Hello.
It’s been a while since I was last typing here. The truth is, I’ve been a busy boy. I have, for example, seen Bon Iver live since I last put something up. Liverpool have finished second in the league and lost the Champions League final. I have been gifted a record player, which I have used frequently (The XX’s I See You has been my most listened to record, for those of you keeping score.) I have booked flights for a trip to the UK, re-torn a ligament in my left knee, and become an American citizen. Someone has also been stupid enough to employ me to write about the football on a full time basis (pls read my stuff every now and then, I am desperate for attention.)
I had a friend tell me he needed “new heat” last week. Not sure that can be delivered. You see, since I tend to be busy writing about college kids who are very good at football, I don’t have all that much time for “new heat” since I tend to be spending most of my life thinking about how I can create moderate heat, if you will.
Well, turns out I had an idea for something that might be admittedly tepid.
Major? League? Soccer?
So, $2.5 billion.
That is, objectively, a shit load of money. It’s the amount that Apple just paid for the rights to Major League Soccer. Basically, for the next 10 years, a monthly subscription fee will get you access to any MLS game, wherever you are in the world.
And, I am aware that I open myself up to hoards of criticism from my unbelievably large English following by saying that it might just be a very good investment.
There are, as far as I have been able to tell in my many years of experience covering soccer, two groups of MLS people — two opposing gangs, if you will.
One of them is MLS “truthers”, the ones that have been there since the early 90s, that saw the US World Cup in 1994 as America’s initiation on the global stage of football. They see big transfers and European exports — Beckham, Pirlo, Keane, Vela — as mere complements, attention-trackers, to an already burgeoning league. They claim that MLS has been good for a long time, and will only get better. They look at college grads, MLS academy products, south American signees and see the future of the game. They are under no illusions, they don’t claim that their model is better than any top European league. But they believe in growth, American talent, and, ultimately, potential.
On the other side, you have the “Euro-loyalists:. The types that watched soccer when Christian Politic started occasionally kicking a ball for Borussia Dortmund. The types that watch Weston McKennie string together a handful of good performances for Juventus, and see the future of American soccer. When you bring up the sport, their points of reference, their big names, all play in major European leagues.
“Gio Reyna,” they might claim. “Has the potential to be better than Phil Foden.”
They watch Tim Weah score for Lille and think that he might be better than his Dad. They see a 15 year old kid who plays in Lyon’s Academy score an outrageous goal against Belgium’s U-17s, and claim that a World Cup quarter final appearance is around the corner. MLS, they say, is occasionally good PR, and a breeding ground for the odd player who might make it to Europe. They never really rated Brandon Aaronson, for example, but ever since he signed for the American-coached Leeds, they see one of the most promising attacking midfielders in Europe. To them, MLS top scorer Taty Castellanos is doing it in a “farmer’s league”, until he inevitably signs for a mid-tier French club. As for those those names — Pirlo, Beckham, Keane, Villa — they’re helpful, but they won’t save a mediocre product.
The thing is, neither group is really wrong. MLS probably isn’t as close to global relevancy as the “truthers” may think. But it also counts for a fair few members of various national team caliber players — and helped cultivate some of those who now play in Europe. Granted, it’s not necessarily a barometer of elite talent. But there’s still some top players coming through the ranks.
It’s also an example of fairly mediocre football. The game is slower, chants slightly cringey, and the lack of a first touch on some of the league’s best is slightly concerning.
So, $2.5 billion.
Such is the nature of sport that any league requires money. MLS, as much as it might try, will probably never get anywhere near the same amount of cash — or generate even a slice of the revenue — that major European leagues do. It’s a popularity question, but it’s also a market problem. If you’re a big sponsor in the US, you’re going to shell out the cash to get your name on something at Yankee Stadium, Madison Square Garden or wherever one of those silly NFL teams play (not to mention the tons of cash in college sports.)
So, if that’s the case, why has Mr. Tim Cook, and all of his Silicon Valley wisdom, popped loads of money into the league?
The optimist in me — and, let’s face, the one who’s relying on US soccer for employment — says it’s a recognition of growth. Previous TV rights deals for MLS clubs have been bad. Streams are poor, show quality is mediocre, and it’s very difficult to get a large audience to tune in to a game played in a cold rainy night in Colorado. This investment, then, is a shrewd move, one that could well capitalize on the growing excitement around the sport in the country. It is also, perhaps, a cleverly timed thing, especially given the fact that the US should probably advance through its group in Qatar, and will host the men’s world cup in 2026. Furthermore, the rising popularity of the women’s game — something the US had been very early to — should only augment awareness and, with it, fandom.
Basically, more money means better product. And that’s a good thing.
There are some downsides here. Local TV markets — ones that were already struggling — will be eaten up. It’s also likely that those truthers might lose some of the authentic fan experience that they’ve grown up with (yes, it’s fun to take the piss out of MLS fandom, but it exists, and that counts for something for those that do indeed show up on a cold rainy night in Colorado.) It’s also likely that there could be a disproportionate level of awareness here. If you pay the monthly fee to watch MLS fee and you’re a casual fan, you’re more likely to tune into Carlos Vela’s LAFC against whoever they might be playing than you are a mid table matchup. Then again, who actually watches Burnley vs. Crystal Palace, anyway?
So, $2.5 billion. That’s a shitload of money.
And as a Euro Loyalist who is slowly becoming a Truther, it might just make sense.
Cheers for reading that. I am aware that I am going to have to delete a lot of old tweets in which I ruthlessly and arrogantly disparaged the game as it as played and watched in the United States. Not that people really care, it’s more of an attempt to avoid being cancelled when I eventually become the Fabrizio Romano of college soccer (I wrote about an actual transfer today!)
But hey, as I type I have the US playing away against El Salvador on the telly, so that counts for something.
I'll never unsub Tom