In almost every meaningful way, MLS is experiencing a boom. Stadiums are going up or are opening to rave reviews, attendance is rising, name players are arriving, and the league has more mainstream resonance than ever before. Even if soccer isn't crossing the threshold into "big time" in America, the domestic game is as healthy as it's probably ever been.


Except for TV. No one watches on TV.


The league's flat TV ratings are a concern, make no mistake. Garber may say otherwise, and job one is to get people in the seats, but TV money will eventually allow the league to push salaries higher and improve the quality of play. Gates just don't bring in enough cash to push the finances to the next level.


So what's the problem? How can everything be trending up but the number people watching on TV?


Sports as a remotely enjoyed experience is dependent on much that has nothing to do with the game itself: atmosphere is incredibly important, to both provide a sense of excitement for those sitting at home as well as to give weight to the proceedings on the field. The more people there in person, the more important the game will seem. Poorly attended matches are naturally going to suffer as a TV product because there is nothing to tell the viewer he or she should care; fans that are not emotionally invested in one of the competing teams take their cues from fans involvement.


I would argue that this is why so many Americans find themselves drawn to the English Premier League first. The stadiums are generally full, the fans are always singing, and every game has an air of massive importance because of those facts. A century and change of playing the game and developing their fan culture mean the English game projects a engaging television image.


I'm less convinced that the "quality of play" issue, and MLS suffering in comparison to European leagues, is a legitimate reason for low ratings, though I admit it could be a factor. I have trouble understanding why people wouldn't watch MLS during the European off-season, when the deficiencies of the league are less directly obvious. Million dollars players are not a prerequisite for excitement.


The production itself matters as well, though I'm not going to attempt a breakdown of ESPN or FSC in this space. It's enough to say that the latter, along with most of the locally produced broadcasts, look cheaply produced (because they usually are) and amateurishly directed. In some cases, that's enough to turn people off. ESPN's problems are harder to pin down, though I'm sure some would point to the quality of their; in some cases that's probably fair, in others, it's tad harsh and likely evidence of a bias against Americans doing that job.


I hardly think it's the announcers keeping people away, however. Maybe we should just sign up a stable of Brits to do all of the MLS games, and see if the ratings skyrocket. Yes, that's sarcasm.


I would imagine MLS is looking for answers. I certainly hope so. While I won't lose sleep over the ratings myself, the league should be proactive in determining why the numbers are stagnant; the sooner MLS becomes a viable TV property, the sooner it takes the next step in its growth.


As part of the search for answers, it's been suggested that dropping FSC in favor of Versus might be a good idea. I posted something to the same effect in February of last year, and would be happy to see MLS "upgrade" their secondary cable home. FSC's production is middling at best, and Versus has proven capable of putting on a high quality broadcast with their NHL efforts. Even if the league takes a hit on the contract price, it might be worth giving a new network a shot at presenting the product.


Consider this an open question - if you don't watch MLS on TV, why not? Maybe there's something I'm missing here.


I should mention that this post was prompted by a Sports Business Journal story on MLS attendance rising while TV ratings stay flat; SBJ is a subscription site, so I didn't bother linking in the body of the post. Here it is if you have a subscription.

Here we go. First kick is here, and I'm beyond ready. I'm so ready, in fact, that I completely forgot that NCCA basketball tournament Sweet 16 games start tonight, going directly up against the Sounders-Union showdown in Seattle.


I know what I'll be watching, and I know a small and dedicated MLS fan base will forsake the basketball games for the soccer match; but I doubt that will be the case for most casual sports fans, and even some soccer die hards will struggle to switch from CBS and the Sweet 16 to ESPN2 and MLS at 9:30 ET.


So is it just a matter of poor planning on the part of Major League Soccer, or are they snake-bitten when it comes to going up against higher-profile sporting events?


I tend to put it in the latter category, especially since MLS is beholden to ESPN for their season debut. It's likely Bristol that presents the league with dates to kick off the season, and I have trouble believe Garber and co. would choose to battle college basketball unless they had no choice.


MLS has refocused their energies on the passionate soccer fan, a smart move in an country where snagging casual general sports fans was always going to be extremely difficult. Because of that, perhaps the thinking is that the head-to-head with the NCAAs is of little consequence, because their core audience will watch First Kick and any causal interest would be minimal and outside of their target anyway.


And yes, I realize that's a weak rationalization. Just thinking this through.


Would tonight's match do better without the competition? Possibly, though I don't think it's a slam dunk (pardon the metaphor), and might make little difference in the final rating anyway. We've learned that MLS matches just don't do that well, no matter the night of the week they're on (though there was a small bump last season when ESPN moved their broadcasts around rather than locked them into Thursdays), or the programming they are up against. The league and the network need to find a way to attract American soccer fans who haven't previously given any of their time to MLS before they worry about the lack of casual sports fans who might wander by and stick with the game.


But for those of us interested in both events, it does present a bit of a problem. I'll be watching Seattle-Philly because I've committed so much of my time and energy to the product and I'll take much more from the start of a new MLS season from a stadium with 35k fans than I will a third round tournament game for a sport I only follow in March.


There might not be that many like me, though.


Do you have any issues with First Kick going up against the NCAAs?

This week, Jason and Zach review the MLS Cup Final, discuss the return of the NASL name for America's second division, and talk to Shawn Mitchell of the Columbus Dispatch regarding the MLS CBA negotiations.

Get your thoughts on these topics or others by emailing the show at show@americansoccershow.com

Don't forget that this is the FINAL show that will be available via the MFUSA iTunes feed; if you want to get the show in iTunes going forward, you MUST subscribe to the new feed HERE.

