Quote Originally Posted by JoesphNdo View Post
I agree with the first point, but the second? It doesn't hold up. Perhaps you can't get to matches, but the latter simply is not true, and the way to look at that is simply looking at asses in seats. Has it gone up and down? That's where opinion leaves, and rubber meets road

1 - In 2023, first year of the deal, the league set a record for average and total attendance - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_...cer_attendance

2 - 2024 is set to break that record - https://www.reddit.com/r/MLS/comment...er_matchday_5/

3 - But is that all just Messi? Well, no, as the league was already on course for an average attendance of 21,897 when he arrived (And end games will always draw the most, when things are on the line) and ended with an average of 22,111. So pre messi, people were going to MLS games, and we were likely breaking that record anyway - https://www.reddit.com/r/MLS/comment...r_matchday_27/

So I agree fully winter 7:30 games are terrible, but 7:30 games when the conditions aren't bad? They may not work for you, but I'd ask for some evidence that there is a league wide epidemic of people not making it to stadiums because I'm seeing attendance records being broken in season 1, and very likely to be broken again in season 2.


Again, I'd want more anecdotal evidence than "one week, one time, after a home loss that was unremarkable, one forum was quiet". Here's what we do know


  1. MLS tv ratings were so bad they sometimes didn't even rank high enough for the number to be reported https://deadspin.com/so-what-will-ml...ngs-1848784249
  2. In year 2 (End of year 1, really, this came out in Feb), MLS' apple TV package has over two million subscribers https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/24/busin...ket%20holders.
  3. Cable is a slowly dying medium. It's not dead, but half of people as 'young' as under 44 don't have it https://cordcuttersnews.com/cable-tv...t-a-high-rate/ and that rate of cord cutting is growing. Imagine where this is 10 years from now, when this Apple TV deal ends?



MLS is in fact more accessible to your average Gen Z person than cable. It's the difference between saying "Want to see Messi? Download Apple TV. Hey, this week it's free" vs "Want to see Messi? Call Rogers/Bell. Negotiate a 12 month deal mostly paying for crap you don't want. Oh and hope the game is on one of the channels you actually subscribed too. Or even on at all". Now the latter isn't necessarily fair, but that would be the perception that person would have. I can tell you as someone who has never had cable (And I don't know alot who do, and I'm on the oldest end of that demographic, you have to assume the young end is massively driving that average up), and am pushing 40, MLS is infinitely more accessible and interesting to me now for my own anecdotal evidence. I went from only watching TFC, on a dodgy stream for away games, to watching the whole league.
So I'm all for hearing interest in the league is down, but I need evidence. Crowds are at an all time high, a dead TV product has 2 million people subscribed to a service that exclusively shows it - where's the evidence interest is being discouraged?



Would Messi have taken a contract at like 5% of what he's earning now? I don't think so, but sure, there's always a chance. But I don't buy it. If he's okay earning fuck all relative to his market value, he's either back in Barcelona or playing in Argentina. He doesn't need a contract to enjoy the lifestyle here

But my main point was, and you seem to agree, he would have had to have been paid a fraction of what he earned before. Here's my argument as to why the economics on this deal make sense, but ONLY in an Apple world, made before he signed when many couldn't believe his signing was possible - http://forums.redpatchboys.ca/showth...=1#post1980874 The only way he could earn what he earns is with a billion dollar TV contract, on top of that Apple kicking in some money and on top of that Apple kicking in a % on new subs. There is no ROI on this type of money in a previous TV deal world, MLS couldn't monetize even close to as effectively as they are doing now

I do agree the timing of Miami games is fucking weird, though, and likely costing them. I expect alot of early Miami kick offs for the bigger games, games where they can market them a bit


My main takeaway is change will be impactful for everyone, but you can't assume your interest = the worlds. I'm open to evidence this is all bad, but every single metric on this thing is not only not bad, it's very, very good. And MLS is generating far more revenue from their TV than they were, so if they can convince their cheapest owners and don't blow this opportunity, this should be the start of big increases in the cap - increases thatwill further raise the standard of the league

Again, the winter 7:30 starts are a disgrace, but that is the only part of this I'd change. Everything else seems to be working. I'm open to evidence it's not, but all the evidence I see says it is.
One thought on this post. I'll preface it by saying I like having Apple streaming MLS games. I don't think I lose anything by not having TSN commentators and in fact TSN's streaming is so poor I actively avoid subscribing to anything TSN. Like you, I don't have cable and no desire to go back to it and I'm definitely on the older end of the streaming versus cable divide. I also only saw TFC games on crappy illegal streams prior to Apple. So on the whole I'm supportive of the change.

However, I question the extent to which Apple subscriptions show improvement. The only reason why I have a subscription is because I'm a season ticket holder. I absolutely would not pay for a subscription to watch MLS without that. The quality is still so far off the EPL that it's hard to watch. If I'm spending time watching games, it will always be EPL first. I rarely have watched any other game besides TFC. The breakdown of the subscription base between the free ones and paid ones would be interesting to find out. Not sure if they do that.