- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: MLS rejected a $4 billion media rights deal bc it required pro/rel
Posted on 7/24/17 at 2:04 pm to pvilleguru
Posted on 7/24/17 at 2:04 pm to pvilleguru
quote:
Getting 3b while keeping more control of the league would probably be favorable to what was proposed in this deal.
i.e. preserving their monopoly at the expense of the betterment of the game
Posted on 7/24/17 at 2:08 pm to Draconian Sanctions
MLS has no obligation to anyone besides MLS. No one is stopping another American league from having pro/rel. Maybe Silva should offer that $4b to NASL and USL for them to combine and have 2 division. NASL has always thought themselves to be competitors of MLS, so here's there chance.
Posted on 7/24/17 at 2:12 pm to pvilleguru
quote:
MLS has no obligation to anyone besides MLS.
I mean the real problem here is USSF you're right, but there's so much overlap in terms of relationships between the two that it may as well be 1 cartel
Posted on 7/24/17 at 2:37 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
"It is also important to note that since its inception, MLS, like the other North American leagues, has dealt directly with its domestic broadcast partners, rather than through agents and brokers," the statement continued. "This ensures that the league and its partners can structure an agreement that addresses all elements, such as scheduling, marketing and digital distribution, that are required for a successful partnership."
You use the term cartel, yet fail to note this important detail in the negotiations. MLS--nor any other professional sports league in America--uses an intermediary to negotiate its broadcasting rights. Cable sports providers (Fox, ESPN, NBC etc.) are not going to want to deal with a third-party when trying to attain broadcast rights. In fact, they would rather completely ignore MLS and the subpar ratings it brings in, should they decide to sell their souls to Silva.
BeIn Sports would be the only provider willing to take on MLS, and that's because, BeIn USA is basically run by Traffic Sports with an agreement with Al Jazeera.
Posted on 7/24/17 at 2:52 pm to thenry712
quote:
should they decide to sell their souls to Silva.
I was going to respond to everything else but this really jumped out at me
What "soul" would be sold under this deal?
Posted on 7/24/17 at 2:59 pm to Draconian Sanctions
For starters, you would have one owner essentially owning how the games reach the masses.
Posted on 7/24/17 at 3:10 pm to pvilleguru
Okay, how does that mean a soul has been sold?
Posted on 7/24/17 at 3:30 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Giving up the right to fully control your own "scheduling, marketing and digital distribution" to a third party for a massive payday sounds like soul-selling to me.
This post was edited on 7/24/17 at 3:33 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News