Happy Mon- er, Tuesday! Welcome to the Weekly Open Discussion Thread, an open space for the the Stumptown Footy community to come talk about the Timbers, Thorns, or anything else going on around MLS & the NWSL.
The Timbers are rising, while the Thorns are falling. MLS midweek games are revving up to congest the schedule, and the NWSL remains just as unpredictable as ever. I’m sure that folks have thoughts about any/all of those things.
Feel free to drop a thought or link and have at it in the comments!
I know that has definitely impacted my MLS viewing. I'm not an obsessive MLS fan by any means, but in years past MLS was a good way to kill some soccer-watching time on a weekend. Now, though, I rarely get the chance - I go to Timbers home games, so any west coast start random viewing is off the table, and usually on Saturdays I'm doing other stuff at 4.30 so it's hard to tune in to the east coast games as well.
I also got notified that Apple TV is offering a one month free trial of their MLS channel, which is...odd timing. They obviously don't release viewership numbers, but that doesn't really bode well for how it's all going for them.
I suspected when this deal was announced that it'd be really bad for MLS; giving away free subs to season ticket holders (a perk I do not expect will repeat itself next season) took a revenue opportunity out of their hands, and given the size of past viewership numbers, there really is no such thing as a "casual MLS viewer". Paywalling games, even if there are free options every week, won't change that, and will probably make it worse.
I like the Apple TV experience. When I watch Premier League or NWSL, it's a bit of a crapshoot if a match will be on streaming (Peacock, Paramount), network (NBC, CBS) or cable TV (USA, CBS Sports). Having one destination to see everything that's on and pick a specific match or dip in and out is nice. Before Apple TV I wouldn't seek out other matches for other teams, and now I will check out other teams. And from a cost per match perspective it's very reasonable to me.
The one thing I really don't like is the Dunseth/Bretos commentator duo. They're like listening to Fred Willard's character in "Best in Show" for 90 minutes.
I get the complaints about matches behind a paywall, but it's happening across soccer leagues and in other sports. NBC just paid $110 million for a single NFL game to be streamed on Peacock, so it is the future.
I'm pretty happy with the AppleTV situation. While there are things that aren't great (the score issue, now resolved) I'm very happy I can catch all the games without resorting to finding bootleg streams. I cut the cord years ago and haven't looked back. Getting most thorns games on Paramount+ and Timbers on AppleTV has really worked well for me.
I'm not thrilled with the announcers, but I think that is more due to there being a limited number of good announcers out there. That tracks with other sports as well, where there are good and bad announcers. I think the problem could be solved with a secondary audio feed to the local team being available. They do have spanish broadcast available, so it shouldn't be too hard to add 2 more audio feeds. However, I think the quality should improve over time assuming the announcers are getting feedback.
Don't forget - as I did for a few weeks - that you can choose to sync the broadcast with local radio announcers instead of using the Apple announcers. The PTFC radio guys are pretty decent, not stellar, but they do have the advantage of being local and knowing more Timbers context.
Annoyingly, this option ALWAYS uses the home announcers - so tonight, using that option will get you RSL's radio announcers, not the Timbers. But if you want a less generic broadcast with a little more local knowledge, follow the steps in this article:
Great suggestion! My problem is that we like to start the game when we are ready and then we end up pausing the game periodically. Synching up with the broadcast doesn't work at that point.
For example, I have a company soccer practice tonight so we will probably start watching the game around 7ish. I'll have to try the local team at other times.
While boomers will clutch their cable TV sets to their deaths (and bitch the entire time that they cannot find games or find anything interesting channel surfing), non-streaming sports will be quaint in the next 5 years.
As with most things US sports, the NFL will lead the way with this, just because of its behemoth-like presence on the US sports landscape. As long as the NFL remains a majority linear league, live sports will always be the reason cable still exists.
The NFL's current broadcast contracts run through 2033, and all of them have both a linear and OTT component (NBC/Peacock, CBS/Paramount, etc), so they're basically in control of when live sports leave cable TV behind for streaming permanently. I think 5 years may be a little optimistic, but by the end of this 10 year broadcast cycle, most games almost certainly will be only available on streaming services one way or the other.
I'm guessing that Apple chose this approach for efficiency. But it's bad for viewership. My son and I always managed to watch all or parts of several other MLS games every week under the old schedule. Knowing more about other MLS teams helps us to evaluable the Timbers more accurately and overall makes the season more exciting. Hope Apple and MLS change things next season.
Correct. Used to be quite a few midweek and/or weekend MLS offerings on Fox and ESPN and ESPN2, not to mention streaming. That’s 90 percent gone now. Now all you see is USFL football. So now the non paying viewer gets to sample football instead of soccer. Which is why USFL was created in the first place: to knock spring and summer MLS off its pedestal. This is how you grow your fan base, by making casual viewers subscribe? I guess the thinking was go for the big payday from Apple.
If the USFL cares about MLS as a rival for eyeballs one way or the other, that will mean it's the first US sports league to do so. This country has an insatiable desire for football, and USFL was created primarily to fill the perceived void in the NFL/NCAA off seasons. They don't see MLS as an obstacle or a competitor at all, because they're all about American football; to them soccer is an irrelevance.
