ESPN dumping MLS Thursday night

[GB-Hack]

I don't think I'd call a league starting it's 13th season "fledgling."

The biggest problem MLS has faced is people thinking they should draw NFL size crowds. Only the 12-15 biggest clubs in Europe do, if that. When you see 15-20K in an NFL stadium, everybody wants to shout "See nobody shows," but now that most teams have size-specific stadiums, they are near sellouts with with crowds equaling NBA and NHL.

The problem is they can't play as many games a season as either of those leagues.

No soccer league can.

 

[Boomer7]

Great news for Red Sox fans - more OB, less Dale Arnold on radio.

O'Brien actually didn't do MLS games last year.

Anyway, national TV ratings have always been (and will likely continue to be) elusive for MLS. All the things some people thought would make a difference in the past--a steady time slot, a weekly highlight show, more promotion, etc.--haven't mattered much.

National ratings for virtually all sports are declining; people have more options and less interest in watching teams other than their own. Soccer's especially vulnerable, I think; the experience of watching a game when you have a vested interest is entirely different than when you're a neutral observer. (Americans seemed to enjoy a scoreless draw when the U.S. women played China in '99.) So nationally telecast MLS matches were never going to be a big hit.

The key for MLS is to keep building local fan bases that are passionate and devoted to their clubs. It's a slow, unglamorous slog (the Adu and Beckham episodes were short-term cash grabs, and brilliant ones at that, but they were never going to "make soccer big"), but it's the only way to carve out a permanent spot in the sports market.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

Great news for Red Sox fans - more OB, less Dale Arnold on radio.

O'Brien actually didn't do MLS games last year.

Anyway, national TV ratings have always been (and will likely continue to be) elusive for MLS. All the things some people thought would make a difference in the past--a steady time slot, a weekly highlight show, more promotion, etc.--haven't mattered much.

National ratings for virtually all sports are declining; people have more options and less interest in watching teams other than their own. Soccer's especially vulnerable, I think; the experience of watching a game when you have a vested interest is entirely different than when you're a neutral observer. (Americans seemed to enjoy a scoreless draw when the U.S. women played China in '99.) So nationally telecast MLS matches were never going to be a big hit.

The key for MLS is to keep building local fan bases that are passionate and devoted to their clubs. It's a slow, unglamorous slog (the Adu and Beckham episodes were short-term cash grabs, and brilliant ones at that, but they were never going to "make soccer big"), but it's the only way to carve out a permanent spot in the sports market.

I agree with just about all of this, particularly the need to build the local base.

MLS has relatively few franchises, so there are a lot of soccer fans who have no local team and no rooting interest. I'm 400 miles from the closest franchise. If my city gets a team at some point I'll be first in line for season tickets, but that's not happening anytime soon. Until then I have FSC, Gol and Setanta on DirecTV, so I'm a hell of a lot more likely to tune in to those to see if there's a game on than to check ESPN. And with no rooting interest, I'd rather watch Premier League, Championship, La Liga or Bundesliga than MLS. I'm guessing I'm not the only soccer fan in a non-MLS city who feels that way.

 

[Bubbler]

Great news for Red Sox fans - more OB, less Dale Arnold on radio.

O'Brien actually didn't do MLS games last year.

Anyway, national TV ratings have always been (and will likely continue to be) elusive for MLS. All the things some people thought would make a difference in the past--a steady time slot, a weekly highlight show, more promotion, etc.--haven't mattered much.

National ratings for virtually all sports are declining; people have more options and less interest in watching teams other than their own. Soccer's especially vulnerable, I think; the experience of watching a game when you have a vested interest is entirely different than when you're a neutral observer. (Americans seemed to enjoy a scoreless draw when the U.S. women played China in '99.) So nationally telecast MLS matches were never going to be a big hit.

The key for MLS is to keep building local fan bases that are passionate and devoted to their clubs. It's a slow, unglamorous slog (the Adu and Beckham episodes were short-term cash grabs, and brilliant ones at that, but they were never going to "make soccer big"), but it's the only way to carve out a permanent spot in the sports market.

