MLS going all-digital with 10-year Apple deal

[LeHab]

Interesting move. Sooner or later someone had to take this leap of faith. MLS has least to lose while other leagues are stuck with golden handcuffs of traditional TV revenues. Can a league finally tap into interactive potential of online world for a more engaging experience?

Lets see how this gets packaged and presented. WC2026 hosted in NA should also help the league get extra visibility.

 

[varsaku]

Blackouts protect regional sports networks. If you are a league like MLS who have had less interest from the Regionals than you can do away with them. But MLS teams are losing out on potential extra revenue.

Almost all teams have horrible regional sports networks deals except for the few big teams. With cable providers dropping RSNs this makes sense in the long run by making it more accessible with no blackouts.

 

[varsaku]

Why would ESPN/FOX want to pay the MLS for non-exclusive games? Their ratings have not been good for the exclusive games they already had.

People complained about the NHL rights. This is far worse imho.

Even if they get less for non-exclusive games for TV, this makes it more accessible via streaming to those who don't have cable. I don't have cable so need to borrow log ins to watch games broadcasted on TV. I would much rather prefer this since i can watch it all in one place.

 

[varsaku]

Interesting move. Sooner or later someone had to take this leap of faith. MLS has least to lose while other leagues are stuck with golden handcuffs of traditional TV revenues. Can a league finally tap into interactive potential of online world for a more engaging experience?

Lets see how this gets packaged and presented. WC2026 hosted in NA should also help the league get extra visibility.

This is a low risk high reward move in my opinion since the current model has not been working. It worth giving it a shot being a close partner with Apple and being in the forefront of promotional of apple tv.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

From what little I heard about the regional TV deals for the 3 Canadian teams, they were worth practically nothing. The Whitecaps and TFC numbers measured in the tens of thousands for most matches and Montreal's might have been a bit better when factoring in French language channels as well. One rumour I heard was that the the Canadian sports channels paid little if anything for the rights once they expired and there might have been some agreement in place wherein the teams may receive a percentage from paid advertisements during the matches dependent on ratings.

 

[PCSPounder]

Almost all teams have horrible regional sports networks deals except for the few big teams. With cable providers dropping RSNs this makes sense in the long run by making it more accessible with no blackouts.

RSN gets into the Blazers in Portland (the Timbers had already been on it for years). It doesn’t move the needle with cable systems in large swaths of the rest of Oregon. So the RSNs weren’t really moving anyone’s needles, especially if their primary function was to make money from baseball. RSNs owned by certain people (coughSinclaircough) were starting to try to mess with the leagues.

MLS was probably the first to react to those factors. They may not be the last.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

Well if MLS is paying for the production costs, and it appears they are, then that $250 million gets whittled down to something like $200 - $210 million. Given their low ratings it's pretty telling that they are the only major league that is going all-in on streaming as opposed to other leagues that have a mix of traditional and streaming formats.

 

[OG6ix]

Looks like they will be getting closer to 190 million a year as Forbes has the cost to produce games at 25 percent of revenue a year.

 

[eddygee]

From what little I heard about the regional TV deals for the 3 Canadian teams, they were worth practically nothing. The Whitecaps and TFC numbers measured in the tens of thousands for most matches and Montreal's might have been a bit better when factoring in French language channels as well. One rumour I heard was that the the Canadian sports channels paid little if anything for the rights once they expired and there might have been some agreement in place wherein the teams may receive a percentage from paid advertisements during the matches dependent on ratings.

The Canadian deals were only worth $15m yr

 

[eddygee]

Well if MLS is paying for the production costs, and it appears they are, then that $250 million gets whittled down to something like $200 - $210 million. Given their low ratings it's pretty telling that they are the only major league that is going all-in on streaming as opposed to other leagues that have a mix of traditional and streaming formats.

The production bit is overblown, every soccer league produces their own games. EPL does the same so does La Liga/Serie A/Bundesliga. EPL does production of their own feed and give NBC the feed all these soccer league do this. Its weird folks are focusing on MLS production cost they didn't say anything when EPL got their $450m yr deal with NBC or La Liga got their $175m yr deal with ESPN. But they are so focused on MLS production cost. Why?