DOWNLOAD the show

LISTEN in the CSRN Media Player

The show should be available via the new iTunes feed and the CSRN media player around 3 PM ET/12 PM PT.

The American Soccer Show will be doing a special LIVE show on December 4th immediately following the World Cup group draw; head to americansoccershow.com for more details.

If you haven't heard, some soccer on TV ratings came out yesterday. FSC, America's preeminent all-soccer broadcaster, became Nielsen-rated just about a year ago. Since then, the network's ratings have been of supreme interest to cadre of soccer observers (meaning everyone with too much time on their hands and an opinion about the place of the game in the US, myself included). Throw in the ratings from ESPN for both MLS and their newly acquired European properties (but mainly English Premier League games), and suddenly there's more than an few number to bat around and analyze.


What do they mean?


Is soccer actually watched in large numbers in this country?


Does EPL outperform MLS?


Those are all pertinent questions I suppose, though I think that they all cloud the issue, and some more than others. The nature of the numbers, and what they indicate about about the United States as a consumer of soccer is important; TV, more than attendance or jersey sales, drives revenues, budgets, balance sheets, and projections. The more people watching soccer on TV, the more advertisers will gravitate towards the game, and the larger the infrastructure grows; when there's money to spread around, the number of people it can be spread around to increases. We want the game covered by the media in greater numbers and with greater quality, and it will be TV viewership that makes that happen.


Still, it's important to realize that Nielsen isn't perfect. While the ratings convert (somehow) into "hard" representations of total viewers, they should be taken with a grain of salt. In order to turn around the information they provide so quickly, Nielsen is working with small sample sizes and extrapolating them into a larger picture. I'm no statistician, but the problems with that process are obvious; when the ratings company says 250,000 people watched a particular soccer game, there's really no way of knowing exactly how accurate that number is.


Not that it matters. Advertisers and networks use the number in the game they play, so in the end, perception is reality. Nielsen is accepted as the authority, and if they say 250,000 people watched a particular telecast, then for all intents and purposes, that's how many watched. The network sets their ad rates based on those numbers, and the advertisers buy time with those numbers in mind.


I've failed to get to my point. All this talk about TV ratings and what they mean has only led me off my intended path. The TV ratings from FSC, augmented by those of ESPN, has led to much discussion of Major League Soccer's ratings as compared to those of the English Premier League. The weak sister of soccer in America, the country's own domestic league, cannot seem to get away from the bully on the block.


It's natural to want to compare the ratings of the EPL to those of MLS. It's all soccer, after all, and the leagues are ostensibly doing the same things, running professional competitions of the world's most popular sport. But beyond that, the two leagues are so different that it's almost not fair to compare them; while the EPL consists of massive clubs, spending tens and hundreds of millions of dollars a year on players, Major League Soccer tightly constricts their spending to the point of ridiculousness. When clubs are prohibited by the rules from even chartering flights for their players, the discrepancy is to obvious to ignore.


MLS is an American product, and is therefore looked upon by many as the barometer of the sport's popularity in the United States. But MLS is an infant in the footballing world, operating on a level more Double A to the EPL major leagues than as a direct American analogue. How is it fair to believe that soccer fans, both those who have followed the game for years as well as the new fan attracted to the biggest and best, would tune into a league whose best players often make less than a European superstar's weekly wages?


I watch MLS, and I know plenty of people who do. Our reasons vary, from true passion for a particular club to a sense of obligation to support the American professional league. Often, even as we watch, we disparage the quality, bemoan the poor officiating, and grumble over terrible production. No matter why we watch, we realize that what we're seeing isn't the best, and we don't pretend it is; there's a reasonable argument to be made that soccer junkies who make sure to follow MLS despite having "better" options like the EPL and La Liga are doing more for the growth of the game in the United States than those who don't. That's simplistic, and I don't mean to make MLS watchers sound "better" than those who ignore the American product; I get the allure of big time European football, and I though I wish more people would give the league a chance (there are other reasons to watch than quality alone), I get it. Americans like their sports to be the best.


There's a reason that the UFL will likely ultimately fail, despite the voracious appetite American have for football of the gridiron variety; it's not the NFL. There's a reason that Americans are barely aware of sports leagues that exist outside of the United States but play the country's biggest games; they're not the NBA, NHL, or Major League Baseball. The history of inward focus, bred of continental separation and a feeling of world superiority is easily transferred by Americans who pick up a love of soccer to the biggest and the best abroad. The world is getting smaller, and that means soccer-loving Yanks who are already predisposed to sporting snobbery have an easy out when it comes to the game in the United States. The American don't do it best, so let's transfer our attention to the most popular league in the world where, as luck has it, the language is one we understand.


American soccer fans won't stop watching the EPL anytime soon, and they certainly won't be trading in English football for American soccer. ESPN sub-licensed rights to the league because they knew that the interest would be there, at a time of day when anything beyond the hunting and fishing crowd is a bonus. MLS is a different animal, and while its audience is largely the same (or should be), it shouldn't be held to a standard set by the EPL. There are many ways that yesterday's ratings can be taken; they seem to indicate improvement for MLS but are being viewed by many through the EPL prism, which immediately leads to the minimizing of their importance.


Stop it. Stop it now.


MLS and EPL are not direct competitors. Major League's Soccer's success or failure does not hinge on how their TV ratings compare to those of the Premier League's. It shouldn't matter to anyone, least of all fans of MLS, if one is "beating" the other.