I agree with just about all of this, particularly the need to build the local base.

MLS has relatively few franchises, so there are a lot of soccer fans who have no local team and no rooting interest. I'm 400 miles from the closest franchise. If my city gets a team at some point I'll be first in line for season tickets, but that's not happening anytime soon. Until then I have FSC, Gol and Setanta on DirecTV, so I'm a hell of a lot more likely to tune in to those to see if there's a game on than to check ESPN. And with no rooting interest, I'd rather watch Premier League, Championship, La Liga or Bundesliga than MLS. I'm guessing I'm not the only soccer fan in a non-MLS city who feels that way.

You aren't. I could ape your post word-for-word.

And despite the fact it's a good soccer city, my hometown isn't likely to get a team either. If they did, I'd be into it.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

I understand the sentiment that it would be more interesting with a hometown team. That's how sports fandom should work.

But the problem is, MLS is trying to expand (soon there will be 18 teams, after just 10 in 2002) and the talent pool can't support such a move. Coaching at the youth and college levels is not geared to developing players to contribute as pros and on the national team.

Three years ago, MLS mandated that every team start a youth development system, with a few individual players emerging from some teams which already had such a system in place. Getting depth from there will take time and money, neither of which MLS really has in abundance if major pushes like Adu and Beckham continue to fall flat.

MLS is as big as it is going to get, until the product improves enough to satisfy the Eurosnobs . . .errr . . . .soccer fans in this country who have hometown teams but spurn MLS for Arsenal or some such. I just wish the league would realize that and build what it has instead of looking to establish more mediocre teams.

 

[Mark2010]

So moving telecasts to a different night --- or rotating nights --- accomplishes WHAT?

 

[Twoback]

What the MLS should do is bring some big name players in from The Premier league like Dave Beckham.

Boom, how many hours did you spend working on this comedic gem?

 

[forever_town]

I've also worried about the speed of expansion in the past few years after what I'd consider judicious planning on the part of MLS.

The league has definitely made strong positive strides since Don Garber became commissioner. Ditching some of the cornier names for traditional-sounding names was a good start. Ditching the shootout was great. The level of play has improved slowly, but surely. A former D.C. United player told me that the very best two or three teams in MLS could compete with the best of the Bundesliga. And that was in 1998. The league's play has gotten better since then.

However, expanding to 18 teams, especially in this economy, sounds like a recipe for a NASL-style failure. Granted, the league's doing it one and two teams at a time, but still, the league ought to wait a few more years before it hits 18 teams.

And I also agree about the soccer-specific stadia. Playing in front of 16,000 fans in a 80,000-seat stadium makes it look like your league is on death's door. Playing in front of 16,000 fans in a 20,000-seat stadium is a whole different story.

 

[Starman]

You didn't see the ratings you wanted from a single night, so you're trying something different by bouncing it all over the place?

That kind of thinking killed WKRP in Cincinnati, my all-time favorite show.

Ditto, for Twin peaks.

And Star Trek.

And a couple of others whose names escape me.

The Rockford Files and Northern Exposure.

Both shows had sagged in their final season, but were pushed into the abyss by scattershot scheduling. Usually when the networks start doing that, it's a sign they want to get rid of the show anyway.

 

[Twoback]

Great news for Red Sox fans - more OB, less Dale Arnold on radio.

O'Brien actually didn't do MLS games last year.

Anyway, national TV ratings have always been (and will likely continue to be) elusive for MLS. All the things some people thought would make a difference in the past--a steady time slot, a weekly highlight show, more promotion, etc.--haven't mattered much.

National ratings for virtually all sports are declining; people have more options and less interest in watching teams other than their own. Soccer's especially vulnerable, I think; the experience of watching a game when you have a vested interest is entirely different than when you're a neutral observer. (Americans seemed to enjoy a scoreless draw when the U.S. women played China in '99.) So nationally telecast MLS matches were never going to be a big hit.

