Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

COLUMN: What does Apple's deal with MLS mean for a future Big 12 TV deal?

ChrisMWilliams

ChrisMWilliams

Publisher
Staff member
Bookie
Apr 10, 2006
24,657
41,173
113
41
Bondurant, Iowa
www.cyclonefanatic.com
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Kinch, cy4state and cytor
I think it’s slightly disingenuous to compare all of Apple’s revenue and market cap to other company’s that are focused on a set of services like Apple TV.

Apple’s Services revenue was which includes the App Store, iCloud, and Apple TV Plus as well as music, news, games, fitness, payment and other services, generated $19.5 billion last year. Which only ~$2billion of that was Apple TV.

So yea there’s money to throw around and they’ll use their cash on hand ($28 billion) to invest but I would caution to think of it as a $2 trillion money pit that Apple will use to increase AppleTV only.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: isu81, CascadeClone and SEIOWA CLONE
A couple interesting notes from the MLS announcement:
  • This deal still allows the MLS to negotiate terrestrial/cable broadcasting deals on select matches, meaning games could be simultaneously on ESPN and AppleTV
  • The deal is set up for $250M minimum to be paid to MLS, with the possibility of that value growing based off of subscriber numbers
  • All previous MLS matches will be available to subscribers, even ones broadcast by ESPN, FOX, and Univision
The SEC and the ACC are locked in with ESPN till 2034 and 2036 respectively. Of the P5, the Big 10 is first up with their current deal ending summer 2023, then the Pac-12, then the Big 12. The Big 12 will be able to look at the deals that the Big 10 and Pac-12 work out and use them as guideposts. There is also a solid possibility that we see something like a deal with FOX for cable/over-the-air broadcasts and Apple/Amazon for streaming live games and carrying an archive of past games.
 
MeanDean said:
Good write-up but NFL has had Amazon Prime Thursday night games for a couple years now. Unless this is exclusive and they're no longer going to be also on NFL channel.
Click to expand...
Starting this year NFL Thursdays are exclusive to Amazon Prime. They locked in Al Michaels and Kirk Herbstreit as the announcers, and they are also developing a "ManningCast" style broadcast with Marshawn Lynch and Pat McAfee.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: MeanDean
MeanDean said:
Good write-up but NFL has had Amazon Prime Thursday night games for a couple years now. Unless this is exclusive and they're no longer going to be also on NFL channel.
Click to expand...
Yes starting this year the NFL Thursday Night Game will be exclusively on Amazon Prime unless you live in a city where the local team is playing.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: MeanDean
cyfan92 said:
Chris,

Curious as to why YouTube was not mentioned? They are by far #1 for video streaming and generated $28.8 billion in 2021 revenue
Click to expand...
I agree they should have been mentioned.

The B12 CT R7 + BYU need to align with the P12 and aggregate that 20 team inventory for open bidding by the incumbents and new entrants. And develop a revenue distribution model where 50% of the pie is distributed based on TV ratings.

If Apple would win the bidding, they can sub license a GOTW to CBS or NBC and a second GOTW could be sub licensed to USA Network or TNT. The rest would be on Apple. The two 10 team conferences would play a round robin schedule with a CCG for a CFP auto berth.
 
  • Creative
Reactions: SEIOWA CLONE
https://sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/2022/06/20/Upfront/MLS.aspx

This MLS deal sounds really, really similar to the current Big 12 situation. All rights open for bidding at once. And more people watch Big 12 football games than MLS. Add in the basketball content and things are not so bad.

The conference would need around $480 million/year to maintain the current tv revenue. MLS getting $250 million with less viewers is definitely a good sign.
 
Hoggins said:
https://sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/2022/06/20/Upfront/MLS.aspx

This MLS deal sounds really, really similar to the current Big 12 situation. All rights open for bidding at once. And more people watch Big 12 football games than MLS. Add in the basketball content and things are not so bad.

The conference would need around $480 million/year to maintain the current tv revenue. MLS getting $250 million with less viewers is definitely a good sign.
Click to expand...
Yeah but theres a boatload more games in MLS. Like 500+ i think. Versus about 50 big12 fb, depending on 8 or 9 game schedule.
 
