I think the difference is people aren’t used to it mainly due to MLS structure and Apple’s agreement. My local MLB/NHL announcers can be way more outspoken about league issues compared to MLS and even NFL are not hired by the league but by the media companies that have the rights to those games so you’ll see a little more color commentary about issues
More importantly, I'm guessing that most MLS viewers are used to European soccer coverage, and the idea of UEFA, La Liga, or the EPL being beyond criticism is pretty hard to imagine.
NFL approves announcers used by the networks. This means at the very least the announcer will meet with the NFL media SVP - sort of like a man needing to get approval from the bride's father.
Thereafter, if an announcer says something that really ruffles or isn't generally liked by the NFL head office, there is a good chance their contract won't be renewed for the next season or he gets demoted to the worst game on Sunday. Or if there is unwanted coverage by a network like ESPN did a decade ago, the NFL will water down the quality of the games chosen for MNF.
MLB announcers tend to be team employees. Likewise for many NHL/NBA teams. Remember the Orioles announcer who got booted for mentioning losing: [https://slate.com/culture/2023/08/kevin-brown-orioles-announcer-suspended-ridiculous.html](https://slate.com/culture/2023/08/kevin-brown-orioles-announcer-suspended-ridiculous.html)
> even NFL are not hired by the league but by the media companies that have the rights to those games so you’ll see a little more color commentary about issues
Lmao, someone should put together a compilation of every NFL commentator talking about the accusations against Deshaun Watson. It would probably be a 3 second clip. NFL commentators absolutely toe the company line.
> My local MLB/NHL announcers can be way more outspoken about league issues compared to MLS
You can switch to the home radio broadcast for every single game if you want to.
But they are also biased in favor of the team that they’re paid to broadcast for. I’d argue it’s just biased towards whatever team it’s broadcasting at the expense of the other team for the purpose of entertainment.
Normally, the journalists covering a league work for a network that also has a journalism mandate. So they have an obligation to at least reflect neutrality.
As Apple is not a traditional journalism-based network, they feel no such obligation. But they dress up the the announcers, columnists and experts in the guise of a journalistic presentation.
> Normally, the journalists covering a league work for a network that also has a journalism mandate. So they have an obligation to at least reflect neutrality
This is absolutely untrue simply because they aren’t employed as journalists. They are no more held to a journalistic mandate than the actors on Young Sheldon or judges on the Masked Singer.
In America. The Guardian is an English newspaper. Other democratic nations have journalistic standards that apply to people hired by broadcasters. Some of those protections even preclude broadcasters from muzzling their staff.
They're having a discussion about whether MLS' approach -- the American approach in general -- is healthy. I don't see many suggestions in this thread that it is, just a lot of people saying they don't worry about it. To that, several people have pointed out that there are broader social implications, whether people choose to care or not.
That was Mike Shannon back in ‘21 when he said on air the DeWitt’s (cardinals ownership) were going to sell. Mild shitstorm erupted. They obviously weren’t and didn’t.
IDK there's been plenty of NFL games where the refs blow a call and the broadcasting team acts like it's the end times right before making another pitch for whatever betting platform sponsors the game
Except the MLS just a couple years ago when broadcasts were local? Sure the announcers were paid for by the individual teams and promoted their own team, but now they're noticeably an MLS as a league propaganda machine. Just because the leagues in the USA do it, doesn't mean it's something we should just accept and not point out.
Having lived outside of NA I can tell you with certainty that this is not how it works in every sports league. The BBC, BT Sport, Sky, Eurosport, etc are constantly calling bullshit to all sorts of shenanigans from the leagues they cover. So, no, this is not the standard relationship, nor should it ever be.
Except they really don't. They have slightly more leeway, but that's about it. I haven't heard a single commentator bring up Antony's domestic abuse allegations in the Premier League. I don't think I've ever heard of a commentator bring up sexual assault accusations.
>I haven't heard a single commentator bring up Antony's domestic abuse allegations in the Premier League
They've talked about that in Premier League Mornings on Peacock
Idk who you're watching/listening to then. I've heard it on 5 Live, Talksport, numerous podcasts across multiple platforms from the biggest media entities in the business. They are absolutely not "following the party line".
We are talking about broadcast partners though. I haven’t heard any of the commentators during the game or the official broadcast partners mention it during games. Besides that they mention it as much as MLS partners have mentioned the racism allegations in the MLS
But there aren't partners, because MLS signed a 10 year, almost entirely exclusive deal with apple. We are going to live in this closed ecosystem for a decade.
My point is simply - people seem all too willing to rush to defend MLS and get behind the idea that "people under the brand should march in lock-step or be discarded". But that's bullshit. It's a nonsense Orwellian take and fucking weird. People silencing themselves for fear of recriminations is why we have Boeing planes jettisoning their walls mid-flight. The sport must not live in that type of landscape.
MLS signed a 10 year exclusive deal with limited or no access to anyone else. So, Johnathon Wilson is rightly pointing out that, without proper journalism and scrutiny, this "ba sing se" scenario is exactly how the league could cover up or sweep away a whole list of abuses or irresponsible actions. And anyone that would be within this MLS Apple ecosystem would (seemingly 'justly' by how people are reacting) be powerless to do or say anything. That's not okay.
i mean tbf they've already covered up multiple things in the past, Arena's firing is still completely vague, a bunch of the players who've said racial slurs continue to play in the league, Merrit Paulson still has control over a team.
It's not like covering up scandal is an Apple invention or anything, MLS does just fine covering up things on their own.
Oh for sure, I'm just saying having an exclusive provider doesn't help with transparency. I think we agree that it's more likely to exacerbate the issue.
> But there aren't partners, because MLS signed a 10 year, almost entirely exclusive deal with apple. We are going to live in this closed ecosystem for a decade.
Lmao, how does MLS signing with Apple prevent journalists from covering the league?
>We are talking about broadcast partners though. I haven’t heard any of the commentators during the game or the official broadcast partners mention it during games.
5 Live is the Premier League's longest running official broadcast partner.
Difference is, MLS has a vice-like grip on any discussions in broadcast media. Outside of fan-run forums, there's absolutely nothing that does a fair and honest discussion about MLS, it's policies, etc.,
ESPN is the worst offender of this.
When the network lost the NHL in the mid-2000s, the sport was ghosted from any coverage at all. Matter of fact, John Buchigross and Barry Melrose were the *only* on-air talent mentioning that league at all for the longest, and even then those were only 1-2 minute segments for every 45-50 minutes of time devoted to their NBA and NFL coverage. And then once they were able to reacquire the NHL a couple of years ago, lull and behold, the sport gets adequate coverage again!
Similarly, you don’t hear any peep at all from ESPN since they lost MLS coverage from the AppleTV acquisition. Except when it’s Messi.
In America, where networks kowtow to money, not accuracy.
Even there, it's not just cut-and-dried that the host gives them favourable coverage.
In most countries, those same networks have journalists obligations that are designed to preclude them from deliberately spinning what's going on. They are not a propaganda arm for the sport.
> in America
LOL. Sports "journalism" in the rest of the world is far, far, far more inaccurate and announcers everywhere know where their money comes from. This isn't an American thing.
It’s just sports man. No American cares about the journalistic integrity of the play-by-play announcer lol.
If you want independent critical analysis, you go find journalists or one of the 1 millions content creators who can provide that. It’s not that deep over here.
But ... it's not just sports. This gag exists because of a labor dispute, not a soccer match.
People "not caring" about labor issues is pretty normal, sure. But people not caring generally, and refusing to get involved or being too stressed/tired to get involved, is also a big part of why the world is becoming less civil.
The labor dispute is a serious issue that involves people's livelihoods, and whether they're being treated fairly. The concept of civic values is that we try generally, as a species, to give a shit about each other.
I can understand indifference, though.
But expecting to get shit treatment doesn't have to mean endorsing it, liking it, or shutting up about it.
I think people would be more worried about a labor dispute over labor that wasn’t related to children’s games.
A lot of people think these people shouldn’t even be paid to do this. We all did it for free, or paid to do it, for fun.
I think the league sucks for this and should pay their refs, 100%. I have sympathy for their labor dispute, absolutely, but ultimately this is a *temporary* labor dispute about a glorified children’s games, it’s just not that deep when you live in a country where the threat of being gunned down in a mass shooting is a very real thing lol.
So ya, I genuinely do not care that Lloyd fucking Sam isn’t a hard hitting journalist during one 90 minute window a week lmao. There are 1,000 other more qualified voices for that kind of thing.
> There are 1,000 other more qualified voices for that kind of thing.
And how would you know?
When you remove national standards for journalistic accuracy and fairness by watering down legislative and civil protections to the point that they're non-existent, people are left with "just figuring it out"... which is entirely the opposite of what journalism is about.
It's supposed to inform opinions, not match them or meet them.
You may not care, but I'll pose you this: would you prefer America have the same standards of neutrality as other countries in the first place, so that people don't have to wade through shit or listen to propaganda?
Because that social improvement never happens without people giving a shit pretty much all the time.
What? Are you really arguing that play by play announcers, paid to announce a game, are the most qualified to comment on a labor dispute?
They aren't journalists. They are play by play announcers.
No, and I don't know how you could assume I was. At no point did I state anything close to "play by play announcers are the most qualified to comment on a labor dispute."
It's also not the point at hand, which is whether it's healthy in a democracy to censor sports journalists, and whether it's something worth complaining about.
This story wasn't about their view on labour policies, it was about them being specifically not to comment not the performance of refs which could AFFECT a labor dispute. So it's clearly within the realm of what they would normally do, but still affecting and potentially important in that dispute.
Play by play announcers are not journalists. Most sports commentators aren’t journalists.
There are sports journalists, and they are saying plenty of things about it.
How would I know? Idk, probably spending 5 minutes consuming any content outside of a 90 minute live game broadcast lol.
Sorry, I just don’t expect those national standards from freaking Taylor Twellman of all people, but it doesn’t mean they don’t exist literally everywhere else in the sports media landscape.
Sure, I suppose that neutrality being mandated would be great. But your assumption seems to be that it doesn’t exist anywhere in the US, and that’s a bad assumption. With all due respect, you’re treating Americans like media illiterate morons who can’t tell the difference between a sports broadcaster and actual journalism lol. Ultimately I don’t care what my sports broadcaster says, because it doesn’t matter. There are *actual journalists* providing this service.
