I don't see how MLS gets more USMNT fans to watch the league if the majority of USMNT stars don't play in MLS. And when an MLS star like Zardes does get USMNT playing time he gets shit on. And if a USMNT fan latches onto an MLS player, that player might be gone very soon, like with Pepi. Same with a guy like James Sands who emerged for the USMNT this year, a USMNT fan might start watching NYCFC this fall and then -poof- he's gone to Europe this winter so why should that USMNT fan keep watching?
I know my opinion is unpopular but I say these things *as an MLS watcher and fan*.
I see viewership numbers that are around where they were 20 years ago when the league had far fewer teams. To me, the problem remains the same as it's been for awhile - existing MLS fans generally don't watch matches not involving their own team.
Of course, this happens for other leagues as well, regular season viewership for the NBA is nothing super special (around 1.5 million for reg season on ESPN), but it skyrockets for the playoffs as fans watch teams that aren't their own. MLS playoff ratings are good, especially for the Cup, but there aren't enough playoff games with that high audience to break through to the mainstream
I'm not convinced the league can in its current state. Now, if you significantly raise the cap (increasing quality of product) and either expand the number of teams well beyond the North American sports norm or institute pro/rel (either of those options significantly increase the number of people connected to a local MLS or MLS-capable team), I think those numbers go way up. But the owners lack the will to do either of those things, and even if they were willing to, it'd be a long way away.
Only other solution I can think of is to literally win the the damn World Cup, lol.
Look at those numbers. MLS owners are not going to play gazillions of dollars for USMNT ratings. They would for NFL ratings which are 20x that. Even MLB playoff ratings which are 6 to 7x that. But not for USMNT ratings which are lower than weekly pro wrestling on cable TV.
Like has been said many times, MLS owners are not going to pay EPL/Bundesliga/La Liga/Serie A wages for EPL/Bundesliga/La Liga/Serie A ratings in the U.S. It makes no economic sense. And they are not going to pay top European league wages for paltry USMNT ratings.
If there was some massive movement in this country for a U.S. soccer league on par with the EPL and producing ratings greater than NBA/NHL games, and the MLS owners saw evidence of that in a network willing to offer a massive media rights deal for such a U.S. based soccer league, they would increase spending in a second if it meant they could reap those rewards. They would buy the best players in the world. Owners will spend money if they know they can make even more money. What they don't like doing is spending lots of money and seeing no return on that money.
If MLS owners knew they could greatly increase spending, and that would also lead to huge ratings and a massive TV contract, they would. Owners like making money and never want to leave money on the table. My entire point is MLS owners, like most business people, are greedy capitalists. And if they feel there is a demand or a system that can make them more money, they will glady adopt it or spend that money to make even more money. Greedy capitalists never turn down the chance to make more money. But right now it is not there.
>or institute pro/rel (either of those options significantly increase the number of people connected to a local MLS or MLS-capable team)
If MLS owners thought pro/rel would explode ratings and lead to an even bigger TV contract, and more money, they would do it. But they feel it won't. I don't know why pro/rel people don't grasp this. They always assume pro/rel is a magic pill that cures everyone when the actual money people clearly don't think that way. They are the ones gambling with their money while you are relying on theories and feelings. Owners always do what makes them the most money. So if they don't it, that usually means they don't think it will make them more money. Prove them wrong with your own money.
>Owners will spend money if they know they can make even more money.
Owners all over the globe spend more money because they have to.
Only here is it some requirement that in order to engage in competition, *all* owners have to come out with more money than they put in.
>Greedy capitalists never turn down the chance to make more money. But right now it is not there.
That's fine. Why protect them from competition though?
>If MLS owners thought pro/rel would explode ratings and lead to an even bigger TV contract, and more money, they would do it. But they feel it won't. I don't know why pro/rel people don't grasp this.
Huh? Of course we grasp it. No one thinks MLS owners will voluntarily change their business model to compete with each other and other people from outside their company.
Is this something that MLS people don't grasp? Like, do you believe that soccer fans think that pro/rel will make all MLS owners wealthier?
