Apple TV+ MLS Season Pass subscription discounted to $29

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV

Soccer fans who've yet to sign up for the MLS Season Pass on Apple TV+ now have a good reason to do so, with the price cut down to $29 for the remainder of the 2023 season.




The MLS Season Pass has been a success for Apple TV+, in part thanks to events such as Lionel Messi's joining of Inter Miami. However, a new promotion may help boost numbers even more.

First reported by TechCrunch, the MLS Season Pass subscription usually costs $99 per season, or $79 per season for Apple TV+ subscribers. Now, long past the halfway point of the February 25 to October 21 season, fans who were tempted to pick up the Season Pass but were put off by the cost can do so at a much cheaper cost.

Sports fans can now pay $29 for access to the Season Pass for the rest of the 2023 season, or for Apple TV+ subscribers, that price goes down to $25. This is a considerable saving compared to the per-month charges, which are $14.99 per month or $12.50 per month for Apple TV+ subscribers.

Under the season pass, subscribers gain access to live coverage of matches, as well as the post-season play-offs, set to run from October 25 through to December 9. There is also a selection of other video content available, including match replays, original programming, and studio programs.

Once bought, the MLS Season Pass can be viewed wherever the Apple TV app is accessible, including the Apple TV set-top boxes, iPhone and iPad, Mac, and selected smart TVs.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13
    I already pay Apple for access to AppleTV+ for content. But to see sports I have to pay more? Seems like I’m paying twice. Not a fan of tiered access. Would rather pay a bit more for TV+ to have access to all it has to offer. This would seem to be a no-brainer when you’re trying to get NFL addicted Americans interested in a sport that is only marginally popular here. 
  • Reply 2 of 13
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,427member
    I already pay Apple for access to AppleTV+ for content. But to see sports I have to pay more? Seems like I’m paying twice. Not a fan of tiered access. Would rather pay a bit more for TV+ to have access to all it has to offer. This would seem to be a no-brainer when you’re trying to get NFL addicted Americans interested in a sport that is only marginally popular here. 
    Why hello there, entitled American mindset!

    Sportsball fans are "paying twice" because sportsball is EXPENSIVE. Your Apple TV+ bill would easily cost five or more TIMES as much if Apple started adding all the exclusive sports content they can get the rights for and made EVERYONE pay for it. Your proposal would have me help pay for YOUR sportsball addiction, how on earth do you reckon that's fair?

    As for "NFL addicted Americans," Apple TV+ is available in at least 175 countries, and in at least 174 of those countries, "football" (soccer) is the biggest sport, not "Merkin football" (it actually has a much cruder nickname in some countries). Proper football is actually pretty huge and growing in the US, including the women's divisions. MLB baseball is free in the Apple TV+ subscription because it's only two games a week, and because its only on in a handful of countries. But even THAT limited sports offering probably contributed handsomely to the recent price increase in Apple TV+ from $5/month (original price) to $9/month currently -- so extrapolate that out to trying to get NFL exclusivity.

    Apple is not trying to get Americans interested in soccer any more than high schools are conspiring to get Americans interested in it. It's popularity is already massively larger than the NFL in terms of enthusiasts. Apple is interested in tapping into that enormous worldwide audience and giving them what they want, without annoying and action-interrupting commercials. The strong uptick of interest since the signing of Lionel Messi to Inter Miami is all the proof you need that a) sports is expensive, b) Apple will be as selective in its sports deals as it is in the quality of its other efforts, and c) the audience Apple is interested in, as has always been the case, is not Joe Plebian -- its anyone, anywhere, who enjoys high-quality, commercial-free entertainment.


    mayflyiOS_Guy80
  • Reply 3 of 13
    I already pay Apple for access to AppleTV+ for content. But to see sports I have to pay more? Seems like I’m paying twice. Not a fan of tiered access. Would rather pay a bit more for TV+ to have access to all it has to offer. This would seem to be a no-brainer when you’re trying to get NFL addicted Americans interested in a sport that is only marginally popular here. 
    Not everyone of us is interested in sports ball, so why should we subsidize you?
    mayflychasm
  • Reply 4 of 13
    I already pay Apple for access to AppleTV+ for content. But to see sports I have to pay more? Seems like I’m paying twice. Not a fan of tiered access. Would rather pay a bit more for TV+ to have access to all it has to offer. This would seem to be a no-brainer when you’re trying to get NFL addicted Americans interested in a sport that is only marginally popular here. 
    I already paid Apple for my computer. Why do I have to pay extra for an iPhone, an iPad, AirPods, and Apple TV, and an Apple Watch? This would seem to be a no-brainer when you're trying to get iPhone addicted users interested in everything else Apple sells!
    chasmFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 5 of 13
    JapheyJaphey Posts: 1,770member
    Sportsball:

    “A word used by many, which is often caused by prolonged lack of sun exposure and/or lack of outdoor activity. Users often feel a sense of wit or grandeur when using this word, due to the fact that they are too “intelligent” to play or be interested in sports, so they feel the need to ridicule anyone that does.”