Sadly, MLS has never really moved the needle as far as being a viewership rival to other sports leagues, and the Apple deal only makes them even less of a ripple on the pond, as it were. MLS is and will always be a very niche sport in the US.
And you know what? I'm fine with that! It doesn't need to be huge. The league's not going out of business any time soon, so we can just have our fun under everyone's radar. Their loss.
This. Linear TV has been in a long slow decline since about 1990 and that is never going to turn around. My 85-year old mother watches her beloved Cubs on Roku. Eventually TV will be all game shows, soap operas, political floof, and NFL. So I don't feel like MLS is making a mistake getting in front of it. A lot is going to change by 2033, and they are positioned to change apace. Schedules can be adjusted, pricing can be tweaked, partnerships can do creative stuff.
NFL viewership has been declining most of the century. Gen Z's don't like the violence, the warlike language, the slow pace, the bro-manship. If they are going to watch any sport, soccer is a top candidate, and streaming is where they will go to consume it. Better to already be established in that space.
One other thing I appreciate is the broadcast quality of Apple TV. The pictures are sharp, the stream is rock solid, most of the announcers are good, the directing is overall much better, and if, like me, you can't listen to Ross for 90 minutes it is seamless to listen to the radio feed instead.
MLS and Apple apparently believe diehard fans only care about their home teams. I'd watch LAFC play anyone because they're so good and Seattle because I enjoy seeing them lose on any day or at any time. Same for Philly, Nashville, and Austin. Galaxy too to see Ricqui Puig's artistry with the ball and Chicharito's cry-baby antics.
Which isn't a bad idea, but would work a whole lot better for the league if the destination didn't have a cover charge that deters all but the already interested.
It is significantly cheaper than cable with a sports package. Without cable, local viewers got what - about half the season on free TV? The other half you needed Root, FS1, ESPN for?
Sure 15-16 free broadcasts is not nothing, but also really hard to follow your team every week when you need to spend $90/month minimum to watch every game.
Oh, I'm definitely on team I'm OK With Apple, and I'm also not super annoyed at the price (as a STH, I do get it free this year, but I'm fully counting on that being a one-season perk and having to pay next season).
But the concept of a "destination day" isn't really what Apple is getting, whether that's what they wanted originally or not, because of not just the paywall but also because of the simultaneous kick off times.
If I'm a casual/new MLS fan, I might want to be able to consume more than one game a night - don't forget, for as much as it's good to be a west coast sports fan, those on the east coast don't get their first MLS game until 7.30PM their time, and then the west coast games don't start until 10.30.
That's not a great way to create a "destination day", when seven of the top eight biggest media markets in the US are in either the eastern (NY, Philly, ATL, DC) or central (Chicago, DFW, HOU) time zones.
Yes. They certainly could spread out the times. I mean college football starts at Noon on the East Coast (so 9AM TV starts in the West) and goes until near midnight Pacific time). It would catch more of a live audience who is looking for that experience.
Historically MLS has been afraid of college football and NFL football. It is largely different audiences it seems to me. I watch very little of all 3 unless the Timbers are playing away (STH), very rarely catch a Ducks or Beavers game.
Sometimes I think MLS significantly under and overthinks things. As a STH, I LOVE the predictability of most games being Saturday night at 7:30 though. I hate weeknight games, because it is really challenging for me to get there by kickoff and my seats (4) are for the family who almost always bow out last second for weeknight games because they are too tired, want to be in bed by 9:30 for a full next day.
I understand that people generally prefer live sports (thus taking out any chance that they know the outcome / the thrill of unpredictability remains in play), but every game is available on Apple TV for viewing at any time.
So, for people who are serious MLS watchers, they could watch any game at any time. Only AppleTV knows how much of that is actually happening. For most of us, we probably watch the highlight show at most though (I was previously not much of an agnostic MLS watcher because I just have much too busy of a life to watch very many games that I don't care about).
Count me in as one who used to/would still if that were an option watch a ton of random MLS games, but yeah, count me out of watching those games after the fact. The unpredictability of live sports is the draw, for me, for sure.
If I don't care enough to watch an LAFC game instead of the Timbers when both are on at the same time, I'm not going to watch anything but the highlights of an LAFC game on MLS.com after the fact, for the same "I have a lot going on" reason.
I am not an apple subscriber, and I'm not going to be one any time soon.
It's garbage that all MLS broadcasts have to go through this one funnel, and that all players have to wear an Apple logo on their kits.
The main result of this for me is, I don't watch MLS games on TV and now focus on Premier League instead - I only see Timbers live or at a friend's house for away games.
And, obviously, no other MLS matches, since they've made that impossible for everyone.
Well, I mean, it's not "impossible" - you've just chosen not to give Apple your money, which is your right. It's entirely "possible" for people to make other choices. But you're giving NBC Universal your money for Peacock or USA, or for cable, so it's not like the PL is some beacon of hope in a world of soccer-viewing insanity.
I wish MLS had a game or two every night of the week all summer long. I wouldn't watch every game but I'd watch a few a week probably. With this new schedule, I'm definitely watching fewer random MLS games on TV than I used to.