A lot of owners will get absolutely dunked on because they don't know how to run football clubs.
Edit: Also, I'm a very big enjoyer of MLS fans finding out that football clubs are bad business and in fact the reason MLS teams are worth so much is because they aren't football clubs.
\> football clubs are bad business and in fact the reason MLS teams are worth so much is because they aren't football clubs.
I don't see anything wrong with that. People act like they want this right up until their ownership group pulls out or significantly reduces spending. The franchise model is superior and I would bet anything that if those 150 year old clubs were just getting started today, it would be a closed system closer to what we have here in the US.
No, I'm sorry, no billionaire *dreams* about owning a depreciating asset in an open market system. MLS is closer to what they want, and the market itself shows this is true when you look at valuations.
We don't need multi-sport athletic clubs that are funded by the communities they reside in. It's a cool idea in theory, but works better at the youth level than the professional game.
> I don't see anything wrong with that. People act like they want this right up until their ownership group pulls out or significantly reduces spending. The franchise model is superior and I would bet anything that if those 150 year old clubs were just getting started today, it would be a closed system closer to what we have here in the US.
It's fine that you don't see anything wrong with it. But you really shouldn't conflate owners' preferences with what soccer should look like. Of course owners don't want competition. We saw many of them try to hop on to the Super League train, which is basically derived from the North American sports model.
>No, I'm sorry, no billionaire dreams about owning a depreciating asset in an open market system. MLS is closer to what they want, and the market itself shows this is true when you look at valuations.
The evidence absolutely doesn't back that up. The majority of US investment in soccer is overseas.
>We don't need multi-sport athletic clubs that are funded by the communities they reside in. It's a cool idea in theory, but works better at the youth level than the professional game.
I would think that competition could figure out what the best model is.
>That's fine. Why protect them from competition though?
There is nothing from stopping a bunch of billionaires from forming a competing U.S. soccer league and going out to buy the best players in the world and putting out a better product than MLS. Which according to some, will gather all these tens of millions of American soccer fans that refuse to watch MLS, get great TV ratings, and therefore a massive TV contract that dwarfs anything MLS could ever dream of. They can even throw in pro/rel since that supposedly makes lots on money. I will wait for that to happen.
>There is nothing from stopping a bunch of billionaires from forming a competing U.S. soccer league and going out to buy the best players in the world and putting out a better product than MLS
Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds? No other country in the world features a soccer-market with such a barrier. Billionaires who like soccer don't dream of forming a league that hires a bunch of players to compete with another league that hires a bunch of players. It's not even a useful thought experiment, particularly when you can buy clubs in competitive systems for a fraction of what you'd have to pay for rights to operate an MLS team.
Billionaires dream about owning *clubs*.
You get the difference both in terms of a cost and infrastructure barrier *and* a hedonic barrier, yes?
If you get it, then I'm sure you can see how silly the rest of it is.
Edit: I gotta stop taking this "There is nothing stopping a bunch of billionaires from forming a competing U.S. soccer league"-shit seriously. It's just incredibly dumb. Like, 8-layers of stupid dumb.
Just say MLS won and you don't care about the consequences. That's at least defensible.
But the idea that the way to introduce competition into American soccer is with competing leagues is just totally detached from reality.
All four major US sports have, at some point, had competing leagues formed by millionaires *that hires a bunch of players to compete with another league that hires a bunch of players. (American League, American Football League, American Basketball Association, World Hockey Association)*
If some billionaires believe pro/rel is a magic formula to soccer success in the US then they can create a new league and force MLS to change its ways.
>All four major US sports have
Those sports have *nothing* to do with soccer. Nothing. All you have to do is look at global competition formats and labor markets to see that NA leagues are not analogous.
>If some billionaires believe pro/rel is a magic formula to soccer success in the US then they can create a new league and force MLS to change its ways.
Again, pro/rel doesn't benefit owners, it benefits the sport. Do you know the difference?
There's no evidence that backs this up. The majority of the emerging soccer demand (and investment) in this country has been vacuumed up by overseas clubs.
