Dear MLS and ESPN, there are more than 3 teams in Major League Soccer

whatever creates better ratings is what I am for at this point. I just want the league to keep growing. I think the MLS cup final will always suffer when two smaller media market teams are in the final. Same thing happens in every other sport. 2010 WS suffered b/c it was SF and Texas instead of NY/Bos/Phil.

vast majority of MLS fans do not get it in HD b/c barely any cable companies carry its HD feed

I wish they could work out a deal with versus to broadcast some games

You only have to look at how many homes ESPN2 is in vs. FSC to understand the difference between the two. ESPN2 is in 99 million plus homes, while FSC is in only 36 million

So New York, who with a brand new stadium and 3 DP’s last year didn’t sell out, hell the biggest city in the US could only average crowds 1K bigger than RSL, the Chicago Fire (4 times on ESPN this year) average 1K less than RSL. You want to know why Portland is on TV 3 times, easy they like Chivas have a pair of matches against one of “the 3”. So if you remove the Seattle matches, they would show up once.

I know you tend to disagree with everything I write and I am still confused why you even read my blog, but clearly you don’t actually read it. Since if you did you would realize that “large crowds” isn’t the key to getting on TV, or the Union would be on 4-5 times instead of just once (plus their two matches with New York- who clearly need another team in NYC for rivalry reason). You of course missed the very point that poor numbers from last year featured the exact same numbers of matches from “the 3” as the 2011 schedule does, yup repeating that formula clearly will work this year, since if bombed last year.

No, no, you are right I am a total idiot with my eyes closed. How dare I think that a national partner working with the powers that be at MLS HQ would do something stupid, or something more about pimping their stars to sell jerseys than actually promoting the league. My god how stupid of me to think that showing the same 3 teams in 1/2 of the national broadcasts is not the perfect strategy to grow the league, and those teams.

If you think for a second that ESPN cares about MLS, ask yourself why they are only showing one match in September? I can tell you why, it is easy. They drop MLS like a hot potato when they can put on college football, hell they will broadcast WNBA matches over MLS matches. You want to know why there are matches on various days of the week and not just Thursdays, because they couldn’t get MLS to agree to have NY, LA and Seattle play all their matches on Thursdays.

In fact why don’t you look at the 5 matches they will cover on Saturdays, and tell me how many of them don’t feature one of “the 3”. You actually miss the biggest thing that you should have pointed out, but I am not going to give that one to you. Let’s see if you can figure it out. You clearly haven’t watched many ESPN broadcasts of MLS matches, they rarely show the fans and all you see for 99% of the broadcast are the few sections opposite their main cameras. But keep on telling yourself that it is about the fans and selling out stadiums (something neither New York or LA do often), keep on believing that this is more than the league and ESPN “pimping” out their big name DPs. See you miss the point that I am fine with Seattle being on their 5 times, don’t really have a problem with that at all, my issue is that they clearly aren’t rewarding the best teams on the pitch with more coverage. The big market strategy adopted last year, resulted in 12% fewer people watching and I bet by mid season most fans will be tired of listening to them pump up Beckham, Marquez, and Henry for 120 minutes every time that ESPN cares to cover MLS.

Listen I hate being anti-Garber. I know that it is very likely that you and I wouldn’t have MLS to watch or support if it wasn’t for him, I have no doubt that is a fact. I also know that the sports world, like the world at large is a very different place than it was in 2001. It is a very different place than it was in 2005 and having a leader that is stuck back in the past, who is using the model the NFL used back in the mid-late 90’s.

The world is now online as much as it is on TV, so I would be very happy if we could get ESPN to put more matches on ESPN3 (why wouldn’t they?) and announce that with the schedule. Instead MLS will try to sell you a package to watch streaming feeds that often are awful no matter what your connection speed.

It is important to know that I don’t believe that anyone at MLS goes to work in the morning and thinks “how can I screw over the league, or teams”, I think they all want to do their best but there are some core things that point to the fact that the leadership isn’t up to the task, and over the past year those items have become so apparent to fans and media alike that the league now looks like a joke to many. Take a horrible launch of the new league website, one that still has no search, and isn’t 100% functional a year after launch. The slow negotiations on the CBA last year and the TV deal this year. The fact that we just got a season schedule, 35 days before the season starts. We still don’t know the playoff format for this year, and how many changes do they have to make before they just make a decision and stick with it. The fact that they pulled “the major announcement” press conference to announce a location for the All Star match, not who they would be facing, nope just that they would play at Red Bull arena. I mean none of these are huge signs but collectively they point to an organization with a lack of internal communications and leadership.

Last year “the 3” were shown 19 times and ratings went down 12%, so how do we solve that, we show the same 3 teams 19 times again and hope it will result in a different outcome. I am willing to bet that a good portion of people who watched ESPN’s MLS coverage last year, couldn’t even name all the teams in the league. If ESPN was their only exposure to MLS, they would only probably know “the 3” plus 3-4 others. That is not how you grow a league.

First, I broke my list at the big 3 for a reason, 19 times on ESPN2 in 2010 (ratings down) and 19 scheduled times on ESPN2 in 2011. It also was close to 50% of the available 42 spots from the 21 matches.

If you want to look at Chicago, we can:

You could say it is a big market, it is but then how to explain FC Dallas. You could say it is the DP’s but they got rid of their biggest names. You could say it is about the best teams, but the Fire were bad last year and could be worse this year. You could say it is about sold out stadiums, but the Fire average just over 15 K. Now they do have a great supporters group, maybe that is it but then LA and New York would be found lacking (they are good but nothing like Chicago or Seattle (or DC for that)).

Chicago has shown they will spend money on big names to get on TV, Blanco (who turned out to be a great surprise on the pitch, despite his diving), hell they put the Underwear guy on roster after he melted down in Seattle. Is MLS and ESPN thinking they will do the same thing again in 2011, yeah I am going to bet that they do and I am willing to bet that Chicago will.

Does that defeat or make my point? Listen I think Seattle sells itself, quality on the pitch, a couple DP’s (no mega names this year), a sold out stadium every match, a top TV market, and they play attractive soccer. New York and LA, quality on the pitch, Big Name DP’s, solid attendance, big markets, I hate the LA counter attack and New York’s style of play, well I don’t think even they have figured it out yet. I would rather watch, FCD or Philly than either New York or LA for style of play. I think Chicago does as much to make my point about LA and New York, the names are what they are “pimping” (if Chicago brings in another big name).