Here's why there are alot of sports media experts that got this deal so wrong?
For months they down played MLS value saying they'd be lucky to get $150m yr. Here's what MLS got below.

-Minimum of $250m yr from Apple that will rise once global subscriptions hit a level and

-MLS despite the early rumours WILL REMAIN on TV and will do linear deals w/ESPN etc of 4-5 yrs. same w/CAN

Overall is a win for the league that set out to get $300m yr and was laughed and sports media proceed to give all the reasons you see some in the thread who are Anti-MLS gave. MLS gets to do a 4-5yr linear deal and get to go to the well again in right after the 2026 World Cup to capitalize off that bump and sign bigger linear deals to add to the exclusive global streaming rights.

After getting information now after the early fog of information what this deal is is not a TV deal but a "Exclusive" Global Streaming Rights Deal. MLS still has the right to do Linear deals in the US/Canada and Internationally, but those games won't be exclusive they'll be simulcast on Apple.

-

 

[eddygee]

Repeating clearing up alot of the early misinformation in this thread when the info on this deal came out.

After getting information now after the early fog of information what this deal is is NOT a TV deal but a "Exclusive" Global Streaming Rights Deal. MLS still has the right to do Linear deals in the US/Canada and Internationally, but those games won't be exclusive they'll be simulcast on Apple.

As Paulson of Sports Media Watch podcast joke about "Exclusive" the deal is "EXCLUSIVE" in name only as MLS is and will still have a TV deal in the traditional sense but those games will be non-exclusive. They won't be worth what Apple is paying on this new deal but they'll be worth something and the hope is they'll be able to cash in on the linear deals in 2026 for the US World Cup while still having the 10 yr Apple deal.

 

[Reaser]

Literally on page 1 / within the first 10 posts it was noted that MLS will still have some sort of non-exclusive linear package. So not sure what confusion is being cleared up?

Seems more like 'misinformation' to spin it into making it seem like MLS just cashed in with an 'exclusive streaming rights deal' as if it's merely just half of the media rights.

Current games found on RSN's (or regional/local broadcasts since plenty of MLS teams are on local ABC/FOX/CW/etc. affiliates) are moving to Apple, which is a loss of local rights deals -- MLS teams naturally don't make a ton of money from those but from the out-of-sight-out-of-mind side of the discussion, that's an important distinction.

As for the national packages, rumored to be roughly 50% fewer games on traditionally TV. Again, for the two different discussions taking place in this thread: $ and growth, both won't be much to write home about with the new linear deal.

Acting like this is just a standard streaming deal and only half the media rights and MLS is now going to cash in on linear - because TV networks just love paying massive rights fees for non-exclusive content and content that they can't simulcast/stream themselves? - is a bit disingenuous. Disingenous, like comparisons of EPL's deal in the U.S. having anything to do with people pointing out MLS will now (as in something new) have production costs. Which is rather significant to point out considering, again, that it's new costs for them which means setup/infrastructure costs that aren't there when you've already been producing your own games. As I said earlier, I think it's smart and a good move for MLS to produce it's own games, but there's a literally cost to doing that, too. Can't spin it down to $0 just to help some weird response about people being wrong, allegedly spreading misinformation, and not saying anything about La Liga production costs as part of their ESPN deal.

The Apple deal is most certainly cutting into, in a major way, the linear side. As much as it's "just a streaming deal" if it takes away roughly 100% of local TV rights/games and roughly 50% of national TV games, then it's more than "just the streaming rights."

 

[OG6ix]

The Canadian deals were only worth $15m yr

That's pretty good - it pays for a good chunk of team salaries unless the teams had to share it with the entire league.

Also, it looks like FOX has bowed out to air non-exclusive MLS games that will be simulcasted with Apple tv.