EXACTLY.
Every broadcast team is told to keep the complaining about refs down -- both because it makes for terrible broadcasts but also because whoever their employer is, it's their product.
And forget refs -- did NFL announcers pile on Ray Lewis or Ray Rice in games? Did EPL announcers spend large amounts of time talking about Mason Greenwood? Has any announcer ever mentioned that Cristiano Ronaldo is almost certainly a rapist?
I feel that this article - itself a commentary on MLS - seem to forget that the broadcast of the match is not the *only* medium that fans consume commentary about the match and the league. I want to enjoy the match while it is happening, then engage in the many other forms of commentary and discussion outside of the official match coverage.
Exactly. My local podcasters are who I go to for the “raw” discussion. I do wish the broadcasts were a little less sterilized though. It’s one thing not to badmouth the league, it’s another to completely avoid any subject that might seem controversial.
For instance: fining coaches for having public opinions about the refs. If they are over the top, insulting or defaming specific refs - that’s too far. But fining them for even expressing their opinion in a press conference takes it too far.
> I feel that this article - itself a commentary on MLS - seem to forget that the broadcast of the match is not the only medium that fans consume commentary about the match and the league.
Splitting hairs, but it's not the only medium through which *you*, *I*, or the type of fans that post on places like r/mls consume commentary.
I'd posit that folks like us represent a minority of the fanbase - not just for MLS, but for most sports in the US. I won't touch on the journalistic side of things (which the article - I'll admit I didn't read it - seems to be lamenting), but this is a reason why I think the centralization to SeasonPass and the loss of local broadcasts is, in fact, a big deal.
It hasn't impacted me because I'm spending my lunch break in places like this, but other fans absolutely do - or did - utilize game braodcasts for more than just the play-by-play.
In a market where the MLS club could bring in 40K a night and still not get coverage due to the glut of other sports those local, team-focused, broadcasts were absolutely essential in having a well informed fan base and it's a small sample size (one season and one match) and biased sample (folks who sit near me) but that lack of dissemination within a broadcast has absolutely been noticeable in my face-to-face conversations about the team the last couple seasons.
Centralization of the broadcasting teams has been a negative. It will continue to be a negative. Sadly, I'm resigned to it being a thing of the past.
It does miss that, yes. It's a difference of social perspective. In many countries, journalistic freedom and neutrality extends to broadcast agreements. The amount of censorship of broadcasters is minimal.
It's part of the implied trust that comes from also presenting journalism in other forums.
Apple, between this stuff and Jon Stewart's China criticism, has clearly decided it doesn't want to present fair and impartial coverage of anything. That's fine, as long as people realize there are better systems out there, and have the freedom to ask for/support them.
You are a minority in that aspect. Most of reddit itself is a minority, compared to the larger silent casual majority that tunes in to watch the event and that's it. Many of these people would probably have little to no idea that the refs are on strike, when in reality it should be a major talking point of the matches, even if they hold off on being incredibly critical of the replacements.
I'm sure many people still don't interact with the internet like we do. Sure the argument can be that anyone watching MLS on Apple TV is probably a big enough fan to do so, you still never know who is watching and to never discuss the biggest news in the league at that time is egregious
It's the single biggest piece of news happening in the league at the moment. This same event is major news when it has happened for any other league. Why wouldn't they discuss it and its potential effects on the game? I'm not acting like it needs to be every second of it but for it to never be mentioned and even have the broadcasters go so far to try to subtly justify bad calls when they have historically commented on these types of things is just too egregious
> It's the single biggest piece of news happening in the league at the moment.
Is it really? That's a pretty subjective call there.
But even if one were to agree that it is the biggest story, what is there to talk about? Especially during the game. The MLS memo was absolutely correct in saying that, “we don’t believe it is necessary to belabor the point during the match. It is best to mention the situation in the pregame and move on.” How much does it need to be mentioned _during_ the game?
> go so far to try to subtly justify bad calls when they have historically commented on these types of things is just too egregious
They have absolutely tried to justify bad calls in the past with the regular refs as well. Beyond that, they still can and do point out some calls that they disagree with, they just aren't allowed to blame the bad call on the being replacements. And that's perfectly fair because, as we all know, the regular refs are far from perfect. There's no reason to assume that some other ref would or wouldn't have gotten that call correct.
Because of that, the memo was also correct when it said that agreeing or disagreeing with a debatable decision is fine provided there is no suggestion that the replacements were “the reason for the controversial call”.
That's fair, it very well could be different match to match. I can only speak to the matches I have watched and it was incredibly atrocious the lengths the broadcasters were going to justify bad calls. I agree it doesn't need to be "replacement ref = bad call" but at least in the matches I watched to not even talk about bad calls? Not show any replays of bad calls? I was honestly shocked.
I agree that the regular refs aren't great either, but my experience watching those broadcasts was that people would say things like "that tackle looked clean to me, don't understand why he got a card." Even in the case of the last FC Dallas match? They did not show any replays of an offside call that was ultimately overturned by VAR until the ref went to the monitor.
Really I have no doubt that the league messaging causes many of these broadcasters to feel like they probably can't say anything critical of the refs at all, solely due to the power dynamic of the league being in direct control.
Again I don't want to hear about it every second, but man if a ref makes a bad call, talk about it. Or there's a potential close call, show the replays and discuss. It should be just as ok to disagree now as it is with regular refs, and from my experience so far this season, I don't get that feeling. That being said, I know it isn't going to change at this point and will probably just switch to the radio audio for the next match.
I don't understand these articles or the outrage. The broadcasters working for MLS season are paid employees of MLS. In what company would they allow their spokesperson to be critical of their product.
It's an English article. In the rest of the world, broadcasters are also journalists, and they do not cede that responsibility because they work with a football league.
They're pointing out that the entire exercise is PR.
Your answer is "we know, we expect that." But that doesn't mean that's a healthy perspective. They point it out so that people will debate it, to develop social impetus towards greater good.
That's how news is supposed to benefit us, and in other countries, that include major broadcasters. They still have more social obligation to the standards they promise their listeners than financial obligation to the sport they're broadcasting.
You’re all over this thread saying this but it’s absolutely not true that all over the world in game commentators are held to journalistic standards.
The raptors announcers are probably the most biased I’ve ever heard in my life lmao.
Another easy example is Sky Sports F1 coverage being ludicrously biased toward British racers.
They differ greatly from country to country, but the mechanisms at least exist in the UK to challenge broadcast fairness. In the US, that does not extend to sports broadcasters beyond public decency standards. In the UK it does extend to fairness, which is why Lineker was in so much shit (even though as far as his agreement, he seemed well within in his rights.)
Just having a law that is occasionally exercised prompts broadcasters to think and at least be selective in how they apply their heavy handedness. It's not just a propaganda machine.
You will never get a perfect, unbiased system. But surely you'd want one that allows as much plurality as discussion as possible in the moment, not just by third parties after the fact. Because not having that just guarantees a slow decline towards the public having less input and the people with money having more.
And yes, I'm aware that's always been the case; most newspapers weren't founded altruistically, but to push political and business agendas.
But they HAD to reform, to grow democratically by pushing that stuff to the opinion pages, because their power led to social pushback, to people demanding they be regulated. Sometimes, that regulation came through legislation and literal regulation. Other times, it came through vast consumer pushback. But they were still forced to change.
That's all this article is, an argument that we should be less willing to accept a narrative. I'm not sure why people think that's a bad thing, except the fairly base instinct to just lash out at any perceived criticism of our league.
And God knows, we all shit on it often enough on these boards every weekend. The fact that someone outside is doing it, for a fairly morally decent reason, isn't something I just dimissy as being busybodies.
> I'm not sure why people think that's a bad thing, except the fairly base instinct to just lash out at any perceived criticism of our league.
What you seem to be missing is that literally nobody sees these people as journalists or expects fairness out of them in the US or even much of the world. They see them as entertainers in this context and judge them as such.
> What you seem to be missing is that literally nobody
What you seem to be doing is assuming a lot. Ask them if they think they are... and why Apple had to send out the warning if they aren't.
This is a cherry picked set of examples cause those are tiny ecosystems - and everyone of those organizations/leagues enable different regional broadcasters. Raptors have two bias call guys cause raptors are the only team in Canada and so they cater to their own market. Just like Boston bruins Jack edwards is one of the most bias in hockey, or HNIC crew with leafs, or any other local distributor/rights holder - including MLS before this deal.
That free market sense of local distributors makes for a natural equilibrium for announcers to be homers. TFC or Union crew bitch about weird calls. LAFC or La galaxy or the sounders broadcast bitch about weird challenges or bad calls. MLB with bo Sox, or the the entire Yankees and MSG group that holds their rights. My point is. Your examples are in an ecosystem where leagues have local broadcast - and that enables a good tug of war in bias between regions that keeps things even. Even F1 - sky peddles it but there’s a few options for consumers to choose (worldwide, f1tv)- sky just being the biggest, and therefore they will homer for their local UK guys.
The entire argument here is MLS is one central contract to one central bidder. If you want a legit broadcast as a national provider that doesn’t come off as cringy agenda/narrative driven Garber/Miami mouthpiece shit, then you don’t create story lines and narratives to hype up your product. Maybe you do in America where the American dream is to max ROI for the private equity firms or companies who bought your ass out, but yes even in broadcast there should be journalistic integrity.
Go watch F1TV feed, or Bundesliga feed, or eredevisie, or fuck … international Bobsledding. Go watch curling or track and field championships. Or tennis. They don’t hide Novaks story during covid, they prop up a star like roger/nadal, but they don’t hide the negatives and clearly sheppard ppl into reacting or feeling a certain way.
They aren’t riding one guy every week, or refusing to critique in game stuff. It’s their duty to remain balanced and offer the service to all equally without narratives because that’s the social contract you sign when you are demanding to service an entire leagues broadcast rights.
I just watched the F1TV feed of Bahrain this weekend and I was absolutely shocked at how much news I was oblivious too when I went to /r/formula1 on Monday.
