SpringFB vs MLS tv ratings

[4th&long]

Shoot, that's the same price ONE LOCAL AFFILIATE pays to simulcast an NFL night game.

MLS is basically banking on an over-the-hill Lionel Messi to save their league at this point.

Yep, i tend to agree. But Fox likely benefits if they have any Messi matches which MLS should do for more exposure. So far MLS ratings are not great but it fills the schedule and cost minimal like u said.

Almost every MLS team now has a stadium they control. Ticket prices are far higher than USFL or even XFL. Controlling the stadium gives them a lot of revenue from concessions, concerts, etc.

MLS has 29 teams and only 7 are in stadiums they don't control completely. Though some are controlled by the owner's other team such as New England, Atlanta, etc.

They play a 34 game season plus other competitions. They're not struggling. This idea that XFL or USFL will ever be better than MLS in terms of finances is laughable. They might get good TV numbers but the total revenue matters against expenses. Ticket buying, merch, etc tells you you have fans and not just people pausing on a channel to watch for a while. That's where XFL and USFL have to really work.

It took MLS years to reach this point. Spring Football is nowhere near the ability to build and control their own stadiums. Without that they're renters who are in stadiums I'll suited for them and at the mercy of walk up fans on game day.

MLS Valuations:
https://www.sportico.com/feature/mls-so ... 234689586/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/justinbirn ... c5f9735324
Forbes lists Revenue and there is a huge disparity from $21mm to $116mm.

You make some good points, but causal fans pausing on a channel can pay big, that's something MLS can't get (at least for last 28yrs). Buying tickets and other revenues is bigger part of MLS reveune. And as you noted they are in between NBA/NHL and NFL as far as games played to generate that vs spring FB.

Look at NFL valuations:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozania ... 7eefe16365

And the MLS teams have higher multiplier values on their valuations than the 4 majors.

So where does that leave spring FB? Would a longer season say 12-14 games leveraging more of the team costs and allow for more tix sales? Can two leagues be doing this or will a merger find its way in the end?

[4th&long]

Can we get some clarify here?

https://ir.nielsen.com/news-events/pres ... fault.aspx

>> Nielsen's monthly total TV and streaming snapshot. Streaming represented a record 34.8% share of total television consumption, while cable and broadcast came in at 34.4% and 21.6%, respectively <<

Question? - So when they say broadcast - do they mean Over-The-Air or broadcast channels - ie ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC and other old school UHF like local channels? OR do they mean Broadcast channels viewed on any medium?
And same for cable.

Because if its the former all they are saying is people are choosing to view mostly Cable-Internet-OTT services that are of 2 types. Both are still using cable lines for the most part but not cable's proprietary service. The two types of OTT services are cable substitutes and (cable) premium like channels.

Hulu/Yahoo fall in the first type while NF, Amazon, Disney+ fall into the second.

So as a consumer, you still need Internet service, an OTT cable like service and then you choose your premium services.
How is any of this saving consumers money sans all the government taxes and fees on cable, which will soon be imposed on OTT?
It is not "ala cart viewing" - for example if I want TNF I still need ALL of Amazon Prime, not just the 3-4 hours shown 17 weeks. It's just meet the New King same as the Old King.

Cable is also way easier to navigate from one channel to the other. And with Streaming becoming more weekly showings vs dump all episodes at once and adding commericials - and cable allowing on demand and streaming especially with premium subscriptions they are becoming more alike. In fact i'm surprised NF/Amazon haven't offered their "channels" on cable yet.

And another thing is - there isn't enough talent to make broadcast and cable good viewing - all this streaming is just adding more channels that lack good talent.

Streaming is killing Cable and Streaming - lots to read here. Was talking about this for a while - see above too.

https://www.outkick.com/espn-charter-ca ... le-sports/

>> Okay, if you’ve read to this point, you might be thinking, “This feels like it’s going to be really bad, Clay.”

Uh, yeah, it is, that’s why I called it a media extinction level event.

The asteroid is going to hit everyone in media.

