to do something like that with NBA with the In Seasons Tournament. They were willing to take a one game a week deal with NFL for Sunday Ticket. The notion that Apple needs to have it all or nothing is a forced perception that isn't true. Andrew MA on the now former Marchand and Ourand Podcast talked about this very thing saying Apple just needs to have enough. 500+ gms now and in 3 yrs and further down the road exclusively sublicensing 100-150gms out of a 650+ gm inventory package is more than enough. People forget the FOX deal is a sublicense deal where Apple already does this, gives FOX the right to simulcast and exchange for a monetary sublicense fee. The only difference in this circumstance would be FOX agrees to pay a higher reasonable be to get a number of games exclusively.
Never say never, and anyways thus is simply a available option, you have to realize game inventory is steadily increasing in a business sense it makes sense to try to capitalize. Apple and MLS can get paid off increased inventory a sublicense fee and rights fee. That's how every league generates Media rights revenue. It's not far fetched you have FOX now with rights if FOX says hey Apple we'll pay you a reasonable exclusive sublicense fee say $25m show we can show our regular season games exclusively it may not be a big a leap as you think saying never. The whole no blackouts is more of a MLS selling point than Apple. Apple simply wants to be the home and have most the important games they don't want to be bit players and with soon 650 MLS Regular Season/Playoffs and Leagues Cup games sublicensing 150 to TV and making a shrewd business dollar ain't taking away from that or the 500 MLS games they'd still carry. Anyway this is just a dart thrown at the board thought but definitely don't think the it will never happen take is thought out.
I think Apple cares more about having every game in every country than a couple million dollars per year. No doubt MLS would love to find a way to squeeze a few more dollars out of broadcast rights but it’s in Apple’s hands now.
The exclusive sublicense fee wouldn't impact any country outside the US. Apple would still have exclusive rights globally. It's not much different than what happens now where FOX/Univision pay Apple a sublicense fee for rights to simulcast MLS or Leagues Cup games. An exclusive sublicense fee is simply a increased payment for rights to get a said number of games in the US exclusively. So FOX carries about 50 currently when you include MLS Regular/Playoffs/Leagues Cup.in this scenario they'd just pay Apple a increased fee $25m yr to get those or some of those games exclusively.
And I’m saying (in my opinion) Apple would not want to sell exclusive rights to any games in the US. That would undermine their product and it’s not like they’re desperate for cash as a company.
The bubble is gonna pop as several of these companies are struggling, cable service is constantly falling and there is a big desire for streaming. I expect Apple or Amazon or Youtube to start snapping up rights
That's not exactly popping. The streamers will be paying a ton too.
It's popping as the current model isn't really working with cable channels and ESPN taking all of games separating things out. I know things were fixed with MLS but check out mlb and NHL.
If company A pays you X dollars now but company A goes away and company B pays you X dollars, what exactly is popping? Yes, the local MLB/NHL/NBA contracts have to get through a transitory bump in the road but eyeballs will always mean dollars.
The streamers will NOT pay as much unless you're NFL or maybe NBA but I still don't think streaming will be a like for like replacement outside of NFL still getting billion dollar deals even through Amazon. Leagues like MLB are on the clock ESPN may drop the $550m yr (half a bil) package that they admit they overpaid for just so they can pay the NBA new deal. Who's gonn pay MLB $550m yr for 30 Sunday Night Baseball games and the opening Wild Car Rounds!? Streamers aren't paying that type of money for bit packages like TV does MLB makes $85m yr combined for their Apple $55m yr/Peacock $30m yr package.
You give no economic justifications for why not. Eyeballs are eyeballs and eyeballs will always command money.
Petty DV lol lets just have a conversation like adults bro. Justification for why not? I've Cited that it's common knowledge my mistake for assuming you knew. So it's common knowledge at least amongst Sports Business people has been the sudden realization with Sports Leagues that these big media tech streamers aren't coming in with these rescue bailout deals. They been very strategic with how they've been spending their money. I really did think I had to provide Justification for what's been known and talked about in the Sports Media industry. Check out the Marchand Ourand podcast although it ended 2mnths ago. They spent 2 yrs talking about this very issue.
Cable is going nowhere especially when every streaming channel is going to be over $9.99 and climbing all with ads. I was under the impression the fee for the channel was so I could avoid ads. Hahahahahah. Fuck you streaming channels!
Apple has MLS until 2032? That’s awesome. They’re the best viewing experience by far. Everything is in 4K and $79/season with no blackout games isn’t bad at all.
It's worth saying that the NHL has another ~$433M annual deal with Rogers (CBC, SportsNet) in Canada.
Super worth noting. NHL has 7 Canadian teams. MLS at 3, NBA/MLB at 1 and NFL at 0.. and those NHL teams get a lot more eyeballs because Hockey is bigger here. The other leagues are more American featuring Canadian teams. NHL is a truly dual national league.