The key for MLS is to keep building local fan bases that are passionate and devoted to their clubs. It's a slow, unglamorous slog (the Adu and Beckham episodes were short-term cash grabs, and brilliant ones at that, but they were never going to "make soccer big"), but it's the only way to carve out a permanent spot in the sports market.

I agree with just about all of this, particularly the need to build the local base.

MLS has relatively few franchises, so there are a lot of soccer fans who have no local team and no rooting interest. I'm 400 miles from the closest franchise. If my city gets a team at some point I'll be first in line for season tickets, but that's not happening anytime soon. Until then I have FSC, Gol and Setanta on DirecTV, so I'm a hell of a lot more likely to tune in to those to see if there's a game on than to check ESPN. And with no rooting interest, I'd rather watch Premier League, Championship, La Liga or Bundesliga than MLS. I'm guessing I'm not the only soccer fan in a non-MLS city who feels that way.

Here's what I can't figure, PC.
Are you watching reruns in the summer? From Mid-May to August, MLS is pretty much the only soccer you can watch.

 

[Boom_70]

ESPN would get better Thursday night ratings on reruns of the best college football games of the century

 

[poindexter]

The taped World Series of Poker final table got over 6x the viewers of the average MLS Thursday night game.

Yikes.

http://news.777.com/2008-11/espn-world-series-of-poker-ratings

 

[GB-Hack]

I'm not sure it's fair to compare a one-off event to a season-long schedule.

If you want to compare MLS rating to the WSOP's entire run, or the final table airing to the MLS Cup Final, it would be a better comparison.

But the problem for MLS remains that it isn't seen as top-flight competition. The Mexican League probably get better ratings on Telemundo than MLS does.

ESPN/ABC got a 3.1 rating for the European Championship final, and a 7.0 for the last World Cup final, both over a point higher than the WSOP Final table.

If you put quality soccer on the tube, people will watch it. The trouble is, not enough people think MLS is quality soccer.

 

[poindexter]

I'm not sure it's fair to compare a one-off event to a season-long schedule.

If you want to compare MLS rating to the WSOP's entire run, or the final table airing to the MLS Cup Final, it would be a better comparison.

But the problem for MLS remains that it isn't seen as top-flight competition. The Mexican League probably get better ratings on Telemundo than MLS does.

ESPN/ABC got a 3.1 rating for the European Championship final, and a 7.0 for the last World Cup final, both over a point higher than the WSOP Final table.

If you put quality soccer on the tube, people will watch it. The trouble is, not enough people think MLS is quality soccer.

In 2004, it was getting a 1.8 or 1.9.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/09/commentary/column_sportsbiz/sportsbiz/index.htm

 

[Boomer7]

But the problem is, MLS is trying to expand (soon there will be 18 teams, after just 10 in 2002) and the talent pool can't support such a move. Coaching at the youth and college levels is not geared to developing players to contribute as pros and on the national team.

Three years ago, MLS mandated that every team start a youth development system, with a few individual players emerging from some teams which already had such a system in place. Getting depth from there will take time and money, neither of which MLS really has in abundance if major pushes like Adu and Beckham continue to fall flat.

MLS is as big as it is going to get, until the product improves enough to satisfy the Eurosnobs . . .errr . . . .soccer fans in this country who have hometown teams but spurn MLS for Arsenal or some such. I just wish the league would realize that and build what it has instead of looking to establish more mediocre teams.

I don't see how Adu and Beckham fell flat from the league's perspective. They both brought a ton of exposure, sparked record attendance, sold a bunch of merchandise. They weren't going to "make soccer big" in the U.S.

As for the shallowness of the talent pool, the league will have to expand international player limits. There's no shortage of good players in this hemisphere; it's just that most of them aren't U.S. citizens.

