|
Post by genisvel on Feb 3, 2024 7:43:24 GMT -5
Yeah... you know when fans of a loosing team say "the fix is in"? I do. I've grown up in a Detroit Lions secondary market.
With single-entity, no one can defend it. Fandoms just fall off quick. I think the early days of Major League Soccer did it right where teams were able to get investors to represent individual teams and give the fans a front office face (see Drew Carry and the Seattle Sounders). It helps that soccer fans who followed European soccer were already familiar with European buisness models. But MLS is drifting further and further from single entity.
Here in America - where our tendency is to see conspiracies around every corner - it doesn't work as well.
And, if your my generation or older, it gives big-time Marxist vibes.
|
|
|
Post by mcgheeet on Feb 3, 2024 8:51:09 GMT -5
In America, with almost every sport, people flock to teams that represent “their city” or teams that their parents or grandparents supported. Yes, GOATs emerge (Kobe Bryant, Tom Brady, Roger Clemens, etc) but most Americans’ loyalties lie with teams over players. It’s for this reason that I think LOVB will fail and PVF will succeed. PVF is building hype around the teams and communities for their pro league. LOVB is trying to build hype around signing their big name members to regions where they’re already well known (Eggleston to Austin is best example I can think of). I just don’t think the LOVB model is marketing itself to an American audience in a way that American sports fans are familiar with. Can a lucrative media rights deal make a big difference in whichever league succeeds? Yeah. Much remains to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Feb 3, 2024 9:58:18 GMT -5
In America, with almost every sport, people flock to teams that represent “their city” or teams that their parents or grandparents supported. Yes, GOATs emerge (Kobe Bryant, Tom Brady, Roger Clemens, etc) but most Americans’ loyalties lie with teams over players. It’s for this reason that I think LOVB will fail and PVF will succeed. PVF is building hype around the teams and communities for their pro league. LOVB is trying to build hype around signing their big name members to regions where they’re already well known (Eggleston to Austin is best example I can think of). I just don’t think the LOVB model is marketing itself to an American audience in a way that American sports fans are familiar with. Can a lucrative media rights deal make a big difference in whichever league succeeds? Yeah. Much remains to be seen. While that's true of the major American sports (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL), they've been around since at least the 1940s. I'm not sure how relevant that is here. Like there are no fans who will be rooting for one of these teams because of who their parents or grandparents supported since they've been around for five minutes. I think whichever league has the better TV deal will be the ultimate winner in this scenario, and we don't have enough information on that yet.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Feb 3, 2024 11:00:21 GMT -5
Yeah... you know when fans of a loosing team say "the fix is in"? I do. I've grown up in a Detroit Lions secondary market. With single-entity, no one can defend it. Fandoms just fall off quick. I think the early days of Major League Soccer did it right where teams were able to get investors to represent individual teams and give the fans a front office face (see Drew Carry and the Seattle Sounders). It helps that soccer fans who followed European soccer were already familiar with European buisness models. But MLS is drifting further and further from single entity. Here in America - where our tendency is to see conspiracies around every corner - it doesn't work as well. And, if your my generation or older, it gives big-time Marxist vibes. Amazon, Alphabet and Microsoft are Marxist?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 3, 2024 11:05:56 GMT -5
I still say this is going to be the answer. Athletes will sign with the teams that pay them the most.
|
|
|
Post by jimboslice on Feb 3, 2024 17:39:37 GMT -5
Yeah... you know when fans of a loosing team say "the fix is in"? I do. I've grown up in a Detroit Lions secondary market. With single-entity, no one can defend it. Fandoms just fall off quick. I think the early days of Major League Soccer did it right where teams were able to get investors to represent individual teams and give the fans a front office face (see Drew Carry and the Seattle Sounders). It helps that soccer fans who followed European soccer were already familiar with European buisness models. But MLS is drifting further and further from single entity. Here in America - where our tendency is to see conspiracies around every corner - it doesn't work as well. And, if your my generation or older, it gives big-time Marxist vibes. I have a strong sense (and some very light knowledge) that the idea is not to remain single entity for LOVB. I think starting single entity is a great way to have some more control over the actual volleyball product and roll out. But I think the plan is to eventually shift to a franchise model or allow teams to have investors because it is obviously not as sustainable long term.
|
|
|
Post by ajm on Feb 4, 2024 12:45:28 GMT -5
I think whichever league has the better TV deal will be the ultimate winner in this scenario, and we don't have enough information on that yet. That’s probably a good barometer, but early results are not good for PVF. The previously announced deal with CBS Sports has either been put on hold or fallen through altogether. Attempts to work with Stadium or Ballys have been a disaster. YouTube is apparently the fallback option but it’s hard to see that as a viable long term plan. AU has been the clear winner so far with a significant number of matches broadcast on major cable outlets for three seasons now. It’s disappointing that PVF is unable to achieve that kind of reach right off the bat. I guess we’ll see if LOVB can do any better.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 4, 2024 12:52:28 GMT -5
I think whichever league has the better TV deal will be the ultimate winner in this scenario, and we don't have enough information on that yet. That’s probably a good barometer, but early results are not good for PVF. The previously announced deal with CBS Sports has either been put on hold or fallen through altogether. Attempts to work with Stadium or Ballys have been a disaster. YouTube is apparently the fallback option but it’s hard to see that as a viable long term plan. AU has been the clear winner so far with a significant number of matches broadcast on major cable outlets for three seasons now. It’s disappointing that PVF is unable to achieve that kind of reach right off the bat. I guess we’ll see if LOVB can do any better. In the ABL v. WNBA fight, the ABL paid their players better (although the WNBA paid their superstars more). The ABL played in traditional basketball season, while the WNBA played in the summer. The ABL played in gyms sized for their crowds, while the WNBA played in sometimes-empty NBA arenas. The ABL had a single corporate ownership, while the WNBA had franchises (owned by NBA teams). Most importantly, the WNBA leveraged their NBA connections to get a TV deal and (possibly) to block the ABL from getting a similar TV deal. The ABL had more in-person fans, but the WNBA survived and the ABL folded. That TV/NBA money turned out to be decisive.