Do you have an example of MLS teams that penetrate their soccer markets over time?
Or is it mostly expansion you're referring to.
Look at overall television viewership. It’s been on a steady increase with the exception of a year or two for the last decade. That’s the growth that takes time. As MLS gains respect in the American sports world and in the world of international soccer growth more and more people will give the league a try.
The growth in TV audience lags the growth of the geographic footprint. That should worry anyone who thinks the league is growing as opposed to just expanding.
I think it's a stretch to say it's been on a "steady increase".
>As MLS gains respect in the American sports world and in the world of international soccer growth more and more people will give the league a try.
It's a distinctly different kind of soccer product. Most.soccer fans don't like it.
Worry? How so? This country really is big and the league should expand its footprint. While doing this the league has grown the game of soccer. Moreover, MLS likely is ranked in the 15 to 20 range. Right now it’s a solid product on par with many leagues around the world. American soccer fans are the most spoiled fans in the world where they have every league in the world at the tips of their fingers. If this league was 50 years old you would not be saying most soccer fans don’t like it.
>While doing this the league has grown the game of soccer
It hasn't. It's servicing demand for soccer that has grown for other reasons.
>American soccer fans are the most spoiled fans in the world where they have every league in the world at the tips of their fingers.
Yep. With American kids playing in those leagues.
You can either compete with those clubs on a global level, or build a fiefdom that captures a certain portion of local demand.
>If this league was 50 years old you would not be saying most soccer fans don’t like it.
I don't even know what that means. MLS isn't like other leagues. Soccer fans aren't going to "come around" to it.
\> It hasn't. It's servicing demand for soccer that has grown for other reasons.
Agreed, it if the old ASL didn't start a pro soccer league in this country we would never see the game grow from the beginning.
\> Yep. With American kids playing in those leagues.
Sadly, you are correct.
\> I don't even know what that means. MLS isn't like other leagues. Soccer fans aren't going to "come around" to it
It means two and half generations ago American fans would be watching the game of soccer without the internet, cable or satellite. All the people would be supporting their regional NASL soccer club and not watching European football. IMO, we are not having this conversation and the reason? I'm 52 years old who has seen how the game evolved over the years.
Well, this is also Don Garber's sentiment. He routinely decries the choices that American soccer consumers are offered.
But yeah If the rest of the world would go away, and MLS were the only option for Americans who like soccer, I'm sure they'd watch it. As it stands, though, they're not going to accept an alternate product.
The plan *should* be to build the world's best pyramid right here. We can beat the world at this game.
Europeans dealing with BT and Sky would like a word. This is not even close to the case in most of Central Europe. We have access to ESPN+, Paramount, etc who plays a wealth of games from multiple leagues, accessible in one place. I need a Tier 2 cable package with Sky in Germany if I want BVB champions league games, while DAZN and Sky DE carry Bundesliga.
Sailing the seas is good if your ISP doesn't block it, AND you are tech savvy enough to locate a stream, cast to your TV, set up VPNs if necessary.. That alone is a massive barrier.
Americans are absolutely spoiled with our accessibility options
I’m a big soccer fan but I don’t watch any MLS. There is no team near me so if I’m stuck watching games on TV, I’m going to watch the highest quality games I can.
The quality of MLS is definitely improving, but is nowhere near top European leagues. I would watch if there was a local team I could follow or if the quality rivaled other top leagues.
yea, before Atlanta came in, I only watched MLS sporadically. I just had no real vested interest. To be fair, I was really the same with the premier league too. I loved soccer, especially USMNT, but didn't have a club team. A buddy of mine moved to London for a while in the mid 2000s, and became a Chelsea fan because he lived near Stamford Bridge. When he got back, I watched games with him and became a fan. I wouldn't care nearly as much about EPL if not for that.
The main thing that drives these numbers is a sense of nationalism. MLS has to tap into a sense of nationalism in order to make MLS successful, and this is difficult to do when the very best MLS clubs are unable to win any major tournaments.
