Collapse of Regional Sports Networks (Diamond Sports Group files bankruptcy, Warner-Discovery looking to leave business, Xfinity drops Bally)

[patnyrnyg]

I don't mind media theory at all! I actually have my own on soccer in the US and why it took us til the 1990s for anyone to notice it existed here...

Because before 1950, no one had a TV, and then once everyone got TVs... the US didn't make the World Cup for FORTY YEARS. So all the other sports got bigger because of TV, but soccer never really on TV, certainly not something that would draw people in like a World Cup.

And that's why you have a "split" of US soccer fans...
There's people who got into it because we made the World Cup in 1990 and hosted it in 1994 (like me).

But the next World Cup, we were eliminated in our second game (after game one was a weekday day game) and finished DMFL. And 2002 was played in the middle of the night. So not many "new fans" were added. But In 2006, 2010 and 2014, they picked up a ton of new fans.

2026 will be off the charts. We set attendance records in 1994 (with a 24-team tourney!) that we still hold to this day vs all the 32-team tourneys. And that was when hardly anyone in the US actually cared about soccer.

But I'll shut up and get back on topic.



Sounds like you need a better ISP.

Soccer really is an intereting case. I wouldn't use the World Cup (mens or womens) as a barometer for the popularity of the sport at that level. Like the olympics, it brings out a sense of patriotism. I know MANY people who will watch the World Cup, but aside from Messi and Ronaldo can't name 5 professional players and do not know the name of their local MLS team. Everyone knows Michael Phelps, Carl Lewis, and Maginificent 7. How many people can tell you the most recent winner of the 200 fly at the World Championships? How many people can tell you who won the High Bar at the most recent US National Championship?

But, soccer is huge at the youth level in this country. Just hasn't really caught on in HS the way football and basketball have in parts of the country. College? Would say it is less popular than ncaa baseball. Pro? European leagues are more popular than the MLS.

 

[TheLegend]

Coyotes brief statement regarding Bally's Sports Arizona.

Doing some digging around.....

The Diamondbacks deal was a 20-year, $1.5 billion contract signed in 2015.

The Coyotes signed an extension with then Fox Sports Arizona in 2013. Diamond took ownership of the contract with the purchase of FSA in 2020:

Official Site of the National Hockey League | NHL.com

The official National Hockey League website including news, rosters, stats, schedules, teams, and video.

www.nhl.com

There are two possible scenarios here based what I can find so far. That the current Coyotes contract runs with Bally's through the 2023-24 season, OR the 2026-27 season. Assuming the extension was for another ten years on top of the then current contract with FSA, and the original contract signed in 1996 with FSA was also for ten years and subsequent ten year extensions.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

I don't mind media theory at all! I actually have my own on soccer in the US and why it took us til the 1990s for anyone to notice it existed here...

Because before 1950, no one had a TV, and then once everyone got TVs... the US didn't make the World Cup for FORTY YEARS. So all the other sports got bigger because of TV, but soccer never really on TV, certainly not something that would draw people in like a World Cup.

And that's why you have a "split" of US soccer fans...
There's people who got into it because we made the World Cup in 1990 and hosted it in 1994 (like me).

But the next World Cup, we were eliminated in our second game (after game one was a weekday day game) and finished DMFL. And 2002 was played in the middle of the night. So not many "new fans" were added. But In 2006, 2010 and 2014, they picked up a ton of new fans.

2026 will be off the charts. We set attendance records in 1994 (with a 24-team tourney!) that we still hold to this day vs all the 32-team tourneys. And that was when hardly anyone in the US actually cared about soccer.

But I'll shut up and get back on topic.


Sounds like you need a better ISP.

I think it has more to do with there not even being a league.

The NFL didn't really take off until TV, but at least it existed and that allowed it to quickly grow, especially once interest took off and the AFL came around to reach new markets. Soccer wouldn't have grown from the US playing 3-4 games every 4 years, sports grow from fans being able to follow their local team for several months.

Which leads us back to the real reason soccer never took off: The collapse of the American Soccer League

If the original ASL survives past 1933 and grows at the rate the NFL did, and today exists as a league just about as old as the NFL that's been established in markets for anywhere from 50-100 years, then maybe soccer is the 2nd or 3rd most popular sport in the country today. And having a league would've led to talent being developed and...not having a 40 year World Cup drought.

But, the USSF (then USFA) and FIFA took it down, killing the league and creating the stigma that soccer was foreign, which still resonated by the time NASL came around.