    -Urban Dictionary
    robin hubermobird
  • Reply 6 of 13
    Japhey said:
    Sportsball:

    “A word used by many, which is often caused by prolonged lack of sun exposure and/or lack of outdoor activity. Users often feel a sense of wit or grandeur when using this word, due to the fact that they are too “intelligent” to play or be interested in sports, so they feel the need to ridicule anyone that does.”

    -Urban Dictionary

    Or maybe it’s just the folks that love sports, but refuse to spend money on the massively corrupt and abusive pro sports industry or engage with its toxic cult-like fan base. There’s a thought.

    Xedchasm
  • Reply 7 of 13
    JapheyJaphey Posts: 1,770member
    Japhey said:
    Sportsball:

    “A word used by many, which is often caused by prolonged lack of sun exposure and/or lack of outdoor activity. Users often feel a sense of wit or grandeur when using this word, due to the fact that they are too “intelligent” to play or be interested in sports, so they feel the need to ridicule anyone that does.”

    -Urban Dictionary

    Or maybe it’s just the folks that love sports, but refuse to spend money on the massively corrupt and abusive pro sports industry or engage with its toxic cult-like fan base. There’s a thought.

    If you say so. But some might also consider the word “sportsball” itself to be toxic. Personally, I’m not that fragile, as I just find it to be juvenile and ignorant. So you see, there are many thoughts. 
    edited September 2023
  • Reply 8 of 13
    XedXed Posts: 2,705member
    Japhey said:
    Japhey said:
    Sportsball:

    “A word used by many, which is often caused by prolonged lack of sun exposure and/or lack of outdoor activity. Users often feel a sense of wit or grandeur when using this word, due to the fact that they are too “intelligent” to play or be interested in sports, so they feel the need to ridicule anyone that does.”

    -Urban Dictionary

    Or maybe it’s just the folks that love sports, but refuse to spend money on the massively corrupt and abusive pro sports industry or engage with its toxic cult-like fan base. There’s a thought.
    If you say so. But some might also consider the word “sportsball” itself to be toxic. Personally, I’m not that fragile, as I just find it to be juvenile and ignorant. So you see, there are many thoughts. 
    What exactly is toxic or juvenile about it? The most popular and expensive team-based sports utilize a ball and they are sports. I think hockey is the only other big sport franchise that doesn't utilize a ball. If people intended it to be an offensive slur there are plenty of other ways to describe the fanatics who follow all the various types of popular sports.
  • Reply 9 of 13
    chasm said:
    I already pay Apple for access to AppleTV+ for content. But to see sports I have to pay more? Seems like I’m paying twice. Not a fan of tiered access. Would rather pay a bit more for TV+ to have access to all it has to offer. This would seem to be a no-brainer when you’re trying to get NFL addicted Americans interested in a sport that is only marginally popular here. 
    Why hello there, entitled American mindset!

    Sportsball fans are "paying twice" because sportsball is EXPENSIVE. Your Apple TV+ bill would easily cost five or more TIMES as much if Apple started adding all the exclusive sports content they can get the rights for and made EVERYONE pay for it. Your proposal would have me help pay for YOUR sportsball addiction, how on earth do you reckon that's fair?

    As for "NFL addicted Americans," Apple TV+ is available in at least 175 countries, and in at least 174 of those countries, "football" (soccer) is the biggest sport, not "Merkin football" (it actually has a much cruder nickname in some countries). Proper football is actually pretty huge and growing in the US, including the women's divisions. MLB baseball is free in the Apple TV+ subscription because it's only two games a week, and because its only on in a handful of countries. But even THAT limited sports offering probably contributed handsomely to the recent price increase in Apple TV+ from $5/month (original price) to $9/month currently -- so extrapolate that out to trying to get NFL exclusivity.

    Apple is not trying to get Americans interested in soccer any more than high schools are conspiring to get Americans interested in it. It's popularity is already massively larger than the NFL in terms of enthusiasts. Apple is interested in tapping into that enormous worldwide audience and giving them what they want, without annoying and action-interrupting commercials. The strong uptick of interest since the signing of Lionel Messi to Inter Miami is all the proof you need that a) sports is expensive, b) Apple will be as selective in its sports deals as it is in the quality of its other efforts, and c) the audience Apple is interested in, as has always been the case, is not Joe Plebian -- its anyone, anywhere, who enjoys high-quality, commercial-free entertainment.


    You made some excellent points. Could’ve done without the demeaning opener though. 

    As far as “you paying for my preferences” argument cited by you and others, that’s true for everything including sports. There are many programs on TV+ that I’ll never watch. There are many publications on News+ that I never read. Shared cost is a valuable and useful concept. I stand by my characterization of soccer as marginally popular here. Emphasis here. Doubt American soccer games would have mass appeal to worldwide audiences. 
    muthuk_vanalingammobird
  • Reply 10 of 13
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,427member
    Just for the record, I do not use “sportsball” as a derogatory term. I use it per its original meaning: a short catch-all that covers all professional-level sports without having to enumerate the myriad variations thereof.