Lets be honest - even though MLS/Apple deal is consdiered to digital exclusive or whatever, I don't see ESPN too enamoured with the idea of paying for non-exclusive games. Your hardcores who watch those games will likely find it in their destination spot of choice (apple+) and the remaining audience will be fractional at best. MLS should have carved out a package of say 20 games that will be exclusive to a Broadcast/Cable network.

What they may get now might be a very small rights fee; I wouldn't be surprised if there is an ad revenue split type of play. ESPN really does not need the MLS with all the content they have.

 

[Djp]

I’m going to be so back-and-forth on this that I’ll look like I’m riding the fence, but not actually pay the painful price for it.

Cord-Cutting Getting Worse in 2021-22: S&P Report

Legacy MVPDs to lose 8.2% of subscribers in 2020

www.nexttv.com

Cord cutting is accelerating. A little. Enough that this is probably forward-looking rather than “too soon.”

cord cutting is not forward looking. therr is still significant bandwidth issues in most of the US where you can’t stream.

thus gives me flashbacks to the nhl de ision in the 80s to take a national tv contract with a start up sports network

they should still have some national broadcast partner to air the big games

i don’t know if this strips local market broadcast rights.

 

[Djp]

That's pretty good - it pays for a good chunk of team salaries unless the teams had to share it with the entire league.

Also, it looks like FOX has bowed out to air non-exclusive MLS games that will be simulcasted with Apple tv.



Lets be honest - even though MLS/Apple deal is consdiered to digital exclusive or whatever, I don't see ESPN too enamoured with the idea of paying for non-exclusive games. Your hardcores who watch those games will likely find it in their destination spot of choice (apple+) and the remaining audience will be fractional at best. MLS should have carved out a package of say 20 games that will be exclusive to a Broadcast/Cable network.

What they may get now might be a very small rights fee; I wouldn't be surprised if there is an ad revenue split type of play. ESPN really does not need the MLS with all the content they have.

with espn…they do need the summer content to fill the play time.

look at their rights

on a tradition schedule they will have NBA, NHL. And NCAA baseball/ softball as their primary broadcasts in May/first half of June

end of june/ july they have wimbleton. Late august is us open
Sunday night they have baseball
this year the have WNBA and some formula 1.

summerheavy soccer tv package would bea mid week filler

 

[OG6ix]

with espn…they do need the summer content to fill the play time.

look at their rights

on a tradition schedule they will have NBA, NHL. And NCAA baseball/ softball as their primary broadcasts in May/first half of June

end of june/ july they have wimbleton. Late august is us open
Sunday night they have baseball
this year the have WNBA and some formula 1.

summerheavy soccer tv package would bea mid week filler

ESPN wants to save money for the F1 deal that's coming up for renewal at around 75 million. Realistically they could just put literally any talk show on during the summer in the same spot they would be thinking of broadcasting MLS and it would yield similar if not better results. MLS playoffs don't get great viewership either and its in the fall/winter where ESPN already has basically every sport going on.

I don't see the upside for ESPN - whatever coverage MLS gets from ESPN don't expect them to promote the league. I feel like it will be worse than it has been in the past; especially now considering you just signed on with a potential threat to their streaming/business model in Apple+. Fox bowing out is telling - they have even bigger holes in cotent overall than ESPN does.

 

[Djp]

ESPN wants to save money for the F1 deal that's coming up for renewal at around 75 million. Realistically they could just put literally any talk show on during the summer in the same spot they would be thinking of broadcasting MLS and it would yield similar if not better results. MLS playoffs don't get great viewership either and its in the fall/winter where ESPN already has basically every sport going on.

I don't see the upside for ESPN - whatever coverage MLS gets from ESPN don't expect them to promote the league. I feel like it will be worse than it has been in the past; especially now considering you just signed on with a potential threat to their streaming/business model in Apple+. Fox bowing out is telling - they have even bigger holes in cotent overall than ESPN does.

im talking about evening content programming.

FOX is just weekend programs Not all day. Yes Foxsports has issues.

with soccer it woukd be summer program heavy then some playoffs

soccer playoffs could get better ratings if it was on a Wednesday night During playoffs.

the big thing in marketing is local tv rights. That's my concern. Local tv drives new local fans.