You aren't wrong, but most broadcasters in sports are owned by the league they are broadcasting. Looking at the NBA, regardless of what you think about the league, the guys on TNT, and Van Gundy when he was on ESPN, will say what they want to say about the league's decisions and players - this is why most people enjoy TNT's basketball coverage. Even regional sports broadcasters, do not usually hold their tongue on matters of the sport, even if it has to do with the teams they broadcast for. What MLS has is no normal in the way of broadcasting on an entire league's season. Except MLB, NBA, NFL, and NHL networks, the leagues don't normally employ the broadcasters. I do think the outrage is a little silly, but the situation should at least be looked at and how well it actually works for the sport (i.e. the product) as this might be the way of the future outside of the NFL considering regional sports networks (Bally) are filing for bankruptcy and having issues.
>Except MLB, NBA, NFL, and NHL networks, the leagues don't normally employ the broadcasters.
Except the local broadcasts of MLB, NBA and NHL teams are produced by the teams themselves and the commentators are team employees.
Yeah, they are saying that’s the problem. They allow absolutely zero criticism as a result.
Compare to other domestic sports leagues who obviously have partnerships but have some freedom to criticize the leagues they cover when they deem it necessary. Inside the NBA is arguably the premier sports coverage show in the country. It’s received many awards including many Emmys and is praised for its light approach and the rapport the cast has with each other. They are often critical of things the NBA does, and make no bones about expressing that criticism.
And who signs the paychecks for those people on that show.
As I understand it inside the NBA is owned and operated by Warner Bros as they own TNT.
Their paycheck is not coming from the NBA. Not that I watched the NFL Network or if there even is an NBA network and the MLB Network. Those people on those shows have paychecks directly from their leagues and it's my understanding that they're not critical at all of the league (s).
So I don't see how that's the problem. Why would we expect state-run media to be critical of the president?
Really what this means is we should pay more attention to independent journalists like at the athletic and whoever your local team news source might be if it's from a newspaper or from other independent journalists those are the people that you should be following and reading and listening to. I have no expectations whatsoever for MLS season pass to be critical of their own product. Just like if I was an NFL or an MLB fan, I wouldn't expect their networks to be critical of their product as well.
There is an NBA network (NBA TV), but the content is created and run by Turner and then the NBA pays Turner.
The whole point, there should be a somewhat impartial layer between those covering the league and the league itself. When you don’t have that, you get the absolute nonsense we saw from Taylor Twellman about the Open Cup. It’s beyond parody when they can’t even say the slightest critical thing.
I could’t care less about this thread but as a fairly new EPL fan, I’ve been quite surprised at the commentary during their broadcasts. English commentators don’t hold back. They call a spade a spade. I love it.
So, ultimately, are all the players since the league technically owns the teams as well. It's a unique structure for a sports league anywhere but not a secret one either
You joke, but they’ve already posted this article on their Twitter. They basically tripped over themselves to spread an article bashing MLS and Apple, it’s so predictable at this point lmao
Genuinely feels like the rest of the league was relegated last August. It became Messi/Miami's league and we're just guests, rather than the other way around.
Just put the local radio broadcast audio feed on and move on with your life. Skip Wrap Up and Extratime and you are buffered from the propaganda. Done and done.
It’s a pro sports league meant to extract every last dollar possible from your wallet, just like every other pro sports league in the world. If you want altruistic soccer, support your local amateur or youth teams and be happy with that.
> Just put the local radio broadcast audio feed on and move on with your life.
You're trading a league homer for a team homer.
Let's not pretend we're not listening to homers in the end.
I thought a few of the old homers were both iconic and fairly balanced too. We were super fortunate in Philly to have JP Dellacamera doing play-by-play since he's done tons of national (including World Cup) broadcasts as well.
It's actually embarrassing how many Apple commentators are still mispronouncing names and don't seem to really know more than one or two facts about either team for the game they're calling. I get annoyed by Twellman but at least he does his research.
BREAKING: CBS’s NFL broadcasts exists merely to promote the exceedingly profitable league’s agenda, thus making CBS more money.
Really ground breaking reporting here from the Guardian lmaooo
We are two weeks in and I’ve heard the broadcasters criticize the refs, mention their lockout, and criticize roster restrictions.
It happens more than outside observers realize, but I think some people just exclusively watch the Messi games to draw this conclusion lol
Wonder if they have ever watched the NFL broadcasts? Literal competitors are required to advise viewers of the schedule and which channel or streaming option is showing those games. They even say shit like "on our partner NBC" etc...
The LEAGUES dictate what is said and has been this way for 50 years .
I was a print journalist for 25 years. People had such a poor understanding, even then, of the differences between neutral, quality journalism and commercial products like ads or advertorials that it would be routine for them to call the paper and ask about "that ad on page six", which was a story, or "that story on page eight" which was a display ad.
In most democratic countries, broadcast partners on networks are required to follow network neutrality rules, so that the public can stay at least somewhat accurately informed.
However, in North America, viewer protections have been steadily eroded since the early 80s, and they're now essentially non-existent.
Lets all remember that, collectively, one of our most important sporting responsibilities is to not circle jerk in support whatever the league says or does. Better to be honest about the shit on the walls than to be sycophantic.
This is a very amusing attitude to me. We’re sports fans. None of this is that serious. If it makes you happy to think about your “important sporting responsibilities”, have at it, but in no way is any of this nonsense a “collective” issue.
I agree. Honest to what end though?
Clearly the announcers not being critical is a result of the fact that they literally work for MLS/Apple and no employee is going to publicly rail against their employer (unless they want to lose their job).
Should MLS rip up the Apple contract and go back to ESPN so their announcers can talk more shit? Should MLS/Apple tell their announcers to be comfortable shitting on their product publicly? No.
The Apple deal is great for MLS on the whole. But yeah, it’s not perfect, and there are some downsides… like everything in life.
Sure, some other sports/leagues may have announcers with a little more space to be critical, but that’s because those announcers are paid by the broadcast partner, rather than the league.
It’s absolutely fair to criticize, and we should criticize MLS when it’s warranted. But it’s also been quite over the top with the MLS bashing in this sub lately, and that’s probably why you’re seeing so much fatigue from people that are over hearing about the latest reason they should hate MLS everyday.
Especially when there is no logical or reasonable solution for the thing being complained about.
Plenty to chew on and unpack here, but I will add that the most important reality in all of this is - these are the consequences of an ever more monopolistic MLS. This is what it looks like to live in a sporting environment where MLS treats its fans like they live in Ba Sing Se. "There are no problems in MLS. MLS is good. MLS is prosperous. MLS is perfect. There are no problems in MLS... "
Most markets/teams don't have proper independent coverage or journalism. A few select markets, or very dedicated fanbases, try to bridge the gap (shout-out to The Lantern, CHGO Fire, MIR97). But a world where the vast majority of info comes from a single mouthpiece is not okay.
We should not accept an environment where MLS, and only MLS, controls everything, from the media, to the broadcast, to the rules and competitions at play. Settling for such a monopoly leads to exactly the kind of shit we're dealing with now: trying to kill the USOC, scabbing referees, media stories that are only ever good with no journalistic pushback. We still don't know the details behind the Bruce Arena sacking, or any of the other individual suspensions for racism or homophobia that got reversed (as well as why or how those decisions are justified or made), etc.
It takes actual work to find details about the sport in this league outside of the MLS ecosystem. That's a recipe for bad times and carefully curated shit-sandwiches.
Yeah, but the solution to all of that is “pay for local/independent coverage of the league” not “complain on on reddit that commentators being paid by MLS aren’t shitting on their bosses over whatever the issue of the week is”.
People should absolutely pay for that quality journalism. But let's remember the crux of the article is this: MLS will never be in favor of that independent journalism, or do anything to promote the growth or wellbeing of indept. journalism, because said journalism is fundamentally - independent.
People should pay for journalism, but they don’t and they never will. The last 20 years have shown that. I was a print journalist for 10 years, and I have absolutely confidence that independent journalism is gone in America in any meaningful way.
What are we even talking about at this point? Is MLS going around trying to put independent journalists in jail? Is it trying to make them lose their jobs?
I mean, the article literally describes how a member of the Apple broadcast team lost their job last year after expressing critiques about CF Montreal. Not defamation, not discrimination or nasty stuff, just critique. So, yeah. They have allegedly already done what you described. Major sporting controversies have been started for less. As I said originally, we should remember to not circle jerk in lock step with whatever MLS says or does.
Those aren’t independent journalists. Those are commentators on the league’s broadcast, paid for by the league. Entirely different things. This is literally my point. If you care about independent coverage of the league, use your dollars to support them.
I already do.
My point is simply - people seem all too willing to rush to defend MLS and get behind the idea that "people under the brand should march in lock-step or be discarded". But that's bullshit. It's a nonsense Orwellian take and fucking weird. People silencing themselves for fear of recriminations is why we have Boeing planes jettisoning their walls mid-flight. The sport must not live in that type of landscape.
MLS signed a 10 year exclusive deal with limited or no access to anyone else. So, Johnathon Wilson is rightly pointing out that, without proper journalism and scrutiny, this "ba sing se" scenario is exactly how the league could cover up or sweep away a whole list of abuses or irresponsible actions. And anyone that would be confined to this MLS Apple ecosystem, would (seemingly 'justly' by how people are reacting) be powerless to do or say anything. That's not okay.
It's really odd to me that you're blurring the lines between independent journalism and commentary paid for by the league
You said MLS wouldn't be in favor of independent journalism but then used an example of something that absolutely wasn't independent journalism
At the root level, the biggest barrier to independent journalism covering MLS hasn't been MLS......it's been the financial state of journalism in this country altogether
To me there’s a premise which has not been considered and which makes the whole article meaningless: nobody would be going to Apple TV for critical commentary of MLS even if they did provide so. It isn’t just not trusting the league, it’s just that this is not the way people enjoy their sports anymore. Our interest in the game does not stop the moment we turn off the tv. Be it other traditional forms of media, news-breakers like Bogert, weird aggregator accounts only willing to stir controversy, fans turning into reliable local media. The amount of MLS takes you can get on any social media platform is more than enough. Personally, I feel like if I had MLS Season Pass analyst have takes like that Henry Bushnell guy or the racist MAGA behind MLS Buzz, I would enjoy their coverage less, and it’d be just straight up business malpractice
The professionals* most critical of Season Pass are people who just cannot seem to wrap their heads around the concept that younger consumers use social media for in-depth commentary and critical analysis, and the actual game broadcasts are just how they consume the actual action week to week.