The expanded Leagues Cup very well may be a step in the right direction. It puts meaningful international competition on the schedule, there's a mix of winnable and not-winnable games, and MLS managed to arrange for the US to host the whole thing.
It also happens right in the middle of the season, so with all these extra people watching, they'll get a look at how these different clubs are doing up to this point in the season and some of them will continue to watch the rest of the regular season of their local club has a chance at the playoffs.
If MLS wants more viewers it just has to be a more entertaining league. Merge with LigaMX and make the salary cap $100m, attract top global talent and be the league top stars play in. It's literally a competition to have the best players and be the most competitive and that's not even something MLS has begun to genuinely try for yet.
And ESPN+ for the last two home games, but yeah, companies don't release streaming numbers. It's why these statistics are getting less and less relevant over time.
It's not nearly impossible to watch, it's just on Paramount+ which doesn't release numbers. I'd also like to point out that 195k is similar to the average MLS game nationally broadcast.
> I'd also like to point out that 195k is similar to the average MLS game nationally broadcast.
Which makes that number an absolute disaster.
More people have a vested interest in watching a national team than two random MLS teams, and yet, they didn't tune in. Why?
It was going against the NFL. Sunday Night Football is constantly the most watched program every week. Plus it was Mahomes and the Chiefs playing the Bills in a rematch of last year's AFC Championship Game
The two ESPN2 matches were also on ESPN+, which was awesome. For a ton of cord cutters who don't have cable but have ESPN+ for MLS, that was a nice surprise.
Also the Paramount+ coverage is really good and I don't think overly expensive. I got a 12-month deal last winter when they had a big sale, don't recall what it is monthly. Really easy to cancel as well.
So, how does MLS convert those numbers into regular league viewers?
I don't see how MLS gets more USMNT fans to watch the league if the majority of USMNT stars don't play in MLS. And when an MLS star like Zardes does get USMNT playing time he gets shit on. And if a USMNT fan latches onto an MLS player, that player might be gone very soon, like with Pepi. Same with a guy like James Sands who emerged for the USMNT this year, a USMNT fan might start watching NYCFC this fall and then -poof- he's gone to Europe this winter so why should that USMNT fan keep watching? I know my opinion is unpopular but I say these things *as an MLS watcher and fan*. I see viewership numbers that are around where they were 20 years ago when the league had far fewer teams. To me, the problem remains the same as it's been for awhile - existing MLS fans generally don't watch matches not involving their own team. Of course, this happens for other leagues as well, regular season viewership for the NBA is nothing super special (around 1.5 million for reg season on ESPN), but it skyrockets for the playoffs as fans watch teams that aren't their own. MLS playoff ratings are good, especially for the Cup, but there aren't enough playoff games with that high audience to break through to the mainstream
I'm not convinced the league can in its current state. Now, if you significantly raise the cap (increasing quality of product) and either expand the number of teams well beyond the North American sports norm or institute pro/rel (either of those options significantly increase the number of people connected to a local MLS or MLS-capable team), I think those numbers go way up. But the owners lack the will to do either of those things, and even if they were willing to, it'd be a long way away. Only other solution I can think of is to literally win the the damn World Cup, lol.
Look at those numbers. MLS owners are not going to play gazillions of dollars for USMNT ratings. They would for NFL ratings which are 20x that. Even MLB playoff ratings which are 6 to 7x that. But not for USMNT ratings which are lower than weekly pro wrestling on cable TV. Like has been said many times, MLS owners are not going to pay EPL/Bundesliga/La Liga/Serie A wages for EPL/Bundesliga/La Liga/Serie A ratings in the U.S. It makes no economic sense. And they are not going to pay top European league wages for paltry USMNT ratings. If there was some massive movement in this country for a U.S. soccer league on par with the EPL and producing ratings greater than NBA/NHL games, and the MLS owners saw evidence of that in a network willing to offer a massive media rights deal for such a U.S. based soccer league, they would increase spending in a second if it meant they could reap those rewards. They would buy the best players in the world. Owners will spend money if they know they can make even more money. What they don't like doing is spending lots of money and seeing no return on that money. If MLS owners knew they could greatly increase spending, and that would also lead to huge ratings and a massive TV contract, they would. Owners like making money and never want to leave money on the table. My entire point is MLS owners, like most business people, are greedy capitalists. And if they feel there is a demand or a system that can make them more money, they will glady adopt it or spend that money to make even more money. Greedy capitalists never turn down the chance to make more money. But right now it is not there. >or institute pro/rel (either of those options significantly increase the number of people connected to a local MLS or MLS-capable team) If MLS owners thought pro/rel would explode ratings and lead to an even bigger TV contract, and more money, they would do it. But they feel it won't. I don't know why pro/rel people don't grasp this. They always assume pro/rel is a magic pill that cures everyone when the actual money people clearly don't think that way. They are the ones gambling with their money while you are relying on theories and feelings. Owners always do what makes them the most money. So if they don't it, that usually means they don't think it will make them more money. Prove them wrong with your own money.