 

[eddygee]

Literally on page 1 / within the first 10 posts it was noted that MLS will still have some sort of non-exclusive linear package. So not sure what confusion is being cleared up?

Seems more like 'misinformation' to spin it into making it seem like MLS just cashed in with an 'exclusive streaming rights deal' as if it's merely just half of the media rights.

Current games found on RSN's (or regional/local broadcasts since plenty of MLS teams are on local ABC/FOX/CW/etc. affiliates) are moving to Apple, which is a loss of local rights deals -- MLS teams naturally don't make a ton of money from those but from the out-of-sight-out-of-mind side of the discussion, that's an important distinction.

As for the national packages, rumored to be roughly 50% fewer games on traditionally TV. Again, for the two different discussions taking place in this thread: $ and growth, both won't be much to write home about with the new linear deal.

Acting like this is just a standard streaming deal and only half the media rights and MLS is now going to cash in on linear - because TV networks just love paying massive rights fees for non-exclusive content and content that they can't simulcast/stream themselves? - is a bit disingenuous. Disingenous, like comparisons of EPL's deal in the U.S. having anything to do with people pointing out MLS will now (as in something new) have production costs. Which is rather significant to point out considering, again, that it's new costs for them which means setup/infrastructure costs that aren't there when you've already been producing your own games. As I said earlier, I think it's smart and a good move for MLS to produce it's own games, but there's a literally cost to doing that, too. Can't spin it down to $0 just to help some weird response about people being wrong, allegedly spreading misinformation, and not saying anything about La Liga production costs as part of their ESPN deal.

The Apple deal is most certainly cutting into, in a major way, the linear side. As much as it's "just a streaming deal" if it takes away roughly 100% of local TV rights/games and roughly 50% of national TV games, then it's more than "just the streaming rights."

OTG rn didn't read all of this beyond the first sentence so forgive me if I missed something to your reply, Basically Tues in OP and replies there was a lot of this is bad OMG they aren't on TV. Its been clarified in the media that this is FALSE and not the case nothing changes sources said ESPN and Univision Likely some saying FOX is out some saying that's not true they are in talks still. Look for either Fox/FS1 or ESPN/ABC to carry about 25 gms similar to NHL regular season deal. Univision OTA channel will up their number of games. So this deal is a win for MLS make no mistake only folks selling it differently are Anti-MLS elements and the Soccer Pro-Rel Crowd.

Sorry for any typos

 

[PCSPounder]

im talking about evening content programming.

FOX is just weekend programs Not all day. Yes Foxsports has issues.

with soccer it woukd be summer program heavy then some playoffs

soccer playoffs could get better ratings if it was on a Wednesday night During playoffs.

the big thing in marketing is local tv rights. That's my concern. Local tv drives new local fans.

If you give me your address, I will point a suddenly angry horde of fans your way for even inferring that playoff games are better off being held on weekdays. Even if you’re correct (and you may well be), paying customers will probably demand a say about it. Traveling fans will be even angrier.

The comments from others about drawing out-of-range casual fans… the overnight metro ratings always have looked better than after the hinterlands are included. I dare assert here that trying to attract that crowd was always fool’s gold. That’s not really going to happen. Furthermore, ESPN is already using USL as filler at certain times, as I noted earlier. Soccer fans are more tribal, less concerned about the league, and usually also follow leagues with promotion and relegation. They’re not abandoning their team just because “OH, MLS.”

But you can bring these elements together, and you can choose the competition that already does this on weeknights. ESPN already streams nearly every US Open Cup game. That’s what the mothership ought to bring forward on a more structured basis.

 

[OG6ix]

OTG rn didn't read all of this beyond the first sentence so forgive me if I missed something to your reply, Basically Tues in OP and replies there was a lot of this is bad OMG they aren't on TV. Its been clarified in the media that this is FALSE and not the case nothing changes sources said ESPN and Univision Likely some saying FOX is out some saying that's not true they are in talks still. Look for either Fox/FS1 or ESPN/ABC to carry about 25 gms similar to NHL regular season deal. Univision OTA channel will up their number of games. So this deal is a win for MLS make no mistake only folks selling it differently are Anti-MLS elements and the Soccer Pro-Rel Crowd.