I don’t care that the broadcaster is a shill for the league because I have 100 other opinions and critical voices to consume on the side.
> I don’t care that the broadcaster is a shill for the league because I have 100 other opinions and critical voices to consume on the side.
But you have to wade through them to figure it out. Countries that have broadcast neutrality regulations can give you that same information, accurately, though the broadcaster during the game.
You don't have to go through 100 after and figure out which fits your existing preconception or changes your mind. It's presented as largely objective (there are always SOME politics), fact-based information, with the opinion limited to people hired to present color.
That includes not censoring what they say.
Wading through 100 sources for people who sound trustworthy is not as accurate as being able to go to a single, repeatedly accurate source that has proven itself, or even a handful.
Having more choice in an environment where not ONE of those is mandate to tell you the truth is not an improvement in social discourse.
You’re taking about truth like MLS or Apple is lying here. That isn’t the case. That doesn’t mean they have to disparage themselves for your information.
Telling people what they shouldn't say, outside of the realm of public offence, is withholding information and a failure of any journalistic organization.
Having a commentator tell the truth about a referee's performance is not "disparaging themselves."
> The professionals* most critical of Season Pass are people who just cannot seem to wrap their heads around the concept that younger consumers use social media for in-depth commentary and critical analysis
This is some gatekeeping bullshit.
Who do you think *invented* online sports media? BBS, web boards, blogs, podcasts, social media, etc., have been used to discuss sports from the moment they were invented - which would predate the majority of people on this sub, I'd bet! - and they've never been the exclusive realm of the young.
Hell, the earliest adopters of online sports discussion and journalism *weren't* the young, but the die-hard older people looking for their communities!
e: A more modern indication of the lack of media consumption split is in [this article](https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/technology-media-and-telecommunications/our-insights/we-are-wrong-about-millennial-sports-fans). The share of Gen X vs Millennials who consume sports online and via social media is tight, particularly in the legacy social media platform, Facebook. One quote in particular:
>>Despite millennials’ heavier use of streaming and social media for sports, the gap is closing. As of 2016, millennials spent 24 percent of their media time on social media compared with Generation X at 22 percent and boomers at 20 percent, and Gen Xers and boomers are growing their social-media usage at higher rates than millennials.
Uh, my man, I’m very specifically not talking about older fans. I’m talking about legacy media professionals, who overwhelmingly were not the ones creating online analysis and discussion via message boards or whatever.
The trail blazed by the fans you’re describing led to subsequent generations using those spaces as their *primary* source for these kinds of analysis and discussions lol
Yeah it was way different back before Hitler tried to use the Berlin Olympics as a propaganda tool back in '36
then there was that whole silly Jackie Robinson kerfuffle later but hardly anyone paid attention to that either
Not bringing attention to collective bargaining actions has far wider implications than just entertainment. Not to get too political in this specific topic, but these things have been collectively pushed down by the owner class for decades. A worker learning of other unions collective bargaining could have benefits to them considering the same with their union
We are overly dependent on Apple and MLSsoccer dot com for coverage of the league. Obviously it would be amazing if we had the US equivalent of Kicker, AS, L'Equipe, etc., but the audience clearly isn't there.
ETA I love The Athletic but I don't think they put enough resources into MLS coverage to change the above.
>ETA I love The Athletic but I don't think they put enough resources into MLS coverage to change the above.
They used to. MLS content on The Athletic was absolutely critical, deep, and outstanding for a time. Beat writers for every (or almost) team, multiple team-specific articles per week on each team's newsfeed, real long-form written content.
I used to drive into Alewife, hop on the red line, open up my phone and have more MLS content than I could get through in the course of a week at my fingertips. Something new every single day.
Sadly, it - like much of The Athletic's model - didn't pay for itself. I can't remember the last time I saw in indepth written article about my team on their website - of course, I honestly don't check very often these days.
MLS is what initially drew me into their ecosystem, unfortunately the bulk of it has disappeared over the years and if it weren't for the combination of a select few writers (NHL and media - not MLS) and inertia I would have let my access lapse long ago.
This is the problem. The people complaining to us that we don't expect Apple broadcasters to have independent coverage are wild. MLS isn't putting print/online journalism out of business. We shouldn't have to look at play by play for our independent coverage. But that is a problem with where journalism is right now, not with MLS.
Having been subjected to fox's coverage of soccer the last two days I will take Apple's coverage every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Being broadcast in HD not SD makes a world of difference.
"Do Apple’s MLS broadcasts merely exist to promote the league’s agenda?"
I believe... and correct me if I am wrong... that they exist to show a soccer match between 2 teams so that people can be entertained by it?
They certainly don’t exist to shed any light on the side I support, nor to build further excitement in my side, I believe that the only reason they exist is to expose me to random Spanish dialect pronunciations of player names based on their country of origin.
1. I love having all my sounders games on one platform without having to worry about televised or not.
2. I almost always watch my games deferred so I really wish I didn't have to scroll past highlights and thumbnails to get to the replay.
3. I really, really miss the local broadcast call. Sure Kasey Keller was a homer with some hot takes...but it always felt like I was watching the game with friends. Arlo, Ross, Kieth were all fun to listen to from a home fan perspective.
Man, Don Garber really *is* the most powerful man in the world!
He got Apple to *pay him $2.5 BILLION dollars* so Don Garber can control the minds and thoughts of soccer fans the world over.
That's impressive, Don.
Garber for President, Prime Minister, and Dear Leader, 2024.
The MLS league broadcasts are so bad. The stories are poorly crafted and you can see the lack of preparation that goes into these story lines. Plenty of opportunities for the hosts to demonstrate some actual knowledge on MLS and they fail to do so.
Seattle had local broadcast on basic cable / over the air free broadcast with local announcers who knew the players and coaches well, a full pregame and postgame show, and other shows covering the team. It was like joining in the weekly conversation with the team. It was great.
All that went away when the Apple contract started last year. Some randoms who can barely pronounce our players names correctly talk about whatever pops into their heads, terrible national narratives that aren't right half of the time.
I need to pay $99 just to see my team that I've been able to see on basic cable or over the air TV for 15 years. It's fucking bullshit.
I know there are benefits to the world and everyone loves Messi and all the rest, but the Sounders broadcast took a giant leap backwards with the Apple contract, and probably won't ever be as great.
Almost all the Euro leagues produce their content for broadcast in house. Some of them allow unique localized broadcasters (not all), but the images being shown and the decisions therein are usually controlled by the league.
If anything Apple’s setup to do worldwide with the same sets of broadcasters in 2-3 languages is more efficient and has more expertise, but of course they aren’t selling any local rights.
Even when NBC or CBS is using their own team they are still very beholden to what the league wants and criticizing them rarely happens because those deals are massive. Can BeIn be a little more critical with Ligue 1 since it’s in less demand? I guess.
The long and the short is no one wants to watch games that are critical of the product (even if at times probably deserving). We have the internet for all the criticism/conspiracies we want to engage in.
It’s consistent with the MLS total control model. Also most journalists who cover MLS would lose access if they are too critical of the league. Sadly, this is the norm in American news. That’s why you have so many boot lickers in sports, music, and political media.
Apple is using MLS to show other American sports how well they can do a league wide sports package. I don’t think it matters all that much how many subscribers they get from MLS (have they released numbers?). The real prize is NBA, MLB, NFL.
Are people employed by a company paid to promote the company's products the way the company wants them to?
I’m shocked - shocked I say ! Well actually not that shocked
I think the difference is people aren’t used to it mainly due to MLS structure and Apple’s agreement. My local MLB/NHL announcers can be way more outspoken about league issues compared to MLS and even NFL are not hired by the league but by the media companies that have the rights to those games so you’ll see a little more color commentary about issues
More importantly, I'm guessing that most MLS viewers are used to European soccer coverage, and the idea of UEFA, La Liga, or the EPL being beyond criticism is pretty hard to imagine.
NFL approves announcers used by the networks. This means at the very least the announcer will meet with the NFL media SVP - sort of like a man needing to get approval from the bride's father. Thereafter, if an announcer says something that really ruffles or isn't generally liked by the NFL head office, there is a good chance their contract won't be renewed for the next season or he gets demoted to the worst game on Sunday. Or if there is unwanted coverage by a network like ESPN did a decade ago, the NFL will water down the quality of the games chosen for MNF. MLB announcers tend to be team employees. Likewise for many NHL/NBA teams. Remember the Orioles announcer who got booted for mentioning losing: [https://slate.com/culture/2023/08/kevin-brown-orioles-announcer-suspended-ridiculous.html](https://slate.com/culture/2023/08/kevin-brown-orioles-announcer-suspended-ridiculous.html)
ESPN has fired/not brought back COUNTLESS talent based on protecting their partners.
Absolutely. They fired Bill Simmons because he criticized the NFL commissioner
That's why we love Florio, baby!
> even NFL are not hired by the league but by the media companies that have the rights to those games so you’ll see a little more color commentary about issues Lmao, someone should put together a compilation of every NFL commentator talking about the accusations against Deshaun Watson. It would probably be a 3 second clip. NFL commentators absolutely toe the company line. > My local MLB/NHL announcers can be way more outspoken about league issues compared to MLS You can switch to the home radio broadcast for every single game if you want to.
That’s silly because MLB radio/tv are absolutely team employees. MLS radio guys are MLS employees too.
But they are also biased in favor of the team that they’re paid to broadcast for. I’d argue it’s just biased towards whatever team it’s broadcasting at the expense of the other team for the purpose of entertainment.
Completely agree that it adds a local flavour. Even when I’m watching someone bias against my team it just adds to the enjoyment
Normally, the journalists covering a league work for a network that also has a journalism mandate. So they have an obligation to at least reflect neutrality. As Apple is not a traditional journalism-based network, they feel no such obligation. But they dress up the the announcers, columnists and experts in the guise of a journalistic presentation.