And what would you all say is MLS' ranking in terms of popularity among American soccer fans? Clearly, the Mexican League and Premiership have more support here. Would La Liga and Serie A fit that bill as well?

 

[GB-Hack]

I think La Liga, thanks to the influence of Real Madrid and Barcalona, is probably ahead of MLS. Serie A likely is as well.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

Great news for Red Sox fans - more OB, less Dale Arnold on radio.

O'Brien actually didn't do MLS games last year.

Anyway, national TV ratings have always been (and will likely continue to be) elusive for MLS. All the things some people thought would make a difference in the past--a steady time slot, a weekly highlight show, more promotion, etc.--haven't mattered much.

National ratings for virtually all sports are declining; people have more options and less interest in watching teams other than their own. Soccer's especially vulnerable, I think; the experience of watching a game when you have a vested interest is entirely different than when you're a neutral observer. (Americans seemed to enjoy a scoreless draw when the U.S. women played China in '99.) So nationally telecast MLS matches were never going to be a big hit.

The key for MLS is to keep building local fan bases that are passionate and devoted to their clubs. It's a slow, unglamorous slog (the Adu and Beckham episodes were short-term cash grabs, and brilliant ones at that, but they were never going to "make soccer big"), but it's the only way to carve out a permanent spot in the sports market.

I agree with just about all of this, particularly the need to build the local base.

MLS has relatively few franchises, so there are a lot of soccer fans who have no local team and no rooting interest. I'm 400 miles from the closest franchise. If my city gets a team at some point I'll be first in line for season tickets, but that's not happening anytime soon. Until then I have FSC, Gol and Setanta on DirecTV, so I'm a hell of a lot more likely to tune in to those to see if there's a game on than to check ESPN. And with no rooting interest, I'd rather watch Premier League, Championship, La Liga or Bundesliga than MLS. I'm guessing I'm not the only soccer fan in a non-MLS city who feels that way.

Here's what I can't figure, PC.
Are you watching reruns in the summer? From Mid-May to August, MLS is pretty much the only soccer you can watch.

Sometimes, yeah. Part of it is just that those are the first three channels I'll go to, so if there's a halfway interesting game on one of them I'm likely to stay put without ever checking ESPN. I'm far more likely to see an MLS game on FSC than ESPN.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

ESPN would get better Thursday night ratings on reruns of the best college football games of the century

I'd actually watch that over a San Jose-Dallas matchup.

And Boomer7: Adu and Beckham both fell flat because they sold a bunch of tickets, sold a bunch of moichandise, brought media attention . . . and then didn't dominate the league. The league can say what it wants to get people to be realistic, but when all that hype happens, it's very easy for critics to say "Hey, I thought this bozo would score three goals a game!!!"

 

[Boomer7]

ESPN would get better Thursday night ratings on reruns of the best college football games of the century

I'd actually watch that over a San Jose-Dallas matchup.

And Boomer7: Adu and Beckham both fell flat because they sold a bunch of tickets, sold a bunch of moichandise, brought media attention . . . and then didn't dominate the league. The league can say what it wants to get people to be realistic, but when all that hype happens, it's very easy for critics to say "Hey, I thought this bozo would score three goals a game!!!"

The critics saying that weren't going to pay any attention to MLS or to soccer after the initial buzz wore off, anyway.

 

[Shoeless Joe]

I still contend that there is a skewed perspective of exactly what "successful" is. Last year's attendance numbers were good as long as you aren't expecting NFL or NASCAR numbers. L.A. averaged 26K. Kansas City averaged 10K. Throw out the high and low, and the attendance range for the other 12 organizations ranged from 20-13K a match.

Sure, revenue comes from TV but the bottom line is MLS or any other sports league isn't about TV ratings. It's not a show. It's a sport that's played for the benefit of people to come out and watch.

Those attendance figures are on par with the NBA and NHL. It was brought up earlier about basketball and hockey posting those numbers over more dates. Well, so what? MLS doesn't play as many dates but it sells the tickets for the dates it has.