Sorry for any typos

I'm not anti MLS but I feel like they did shoot themselves in the head. I know they can still negotiate with ESPN/ABC but given their lack of having exclusive games available I don't see ESPN doing anything substansial in terms of promotion. It's going to be worse than it is today - I heard they bumped the game they had scheduled on Saturday from ESPN to ESPN News and then to the streaming site.

 

[Reaser]

But you can bring these elements together, and you can choose the competition that already does this on weeknights. ESPN already streams nearly every US Open Cup game. That’s what the mothership ought to bring forward on a more structured basis.

It'd be great if this inadvertently led to better coverage of the USOC.

I remember in 1999 the final was on ESPN at night, even during football season they hyped it up a bit. Was a disappointing but expected attendance at neutral Crew Stadium but it actually felt, the Final at least, promoted and covered like a major event. Ironic since it included an A-League team, but still felt like a big deal with the Rhinos beating the Rapids. Since only ever feels like a big deal for those whose local team(s) are involved and even then, not a big deal nationally. When ESPN put the Final on ESPN in '99, caused media to cover it, too.

 

[PCSPounder]

I'm not anti MLS but I feel like they did shoot themselves in the head. I know they can still negotiate with ESPN/ABC but given their lack of having exclusive games available I don't see ESPN doing anything substansial in terms of promotion. It's going to be worse than it is today - I heard they bumped the game they had scheduled on Saturday from ESPN to ESPN News and then to the streaming site.

You’re portraying this as if ESPN just started doing stuff like this. MLS fans have been rooting for no overtimes or extra inning games or quick pitcher duels (which the MCWS game that afternoon certainly was not) since MLS landed on ESPN way back at the start. The only manner in which ESPN ever really did MLS any favors was at the start of the contract share with Fox by getting the networks to agree to cross-promote.

If anything, MLS is getting out from under the limitations of ESPN. It’s not without considerable risk. However, this plays more to the target audience than it does the audience for traditional platforms.

 

[Reaser]

You’re portraying this as if ESPN just started doing stuff like this. MLS fans have been rooting for no overtimes or extra inning games or quick pitcher duels (which the MCWS game that afternoon certainly was not) since MLS landed on ESPN way back at the start. The only manner in which ESPN ever really did MLS any favors was at the start of the contract share with Fox by getting the networks to agree to cross-promote.

If anything, MLS is getting out from under the limitations of ESPN. It’s not without considerable risk. However, this plays more to the target audience than it does the audience for traditional platforms.

And MLS fans have long portrayed that as some sort of anti-MLS agenda that only happens to MLS games on ESPN.

Standard procedure to stick with the game already airing. Happens to all sports. And not just on ESPN. MLS matches ended up on FS2 because FOX/FS1 had NASCAR.

Hell, back to ESPN, Coach K's final home game which they hyped up to no end, UNC-Duke, the pregame ceremonies and start of the game were moved to ESPN2 because the game before ran long. Or lacrosse fans get excited their sport gets to be on ESPN, fastpitch runs long so the entire game instead airs on ESPNEWS/watchespn app. And on and on.

Not that it doesn't suck and isn't annoying, just always been fascinated by MLS fans thinking it ONLY happens to them and is some sign of bias against them from ESPN. Happens and has happened to much more popular sporting events. I mean, NHL and NBC had this scenario occur, too. With much more important games than a throwaway MLS regular season match.

 

[DaBadGuy7]

This might lead NBA to consider Apple in next TV deal:

 

[OG6ix]

This might lead NBA to consider Apple in next TV deal:

NBA will say this about anyone - it's building bidders. Absolutely no way will they go streaming only. They might end up selling league pass online to a streamer but no way are they going to not have significant linear.