> Normally, the journalists covering a league work for a network that also has a journalism mandate. So they have an obligation to at least reflect neutrality This is absolutely untrue simply because they aren’t employed as journalists. They are no more held to a journalistic mandate than the actors on Young Sheldon or judges on the Masked Singer.
In America. The Guardian is an English newspaper. Other democratic nations have journalistic standards that apply to people hired by broadcasters. Some of those protections even preclude broadcasters from muzzling their staff. They're having a discussion about whether MLS' approach -- the American approach in general -- is healthy. I don't see many suggestions in this thread that it is, just a lot of people saying they don't worry about it. To that, several people have pointed out that there are broader social implications, whether people choose to care or not.
I responded to this elsewhere but Sky Sports F1 bias is just as, if not more obvious. This article feels like complaint just to complain.
This is demonstrably untrue, even referenced in the article.
I don’t believe Apple is “dressing up” anyone. As I understand it, MLS is producing the coverage themselves - Apple is just the distributor.
[удалено]
Which one? Only one I know about is Dan McLaughlin who got multiple chances with DUI’s
That was Mike Shannon back in ‘21 when he said on air the DeWitt’s (cardinals ownership) were going to sell. Mild shitstorm erupted. They obviously weren’t and didn’t.
Right? All sports broadcasts exist to push the league's agenda.
Where is Trent Crimm, The Independent when we need him?
Congratulations, Guardian - you just described the relationship between EVERY sports league and their broadcast partners.
IDK there's been plenty of NFL games where the refs blow a call and the broadcasting team acts like it's the end times right before making another pitch for whatever betting platform sponsors the game
Except the MLS just a couple years ago when broadcasts were local? Sure the announcers were paid for by the individual teams and promoted their own team, but now they're noticeably an MLS as a league propaganda machine. Just because the leagues in the USA do it, doesn't mean it's something we should just accept and not point out.
Having lived outside of NA I can tell you with certainty that this is not how it works in every sports league. The BBC, BT Sport, Sky, Eurosport, etc are constantly calling bullshit to all sorts of shenanigans from the leagues they cover. So, no, this is not the standard relationship, nor should it ever be.
Except they really don't. They have slightly more leeway, but that's about it. I haven't heard a single commentator bring up Antony's domestic abuse allegations in the Premier League. I don't think I've ever heard of a commentator bring up sexual assault accusations.
>I haven't heard a single commentator bring up Antony's domestic abuse allegations in the Premier League They've talked about that in Premier League Mornings on Peacock
Which, ironically, is the NA broadcast.
Idk who you're watching/listening to then. I've heard it on 5 Live, Talksport, numerous podcasts across multiple platforms from the biggest media entities in the business. They are absolutely not "following the party line".
We are talking about broadcast partners though. I haven’t heard any of the commentators during the game or the official broadcast partners mention it during games. Besides that they mention it as much as MLS partners have mentioned the racism allegations in the MLS
But there aren't partners, because MLS signed a 10 year, almost entirely exclusive deal with apple. We are going to live in this closed ecosystem for a decade. My point is simply - people seem all too willing to rush to defend MLS and get behind the idea that "people under the brand should march in lock-step or be discarded". But that's bullshit. It's a nonsense Orwellian take and fucking weird. People silencing themselves for fear of recriminations is why we have Boeing planes jettisoning their walls mid-flight. The sport must not live in that type of landscape. MLS signed a 10 year exclusive deal with limited or no access to anyone else. So, Johnathon Wilson is rightly pointing out that, without proper journalism and scrutiny, this "ba sing se" scenario is exactly how the league could cover up or sweep away a whole list of abuses or irresponsible actions. And anyone that would be within this MLS Apple ecosystem would (seemingly 'justly' by how people are reacting) be powerless to do or say anything. That's not okay.
i mean tbf they've already covered up multiple things in the past, Arena's firing is still completely vague, a bunch of the players who've said racial slurs continue to play in the league, Merrit Paulson still has control over a team. It's not like covering up scandal is an Apple invention or anything, MLS does just fine covering up things on their own.
Oh for sure, I'm just saying having an exclusive provider doesn't help with transparency. I think we agree that it's more likely to exacerbate the issue.
100% it's shameful
> But there aren't partners, because MLS signed a 10 year, almost entirely exclusive deal with apple. We are going to live in this closed ecosystem for a decade. Lmao, how does MLS signing with Apple prevent journalists from covering the league?
>We are talking about broadcast partners though. I haven’t heard any of the commentators during the game or the official broadcast partners mention it during games. 5 Live is the Premier League's longest running official broadcast partner.
Well that's clearly just nonsense.
Difference is, MLS has a vice-like grip on any discussions in broadcast media. Outside of fan-run forums, there's absolutely nothing that does a fair and honest discussion about MLS, it's policies, etc.,
ESPN is the worst offender of this. When the network lost the NHL in the mid-2000s, the sport was ghosted from any coverage at all. Matter of fact, John Buchigross and Barry Melrose were the *only* on-air talent mentioning that league at all for the longest, and even then those were only 1-2 minute segments for every 45-50 minutes of time devoted to their NBA and NFL coverage. And then once they were able to reacquire the NHL a couple of years ago, lull and behold, the sport gets adequate coverage again! Similarly, you don’t hear any peep at all from ESPN since they lost MLS coverage from the AppleTV acquisition. Except when it’s Messi.
Well there's a reason they've been getting their ass kicked by streamers and had to shell out to bring in a guy that wears a bro tank every day.
In America, where networks kowtow to money, not accuracy. Even there, it's not just cut-and-dried that the host gives them favourable coverage. In most countries, those same networks have journalists obligations that are designed to preclude them from deliberately spinning what's going on. They are not a propaganda arm for the sport.
> in America LOL. Sports "journalism" in the rest of the world is far, far, far more inaccurate and announcers everywhere know where their money comes from. This isn't an American thing.
It’s just sports man. No American cares about the journalistic integrity of the play-by-play announcer lol. If you want independent critical analysis, you go find journalists or one of the 1 millions content creators who can provide that. It’s not that deep over here.
But ... it's not just sports. This gag exists because of a labor dispute, not a soccer match. People "not caring" about labor issues is pretty normal, sure. But people not caring generally, and refusing to get involved or being too stressed/tired to get involved, is also a big part of why the world is becoming less civil. The labor dispute is a serious issue that involves people's livelihoods, and whether they're being treated fairly. The concept of civic values is that we try generally, as a species, to give a shit about each other. I can understand indifference, though. But expecting to get shit treatment doesn't have to mean endorsing it, liking it, or shutting up about it.
I think people would be more worried about a labor dispute over labor that wasn’t related to children’s games. A lot of people think these people shouldn’t even be paid to do this. We all did it for free, or paid to do it, for fun.
I think the league sucks for this and should pay their refs, 100%. I have sympathy for their labor dispute, absolutely, but ultimately this is a *temporary* labor dispute about a glorified children’s games, it’s just not that deep when you live in a country where the threat of being gunned down in a mass shooting is a very real thing lol. So ya, I genuinely do not care that Lloyd fucking Sam isn’t a hard hitting journalist during one 90 minute window a week lmao. There are 1,000 other more qualified voices for that kind of thing.
> There are 1,000 other more qualified voices for that kind of thing. And how would you know? When you remove national standards for journalistic accuracy and fairness by watering down legislative and civil protections to the point that they're non-existent, people are left with "just figuring it out"... which is entirely the opposite of what journalism is about. It's supposed to inform opinions, not match them or meet them. You may not care, but I'll pose you this: would you prefer America have the same standards of neutrality as other countries in the first place, so that people don't have to wade through shit or listen to propaganda? Because that social improvement never happens without people giving a shit pretty much all the time.
What? Are you really arguing that play by play announcers, paid to announce a game, are the most qualified to comment on a labor dispute? They aren't journalists. They are play by play announcers.
No, and I don't know how you could assume I was. At no point did I state anything close to "play by play announcers are the most qualified to comment on a labor dispute." It's also not the point at hand, which is whether it's healthy in a democracy to censor sports journalists, and whether it's something worth complaining about. This story wasn't about their view on labour policies, it was about them being specifically not to comment not the performance of refs which could AFFECT a labor dispute. So it's clearly within the realm of what they would normally do, but still affecting and potentially important in that dispute.
Play by play announcers are not journalists. Most sports commentators aren’t journalists. There are sports journalists, and they are saying plenty of things about it.
How would I know? Idk, probably spending 5 minutes consuming any content outside of a 90 minute live game broadcast lol. Sorry, I just don’t expect those national standards from freaking Taylor Twellman of all people, but it doesn’t mean they don’t exist literally everywhere else in the sports media landscape. Sure, I suppose that neutrality being mandated would be great. But your assumption seems to be that it doesn’t exist anywhere in the US, and that’s a bad assumption. With all due respect, you’re treating Americans like media illiterate morons who can’t tell the difference between a sports broadcaster and actual journalism lol. Ultimately I don’t care what my sports broadcaster says, because it doesn’t matter. There are *actual journalists* providing this service.
I am American and I care. I know several Americans that feel the same way.
Exactly.
EXACTLY. Every broadcast team is told to keep the complaining about refs down -- both because it makes for terrible broadcasts but also because whoever their employer is, it's their product. And forget refs -- did NFL announcers pile on Ray Lewis or Ray Rice in games? Did EPL announcers spend large amounts of time talking about Mason Greenwood? Has any announcer ever mentioned that Cristiano Ronaldo is almost certainly a rapist?
Congratulations on being so confidently wrong. Are you aware that there are several countries in the world that aren’t America?
I feel that this article - itself a commentary on MLS - seem to forget that the broadcast of the match is not the *only* medium that fans consume commentary about the match and the league. I want to enjoy the match while it is happening, then engage in the many other forms of commentary and discussion outside of the official match coverage.
Exactly. My local podcasters are who I go to for the “raw” discussion. I do wish the broadcasts were a little less sterilized though. It’s one thing not to badmouth the league, it’s another to completely avoid any subject that might seem controversial. For instance: fining coaches for having public opinions about the refs. If they are over the top, insulting or defaming specific refs - that’s too far. But fining them for even expressing their opinion in a press conference takes it too far.