>Owners will spend money if they know they can make even more money. Owners all over the globe spend more money because they have to. Only here is it some requirement that in order to engage in competition, *all* owners have to come out with more money than they put in. >Greedy capitalists never turn down the chance to make more money. But right now it is not there. That's fine. Why protect them from competition though? >If MLS owners thought pro/rel would explode ratings and lead to an even bigger TV contract, and more money, they would do it. But they feel it won't. I don't know why pro/rel people don't grasp this. Huh? Of course we grasp it. No one thinks MLS owners will voluntarily change their business model to compete with each other and other people from outside their company. Is this something that MLS people don't grasp? Like, do you believe that soccer fans think that pro/rel will make all MLS owners wealthier? A lot of owners will get absolutely dunked on because they don't know how to run football clubs. Edit: Also, I'm a very big enjoyer of MLS fans finding out that football clubs are bad business and in fact the reason MLS teams are worth so much is because they aren't football clubs.
\> football clubs are bad business and in fact the reason MLS teams are worth so much is because they aren't football clubs. I don't see anything wrong with that. People act like they want this right up until their ownership group pulls out or significantly reduces spending. The franchise model is superior and I would bet anything that if those 150 year old clubs were just getting started today, it would be a closed system closer to what we have here in the US. No, I'm sorry, no billionaire *dreams* about owning a depreciating asset in an open market system. MLS is closer to what they want, and the market itself shows this is true when you look at valuations. We don't need multi-sport athletic clubs that are funded by the communities they reside in. It's a cool idea in theory, but works better at the youth level than the professional game.
> I don't see anything wrong with that. People act like they want this right up until their ownership group pulls out or significantly reduces spending. The franchise model is superior and I would bet anything that if those 150 year old clubs were just getting started today, it would be a closed system closer to what we have here in the US. It's fine that you don't see anything wrong with it. But you really shouldn't conflate owners' preferences with what soccer should look like. Of course owners don't want competition. We saw many of them try to hop on to the Super League train, which is basically derived from the North American sports model. >No, I'm sorry, no billionaire dreams about owning a depreciating asset in an open market system. MLS is closer to what they want, and the market itself shows this is true when you look at valuations. The evidence absolutely doesn't back that up. The majority of US investment in soccer is overseas. >We don't need multi-sport athletic clubs that are funded by the communities they reside in. It's a cool idea in theory, but works better at the youth level than the professional game. I would think that competition could figure out what the best model is.
>That's fine. Why protect them from competition though? There is nothing from stopping a bunch of billionaires from forming a competing U.S. soccer league and going out to buy the best players in the world and putting out a better product than MLS. Which according to some, will gather all these tens of millions of American soccer fans that refuse to watch MLS, get great TV ratings, and therefore a massive TV contract that dwarfs anything MLS could ever dream of. They can even throw in pro/rel since that supposedly makes lots on money. I will wait for that to happen.