I did get to watch the 360 show once when the Timbers were on the road. I thought it was pretty fun actually. I'm just not sure the viewership numbers of that show are worth sacrificing so many other timeslots throughout the week where they could be showing live soccer. It's not like there's much sports on TV competition in the summer. It's just baseball, right?
The other issue with this idea is that Apple shows the score of the game when you start to watch the feed. This is an awful idea, because there are times I want to start watching any game after it has already started. I really don't want to know the score at that time! This is a big problem they need to address, but who do I even contact to discuss this? Unknown at this time. I sure hope this is resolved this season because I rarely start watching the game when it starts. It is one of the reasons streaming is good for the fan, but this kills that benefit. I have to have my kid start the stream while I'm in the other room!
- Mosquera is only on 184,000. Another total bargain
- We now see Mora’s reduced salary: $120,000. That’s very cap friendly for us, I think using any sort of buyout for him would be a mistake with him taking up such little cap space, even if he doesn’t play this year. He was making nearly 900k last fall!
- Zuparic is making $735k, which feels really high to me. He was only on 375k last fall. Anyone know why his salary went up so much?
- Niezgoda is the highest paid non-DP on the team at 850k. Nathan is the lowest paid player on the team at $68,775. Comparing both of their contributions to the team this year, it’s wayyyy closer than it should be just going off their salary
- Paredes is making nearly double what he was making last fall, putting him at $550,000 now. He extended his contract this off-season iirc, so that’s where that comes from. Feels a tad high, but that’s okay
Niezgoda is a DP (along with Y. Chara and Evander). I don't disagree that he should not be and is overpaid (compared to other more productive players nearing $1m/yr).
Zup's guaranteed comp from last year was 579K, which isn't that far off the 735K in base comp he's making this year, but that is a headscratcher overall. There may be "marketing bonuses" (they exclude performance bonuses) or previously deferred salary in that number or something.
Saw the piece on Conway. Tragic. IIRC something like “over half” of the England 1966 squad developed CTE.
I’m curious if the changes since those guys played have made any difference. They were heading a leather - probably soaking wet - ball that must have been like a medicine ball more often than not. Modern balls are lighter, but my guess is travel faster, so the higher “a” in F=ma might produce a similarly punishing effect.
Either way, it’s one of these “cui bono” problems. The people with the power to make a change - teams, leagues, federations, FIFA - have a vested interest in the status quo. The people who are paying the price - the players, friends, and families - are not in a powerful enough position.
Consider football, which has a much worse CTE problem. And has done nothing - or looks even faintly interested in doing anything - about it.
I am neither a doctor nor a physicist, nor do I have any sort of actual knowledge, but from what I have read, it seems the problem in isn't so much the weight of the object but the repetition of the contact. In practice and in games, they use their heads a lot, and the cumulative damage of thousands upon thousands of small impacts over a career is where the problems stem from.
The only way to make it truly safe would be to ban heading the ball from the game entirely. I believe heading has been banned in US U10 leagues, and I'd love to see that continue up the chain until eventually heading is banned throughout the game.
Games evolve over the decades for a lot of reasons; there would be a lot of gnashing of teeth and THAT'S NOT FOOTBALL-type objections at first, but within a season of seeing it at the professional level, no one will mind the lack of heading, it'll just be a part of the game.
I’m reading similar arguments. It appears increasingly clear that even small head-impacts are injurious if repeated.
I’m one of the “it won’t be football” types in that I enjoy the skill and think the sport will lose a dimension that makes it more dynamic and entertaining.
But.
These are not gladiators, and should not be asked to risk their health so I can enjoy some aspect of their sport. So I agree; heading should be phased out.
Whether it will be? Im not sure. I’d like to think that the federations and FIFA will do the decent thing…but FIFA’s history on that score doesn’t reassure me…
The sport will definitely lose something, but it's not like major changes have irrevocably altered other sports for the worse in the past:
- Football didn't allow forward passing until 1906 (the game started in 1892)
- Basketball didn't have a shot clock until 1954, after playing without one since 1891
And also, look no further than baseball this year. There were a bunch of not-insignificant changes, the biggest of which - the pitch clock - has made baseball soooooo much more watchable (and I say that as a lifelong baseball fan!). Most of these major changes resulted in a positive evolution, not a negative one.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that banning heading would be a seismic shift, for sure, but it would still be football, in the same way all the other major sports absorbed their own seismic shifts and maintained their identities pretty successfully.
This is a good article from the Athletic ($, but I believe The Athletic allows a certain number of articles free per month) that shows exactly how wide the spending gap between MLS teams is.
It's definitely not the case that MLS is a level salary playing field; the salary budget is the same for every team, but teams' overall payroll, and their ability to work within the TAM/GAM/DP rules, mean a very wide disparity between teams that spend and teams that don't.
I know Portland's in a big ol' salary cap nightmare mess right now, but I can't wait until some of the Timbers' big contracts clear off the books and Portland can move up the MLS salary outlay list further than they are. I don't think they should just dump money on players, but with more flexibility in the cap they can increase their total spend as well, and get towards a more talented roster top to bottom.
There is a really good opportunity for the Timbers to improve the team in the coming years. With contracts for Mabiala, Niezgoda and Blanco coming off the books soon, we can really fill in other positions that lack depth at the moment. It won't help situations like our midfield when we have 2 catastrophic injuries, but for the defense we could really use better depth.