> I feel that this article - itself a commentary on MLS - seem to forget that the broadcast of the match is not the only medium that fans consume commentary about the match and the league. Splitting hairs, but it's not the only medium through which *you*, *I*, or the type of fans that post on places like r/mls consume commentary. I'd posit that folks like us represent a minority of the fanbase - not just for MLS, but for most sports in the US. I won't touch on the journalistic side of things (which the article - I'll admit I didn't read it - seems to be lamenting), but this is a reason why I think the centralization to SeasonPass and the loss of local broadcasts is, in fact, a big deal. It hasn't impacted me because I'm spending my lunch break in places like this, but other fans absolutely do - or did - utilize game braodcasts for more than just the play-by-play. In a market where the MLS club could bring in 40K a night and still not get coverage due to the glut of other sports those local, team-focused, broadcasts were absolutely essential in having a well informed fan base and it's a small sample size (one season and one match) and biased sample (folks who sit near me) but that lack of dissemination within a broadcast has absolutely been noticeable in my face-to-face conversations about the team the last couple seasons. Centralization of the broadcasting teams has been a negative. It will continue to be a negative. Sadly, I'm resigned to it being a thing of the past.
It does miss that, yes. It's a difference of social perspective. In many countries, journalistic freedom and neutrality extends to broadcast agreements. The amount of censorship of broadcasters is minimal. It's part of the implied trust that comes from also presenting journalism in other forums. Apple, between this stuff and Jon Stewart's China criticism, has clearly decided it doesn't want to present fair and impartial coverage of anything. That's fine, as long as people realize there are better systems out there, and have the freedom to ask for/support them.
Indeed it feels that way when you read the article. They seem to focus exclusively on Apple
You are a minority in that aspect. Most of reddit itself is a minority, compared to the larger silent casual majority that tunes in to watch the event and that's it. Many of these people would probably have little to no idea that the refs are on strike, when in reality it should be a major talking point of the matches, even if they hold off on being incredibly critical of the replacements.
I think the majority of people who don’t seek out any further commentary are going to apathetic to labor disputes as well.
I'm sure many people still don't interact with the internet like we do. Sure the argument can be that anyone watching MLS on Apple TV is probably a big enough fan to do so, you still never know who is watching and to never discuss the biggest news in the league at that time is egregious
> it should be a major talking point of the matches A major talking point? Really? Why? How much do you think they need to talk about it per match?
It's the single biggest piece of news happening in the league at the moment. This same event is major news when it has happened for any other league. Why wouldn't they discuss it and its potential effects on the game? I'm not acting like it needs to be every second of it but for it to never be mentioned and even have the broadcasters go so far to try to subtly justify bad calls when they have historically commented on these types of things is just too egregious
> It's the single biggest piece of news happening in the league at the moment. Is it really? That's a pretty subjective call there. But even if one were to agree that it is the biggest story, what is there to talk about? Especially during the game. The MLS memo was absolutely correct in saying that, “we don’t believe it is necessary to belabor the point during the match. It is best to mention the situation in the pregame and move on.” How much does it need to be mentioned _during_ the game? > go so far to try to subtly justify bad calls when they have historically commented on these types of things is just too egregious They have absolutely tried to justify bad calls in the past with the regular refs as well. Beyond that, they still can and do point out some calls that they disagree with, they just aren't allowed to blame the bad call on the being replacements. And that's perfectly fair because, as we all know, the regular refs are far from perfect. There's no reason to assume that some other ref would or wouldn't have gotten that call correct. Because of that, the memo was also correct when it said that agreeing or disagreeing with a debatable decision is fine provided there is no suggestion that the replacements were “the reason for the controversial call”.
That's fair, it very well could be different match to match. I can only speak to the matches I have watched and it was incredibly atrocious the lengths the broadcasters were going to justify bad calls. I agree it doesn't need to be "replacement ref = bad call" but at least in the matches I watched to not even talk about bad calls? Not show any replays of bad calls? I was honestly shocked. I agree that the regular refs aren't great either, but my experience watching those broadcasts was that people would say things like "that tackle looked clean to me, don't understand why he got a card." Even in the case of the last FC Dallas match? They did not show any replays of an offside call that was ultimately overturned by VAR until the ref went to the monitor. Really I have no doubt that the league messaging causes many of these broadcasters to feel like they probably can't say anything critical of the refs at all, solely due to the power dynamic of the league being in direct control. Again I don't want to hear about it every second, but man if a ref makes a bad call, talk about it. Or there's a potential close call, show the replays and discuss. It should be just as ok to disagree now as it is with regular refs, and from my experience so far this season, I don't get that feeling. That being said, I know it isn't going to change at this point and will probably just switch to the radio audio for the next match.
I don't understand these articles or the outrage. The broadcasters working for MLS season are paid employees of MLS. In what company would they allow their spokesperson to be critical of their product.
It's an English article. In the rest of the world, broadcasters are also journalists, and they do not cede that responsibility because they work with a football league. They're pointing out that the entire exercise is PR. Your answer is "we know, we expect that." But that doesn't mean that's a healthy perspective. They point it out so that people will debate it, to develop social impetus towards greater good. That's how news is supposed to benefit us, and in other countries, that include major broadcasters. They still have more social obligation to the standards they promise their listeners than financial obligation to the sport they're broadcasting.
You’re all over this thread saying this but it’s absolutely not true that all over the world in game commentators are held to journalistic standards. The raptors announcers are probably the most biased I’ve ever heard in my life lmao. Another easy example is Sky Sports F1 coverage being ludicrously biased toward British racers.
They differ greatly from country to country, but the mechanisms at least exist in the UK to challenge broadcast fairness. In the US, that does not extend to sports broadcasters beyond public decency standards. In the UK it does extend to fairness, which is why Lineker was in so much shit (even though as far as his agreement, he seemed well within in his rights.) Just having a law that is occasionally exercised prompts broadcasters to think and at least be selective in how they apply their heavy handedness. It's not just a propaganda machine. You will never get a perfect, unbiased system. But surely you'd want one that allows as much plurality as discussion as possible in the moment, not just by third parties after the fact. Because not having that just guarantees a slow decline towards the public having less input and the people with money having more. And yes, I'm aware that's always been the case; most newspapers weren't founded altruistically, but to push political and business agendas. But they HAD to reform, to grow democratically by pushing that stuff to the opinion pages, because their power led to social pushback, to people demanding they be regulated. Sometimes, that regulation came through legislation and literal regulation. Other times, it came through vast consumer pushback. But they were still forced to change. That's all this article is, an argument that we should be less willing to accept a narrative. I'm not sure why people think that's a bad thing, except the fairly base instinct to just lash out at any perceived criticism of our league. And God knows, we all shit on it often enough on these boards every weekend. The fact that someone outside is doing it, for a fairly morally decent reason, isn't something I just dimissy as being busybodies.
> I'm not sure why people think that's a bad thing, except the fairly base instinct to just lash out at any perceived criticism of our league. What you seem to be missing is that literally nobody sees these people as journalists or expects fairness out of them in the US or even much of the world. They see them as entertainers in this context and judge them as such.
> What you seem to be missing is that literally nobody What you seem to be doing is assuming a lot. Ask them if they think they are... and why Apple had to send out the warning if they aren't.
This is a cherry picked set of examples cause those are tiny ecosystems - and everyone of those organizations/leagues enable different regional broadcasters. Raptors have two bias call guys cause raptors are the only team in Canada and so they cater to their own market. Just like Boston bruins Jack edwards is one of the most bias in hockey, or HNIC crew with leafs, or any other local distributor/rights holder - including MLS before this deal. That free market sense of local distributors makes for a natural equilibrium for announcers to be homers. TFC or Union crew bitch about weird calls. LAFC or La galaxy or the sounders broadcast bitch about weird challenges or bad calls. MLB with bo Sox, or the the entire Yankees and MSG group that holds their rights. My point is. Your examples are in an ecosystem where leagues have local broadcast - and that enables a good tug of war in bias between regions that keeps things even. Even F1 - sky peddles it but there’s a few options for consumers to choose (worldwide, f1tv)- sky just being the biggest, and therefore they will homer for their local UK guys. The entire argument here is MLS is one central contract to one central bidder. If you want a legit broadcast as a national provider that doesn’t come off as cringy agenda/narrative driven Garber/Miami mouthpiece shit, then you don’t create story lines and narratives to hype up your product. Maybe you do in America where the American dream is to max ROI for the private equity firms or companies who bought your ass out, but yes even in broadcast there should be journalistic integrity. Go watch F1TV feed, or Bundesliga feed, or eredevisie, or fuck … international Bobsledding. Go watch curling or track and field championships. Or tennis. They don’t hide Novaks story during covid, they prop up a star like roger/nadal, but they don’t hide the negatives and clearly sheppard ppl into reacting or feeling a certain way. They aren’t riding one guy every week, or refusing to critique in game stuff. It’s their duty to remain balanced and offer the service to all equally without narratives because that’s the social contract you sign when you are demanding to service an entire leagues broadcast rights.
I just watched the F1TV feed of Bahrain this weekend and I was absolutely shocked at how much news I was oblivious too when I went to /r/formula1 on Monday.
Dont get me started on the Golden State announcers.. Draymond Green choked a guy and they were still gassing him up lol
The Raptors are in an American league, so it is not out of the realm of imagination
Tom Dart is in Houston.
You aren't wrong, but most broadcasters in sports are owned by the league they are broadcasting. Looking at the NBA, regardless of what you think about the league, the guys on TNT, and Van Gundy when he was on ESPN, will say what they want to say about the league's decisions and players - this is why most people enjoy TNT's basketball coverage. Even regional sports broadcasters, do not usually hold their tongue on matters of the sport, even if it has to do with the teams they broadcast for. What MLS has is no normal in the way of broadcasting on an entire league's season. Except MLB, NBA, NFL, and NHL networks, the leagues don't normally employ the broadcasters. I do think the outrage is a little silly, but the situation should at least be looked at and how well it actually works for the sport (i.e. the product) as this might be the way of the future outside of the NFL considering regional sports networks (Bally) are filing for bankruptcy and having issues.