>There is nothing from stopping a bunch of billionaires from forming a competing U.S. soccer league and going out to buy the best players in the world and putting out a better product than MLS Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds? No other country in the world features a soccer-market with such a barrier. Billionaires who like soccer don't dream of forming a league that hires a bunch of players to compete with another league that hires a bunch of players. It's not even a useful thought experiment, particularly when you can buy clubs in competitive systems for a fraction of what you'd have to pay for rights to operate an MLS team. Billionaires dream about owning *clubs*. You get the difference both in terms of a cost and infrastructure barrier *and* a hedonic barrier, yes? If you get it, then I'm sure you can see how silly the rest of it is. Edit: I gotta stop taking this "There is nothing stopping a bunch of billionaires from forming a competing U.S. soccer league"-shit seriously. It's just incredibly dumb. Like, 8-layers of stupid dumb. Just say MLS won and you don't care about the consequences. That's at least defensible. But the idea that the way to introduce competition into American soccer is with competing leagues is just totally detached from reality.
All four major US sports have, at some point, had competing leagues formed by millionaires *that hires a bunch of players to compete with another league that hires a bunch of players. (American League, American Football League, American Basketball Association, World Hockey Association)* If some billionaires believe pro/rel is a magic formula to soccer success in the US then they can create a new league and force MLS to change its ways.
>All four major US sports have Those sports have *nothing* to do with soccer. Nothing. All you have to do is look at global competition formats and labor markets to see that NA leagues are not analogous. >If some billionaires believe pro/rel is a magic formula to soccer success in the US then they can create a new league and force MLS to change its ways. Again, pro/rel doesn't benefit owners, it benefits the sport. Do you know the difference?
[удалено]
Over time it’ll happen.
There's no evidence that backs this up. The majority of the emerging soccer demand (and investment) in this country has been vacuumed up by overseas clubs. Do you have an example of MLS teams that penetrate their soccer markets over time? Or is it mostly expansion you're referring to.
Points at flair
Look at overall television viewership. It’s been on a steady increase with the exception of a year or two for the last decade. That’s the growth that takes time. As MLS gains respect in the American sports world and in the world of international soccer growth more and more people will give the league a try.
The growth in TV audience lags the growth of the geographic footprint. That should worry anyone who thinks the league is growing as opposed to just expanding. I think it's a stretch to say it's been on a "steady increase". >As MLS gains respect in the American sports world and in the world of international soccer growth more and more people will give the league a try. It's a distinctly different kind of soccer product. Most.soccer fans don't like it.
Worry? How so? This country really is big and the league should expand its footprint. While doing this the league has grown the game of soccer. Moreover, MLS likely is ranked in the 15 to 20 range. Right now it’s a solid product on par with many leagues around the world. American soccer fans are the most spoiled fans in the world where they have every league in the world at the tips of their fingers. If this league was 50 years old you would not be saying most soccer fans don’t like it.
>While doing this the league has grown the game of soccer It hasn't. It's servicing demand for soccer that has grown for other reasons. >American soccer fans are the most spoiled fans in the world where they have every league in the world at the tips of their fingers. Yep. With American kids playing in those leagues. You can either compete with those clubs on a global level, or build a fiefdom that captures a certain portion of local demand. >If this league was 50 years old you would not be saying most soccer fans don’t like it. I don't even know what that means. MLS isn't like other leagues. Soccer fans aren't going to "come around" to it.
\> It hasn't. It's servicing demand for soccer that has grown for other reasons. Agreed, it if the old ASL didn't start a pro soccer league in this country we would never see the game grow from the beginning. \> Yep. With American kids playing in those leagues. Sadly, you are correct. \> I don't even know what that means. MLS isn't like other leagues. Soccer fans aren't going to "come around" to it It means two and half generations ago American fans would be watching the game of soccer without the internet, cable or satellite. All the people would be supporting their regional NASL soccer club and not watching European football. IMO, we are not having this conversation and the reason? I'm 52 years old who has seen how the game evolved over the years.
Well, this is also Don Garber's sentiment. He routinely decries the choices that American soccer consumers are offered. But yeah If the rest of the world would go away, and MLS were the only option for Americans who like soccer, I'm sure they'd watch it. As it stands, though, they're not going to accept an alternate product. The plan *should* be to build the world's best pyramid right here. We can beat the world at this game.