|
|
|
Post by avid 2.0 on Feb 4, 2024 12:56:42 GMT -5
I think whichever league has the better TV deal will be the ultimate winner in this scenario, and we don't have enough information on that yet. That’s probably a good barometer, but early results are not good for PVF. The previously announced deal with CBS Sports has either been put on hold or fallen through altogether. CBS Sports isnt airing anything until CBB is over.
|
|
|
Post by ajm on Feb 4, 2024 13:17:38 GMT -5
That’s probably a good barometer, but early results are not good for PVF. The previously announced deal with CBS Sports has either been put on hold or fallen through altogether. CBS Sports isnt airing anything until CBB is over. Yes, I've seen that reported. It's still a major fail by PVF to announce CBS Sports as a broadcast partner without mentioning that coverage won't begin until the season is half over at the earliest.
|
|
|
Post by GoGophs on Feb 4, 2024 14:00:46 GMT -5
CBS Sports isnt airing anything until CBB is over. Yes, I've seen that reported. It's still a major fail by PVF to announce CBS Sports as a broadcast partner without mentioning that coverage won't begin until the season is half over at the earliest. I would've agreed with this until the dumpster fire commentary that happened at the Omaha vs SD match. It might be beneficial for them to take the time to work out the kinks and put out a good production for CBS to air - because that kind of mysoginistic crap, especially for women's sports, isn't going to fly with the general viewing population and more importantly, CBS isn't trying to get sued.
|
|
|
Post by ajm on Feb 4, 2024 14:18:15 GMT -5
Yes, I've seen that reported. It's still a major fail by PVF to announce CBS Sports as a broadcast partner without mentioning that coverage won't begin until the season is half over at the earliest. I would've agreed with this until the dumpster fire commentary that happened at the Omaha vs SD match. It might be beneficial for them to take the time to work out the kinks and put out a good production for CBS to air - because that kind of mysoginistic crap, especially for women's sports, isn't going to fly with the general viewing population and more importantly, CBS isn't trying to get sued. A fair point. Didn’t watch that match but read about the cringey commentary. If PVF can’t be bothered to hire professional broadcasters, they’re in big trouble. But again I’d point to AU, which managed to bring in experienced commentators from day 1. Certainly the travel is a hindrance for PVF, but there’s no reason they couldn’t have done better. Hopefully CBS will insist on a minimum level of standards for their matches.
|
|
|
Post by spideas on Feb 4, 2024 14:49:06 GMT -5
I would've agreed with this until the dumpster fire commentary that happened at the Omaha vs SD match. It might be beneficial for them to take the time to work out the kinks and put out a good production for CBS to air - because that kind of mysoginistic crap, especially for women's sports, isn't going to fly with the general viewing population and more importantly, CBS isn't trying to get sued. A fair point. Didn’t watch that match but read about the cringey commentary. If PVF can’t be bothered to hire professional broadcasters, they’re in big trouble. But again I’d point to AU, which managed to bring in experienced commentators from day 1. Certainly the travel is a hindrance for PVF, but there’s no reason they couldn’t have done better. Hopefully CBS will insist on a minimum level of standards for their matches. They would be better off having the commentary teams be remote (like Volleyball World.. Not that all of their commentators are stellar) if they are unable to source local talent...
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Feb 4, 2024 18:50:44 GMT -5
Yeah... you know when fans of a loosing team say "the fix is in"? I do. I've grown up in a Detroit Lions secondary market. With single-entity, no one can defend it. Fandoms just fall off quick. I think the early days of Major League Soccer did it right where teams were able to get investors to represent individual teams and give the fans a front office face (see Drew Carry and the Seattle Sounders). It helps that soccer fans who followed European soccer were already familiar with European buisness models. But MLS is drifting further and further from single entity. Here in America - where our tendency is to see conspiracies around every corner - it doesn't work as well. And, if your my generation or older, it gives big-time Marxist vibes. I have a strong sense (and some very light knowledge) that the idea is not to remain single entity for LOVB. I think starting single entity is a great way to have some more control over the actual volleyball product and roll out. But I think the plan is to eventually shift to a franchise model or allow teams to have investors because it is obviously not as sustainable long term. That makes a lot of sense. This would be somewhat similar to the WNBA, whose franchises were actually owned by the NBA until 2002.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Feb 4, 2024 21:14:50 GMT -5
Would it have been better to just have LOVB or PVF rather than both? Or is it actually better to have both? Are they dividing the market right now? Or not?
|
|