    I did not mean any offense in my use of the term, but any term that covers sports as diverse as golf to football to polo to volleyball saves me a LOT of extra writing. I’m happy for people who enjoy competitive sports of all kinds, but (and this is the point Robin continues to miss) while the concept of “shared cost” is indeed a key concept for streaming services, sportsball is SO RIDICULOUSLY EXPENSIVE that it would skew the cost of TV+ very badly, and make the overall cost unappealing to anyone BUT sports fans, meaning the higher-quality programmes Apple normally focuses on would suffer as consumers wanting the non-sports programming would balk at the overall cost.
  • Reply 11 of 13
    chasm said:
    Just for the record, I do not use “sportsball” as a derogatory term. I use it per its original meaning: a short catch-all that covers all professional-level sports without having to enumerate the myriad variations thereof.

    I did not mean any offense in my use of the term, but any term that covers sports as diverse as golf to football to polo to volleyball saves me a LOT of extra writing. I’m happy for people who enjoy competitive sports of all kinds, but (and this is the point Robin continues to miss) while the concept of “shared cost” is indeed a key concept for streaming services, sportsball is SO RIDICULOUSLY EXPENSIVE that it would skew the cost of TV+ very badly, and make the overall cost unappealing to anyone BUT sports fans, meaning the higher-quality programmes Apple normally focuses on would suffer as consumers wanting the non-sports programming would balk at the overall cost.
    Point no longer missed. 
  • Reply 12 of 13
    chasm said:
    Just for the record, I do not use “sportsball” as a derogatory term. I use it per its original meaning: a short catch-all that covers all professional-level sports without having to enumerate the myriad variations thereof.

    I did not mean any offense in my use of the term, but any term that covers sports as diverse as golf to football to polo to volleyball saves me a LOT of extra writing. I’m happy for people who enjoy competitive sports of all kinds, but (and this is the point Robin continues to miss) while the concept of “shared cost” is indeed a key concept for streaming services, sportsball is SO RIDICULOUSLY EXPENSIVE that it would skew the cost of TV+ very badly, and make the overall cost unappealing to anyone BUT sports fans, meaning the higher-quality programmes Apple normally focuses on would suffer as consumers wanting the non-sports programming would balk at the overall cost.
    That's going to depend on the number of subscribers to TV+. According to Wikipedia, there were ~33.6 million subscribers as of May 11th 2021 (no figures on how many of those are additional revenue vs free/subsidised). I think it's reasonable to assume ~40 million as of today; bear in mind that since Apple claims to have passed the billion user mark that's less than 0.5% who have signed up and I imagine Apple anticipates a significant increase over time (it will never be 100%, but 5% seems a realistic goal).

    There aren't any figures about the cost of the MLS deal floating around, so I'm going to guess at US$500 million per year just to have a number to work with. That would be US$12.50 per year per subscriber for Apple to allocate the purchase costs to. As the number of subscribers grows, the cost per subscriber gets lower and lower: if Apple can reach 100 million subscribers within 5 years it's down to US$5/sub/year and if they get to 150 million within the ten years of the contract it's US$3.33/sub/year - at which point the rights are re-negotiated and with a larger potential audience MLS will demand more per subscriber. As long as Apple keeps growing the subscriber base, the marginal cost per sub will keep going down over time.

    Apple is committed to subsidising TV+ as a strategic feature of its Services portfolio: the question is, by how much? They've already spent several billion garnering exclusive content; the difference between movies/TV shows and sports is that we don't know the lifespan of the rights deals for the former so we assume perpetual when it might not be. But at ~US$21B revenue just in the latest quarter for Services (which we can extrapolate to US$100B per year, and growing every quarter), Apple has a lot of money in the bucket to spread on the ground for attracting subscribers - spending US$500M per year each for five or six sports is well within the resources available.

    I see two competing forces here: first, Apple's dedication to financial discipline and desire to turn a profit from everything they do. Against that is Apple's M.O. of making an initial desirable product and then refining it over time to make it better and better value. TV+ improves by adding more of the content that people want to watch; as long as it meets Apple's standards for quality I don't see why the company shouldn't investigate including more sports in the service as well as TV shows and movies.



    Worthy of mentioning: referring again to Wikipedia, the MLS Season Pass is actually controlled by MLS; Apple TV+ subscribers are eligible for a discount to the regular price. The content is available via the Apple TV app, but the way to think of this is like Disney+ - it's a separate streaming service that you happen to watch through the Apple TV interface. Read the linked article to see how the rights have been sliced up amongst other media companies, it's illuminating.
  • Reply 13 of 13
    I already pay Apple for access to AppleTV+ for content. But to see sports I have to pay more? Seems like I’m paying twice. Not a fan of tiered access. Would rather pay a bit more for TV+ to have access to all it has to offer. This would seem to be a no-brainer when you’re trying to get NFL addicted Americans interested in a sport that is only marginally popular here. 

    40% of the matches are free to stream, you don’t even need to have TV+.
Sign In or Register to comment.