Yeah, the Timbers are definitely at a crucial point in their evolution. With those contracts coming off the books, and hopefully both Charas calling it a day (one gracefully with all the pomp and circumstance, one, well, see ya, whatever), the Timbers have a huge opportunity to reinvent themselves in the next couple seasons.
My most fervent hope is that they don't try to "reinvent" themselves by trying to find/create Diego Chara Mk. 2 and replicating that style of play - it's been fun to watch (mostly) over the years, but D. Chara is a unique player and I don't want them to just think they can copy/paste and keep playing the same way. I don't have a "preferred" way they should play, really, I just don't want them to think they can catch lightning in a bottle twice.
I'm really excited to see what Ned and the new technical director can do with some cap space and a lot of roster overhaul to be done.
Macario is off to Chelsea, who are also working on a "long-term extension" for Kerr.
Now that we know that Kodos (Textor) and Kang have launched their plan for world WoSo domination, do we think it's more likely or less likely that Horan
Don’t see it making a difference one way or the other. ISTM that the factors are (in order of what seems to be likely to weigh on Horan):
Is she getting good value - in both salary and professional development - at OL?
Does she have any “unchecked boxes” there? Another CL medal? CL MVP?
Are there personal attractions in Europe (her SO plays in Monaco, IIRC)?
Is there anything drawing her back to the US (homesickness? Other personal or family reasons? Professional prospects? Salary offers?)
If so, is there anything to draw her HERE as opposed to Seattle or DC?
I honestly don’t know. I don’t know what she felt about Aulas. I don’t know how she feels about Kang. Or Parsons. But I suspect all the factors above will carry more weight…
Interestingly it will have no salary cap. How many ultra-rich types will step up? Will the league be able to stop teams from spending themselves into oblivion? What players will move to it from NWSL?
D1 seems pretty optimistic given the available talent pool. I would think USSF wants a solid D2 to soak up and develop the bottom half of the NCAA draft. Not a competing D1. Also, I don't know of any country with two D1 (women or men). Maybe Japan? Regardless, asking USSF to step outside the box is a challenge, asking them to pioneer the global sport's structure? A 10% chance seems too high.
Think it'll depend on the venues. Looking at the list I don't see any real major markets outside DC, and the Spirit will be competing for the fan $$ there, so unless there's a potential owner with the pockets to assemble a super team? That's splitting a pretty small pot.
Most of these look pretty good for having a Fall-to-Summer league, but there will be entire periods of Winter when Spokane and Madison cannot possibly host outdoor soccer,
Charlotte, North Carolina
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas
Lexington, Kentucky
Phoenix, Arizona
Spokane, Washington
Tampa Bay, Florida
Tucson, Arizona
Washington D.C.
Four other cities are expected to join in subsequent seasons, with Chattanooga, Tennessee, Indianapolis, Indiana, Jacksonville, Florida, Madison, Wisconsin, and Oakland, California among the possible locations,
I can't imagine both a Phoenix and a Tucson team happening, or surviving if they both come to be. The two cities are only 100 miles apart and would cannibalize each other's catchment areas, I would think. I mean, Tucson has the U of A, so there's a pipeline there, but Phoenix is a huuuuuuuuuge city/area and probably won't want to share its pipeline with Tucson.
If this league actually does stand up and get going, I would expect that one of the two AZ entries on that list would disappear.
I've lived in both, as it happens, and played most of my own soccer in Arizona (and yes, it sucks real bad in summer). I can't see Tucson supporting a proper First Division club...it's just not big enough.
My wife's from Tucson and my whole family lives there, so I'm naturally biased against Phoenix (hahaha). But the numbers just don't support Tucson in this case.
If Phoenix decided not to have a team, Tucson could support one, but if there's two players in that region, Phoenix wins every time (see: MLB spring training). And yeah, even night games there in the summer are basically like playing on the surface of the sun.
We’ll see. Seems like some pretty small markets there. Spokane? Madison? Lexington?
Travel costs look brutal. I think they’d be sensible to split this into two or three regional entities. Keep the costs down, make themselves a USL-equivalent for WoSo.
Interesting article about the possible impacts of having all MLS games kick off at the same time every week:
https://prosoccerwire.usatoday.com/2023/05/15/mls-apple-tv-deal-sees-most-games-take-place-at-same-time/
I know that has definitely impacted my MLS viewing. I'm not an obsessive MLS fan by any means, but in years past MLS was a good way to kill some soccer-watching time on a weekend. Now, though, I rarely get the chance - I go to Timbers home games, so any west coast start random viewing is off the table, and usually on Saturdays I'm doing other stuff at 4.30 so it's hard to tune in to the east coast games as well.
I also got notified that Apple TV is offering a one month free trial of their MLS channel, which is...odd timing. They obviously don't release viewership numbers, but that doesn't really bode well for how it's all going for them.
I suspected when this deal was announced that it'd be really bad for MLS; giving away free subs to season ticket holders (a perk I do not expect will repeat itself next season) took a revenue opportunity out of their hands, and given the size of past viewership numbers, there really is no such thing as a "casual MLS viewer". Paywalling games, even if there are free options every week, won't change that, and will probably make it worse.