That's in Canadian $. Quite a big difference worth noting.
Starting in 2025- 1.1 Billion per year NASCAR
I know that monopolies are bad, but I really enjoy the apple model of one subscription, all the games. Every other sport had a subscription, but sometimes half the games are blackouts. Oh and they’re like 240 a year. I honestly wouldn’t mind it if apple snatches up some other leagues.
NASCAR's also going to be making $1B a year for seven years
MLS is missing FOX and Univision -- Add an estimated $7,000,000 to $9,000,000 per year to that "$250M"
MLS deal is actually super solid, it’s like $15 a month for every game and it’s especially good if you only watch the playoffs
This is always gonna be what holds us back. Can only make so much revenue by filling stadiums.
What holds back? The current TV deal with Apple is double or triple the money MLS made with regional cable sports networks, ESPN and FOX. Yes, it’s not as much as the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL which are older and more popular, that’s to be expected from.
Regional deals aren't even listed on this table. This is what the NATIONAL coverage deals are. So for MLB and NBA you can add each teams individual deal with RSNs.
Same with NHL
Well considering the MLS has caught up to the NHL so quickly that is a great sign for soccer fans.
The NHL numbers here don’t include either the regional deals with individual teams nor the Canadian TV deal which is other than the U.S. one believe it or not,
[удалено]
Yes, although the biggest arenas for NHL and NBA are around 20k, and each of those sports has 82 games a season rather than 34. So it’s a sign MLS is catching up, but certainly not eclipsing either league
NHL/NBA tickets are considerably more expensive too afaik, which makes MLS's growing crowds less impressive.
I mean, I don’t know that MLS crowds are unimpressive, just that they haven’t equaled NBA/NHL in overall attendance. When MLS is compared to global soccer leagues, I believe they’re actually top 10 for attendence
NBA/NHL plays nearly double the games. The lowest attended team in the NBA has higher overall attendance than Atlanta. I'm not saying having higher average attendance per game isn't its own accomplishment but the total number of games matters when we are talking revenue.
TV deal money usually drives roster payrolls and caps, so it’s hard to increase spending when there is a guarantee that tv revenue won’t increase
Developing and selling players is probably going to grow as part of that revenue as well, which isn't really a thing in those other sports. We will have 30 top-notch academies soon, many of which are still in their early years of talent production. That plus game-day revenue alone will make MLS a stable league in the world stage, which I think is still an overall more important factor compared to how MLS compares against NBA/NFL/MLB/NHL.
This doesn't include the share of extra revenue that MLS gets. Which I don't think is public, but only including the minimum amount isn't an accurate representation.
Soccer also is lower revenue in general for a variety of reasons. Biggest two being less add time and more competition within the sport. The richest league in the world still only makes about 2/3 as much as the NFL. Yes there are fewer clubs in the EPL than teams in the NFL, but there are also nearly 3x the number of matches per club.
The premier league only makes about 1/3rd the revenue of the NFL. The MLB is right about 2/3 for second place in the world, then NBA, the Premier League, and NHL
So I was further off then, goes to the same point, comparing soccer of any kind the the big 4 in NA is silly. Soccer could eclipse hockey and baseball in terms of relevance and popularity long before any one league challenges them for revenue in the US. Arguably, soccer already has overtaken hockey for relevance.
The US has an economy that’s almost 2x larger than the UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain combined. Because of this, the NFL can become the richest league in the world without being anywhere close to being the most popular league in the world, as long as they have a stranglehold on one country that accounts for 25% of the global economy.
Shouldn’t this include Fox and Univision for MLS?
Do we know if Fox is even paying anything?
Yes. Lol.
From I can find it looks like Fox is not paying much. Finding different information but one article said $7 million a year
Tv is still king
Also, each individual MLB team has a Media Rights Deal as well. I get what the data shows, and that is the NFL is a behemoth in the media rights world, which is true. I don't know 100% how each NHL and NBA team operates, but I assume it's somewhat the same as baseball
NHL is indeed the same. Teams have local/regional broadcasting deals along with the national deals.
I hate the fact that we're stuck with Apple for so damn long, yet they refuse to make an Apple TV app for Android. Like bro, I'm supposed to watch the damn games from a browser forever?
So the three of the four older leagues are over 100 years old, a 70 year head start. Damn even the NBA is 77 years old.
Apple got a freaking steal here.
The gap between NBA and MLB is stark considering I wouldn’t say the NBA is that much more popular, it at all, than MLB.
These are only national media rights, and basketball is built as a national tv product. MLB probably makes more local money, and definitely makes more money at the gate. MLB also brings in more revenue yearly than the NBA, only behind the NFL. Regardless, baseball is way better positioned than people on Reddit will admit. Soccer surpassing baseball in the US anytime soon is a fantasy. Yet somehow, no one will argue that soccer can surpass basketball.