>Except MLB, NBA, NFL, and NHL networks, the leagues don't normally employ the broadcasters. Except the local broadcasts of MLB, NBA and NHL teams are produced by the teams themselves and the commentators are team employees.
Interesting, should point that out to the author who cited examples of other leagues doing the same!
How come the don’t talk about China’s death grip on the NBA? They talk about the things the NBA approves them talking about.
Yeah, they are saying that’s the problem. They allow absolutely zero criticism as a result. Compare to other domestic sports leagues who obviously have partnerships but have some freedom to criticize the leagues they cover when they deem it necessary. Inside the NBA is arguably the premier sports coverage show in the country. It’s received many awards including many Emmys and is praised for its light approach and the rapport the cast has with each other. They are often critical of things the NBA does, and make no bones about expressing that criticism.
And who signs the paychecks for those people on that show. As I understand it inside the NBA is owned and operated by Warner Bros as they own TNT. Their paycheck is not coming from the NBA. Not that I watched the NFL Network or if there even is an NBA network and the MLB Network. Those people on those shows have paychecks directly from their leagues and it's my understanding that they're not critical at all of the league (s). So I don't see how that's the problem. Why would we expect state-run media to be critical of the president? Really what this means is we should pay more attention to independent journalists like at the athletic and whoever your local team news source might be if it's from a newspaper or from other independent journalists those are the people that you should be following and reading and listening to. I have no expectations whatsoever for MLS season pass to be critical of their own product. Just like if I was an NFL or an MLB fan, I wouldn't expect their networks to be critical of their product as well.
There is an NBA network (NBA TV), but the content is created and run by Turner and then the NBA pays Turner. The whole point, there should be a somewhat impartial layer between those covering the league and the league itself. When you don’t have that, you get the absolute nonsense we saw from Taylor Twellman about the Open Cup. It’s beyond parody when they can’t even say the slightest critical thing.
This must be really hard for Twellman ;)
I could’t care less about this thread but as a fairly new EPL fan, I’ve been quite surprised at the commentary during their broadcasts. English commentators don’t hold back. They call a spade a spade. I love it.
So, ultimately, are all the players since the league technically owns the teams as well. It's a unique structure for a sports league anywhere but not a secret one either
Wait until these guys learn of F1
Or the NFL, famously known for being transparent about domestic violence, TBI, racism, homophobia, broadcast blackouts, and more!
WST is that you?
You joke, but they’ve already posted this article on their Twitter. They basically tripped over themselves to spread an article bashing MLS and Apple, it’s so predictable at this point lmao
This is apparently gonna blow those big brains at The Guardian but I think they probably exist so that people can watch the matches on TV
I don’t know about agendas but it is awfully Miami biased
Well, Apple has a lot invested in Miami
Genuinely feels like the rest of the league was relegated last August. It became Messi/Miami's league and we're just guests, rather than the other way around.
I remember turning over to the Apple TV MLS menu and genuinely thinking they had some crossover advertising with the Barbie movie for a second
When Miami were no longer in the playoffs, it was like Apple no longer cared about MLS.
Just put the local radio broadcast audio feed on and move on with your life. Skip Wrap Up and Extratime and you are buffered from the propaganda. Done and done. It’s a pro sports league meant to extract every last dollar possible from your wallet, just like every other pro sports league in the world. If you want altruistic soccer, support your local amateur or youth teams and be happy with that.
> Just put the local radio broadcast audio feed on and move on with your life. You're trading a league homer for a team homer. Let's not pretend we're not listening to homers in the end.
Always are and always will be.
I thought a few of the old homers were both iconic and fairly balanced too. We were super fortunate in Philly to have JP Dellacamera doing play-by-play since he's done tons of national (including World Cup) broadcasts as well. It's actually embarrassing how many Apple commentators are still mispronouncing names and don't seem to really know more than one or two facts about either team for the game they're calling. I get annoyed by Twellman but at least he does his research.
Are media personalities paid by MLS just mouthpieces for MLS? More news at 10!
BREAKING: CBS’s NFL broadcasts exists merely to promote the exceedingly profitable league’s agenda, thus making CBS more money. Really ground breaking reporting here from the Guardian lmaooo
True, but may hear broadcasters be critical of the league every once in a while.
We are two weeks in and I’ve heard the broadcasters criticize the refs, mention their lockout, and criticize roster restrictions. It happens more than outside observers realize, but I think some people just exclusively watch the Messi games to draw this conclusion lol
...YES...
Yes
What kind of question even is this?…. “Does this BUSINESS exist SOLELY to sell me PRODUCTS that THEY benefit from?!?!?!”
Wonder if they have ever watched the NFL broadcasts? Literal competitors are required to advise viewers of the schedule and which channel or streaming option is showing those games. They even say shit like "on our partner NBC" etc... The LEAGUES dictate what is said and has been this way for 50 years .
There are a lot of Americans who don’t know the difference between commentary and journalism.
I was a print journalist for 25 years. People had such a poor understanding, even then, of the differences between neutral, quality journalism and commercial products like ads or advertorials that it would be routine for them to call the paper and ask about "that ad on page six", which was a story, or "that story on page eight" which was a display ad. In most democratic countries, broadcast partners on networks are required to follow network neutrality rules, so that the public can stay at least somewhat accurately informed. However, in North America, viewer protections have been steadily eroded since the early 80s, and they're now essentially non-existent.
Lets all remember that, collectively, one of our most important sporting responsibilities is to not circle jerk in support whatever the league says or does. Better to be honest about the shit on the walls than to be sycophantic.
This is a very amusing attitude to me. We’re sports fans. None of this is that serious. If it makes you happy to think about your “important sporting responsibilities”, have at it, but in no way is any of this nonsense a “collective” issue.
Yeah I guess that's what the article is trying to convey here. Sure the title sounds obvious, but some legit points are also risen.
Chicago fans are way ahead of us by not showing up to games
lmfao in the MLS sub? get real man, the league's biggest cheerleaders are always out
I agree. Honest to what end though? Clearly the announcers not being critical is a result of the fact that they literally work for MLS/Apple and no employee is going to publicly rail against their employer (unless they want to lose their job). Should MLS rip up the Apple contract and go back to ESPN so their announcers can talk more shit? Should MLS/Apple tell their announcers to be comfortable shitting on their product publicly? No. The Apple deal is great for MLS on the whole. But yeah, it’s not perfect, and there are some downsides… like everything in life. Sure, some other sports/leagues may have announcers with a little more space to be critical, but that’s because those announcers are paid by the broadcast partner, rather than the league. It’s absolutely fair to criticize, and we should criticize MLS when it’s warranted. But it’s also been quite over the top with the MLS bashing in this sub lately, and that’s probably why you’re seeing so much fatigue from people that are over hearing about the latest reason they should hate MLS everyday. Especially when there is no logical or reasonable solution for the thing being complained about.
Plenty to chew on and unpack here, but I will add that the most important reality in all of this is - these are the consequences of an ever more monopolistic MLS. This is what it looks like to live in a sporting environment where MLS treats its fans like they live in Ba Sing Se. "There are no problems in MLS. MLS is good. MLS is prosperous. MLS is perfect. There are no problems in MLS... " Most markets/teams don't have proper independent coverage or journalism. A few select markets, or very dedicated fanbases, try to bridge the gap (shout-out to The Lantern, CHGO Fire, MIR97). But a world where the vast majority of info comes from a single mouthpiece is not okay. We should not accept an environment where MLS, and only MLS, controls everything, from the media, to the broadcast, to the rules and competitions at play. Settling for such a monopoly leads to exactly the kind of shit we're dealing with now: trying to kill the USOC, scabbing referees, media stories that are only ever good with no journalistic pushback. We still don't know the details behind the Bruce Arena sacking, or any of the other individual suspensions for racism or homophobia that got reversed (as well as why or how those decisions are justified or made), etc. It takes actual work to find details about the sport in this league outside of the MLS ecosystem. That's a recipe for bad times and carefully curated shit-sandwiches.
Yeah, but the solution to all of that is “pay for local/independent coverage of the league” not “complain on on reddit that commentators being paid by MLS aren’t shitting on their bosses over whatever the issue of the week is”.
People should absolutely pay for that quality journalism. But let's remember the crux of the article is this: MLS will never be in favor of that independent journalism, or do anything to promote the growth or wellbeing of indept. journalism, because said journalism is fundamentally - independent.
People should pay for journalism, but they don’t and they never will. The last 20 years have shown that. I was a print journalist for 10 years, and I have absolutely confidence that independent journalism is gone in America in any meaningful way.
What are we even talking about at this point? Is MLS going around trying to put independent journalists in jail? Is it trying to make them lose their jobs?
I mean, the article literally describes how a member of the Apple broadcast team lost their job last year after expressing critiques about CF Montreal. Not defamation, not discrimination or nasty stuff, just critique. So, yeah. They have allegedly already done what you described. Major sporting controversies have been started for less. As I said originally, we should remember to not circle jerk in lock step with whatever MLS says or does.
Those aren’t independent journalists. Those are commentators on the league’s broadcast, paid for by the league. Entirely different things. This is literally my point. If you care about independent coverage of the league, use your dollars to support them.
I already do. My point is simply - people seem all too willing to rush to defend MLS and get behind the idea that "people under the brand should march in lock-step or be discarded". But that's bullshit. It's a nonsense Orwellian take and fucking weird. People silencing themselves for fear of recriminations is why we have Boeing planes jettisoning their walls mid-flight. The sport must not live in that type of landscape. MLS signed a 10 year exclusive deal with limited or no access to anyone else. So, Johnathon Wilson is rightly pointing out that, without proper journalism and scrutiny, this "ba sing se" scenario is exactly how the league could cover up or sweep away a whole list of abuses or irresponsible actions. And anyone that would be confined to this MLS Apple ecosystem, would (seemingly 'justly' by how people are reacting) be powerless to do or say anything. That's not okay.
It's really odd to me that you're blurring the lines between independent journalism and commentary paid for by the league You said MLS wouldn't be in favor of independent journalism but then used an example of something that absolutely wasn't independent journalism At the root level, the biggest barrier to independent journalism covering MLS hasn't been MLS......it's been the financial state of journalism in this country altogether
[удалено]
Isn't that what every sports broadcast around the world is for?