I like the Apple TV experience. When I watch Premier League or NWSL, it's a bit of a crapshoot if a match will be on streaming (Peacock, Paramount), network (NBC, CBS) or cable TV (USA, CBS Sports). Having one destination to see everything that's on and pick a specific match or dip in and out is nice. Before Apple TV I wouldn't seek out other matches for other teams, and now I will check out other teams. And from a cost per match perspective it's very reasonable to me.
The one thing I really don't like is the Dunseth/Bretos commentator duo. They're like listening to Fred Willard's character in "Best in Show" for 90 minutes.
I get the complaints about matches behind a paywall, but it's happening across soccer leagues and in other sports. NBC just paid $110 million for a single NFL game to be streamed on Peacock, so it is the future.
I'm pretty happy with the AppleTV situation. While there are things that aren't great (the score issue, now resolved) I'm very happy I can catch all the games without resorting to finding bootleg streams. I cut the cord years ago and haven't looked back. Getting most thorns games on Paramount+ and Timbers on AppleTV has really worked well for me.
I'm not thrilled with the announcers, but I think that is more due to there being a limited number of good announcers out there. That tracks with other sports as well, where there are good and bad announcers. I think the problem could be solved with a secondary audio feed to the local team being available. They do have spanish broadcast available, so it shouldn't be too hard to add 2 more audio feeds. However, I think the quality should improve over time assuming the announcers are getting feedback.
Don't forget - as I did for a few weeks - that you can choose to sync the broadcast with local radio announcers instead of using the Apple announcers. The PTFC radio guys are pretty decent, not stellar, but they do have the advantage of being local and knowing more Timbers context.
Annoyingly, this option ALWAYS uses the home announcers - so tonight, using that option will get you RSL's radio announcers, not the Timbers. But if you want a less generic broadcast with a little more local knowledge, follow the steps in this article:
https://worldsoccertalk.com/how-to-listen-to-mls-radio-broadcasts-on-mls-season-pass-20230222-WST-420690.html
Great suggestion! My problem is that we like to start the game when we are ready and then we end up pausing the game periodically. Synching up with the broadcast doesn't work at that point.
For example, I have a company soccer practice tonight so we will probably start watching the game around 7ish. I'll have to try the local team at other times.
Agree.
While boomers will clutch their cable TV sets to their deaths (and bitch the entire time that they cannot find games or find anything interesting channel surfing), non-streaming sports will be quaint in the next 5 years.
As with most things US sports, the NFL will lead the way with this, just because of its behemoth-like presence on the US sports landscape. As long as the NFL remains a majority linear league, live sports will always be the reason cable still exists.
The NFL's current broadcast contracts run through 2033, and all of them have both a linear and OTT component (NBC/Peacock, CBS/Paramount, etc), so they're basically in control of when live sports leave cable TV behind for streaming permanently. I think 5 years may be a little optimistic, but by the end of this 10 year broadcast cycle, most games almost certainly will be only available on streaming services one way or the other.
I'm guessing that Apple chose this approach for efficiency. But it's bad for viewership. My son and I always managed to watch all or parts of several other MLS games every week under the old schedule. Knowing more about other MLS teams helps us to evaluable the Timbers more accurately and overall makes the season more exciting. Hope Apple and MLS change things next season.
Correct. Used to be quite a few midweek and/or weekend MLS offerings on Fox and ESPN and ESPN2, not to mention streaming. That’s 90 percent gone now. Now all you see is USFL football. So now the non paying viewer gets to sample football instead of soccer. Which is why USFL was created in the first place: to knock spring and summer MLS off its pedestal. This is how you grow your fan base, by making casual viewers subscribe? I guess the thinking was go for the big payday from Apple.
If the USFL cares about MLS as a rival for eyeballs one way or the other, that will mean it's the first US sports league to do so. This country has an insatiable desire for football, and USFL was created primarily to fill the perceived void in the NFL/NCAA off seasons. They don't see MLS as an obstacle or a competitor at all, because they're all about American football; to them soccer is an irrelevance.
Sadly, MLS has never really moved the needle as far as being a viewership rival to other sports leagues, and the Apple deal only makes them even less of a ripple on the pond, as it were. MLS is and will always be a very niche sport in the US.
And you know what? I'm fine with that! It doesn't need to be huge. The league's not going out of business any time soon, so we can just have our fun under everyone's radar. Their loss.
This. Linear TV has been in a long slow decline since about 1990 and that is never going to turn around. My 85-year old mother watches her beloved Cubs on Roku. Eventually TV will be all game shows, soap operas, political floof, and NFL. So I don't feel like MLS is making a mistake getting in front of it. A lot is going to change by 2033, and they are positioned to change apace. Schedules can be adjusted, pricing can be tweaked, partnerships can do creative stuff.
NFL viewership has been declining most of the century. Gen Z's don't like the violence, the warlike language, the slow pace, the bro-manship. If they are going to watch any sport, soccer is a top candidate, and streaming is where they will go to consume it. Better to already be established in that space.