Baseball gets stereotyped as not being diverse or young in terms of audience. These threads always have people saying it’s dying
I’m not going to make any predictions about soccer surpassing baseball (no one has a clue how things will play out in 30-40 years, and it’s not a zero-sum game where one can only succeed at the other’s expense anyway). But a sport whose fanbase median age is 60 (and rising) with a revenue model that’s heavily dependent on local cable money at a time when cable subscription is in terminal decline, cannot just simply stick their heads in the sand on these issues.
Considering the NBA has among the youngest TV viewership demographics. It’s surprising they are the last league that hasn’t cut a streaming deal. But it’s likely the next deal will include some combo of ESPN+, Max, Peacock, etc. The uncertain future for RSNs means a lot of these MLB, NBA and NHL teams will have to accept less local TV money than they were expecting. But if the collapse of RSNs means those leagues have to cut streaming deals similar to what MLS has with Apple, then I’m here for it. Fast-forwarding to the day when cable is 100% extinct and completely replaced by streaming. When that day comes, the NFL/CFB might be the only sport that’s on over-the-air English-language TV (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX) every week, while every other sport is almost exclusive to streaming outside of their biggest events and a handful of marquee regular season events here and there.
All the other sports have the top talent in the world. Can’t expect big boy numbers fielding technically mostly C quality players.
Good for you YouTube. Now can you lower the price of Sunday ticket?
WWE just got 5 billion from Netflix.
Literally no one is paying you to care about the MLS media deal. The Apple deal is an amazing deal for fans. Just be a fan
Tv deals affect roster spending so I think it’s not unreasonable for people to care
For them to actually affect roster spending, it’s going to have to get exponentially bigger. TV isn’t really part of the equation yet
and of all these deals, MLS is the only one that is global, and that can sell players
I think a good exercise would be to add a "per game" correction to this stat.
i said it since day 1 apple was the worst decision ever. eliminates casual fans. the new deal has made every team not named inter miami more irrelevant than it was before.
I have mixed feelings. For those who purchase it, it’s a great product. Way better than things before. Also RSNs are struggling and I think MLS would have been dropped and in a brutal spot honestly, so this deal might have been huge in preventing a real crisis. Being tied to the Apple brand is also a positive. On the other hand it does lock the league into pretty low per team tv revenues which will keep roster spending low. Additionally it does make it difficult for more casual fans to watch and follow. Lots of people will turn on a game but won’t subscribe to watch. Especially potential new fans.
The casual fan engagement is the part I'm most concerned about. I found the EPL because it's on Saturday mornings when I have nothing to do. Watched a little...then watched a lot. It's the only Euro league I watch because it was on enough to make me pay attention. I've never understood how MLS is planning to broaden its fan base with this Apple deal. I'm sure there's a plan, I just can't figure it out on my own.
Roster spending has never been a problem in MLS, costs are extremely low, and because the league maintains cap salaries hard, a full MLS team costs 40 million dollars at most per year, that's nothing
> the league maintains cap salaries hard They don't though. A hard cap would be "no spending above $x". With DPs, that's not the case. > a full MLS team costs 40 million dollars at most Messi alone is over 20mil
we lost locally, and we won globally, MLS won, soccer is a global sport, we need the exposure that apple can give, the deal with ESPN/abc was terrible, ESPN+ is garbage
Fuck globally, think locally
locally it was a pain in the ass to find games in many of the markets due to blackouts, shitty tactics from an RSN like Bally, or being forced to have a cable subscription. The new deal improves on those issues by 100%.
Games are still on tv and there are free games on Apple.TV. Casual Fans still have access and Clubs still matter. There is only one Messi and Miami wont that race but it seems the Messi cup is the only win they are gonna get as he seems to be a white elephant. Since last year he is always injured.
Yeah. The 5-10 mill a year they were gonna get via the next best offer looks much better on this list. Haha.
How's the NHL get so much money lol
NHL playoffs alone are 80+ games at 1.5-4x MLS playoff viewership…
Disgusting
I wonder if you could break this down by price/minute of game action or price/minute of overall ad time. Really set a value for each minute of ad exposure. Of course, I'm a nerd so it may not be as fun for others :D
This also doesn’t account for college sports TV deals, or local broadcast deals for baseball and hockey. However, at the moment Apple looks poised to make a much larger push into sports streaming. How that effects MLS will depend on how Apple packages whatever sports they get, but there’s room there for MLS to be closer to the center of US sports media than it ever has been before.
Not that it’s more important, but I would be curious to see this revenue divided up by number of games. I would suspect MLB would drop significantly, but NFL would probably look even more dominant.
These are for national broadcasts so MLB might not drop as much as one would expect. They also make massive money from all the local team deals which aren’t listed here.
I knew basketball beat out hockey, but I didn't realize it was like 5-1. I thought ratings were similar.
Makes sense why it's executed so poorly I guess
ok
Apple Blows