In a major way.

This is also why I don’t see why anyone buys ESPN. Unless you desperately need the sports rights ESPN has right now, why wouldn’t the streaming companies, if they really want to get in the sports business, just outbid ESPN for the NBA and the college football playoff and the other rights as they come to market? ESPN’s only real assets are the rights they presently own. So why would you pay ESPN for the rights fees when you could just wait and outbid them for those games as they come to market? The only value ESPN has is if someone has to have these existing sports rights immediately. But if you wait over the next five to ten years those ESPN rights end and the leagues will sell to the highest bidders on the open market.

And the streaming companies deciding to bid is the best case for the sports leagues.

Because unless the streaming companies step up to the plate, athlete salaries and sports team valuations may have peaked. Because, remember, athlete salaries and sports teams valuations have been subsidized by the cable and satellite bundle too. Do you really think NBA players you’ve never heard of deserve $50 million a year salaries? Of course not. They’re getting paid that because of the cable and satellite bundle. The regional sports networks, which fund much of this salary largesse, are already going bankrupt and no one seems to be able to explain what happens next in terms of local sports rights. <<

[4th&long]

https://www.outkick.com/analysis/big-te ... lay-travis

>> Netflix won the streaming wars and destroyed the cable and satellite bundle in the process. It's not just because Netflix built the superior streaming service and is the only company in the streaming business to actually make a profit -- everyone else has lost billions while Netflix has made billions -- but because the success of Netflix led Disney, Comcast, and Paramount to all abandon the greatest media business in world history -- the cable and satellite bundle -- and rush to compete with Netflix in streaming. Instead of building their own strong and successful streaming businesses, all of them destroyed their existing cable and satellite profits even faster than they otherwise would have all while losing billions in streaming. 

It's true that cable and satellite were headed for a slow decline in the years ahead, but by pursuing Netflix and starting their own streaming services, all of these media companies hastened their own demise. (The only company that didn't crazily enter the streaming war was Fox, which sold $71 billion in streaming assets to Disney at the absolutely perfect time... <<

Interesting point Clay makes - posted similar on here, but while Clay thinks FTC won't block, I'm more skeptical.  Programming is king and the humorless, sensitivity phase has made media shows less appealing. 

Yes Apple, Amazon and Google have enough money to buy legacy media many times over.  But will they run it any better and will it move the needle for them ie Stock price? NF is profitable now, but as it opens up the check book for sports how long does it last.  Big Tech is looking to leverage its assets in data centers and tech, but do they want to get bogged down in running media companies.  The current model allows them to buy programs from legacy and stream it later thereby picking the winners.  Sports is a winner, but will the cost justify more subscriptions.

And Clay mentions his roots where he was making 40k(??) a year in 2008, he seems to forget that millions are still making that or the 2024 equivalent and can't afford all these subscriptions?  Not likely.  Meaning OTA will still be around and therefore cable will. 

Will cable and regulators need to reform and get smarter ?  Sure.

Granted Shari Redstone has destroyed Paramount value like a one woman wrecking ball but - I'm not sold that these companies want these media companies, other than the sports rights.  I've ben waiting for her to sell, and she shuns offers, look at Byron Allen media groups offer and RBC offer too. Comcast and Disney have too many non-Media assets - so if acquired that would be a messy break up.  Fox and Paramount are the pure plays and their value is in Sports rights.  And I think the NFL has an early out clause after 7 years so that clock is ticking.  Those as Clay points out are cheap acquistions.

[BattleHawks]

MLS has 2 million subscribers on AppleTV

those people pay whether they watch or not

so MLS basically gets an automatic 2 million extra viewers for every single game

 

[laxtreme56]

MLS has 2 million subscribers on AppleTV

those people pay whether they watch or not

so MLS basically gets an automatic 2 million extra viewers for every single game

Except they’re not all paid. There was a deal with T-Mobile to get MLS Pass for free last year. Now that the deal is up, I’d imagine the real number to be far less.