One other thing I appreciate is the broadcast quality of Apple TV. The pictures are sharp, the stream is rock solid, most of the announcers are good, the directing is overall much better, and if, like me, you can't listen to Ross for 90 minutes it is seamless to listen to the radio feed instead.
MLS and Apple apparently believe diehard fans only care about their home teams. I'd watch LAFC play anyone because they're so good and Seattle because I enjoy seeing them lose on any day or at any time. Same for Philly, Nashville, and Austin. Galaxy too to see Ricqui Puig's artistry with the ball and Chicharito's cry-baby antics.
The official reason is to create a destination day for MLS,. similar to college football on Saturday or Sunday NFL
Which isn't a bad idea, but would work a whole lot better for the league if the destination didn't have a cover charge that deters all but the already interested.
It is significantly cheaper than cable with a sports package. Without cable, local viewers got what - about half the season on free TV? The other half you needed Root, FS1, ESPN for?
Sure 15-16 free broadcasts is not nothing, but also really hard to follow your team every week when you need to spend $90/month minimum to watch every game.
Oh, I'm definitely on team I'm OK With Apple, and I'm also not super annoyed at the price (as a STH, I do get it free this year, but I'm fully counting on that being a one-season perk and having to pay next season).
But the concept of a "destination day" isn't really what Apple is getting, whether that's what they wanted originally or not, because of not just the paywall but also because of the simultaneous kick off times.
If I'm a casual/new MLS fan, I might want to be able to consume more than one game a night - don't forget, for as much as it's good to be a west coast sports fan, those on the east coast don't get their first MLS game until 7.30PM their time, and then the west coast games don't start until 10.30.
That's not a great way to create a "destination day", when seven of the top eight biggest media markets in the US are in either the eastern (NY, Philly, ATL, DC) or central (Chicago, DFW, HOU) time zones.
Yes. They certainly could spread out the times. I mean college football starts at Noon on the East Coast (so 9AM TV starts in the West) and goes until near midnight Pacific time). It would catch more of a live audience who is looking for that experience.
Historically MLS has been afraid of college football and NFL football. It is largely different audiences it seems to me. I watch very little of all 3 unless the Timbers are playing away (STH), very rarely catch a Ducks or Beavers game.
Sometimes I think MLS significantly under and overthinks things. As a STH, I LOVE the predictability of most games being Saturday night at 7:30 though. I hate weeknight games, because it is really challenging for me to get there by kickoff and my seats (4) are for the family who almost always bow out last second for weeknight games because they are too tired, want to be in bed by 9:30 for a full next day.
I understand that people generally prefer live sports (thus taking out any chance that they know the outcome / the thrill of unpredictability remains in play), but every game is available on Apple TV for viewing at any time.
So, for people who are serious MLS watchers, they could watch any game at any time. Only AppleTV knows how much of that is actually happening. For most of us, we probably watch the highlight show at most though (I was previously not much of an agnostic MLS watcher because I just have much too busy of a life to watch very many games that I don't care about).
Count me in as one who used to/would still if that were an option watch a ton of random MLS games, but yeah, count me out of watching those games after the fact. The unpredictability of live sports is the draw, for me, for sure.
If I don't care enough to watch an LAFC game instead of the Timbers when both are on at the same time, I'm not going to watch anything but the highlights of an LAFC game on MLS.com after the fact, for the same "I have a lot going on" reason.
I am not an apple subscriber, and I'm not going to be one any time soon.
It's garbage that all MLS broadcasts have to go through this one funnel, and that all players have to wear an Apple logo on their kits.
The main result of this for me is, I don't watch MLS games on TV and now focus on Premier League instead - I only see Timbers live or at a friend's house for away games.
And, obviously, no other MLS matches, since they've made that impossible for everyone.
Well, I mean, it's not "impossible" - you've just chosen not to give Apple your money, which is your right. It's entirely "possible" for people to make other choices. But you're giving NBC Universal your money for Peacock or USA, or for cable, so it's not like the PL is some beacon of hope in a world of soccer-viewing insanity.
I meant impossible because the games are all at the exact same time, so one can't watch more than one live.
ah, gotcha. Sorry for the confusion.
I wish MLS had a game or two every night of the week all summer long. I wouldn't watch every game but I'd watch a few a week probably. With this new schedule, I'm definitely watching fewer random MLS games on TV than I used to.
I did get to watch the 360 show once when the Timbers were on the road. I thought it was pretty fun actually. I'm just not sure the viewership numbers of that show are worth sacrificing so many other timeslots throughout the week where they could be showing live soccer. It's not like there's much sports on TV competition in the summer. It's just baseball, right?
The other issue with this idea is that Apple shows the score of the game when you start to watch the feed. This is an awful idea, because there are times I want to start watching any game after it has already started. I really don't want to know the score at that time! This is a big problem they need to address, but who do I even contact to discuss this? Unknown at this time. I sure hope this is resolved this season because I rarely start watching the game when it starts. It is one of the reasons streaming is good for the fan, but this kills that benefit. I have to have my kid start the stream while I'm in the other room!
I'm pretty sure you can shut that off. I'm not sure what platform you're using the Apple MLS service on, but this is how you do it on Apple devices:
https://worldsoccertalk.com/how-to-turn-off-scores-in-mls-season-pass-to-avoid-spoilers-20230223-WST-420749.html
I run Apple TV on an LG smart TV, and the process is basically the same. Once you do that, scores will no longer appear.
