Sportico: UFL’s Battlehawks Are Proof of League’s Concept

[4th&long]

https://www.sportico.com/business/media ... 234774972/

>>Two weeks into the UFL’s inaugural campaign, St. Louis is once again beating all comers on the attendance and TV ratings front, as sports-crazed citizens who’re still smarting over the loss of their local NFL franchise have put the lie to the assertion that spring football is a commodity without a use value.<<

>> The same applies to the UFL’s TV deliveries. The Battlehawks’ March 30 opener against the Michigan Panthers drew a league-high 1.35 million viewers in Fox’s Saturday 4 p.m. EDT slot, and their home-field follow-up in ABC’s April 6 primetime roster was the top telecast of Week 2 (908,000). It’s probably worth noting that St. Louis scared up those TV numbers in the teeth of ferocious competition from March Madness; last week’s game went head-to-head with a UConn-Alabama Final Four telecast that averaged 14.2 million viewers on the TNT Sports networks. <<

While Sportico had the viewership correct on Saturday night they underperformed IMO (not horribly) on a primetime game on a larger network than ESPN which got 903k for Mich/Birm Sun and 849k on Fox Sunday going up against the much more viewed WCBB finals

>> as the average unit cost for an in-game UFL spot is a thrifty $6,570 per 30-second spot. And while that’s probably a bit more than what you’ll find hidden in the sofa cushions, the low rates have set a modest ceiling on revenue; per media buyer estimates, Fox and Disney have booked $3.7 million in sales over the first eight games, which works out to a hair shy of $465,000 per telecast.

Aside from the humble income generated by the spots and dots, the UFL is making money on the sponsorship premiums it’s hammered out with the likes of Under Armour, Gatorade and Molson Coors. Also doing its part in support of the startup is the U.S. Army, which has earmarked $10 million for a one-year presenting sponsorship designed to bolster its recruiting efforts. <<

There are ingame ads too.

The rates seem low with inflation and what was charged in 2022/23 - it may have been due to the merger or its going to increase based on results. We'll need to see this confirmed elsewhere.  But at any rate so far so good in 2024.


 

[laxtreme56]

Ad rates do seem a tad low all things considered. I thought the USFL was charging $20-25k per spot last year? Perhaps the rating expectations are a bit lower, and better to give advertisers a deal then have to give them refunds come year end if metrics are not met. $20 million in ad revenue for TV if we go by the above numbers, perhaps another $15-20 million overall in sponsorships. If we predict the league winds up with an average of 12,500 a game at $30 a ticket that's another $16 million in revenue, plus whatever cut or concessions the league makes. 

On the low end the UFL should see $50 million in revenue, with up to $70 million if they really hit the ball out of the park on all metrics. I wonder what the operation costs are looking like? North of $50 million for sure, but under $100M seems likely. 

[Coffeeeyes]

Breaking even is extremely possible, even if it isn’t this year. 

[johnnyangryfuzzball]

Sheesh. $6750 per spot?

Compared to the NFL, even per viewer, that's peanuts. The NFL is getting five times as much money per viewer per ad as the UFL is right now. Why would they be pricing so low when they know, given that we now have three years' worth of data to measure how many people watch these pro leagues, what the audience is going to be?

[laxtreme56]

Sheesh. $6750 per spot?

Compared to the NFL, even per viewer, that's peanuts. The NFL is getting five times as much money per viewer per ad as the UFL is right now. Why would they be pricing so low when they know, given that we now have three years' worth of data to measure how many people watch these pro leagues, what the audience is going to be?

I think you kinda answered your own question there. Advertisers know the relative amount of people watching spring football, and that's the value they put on them. Part of the issue may be the actual people who are watching. It can be safely assumed most fans watching spring football also watch NFL and big time college football. Hence they've seen those same commercials from September - January. Compare this to the WNBA, NWSL, MLS. Their relative audiences are smaller, but target a different niche of the population. Hence 500k people watching a WNBA game may be more valuable than 900k watching spring football.

[Rmbay]

A simple answer could be that the issues and delays associated with the league merging resulted in the league and its networks having to accept a bit less this year for ad spots. 

I would think that if the  viewership stays relatively good that and the time to work the best revenue deals possible should result in a nice boost in what they charge per spot.