 

[4th&long]

MLS has 2 million subscribers on AppleTV

those people pay whether they watch or not

so MLS basically gets an automatic 2 million extra viewers for every single game

Except they’re not all paid. There was a deal with T-Mobile to get MLS Pass for free last year. Now that the deal is up, I’d imagine the real number to be far less.

 

Laextreme nails it, and there were other promo giveaways if I recall. 

BTW a bit OT but, the same holds ture for NF and Hulu.  They say subscribers is up but its via Tmobile and Verizon has a promo too.

[4th&long]

https://thenhlzone.com/ratings-recap-ab ... day-falls/

>> Through 16 games, the NHL on ABC is averaging 925,000 viewers, down a slight 7% from the same time last season (992K). ABC closes out its regular season with a tripleheader on Saturday,<<

That Saturday was 4/13 which saw NHL 3 games get:

>>BC’s competing NHL regular season game between the Bruins and Penguins, which averaged a 0.7 and 1.19 million — down 3% in ratings and 15% in viewership from Devils-Bruins last year (0.7, 1.40M). That was the final game of a tripleheader that also included Islanders-Rangers at a 0.51 (-4%) and 877,000 (-11%) and Kraken-Stars at a mere 0.34 (-32%) and 584,000 (-32%).<<

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2024/0 ... -and-more/

 Doing the math ABC over 19 games averaged under 919k for NHL Regular season.  After three games the UFL is getting 968k I can see that dropping to under 900k before regular season is over, either way very comparable

[BattleHawks]

MLS has 2 million subscribers on AppleTV

those people pay whether they watch or not

so MLS basically gets an automatic 2 million extra viewers for every single game

Except they’re not all paid. There was a deal with T-Mobile to get MLS Pass for free last year. Now that the deal is up, I’d imagine the real number to be far less.

 

Wrong, that plan doesn't even exist any more.

Nice try, though.

[4th&long]

MLS has 2 million subscribers on AppleTV

those people pay whether they watch or not

so MLS basically gets an automatic 2 million extra viewers for every single game

Except they’re not all paid. There was a deal with T-Mobile to get MLS Pass for free last year. Now that the deal is up, I’d imagine the real number to be far less.

 

Wrong, that plan doesn't even exist any more.

Nice try, though.

 

No.  Right.  The 2mm subscribers was for the 2023 season - thats when the Tmobile promo was

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/A ... scriptions

>> MLS Season Pass, the streaming service launched by the league last year in collaboration with Apple, surpassed 2 million subscribers by the end of the 2023 season. Apple and MLS have been tight-lipped with data related to adoption or viewership, but two sources with knowledge of the numbers confirmed the end-of-season benchmark.

That figure includes paid annual subscribers, some of whom signed up later in the season at a prorated price, as well as paid monthly subscribers, complimentary MLS club season-ticket holder accounts and those who signed up via promotional offers (T-Mobile subscribers, for example, were offered free subscriptions). <<

[4th&long]

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2024/0 ... n-tnt-abc/

>>Fueled by a big increase on ESPN, the NHL regular season was the most-watched in eight years — and the most-watched on cable in 30.

NHL regular season games averaged 504,000 viewers across ABC, ESPN and TNT, up 8% from last year and the most-watched season since 2015-16 on NBC and NBCSN (505K). ESPN was the driving force behind the increase, as its average viewership increased 25% to 486,000. TNT was up 1% to 363,000 and ABC was actually down 8% to 934,000. <<

Going with SMW viewer #'s as the standard [EDIT: the reason why there was 919k on the other site - thenhlzone - was they weighed every game the same - the SMW figure is game length weighted (ie the actual number of minutes) and may include ESPN+ streaming.  SO both are correct and in actuality the 919k where each game weighted the same seems more common usage]

The TV contract is $625mm total with $400 Disney and $225 WBD (TNT).  Now that includes playoffs and streaming (mostly a benefit for ESPN+) but that in comparison to UFL and other non-Big4 sports NHL is the closest.