Thanks! I didn't know that. Looks like I have a project for this week. It would be nice if the default was the other way around.
Agree. It is bad design. Hopefully Apple will learn.
Got it to work. Thanks again for sharing this info!
MLSPA has released the salaries for this spring: https://mlsplayers.org/resources/salary-guide
Several notes I had looking at it:
- McGraw is only on $130,000. Absolute bargain
- Mosquera is only on 184,000. Another total bargain
- We now see Mora’s reduced salary: $120,000. That’s very cap friendly for us, I think using any sort of buyout for him would be a mistake with him taking up such little cap space, even if he doesn’t play this year. He was making nearly 900k last fall!
- Zuparic is making $735k, which feels really high to me. He was only on 375k last fall. Anyone know why his salary went up so much?
- Niezgoda is the highest paid non-DP on the team at 850k. Nathan is the lowest paid player on the team at $68,775. Comparing both of their contributions to the team this year, it’s wayyyy closer than it should be just going off their salary
- Paredes is making nearly double what he was making last fall, putting him at $550,000 now. He extended his contract this off-season iirc, so that’s where that comes from. Feels a tad high, but that’s okay
- Mabiala making $400,000 we know is way too much
Mosquera is a steal
Paredes has been worth every penny, especially with Ayala and Williamson out for the season.
Niezgoda is a DP (along with Y. Chara and Evander). I don't disagree that he should not be and is overpaid (compared to other more productive players nearing $1m/yr).
Zup's guaranteed comp from last year was 579K, which isn't that far off the 735K in base comp he's making this year, but that is a headscratcher overall. There may be "marketing bonuses" (they exclude performance bonuses) or previously deferred salary in that number or something.
I saw these on another social service, but thought they were interesting enough to share here if someone hasn't seen:
https://www.oregonlive.com/timbers/2023/05/portland-timbers-legend-jimmy-conway-had-stage-4-cte-study-finds.html
https://www.timbers.com/news/timbers-name-jack-dodd-as-technical-director
Saw the piece on Conway. Tragic. IIRC something like “over half” of the England 1966 squad developed CTE.
I’m curious if the changes since those guys played have made any difference. They were heading a leather - probably soaking wet - ball that must have been like a medicine ball more often than not. Modern balls are lighter, but my guess is travel faster, so the higher “a” in F=ma might produce a similarly punishing effect.
Either way, it’s one of these “cui bono” problems. The people with the power to make a change - teams, leagues, federations, FIFA - have a vested interest in the status quo. The people who are paying the price - the players, friends, and families - are not in a powerful enough position.
Consider football, which has a much worse CTE problem. And has done nothing - or looks even faintly interested in doing anything - about it.
I am neither a doctor nor a physicist, nor do I have any sort of actual knowledge, but from what I have read, it seems the problem in isn't so much the weight of the object but the repetition of the contact. In practice and in games, they use their heads a lot, and the cumulative damage of thousands upon thousands of small impacts over a career is where the problems stem from.
The only way to make it truly safe would be to ban heading the ball from the game entirely. I believe heading has been banned in US U10 leagues, and I'd love to see that continue up the chain until eventually heading is banned throughout the game.
Games evolve over the decades for a lot of reasons; there would be a lot of gnashing of teeth and THAT'S NOT FOOTBALL-type objections at first, but within a season of seeing it at the professional level, no one will mind the lack of heading, it'll just be a part of the game.
I’m reading similar arguments. It appears increasingly clear that even small head-impacts are injurious if repeated.
I’m one of the “it won’t be football” types in that I enjoy the skill and think the sport will lose a dimension that makes it more dynamic and entertaining.
But.
These are not gladiators, and should not be asked to risk their health so I can enjoy some aspect of their sport. So I agree; heading should be phased out.
Whether it will be? Im not sure. I’d like to think that the federations and FIFA will do the decent thing…but FIFA’s history on that score doesn’t reassure me…
The sport will definitely lose something, but it's not like major changes have irrevocably altered other sports for the worse in the past:
- Football didn't allow forward passing until 1906 (the game started in 1892)
- Basketball didn't have a shot clock until 1954, after playing without one since 1891
And also, look no further than baseball this year. There were a bunch of not-insignificant changes, the biggest of which - the pitch clock - has made baseball soooooo much more watchable (and I say that as a lifelong baseball fan!). Most of these major changes resulted in a positive evolution, not a negative one.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that banning heading would be a seismic shift, for sure, but it would still be football, in the same way all the other major sports absorbed their own seismic shifts and maintained their identities pretty successfully.
This is a good article from the Athletic ($, but I believe The Athletic allows a certain number of articles free per month) that shows exactly how wide the spending gap between MLS teams is.
https://theathletic.com/4522793/2023/05/16/mls-salaries-highest-paid-players/
It's definitely not the case that MLS is a level salary playing field; the salary budget is the same for every team, but teams' overall payroll, and their ability to work within the TAM/GAM/DP rules, mean a very wide disparity between teams that spend and teams that don't.