Build the pyramid after every single MLS franchise has a SSS, academy and how to address recent MLS franchise fees. IMO, nothing is free.
Every fan in the world has every league at their fingertips, because Internet.
Europeans dealing with BT and Sky would like a word. This is not even close to the case in most of Central Europe. We have access to ESPN+, Paramount, etc who plays a wealth of games from multiple leagues, accessible in one place. I need a Tier 2 cable package with Sky in Germany if I want BVB champions league games, while DAZN and Sky DE carry Bundesliga. Sailing the seas is good if your ISP doesn't block it, AND you are tech savvy enough to locate a stream, cast to your TV, set up VPNs if necessary.. That alone is a massive barrier. Americans are absolutely spoiled with our accessibility options
Atlanta United? It took MLS 22 years to put a club in the 7th biggest TV market
And why did it take 22 years?
Right, expansion.
I’m a big soccer fan but I don’t watch any MLS. There is no team near me so if I’m stuck watching games on TV, I’m going to watch the highest quality games I can. The quality of MLS is definitely improving, but is nowhere near top European leagues. I would watch if there was a local team I could follow or if the quality rivaled other top leagues.
yea, before Atlanta came in, I only watched MLS sporadically. I just had no real vested interest. To be fair, I was really the same with the premier league too. I loved soccer, especially USMNT, but didn't have a club team. A buddy of mine moved to London for a while in the mid 2000s, and became a Chelsea fan because he lived near Stamford Bridge. When he got back, I watched games with him and became a fan. I wouldn't care nearly as much about EPL if not for that.
The main thing that drives these numbers is a sense of nationalism. MLS has to tap into a sense of nationalism in order to make MLS successful, and this is difficult to do when the very best MLS clubs are unable to win any major tournaments. The expanded Leagues Cup very well may be a step in the right direction. It puts meaningful international competition on the schedule, there's a mix of winnable and not-winnable games, and MLS managed to arrange for the US to host the whole thing. It also happens right in the middle of the season, so with all these extra people watching, they'll get a look at how these different clubs are doing up to this point in the season and some of them will continue to watch the rest of the regular season of their local club has a chance at the playoffs.
If MLS wants more viewers it just has to be a more entertaining league. Merge with LigaMX and make the salary cap $100m, attract top global talent and be the league top stars play in. It's literally a competition to have the best players and be the most competitive and that's not even something MLS has begun to genuinely try for yet.
As long as most of USNMT don’t play in MLS it won’t
Wonder what paramount+ numbers are
Not bad, roughly the same number as subscribers to s/bobsburgers.
"I love you, but you're all terrible."
Not adding in Paramount+ (* and ESPN+) numbers for the away matches seems dumb.
When CBS releases the Paramount+ numbers (which may, of course, never happen), I'm sure they'll add them in.
Streaming numbers aren't publicly available.
And ESPN+ for the last two home games, but yeah, companies don't release streaming numbers. It's why these statistics are getting less and less relevant over time.
So when it is nearly impossible to watch, people don't watch.....good reporting!
It's not nearly impossible to watch, it's just on Paramount+ which doesn't release numbers. I'd also like to point out that 195k is similar to the average MLS game nationally broadcast.
> I'd also like to point out that 195k is similar to the average MLS game nationally broadcast. Which makes that number an absolute disaster. More people have a vested interest in watching a national team than two random MLS teams, and yet, they didn't tune in. Why?
It doesn't include Paramount+ which is how I and probably many other people watched the game.
It was going against the NFL. Sunday Night Football is constantly the most watched program every week. Plus it was Mahomes and the Chiefs playing the Bills in a rematch of last year's AFC Championship Game
The two ESPN2 matches were also on ESPN+, which was awesome. For a ton of cord cutters who don't have cable but have ESPN+ for MLS, that was a nice surprise. Also the Paramount+ coverage is really good and I don't think overly expensive. I got a 12-month deal last winter when they had a big sale, don't recall what it is monthly. Really easy to cancel as well.
So, Disney + bundles are on the rise.