 

[KevFu]

I wouldn't use the World Cup (mens or womens) as a barometer for the popularity of the sport at that level. Like the olympics, it brings out a sense of patriotism. I know MANY people who will watch the World Cup, but aside from Messi and Ronaldo can't name 5 professional players and do not know the name of their local MLS team.

But, soccer is huge at the youth level in this country. Just hasn't really caught on in HS the way football and basketball have in parts of the country. College? Would say it is less popular than ncaa baseball. Pro? European leagues are more popular than the MLS.

Right, but I would say that as an entry point to the sport and being a fan, you're gonna watch the World Cup because of its event status, and the patriotism, and then maybe check out a club game later because of that and possibly get into it.

I think it has more to do with there not even being a league.

Soccer wouldn't have grown from the US playing 3-4 games every 4 years, sports grow from fans being able to follow their local team for several months.

Which leads us back to the real reason soccer never took off: The collapse of the American Soccer League

If the original ASL survives past 1933 and grows at the rate the NFL did, and today exists as a league just about as old as the NFL that's been established in markets for anywhere from 50-100 years, then maybe soccer is the 2nd or 3rd most popular sport in the country today. And having a league would've led to talent being developed and...not having a 40 year World Cup drought.

But, the USSF (then USFA) and FIFA took it down, killing the league and creating the stigma that soccer was foreign, which still resonated by the NASL came around.

I don't think it's easy to separate those two things, though: If the US was playing in the World Cup in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s, someone would see the ratings and attempt a league. The history of the NASL on Wikipedia even says as much: "The surprisingly large North American TV audience of over 1 million for the 1966 FIFA World Cup..." as the reason the TWO leagues started in the US in 1967, and they merged to become the NASL in 1968.

It stands to reason that if the US were actually IN the World Cup after the advent of TV, the ratings would be higher and the interest in a league would increase.

It also stands to reason that the timing of the US team qualifying and showing a TV audience, a lot more cities outside the footprint of the Big Four would try soccer. The Northeast had the vast majority of pro teams, while California, Florida and Texas had very few, BUT the demographics that make soccer more likely to work there.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

I don't think it's easy to separate those two things, though: If the US was playing in the World Cup in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s, someone would see the ratings and attempt a league. The history of the NASL on Wikipedia even says as much: "The surprisingly large North American TV audience of over 1 million for the 1966 FIFA World Cup..." as the reason the TWO leagues started in the US in 1967, and they merged to become the NASL in 1968.

It stands to reason that if the US were actually IN the World Cup after the advent of TV, the ratings would be higher and the interest in a league would increase.

It also stands to reason that the timing of the US team qualifying and showing a TV audience, a lot more cities outside the footprint of the Big Four would try soccer. The Northeast had the vast majority of pro teams, while California, Florida and Texas had very few, BUT the demographics that make soccer more likely to work there.

Yes, but 1966 was 33 years later! They had already lost 2 generations of fans by then. Boomers didn't grow up watching it and going to games because their parents didn't get into the sport after the war, because there was no presence of the sport to take interest in.

And again, if the league existed, there's probably more talent and they likely qualify for those World Cups.

 

[TLEH]

ISP is great, it’s the apps that the games run on suck. Laggy, reset, freezes sometimes.
Plus I get a couple 4K games each night, which streaming can’t come close too.

I havent had cable, ever, as a 27 year old. I use Youtube TV (split with my sister and my parents), Paramount+ ESPN+. MLB TV. I watch everything but the NBA. Watch 4K stuff all the time on Youtube TV, especially Premier League which had tons of 4K content. Never buffers and it was via my TVs WiFi card/chip which is 5 years old. Its probably your ISP.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I havent had cable, ever, as a 27 year old. I use Youtube TV (split with my sister and my parents), Paramount+ ESPN+. MLB TV. I watch everything but the NBA. Watch 4K stuff all the time on Youtube TV, especially Premier League which had tons of 4K content. Never buffers and it was via my TVs WiFi card/chip which is 5 years old. Its probably your ISP.

Definitely not ISP, it was the app,
I have 4 GB download speeds, fibre optic to house.
Plus I record all games, then start about 40 minutes late, so I can skip all commercials

 

[patnyrnyg]

Right, but I would say that as an entry point to the sport and being a fan, you're gonna watch the World Cup because of its event status, and the patriotism, and then maybe check out a club game later because of that and possibly get into it.



I don't think it's easy to separate those two things, though: If the US was playing in the World Cup in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s, someone would see the ratings and attempt a league. The history of the NASL on Wikipedia even says as much: "The surprisingly large North American TV audience of over 1 million for the 1966 FIFA World Cup..." as the reason the TWO leagues started in the US in 1967, and they merged to become the NASL in 1968.