I know Portland's in a big ol' salary cap nightmare mess right now, but I can't wait until some of the Timbers' big contracts clear off the books and Portland can move up the MLS salary outlay list further than they are. I don't think they should just dump money on players, but with more flexibility in the cap they can increase their total spend as well, and get towards a more talented roster top to bottom.
There is a really good opportunity for the Timbers to improve the team in the coming years. With contracts for Mabiala, Niezgoda and Blanco coming off the books soon, we can really fill in other positions that lack depth at the moment. It won't help situations like our midfield when we have 2 catastrophic injuries, but for the defense we could really use better depth.
Yeah, the Timbers are definitely at a crucial point in their evolution. With those contracts coming off the books, and hopefully both Charas calling it a day (one gracefully with all the pomp and circumstance, one, well, see ya, whatever), the Timbers have a huge opportunity to reinvent themselves in the next couple seasons.
My most fervent hope is that they don't try to "reinvent" themselves by trying to find/create Diego Chara Mk. 2 and replicating that style of play - it's been fun to watch (mostly) over the years, but D. Chara is a unique player and I don't want them to just think they can copy/paste and keep playing the same way. I don't have a "preferred" way they should play, really, I just don't want them to think they can catch lightning in a bottle twice.
I'm really excited to see what Ned and the new technical director can do with some cap space and a lot of roster overhaul to be done.
Macario is off to Chelsea, who are also working on a "long-term extension" for Kerr.
Now that we know that Kodos (Textor) and Kang have launched their plan for world WoSo domination, do we think it's more likely or less likely that Horan
- stays with OL? (Kang)
- goes elsewhere in Europe?
- returns to Portland? or
- or reunites with MarPar in Washington? (Kang)
Don’t see it making a difference one way or the other. ISTM that the factors are (in order of what seems to be likely to weigh on Horan):
Is she getting good value - in both salary and professional development - at OL?
Does she have any “unchecked boxes” there? Another CL medal? CL MVP?
Are there personal attractions in Europe (her SO plays in Monaco, IIRC)?
Is there anything drawing her back to the US (homesickness? Other personal or family reasons? Professional prospects? Salary offers?)
If so, is there anything to draw her HERE as opposed to Seattle or DC?
I honestly don’t know. I don’t know what she felt about Aulas. I don’t know how she feels about Kang. Or Parsons. But I suspect all the factors above will carry more weight…
USL is apparently planning to start another US women's soccer league. They are aiming for it to be USSF Division I to rival the NWSL:
https://justwomenssports.com/reads/united-soccer-league-launch-professional-soccer-nwsl-rival/
Interestingly it will have no salary cap. How many ultra-rich types will step up? Will the league be able to stop teams from spending themselves into oblivion? What players will move to it from NWSL?
D1 seems pretty optimistic given the available talent pool. I would think USSF wants a solid D2 to soak up and develop the bottom half of the NCAA draft. Not a competing D1. Also, I don't know of any country with two D1 (women or men). Maybe Japan? Regardless, asking USSF to step outside the box is a challenge, asking them to pioneer the global sport's structure? A 10% chance seems too high.
Think it'll depend on the venues. Looking at the list I don't see any real major markets outside DC, and the Spirit will be competing for the fan $$ there, so unless there's a potential owner with the pockets to assemble a super team? That's splitting a pretty small pot.
Most of these look pretty good for having a Fall-to-Summer league, but there will be entire periods of Winter when Spokane and Madison cannot possibly host outdoor soccer,
Charlotte, North Carolina
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas
Lexington, Kentucky
Phoenix, Arizona
Spokane, Washington
Tampa Bay, Florida
Tucson, Arizona
Washington D.C.
Four other cities are expected to join in subsequent seasons, with Chattanooga, Tennessee, Indianapolis, Indiana, Jacksonville, Florida, Madison, Wisconsin, and Oakland, California among the possible locations,
I can't imagine both a Phoenix and a Tucson team happening, or surviving if they both come to be. The two cities are only 100 miles apart and would cannibalize each other's catchment areas, I would think. I mean, Tucson has the U of A, so there's a pipeline there, but Phoenix is a huuuuuuuuuge city/area and probably won't want to share its pipeline with Tucson.
If this league actually does stand up and get going, I would expect that one of the two AZ entries on that list would disappear.
I've lived in both, as it happens, and played most of my own soccer in Arizona (and yes, it sucks real bad in summer). I can't see Tucson supporting a proper First Division club...it's just not big enough.
My wife's from Tucson and my whole family lives there, so I'm naturally biased against Phoenix (hahaha). But the numbers just don't support Tucson in this case.
If Phoenix decided not to have a team, Tucson could support one, but if there's two players in that region, Phoenix wins every time (see: MLB spring training). And yeah, even night games there in the summer are basically like playing on the surface of the sun.
Although I lived longer in Phoenix (grew up there), I prefer Tucson. Been a good while since I've visited, though...
I miss those summer high temps...like I miss root canals and tax audits.
We’ll see. Seems like some pretty small markets there. Spokane? Madison? Lexington?
Travel costs look brutal. I think they’d be sensible to split this into two or three regional entities. Keep the costs down, make themselves a USL-equivalent for WoSo.