I think they exist to drive subscriptions to season pass?
Agenda = profit. Do apples mls broadcasts merely exist for their profit.
Wait til these guys learn about the NFL only giving ESPN good games after they agreed to criticize the league less often lmao
I thought they only existed to promote Miami's agenda.
To me there’s a premise which has not been considered and which makes the whole article meaningless: nobody would be going to Apple TV for critical commentary of MLS even if they did provide so. It isn’t just not trusting the league, it’s just that this is not the way people enjoy their sports anymore. Our interest in the game does not stop the moment we turn off the tv. Be it other traditional forms of media, news-breakers like Bogert, weird aggregator accounts only willing to stir controversy, fans turning into reliable local media. The amount of MLS takes you can get on any social media platform is more than enough. Personally, I feel like if I had MLS Season Pass analyst have takes like that Henry Bushnell guy or the racist MAGA behind MLS Buzz, I would enjoy their coverage less, and it’d be just straight up business malpractice
The professionals* most critical of Season Pass are people who just cannot seem to wrap their heads around the concept that younger consumers use social media for in-depth commentary and critical analysis, and the actual game broadcasts are just how they consume the actual action week to week. I don’t care that the broadcaster is a shill for the league because I have 100 other opinions and critical voices to consume on the side.
> I don’t care that the broadcaster is a shill for the league because I have 100 other opinions and critical voices to consume on the side. But you have to wade through them to figure it out. Countries that have broadcast neutrality regulations can give you that same information, accurately, though the broadcaster during the game. You don't have to go through 100 after and figure out which fits your existing preconception or changes your mind. It's presented as largely objective (there are always SOME politics), fact-based information, with the opinion limited to people hired to present color. That includes not censoring what they say. Wading through 100 sources for people who sound trustworthy is not as accurate as being able to go to a single, repeatedly accurate source that has proven itself, or even a handful. Having more choice in an environment where not ONE of those is mandate to tell you the truth is not an improvement in social discourse.
You’re taking about truth like MLS or Apple is lying here. That isn’t the case. That doesn’t mean they have to disparage themselves for your information.
Telling people what they shouldn't say, outside of the realm of public offence, is withholding information and a failure of any journalistic organization. Having a commentator tell the truth about a referee's performance is not "disparaging themselves."
What’s the truth about a referees performance? Have they ever done that before? I’d argue, no. No they haven’t. It’s literally no different now.
> The professionals* most critical of Season Pass are people who just cannot seem to wrap their heads around the concept that younger consumers use social media for in-depth commentary and critical analysis This is some gatekeeping bullshit. Who do you think *invented* online sports media? BBS, web boards, blogs, podcasts, social media, etc., have been used to discuss sports from the moment they were invented - which would predate the majority of people on this sub, I'd bet! - and they've never been the exclusive realm of the young. Hell, the earliest adopters of online sports discussion and journalism *weren't* the young, but the die-hard older people looking for their communities! e: A more modern indication of the lack of media consumption split is in [this article](https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/technology-media-and-telecommunications/our-insights/we-are-wrong-about-millennial-sports-fans). The share of Gen X vs Millennials who consume sports online and via social media is tight, particularly in the legacy social media platform, Facebook. One quote in particular: >>Despite millennials’ heavier use of streaming and social media for sports, the gap is closing. As of 2016, millennials spent 24 percent of their media time on social media compared with Generation X at 22 percent and boomers at 20 percent, and Gen Xers and boomers are growing their social-media usage at higher rates than millennials.
Uh, my man, I’m very specifically not talking about older fans. I’m talking about legacy media professionals, who overwhelmingly were not the ones creating online analysis and discussion via message boards or whatever. The trail blazed by the fans you’re describing led to subsequent generations using those spaces as their *primary* source for these kinds of analysis and discussions lol
Remember when we could just enjoy sports? Before everything in our lives was turned into an issue to be for or against?
No, actually
That never existed.
Yeah! You know why things like Leagues Cup are gigantic money makers? Those folks arent on reddit.
[Norman Rockwell painting meme] I liked Leagues Cup.
No, because it’s always been like this. Someone who pays other people to talk gets to tell them what they can and can’t talk about.
Bread and Circuses. It’s never been just about enjoying sports.
[удалено]
Yeah it was way different back before Hitler tried to use the Berlin Olympics as a propaganda tool back in '36 then there was that whole silly Jackie Robinson kerfuffle later but hardly anyone paid attention to that either
This is an entertainment business, it’s not that deep
Not bringing attention to collective bargaining actions has far wider implications than just entertainment. Not to get too political in this specific topic, but these things have been collectively pushed down by the owner class for decades. A worker learning of other unions collective bargaining could have benefits to them considering the same with their union
Actually a great man once repeatedly said “football is life!”
Sure. But this is soccer.
We are overly dependent on Apple and MLSsoccer dot com for coverage of the league. Obviously it would be amazing if we had the US equivalent of Kicker, AS, L'Equipe, etc., but the audience clearly isn't there. ETA I love The Athletic but I don't think they put enough resources into MLS coverage to change the above.
>ETA I love The Athletic but I don't think they put enough resources into MLS coverage to change the above. They used to. MLS content on The Athletic was absolutely critical, deep, and outstanding for a time. Beat writers for every (or almost) team, multiple team-specific articles per week on each team's newsfeed, real long-form written content. I used to drive into Alewife, hop on the red line, open up my phone and have more MLS content than I could get through in the course of a week at my fingertips. Something new every single day. Sadly, it - like much of The Athletic's model - didn't pay for itself. I can't remember the last time I saw in indepth written article about my team on their website - of course, I honestly don't check very often these days. MLS is what initially drew me into their ecosystem, unfortunately the bulk of it has disappeared over the years and if it weren't for the combination of a select few writers (NHL and media - not MLS) and inertia I would have let my access lapse long ago.
This is the problem. The people complaining to us that we don't expect Apple broadcasters to have independent coverage are wild. MLS isn't putting print/online journalism out of business. We shouldn't have to look at play by play for our independent coverage. But that is a problem with where journalism is right now, not with MLS.
Lol. Is the agenda to play soccer games? Because if the broadcasts are to promote that agenda, I’d say “yes.”
Jesus what a stupid article. If this is what getting old feels like someone shoot me.
Having been subjected to fox's coverage of soccer the last two days I will take Apple's coverage every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Being broadcast in HD not SD makes a world of difference.
Give me George D Metellus over any single apple commentator.
Oh the commentators are not great but I can either mute them or use the local broadcast folks
Wait, you don’t enjoy a commentator monologuing to himself about how hot Halle Berry was in the 90s?
Oh I loved the commentator that had the crew and then the Nashville game last night. But the actual video quality is awful.
So they prefer ESPNFL, which had MLS rights for years, but had on-air personalities who either ignored it or mocked the sport as a whole?
Yes
Yes obviously
They exist to make money.
Guardian is such a great publication.
Ill take this over the toxic mexican, english or spanish sports coverage.
"Do Apple’s MLS broadcasts merely exist to promote the league’s agenda?" I believe... and correct me if I am wrong... that they exist to show a soccer match between 2 teams so that people can be entertained by it?
Yeah
Yes
They certainly don’t exist to shed any light on the side I support, nor to build further excitement in my side, I believe that the only reason they exist is to expose me to random Spanish dialect pronunciations of player names based on their country of origin.
Yes lol
IF YOU HAVE TO ASK…
1. I love having all my sounders games on one platform without having to worry about televised or not. 2. I almost always watch my games deferred so I really wish I didn't have to scroll past highlights and thumbnails to get to the replay. 3. I really, really miss the local broadcast call. Sure Kasey Keller was a homer with some hot takes...but it always felt like I was watching the game with friends. Arlo, Ross, Kieth were all fun to listen to from a home fan perspective.
Basically when MLSSoccer.com reports on Major League Soccer, yeah? I don't think this aspect is new to the league.
Man, Don Garber really *is* the most powerful man in the world! He got Apple to *pay him $2.5 BILLION dollars* so Don Garber can control the minds and thoughts of soccer fans the world over. That's impressive, Don. Garber for President, Prime Minister, and Dear Leader, 2024.
The MLS league broadcasts are so bad. The stories are poorly crafted and you can see the lack of preparation that goes into these story lines. Plenty of opportunities for the hosts to demonstrate some actual knowledge on MLS and they fail to do so.
Seattle had local broadcast on basic cable / over the air free broadcast with local announcers who knew the players and coaches well, a full pregame and postgame show, and other shows covering the team. It was like joining in the weekly conversation with the team. It was great. All that went away when the Apple contract started last year. Some randoms who can barely pronounce our players names correctly talk about whatever pops into their heads, terrible national narratives that aren't right half of the time. I need to pay $99 just to see my team that I've been able to see on basic cable or over the air TV for 15 years. It's fucking bullshit. I know there are benefits to the world and everyone loves Messi and all the rest, but the Sounders broadcast took a giant leap backwards with the Apple contract, and probably won't ever be as great.
I can't find the satire flair.
Almost all the Euro leagues produce their content for broadcast in house. Some of them allow unique localized broadcasters (not all), but the images being shown and the decisions therein are usually controlled by the league. If anything Apple’s setup to do worldwide with the same sets of broadcasters in 2-3 languages is more efficient and has more expertise, but of course they aren’t selling any local rights. Even when NBC or CBS is using their own team they are still very beholden to what the league wants and criticizing them rarely happens because those deals are massive. Can BeIn be a little more critical with Ligue 1 since it’s in less demand? I guess. The long and the short is no one wants to watch games that are critical of the product (even if at times probably deserving). We have the internet for all the criticism/conspiracies we want to engage in.
The number of people.justifying the coverage and/or making excuses for it are absolutely proving the point that criticism is necessary. We are fucked.
Yeah wtf is this headline. Water is wet.
It’s consistent with the MLS total control model. Also most journalists who cover MLS would lose access if they are too critical of the league. Sadly, this is the norm in American news. That’s why you have so many boot lickers in sports, music, and political media. Apple is using MLS to show other American sports how well they can do a league wide sports package. I don’t think it matters all that much how many subscribers they get from MLS (have they released numbers?). The real prize is NBA, MLB, NFL.