It stands to reason that if the US were actually IN the World Cup after the advent of TV, the ratings would be higher and the interest in a league would increase.

It also stands to reason that the timing of the US team qualifying and showing a TV audience, a lot more cities outside the footprint of the Big Four would try soccer. The Northeast had the vast majority of pro teams, while California, Florida and Texas had very few, BUT the demographics that make soccer more likely to work there.

This is the same argument made for hockey in the Olympics and how it will benefit the NHL. It will bring in new fans once they realize olympians are playing for their local team. Hasn't worked and this is with the best players in the world playing in the NHL.

 

[KevFu]

Yes, but 1966 was 33 years later! They had already lost 2 generations of fans by then. Boomers didn't grow up watching it and going to games because their parents didn't get into the sport after the war, because there was no presence of the sport to take interest in.

And again, if the league existed, there's probably more talent and they likely qualify for those World Cups.

Eh, I think the role of TV offsets those generations. The decade of the 50s was when TV went from being something very few people had, to almost every house had one. People forget that in the early part of the century, football was viewed as barbaric. It was TV in the 50s that popularized it. Once everyone had a TV, most of America watched the 2 or 3 channels and whatever was on.

All the other sports got TV time and soccer didn't, so Americans just didn't think of it as one of their sports. They easily could have, if there was a reason for it to be on TV. Making the World Cup a few times from 1954-1966 would do that. If the 1966 World Cup (that the US wasn't in) got big enough ratings that it prompted two leagues to try selling soccer to America, then I don't see how some US World Cup appearance wouldn't have a greater impact.

This is the same argument made for hockey in the Olympics and how it will benefit the NHL. It will bring in new fans once they realize olympians are playing for their local team. Hasn't worked and this is with the best players in the world playing in the NHL.

Nah, that's not really the same thing because the Olympics are two weeks of tons of different sports, the NBC coverage bounces from event-to-event, and hockey's on a secondary cable channel unless it's a US gold medal game, AND Olympic hockey takes place when the NBA and college hoops are going on.

The World Cup isn't mixed in with other Olympic events; it's on a major channel. It's only competition for sports coverage is baseball (well, MLS now, but not in the 50s-80s).

American TV didn't show a LIVE World Cup soccer game until 1982! If the US was in a World Cup, American TV would have shown it. Probably tape delay in the 50s, and live in the 60s/70s.

 

[TLEH]

Definitely not ISP, it was the app,
I have 4 GB download speeds, fibre optic to house.
Plus I record all games, then start about 40 minutes late, so I can skip all commercials

Where do you get 4 GB up and down?

 

[Golden_Jet]

Where do you get 4 GB up and down?

Well I could get as high as 8 , but costs more.
Canada via fibre optic.

 

[TLEH]

Well I could get as high as 8 , but costs more.
Canada via fibre optic.

What app are you using that is causing those problems?

 

[Golden_Jet]

What app are you using that is causing those problems?

At the time it was Sportsnet, but back with cable, and centre ice.

 

[jkrdevil]

I havent had cable, ever, as a 27 year old. I use Youtube TV (split with my sister and my parents), Paramount+ ESPN+. MLB TV. I watch everything but the NBA. Watch 4K stuff all the time on Youtube TV, especially Premier League which had tons of 4K content. Never buffers and it was via my TVs WiFi card/chip which is 5 years old. Its probably your ISP.

YouTube TV is cable.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

Eh, I think the role of TV offsets those generations. The decade of the 50s was when TV went from being something very few people had, to almost every house had one. People forget that in the early part of the century, football was viewed as barbaric. It was TV in the 50s that popularized it. Once everyone had a TV, most of America watched the 2 or 3 channels and whatever was on.

The sport wasn't on TV because there was no league.

All the other sports got TV time and soccer didn't, so Americans just didn't think of it as one of their sports. They easily could have, if there was a reason for it to be on TV. Making the World Cup a few times from 1954-1966 would do that. If the 1966 World Cup (that the US wasn't in) got big enough ratings that it prompted two leagues to try selling soccer to America, then I don't see how some US World Cup appearance wouldn't have a greater impact.

All of this occurred because there was no league.


I feel like I'm taking crazy pills...

 

[DaveG]

YouTube TV is cable.

almost all streaming services are run by a cable provider, dish provider, or ISP, generally they're just lower cost to an extent.

 

[TLEH]

YouTube TV is cable.

to me cable is ran by a cable so it would be a streaming service which would require an ISP. Cable does not require an ISP.

 

[mouser]

Doing some digging around.....

The Diamondbacks deal was a 20-year, $1.5 billion contract signed in 2015.

The Coyotes signed an extension with then Fox Sports Arizona in 2013. Diamond took ownership of the contract with the purchase of FSA in 2020:

Official Site of the National Hockey League | NHL.com

The official National Hockey League website including news, rosters, stats, schedules, teams, and video.

www.nhl.com

There are two possible scenarios here based what I can find so far. That the current Coyotes contract runs with Bally's through the 2023-24 season, OR the 2026-27 season. Assuming the extension was for another ten years on top of the then current contract with FSA, and the original contract signed in 1996 with FSA was also for ten years and subsequent ten year extensions.

Based on the TV contract deals made public in 2008, I would guess the Coyotes current deal with Diamond paid them around $10m last season. Wouldn’t be surprised if a little higher like ~$12m.

 

[jkrdevil]

to me cable is ran by a cable so it would be a streaming service which would require an ISP. Cable does not require an ISP.

It’s a bundled tv package of live tv channels. It is a cable tv equivalent. Having a package like that isn’t cutting the cord, it is changing the cord. Don’t get me wrong they are disrupters as they provide competition on pricing to traditional cable with skinnier bundles. But ultimately it is a similar product.

The industry considers those services to be in the same category as cable. When you see stats about the number of subscribers with cable YouTube tv/ Hulu live / sling ect are all counted in the cable statistic.

 

[Brodie]

It cannot be understated how popular soccer was before the collapse of the original ASL, American soccer was big enough business in the 1920s that it was able to attract top pros from England and Scotland. Photographic evidence suggests big crowds at most league games.

IMO you can't really argue with the premise that the lack of a major pro league during the formative years of the Greatest Gen and Baby Boomers is the ultimate killer for American soccer, not to mention the reason nobody remembers the era when soccer was the second or third most popular professional team sport in the country.

 

[Reaser]

People forget that in the early part of the century, football was viewed as barbaric. It was TV in the 50s that popularized it.

No. Football, particularly college football was massively popular well before the 1950s. TV helped the NFL eventually pass baseball as the most popular professional league but the sport of football was certainly popular[ized] well before the 1950s. It wasn't unpopular and thus "popularized" in the 1950s by TV.

 

[joelef]

The sport wasn't on TV because there was no league.

All of this occurred because there was no league.


I feel like I'm taking crazy pills...

There was a league but it was a glorified ethnic league in nyc

 

[Golden_Jet]

to me cable is ran by a cable so it would be a streaming service which would require an ISP. Cable does not require an ISP.

Different ways to get it, can be with or without an ISP. YouTube is Cable.

 

[powerstuck]

Revenue in 2018-19 was around 5B. Bettman reported "almost 6B" for 2022-23. That's a 20% increase in revenue while the cap has only increased by 2.5%. There's about 70M of covid escrow remaining. Once that's paid off early next season, the cap will go back to being tied to revenues (albeit with a more complex way of working it out).
Even if the RSN issues mean that revenue stays at 6B or even slightly decreases, revenues are far enough ahead of the cap that it should get the 5% increase.

Without saying that cannot happen, I think the NHL has all the interest to make sure that doesn't happen.

While revenues do tend to grow, the growth cannot be guaranteed, and if the league doesn't have a mechanism in place to control the cap increase (which they do...they decide by how much they increase it) they can very easily end up in trouble.

Imagine this, hockey gets a huge boost and league revenues grow by 10% per year for next 5 years. League goes dumb and grow the cap by 10% per year. Player revenues rise.

Now year 6, revenues grow only 1% due to some economical/war/love for hockey plateau thing...teams struggle to sign players at the same rate they did the last 5 years.

In other words...see the f*** up the covid did to league cap and GM cap management.

 

[joelef]

Without saying that cannot happen, I think the NHL has all the interest to make sure that doesn't happen.

While revenues do tend to grow, the growth cannot be guaranteed, and if the league doesn't have a mechanism in place to control the cap increase (which they do...they decide by how much they increase it) they can very easily end up in trouble.

Imagine this, hockey gets a huge boost and league revenues grow by 10% per year for next 5 years. League goes dumb and grow the cap by 10% per year. Player revenues rise.

Now year 6, revenues grow only 1% due to some economical/war/love for hockey plateau thing...teams struggle to sign players at the same rate they did the last 5 years.

In other words...see the f*** up the covid did to league cap and GM cap management.

The require marketing there stars players which isn’t going to happen