CascadeClone said:
Yeah but theres a boatload more games in MLS. Like 500+ i think. Versus about 50 big12 fb, depending on 8 or 9 game schedule.
Click to expand...
Yeah. This, and the fact that just maintaining our current payouts isn't great. It avoids a sky is falling type scenario, but we would still be losing a lot of ground to the B1G and SEC. This makes it look like our worst case scenarios are off the table, but I still think we are in worse shape than we were before OU and UT left.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: isu81, cyfanatic and Cyclad
Is it just me, or are there any others who are looking for ways to streamline viewership? I ask because my days seem to be getting shorter and there's so much other stuff to do or see. So I'm quite ok with 2 things now:
1. Determining if we won or lost 'before' watching anything
2. And, then if we won, wait for the 'condensed' version of the game
In effect, I think I'm another category these contracts should be addressing.
 
I don't really know much about media consumption numbers, but I've heard smart people talk about how the number trends have changed over the years. With all the available options nowadays you're never going to get the M*A*S*H season finale rankings or Seinfeld in its heyday.

It makes it much harder to try to project ad revenue, I would think.
 
aeroclone said:
Yeah. This, and the fact that just maintaining our current payouts isn't great. It avoids a sky is falling type scenario, but we would still be losing a lot of ground to the B1G and SEC. This makes it look like our worst case scenarios are off the table, but I still think we are in worse shape than we were before OU and UT left.
Click to expand...

Not saying we’re better off, because we’re clearly not. And there is no point in trying to compare with the SEC and Big anymore. It’s really Super 2 and Power 3.

And yes, MLS has more content, but the point is they still got over a 100% increase in fees. Big 12 won’t get 100%, but maybe 33% increase keeps things similar. Similar is really all we can hope for at this point
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: BryceC and SEIOWA CLONE
Hoggins said:
Not saying we’re better off, because we’re clearly not. And there is no point in trying to compare with the SEC and Big anymore. It’s really Super 2 and Power 3.

And yes, MLS has more content, but the point is they still got over a 100% increase in fees. Big 12 won’t get 100%, but maybe 33% increase keeps things similar. Similar is really all we can hope for at this point
Click to expand...
We will be fighting for the 3rd spot, we know what the ACC will be getting, and will know by the time the league reups what the Pac 12 will be getting. It will be interesting to see the ratings for the new teams in 2023 and see if adding those 4 teams will mean extra income or not.

One does have to wonder if the PAC 12 media numbers do not shoot up, how that will play out with USC, Washington, Oregon and UCLA. No way they stay put getting say $35 million a year, while everyone in the SEC and B10 are getting $80 million.
 
aeroclone said:
Yeah. This, and the fact that just maintaining our current payouts isn't great. It avoids a sky is falling type scenario, but we would still be losing a lot of ground to the B1G and SEC. This makes it look like our worst case scenarios are off the table, but I still think we are in worse shape than we were before OU and UT left.
Click to expand...

We shouldn't be trying to compete with the Big 10 and SEC. We should be trying to keep pace with the ACC and Pac 12.
 
  • Winner
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: heitclone, 1UNI2ISU, Cyclad and 1 other person
BryceC said:
We shouldn't be trying to compete with the Big 10 and SEC. We should be trying to keep pace with the ACC and Pac 12.
Click to expand...
For me it is about keeping the gap between us and the B1G and SEC as small as we can because I don't have any doubt in our ability to keep pace with the PAC and ACC. I think we are the strongest of the remaining 3 in terms of quality of play and fan interest which translates well in the new media world.

For ISU in particular though I hate to see the B1G and SEC get too far away as we are surrounded by those programs in addition to having an in state rival. I feel we compete more directly with them for talent. It looks a little different to be on that second tier if you are Utah or Oregon State and are well distanced from those conferences.
 
cyfan92 said:
Chris,

Curious as to why YouTube was not mentioned? They are by far #1 for video streaming and generated $28.8 billion in 2021 revenue
Click to expand...

YouTube currently shows live sports and I love the low barrier to watch. But for the P5 does a free video vs. subscription based streaming platform maximize money for the P5 conferences?

At some point would YouTube implement a monthly sports subscription portal within YouTube. Or is Google's long-term plan to layer live sports on the YouTubeTV platform as an upcharge?

However, I question the long term viability of cable, satellite, YouTubeTV, FuboTV, etc. IMO the future is Disney+, Paramount+, Peacock, NetFlix, Prime, HBOMax, etc. Targeted subscription based services with live sports to create subscriber affinity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom