Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
That explains a bit , I didn’t think it was that expensive
I just picked up the early bird special. For 2025, it includes the archives.
I watched quite a bit this year, and feel that it's worth the money. So is PeacockTV.
We get the Practice sessions with next years Season, too, as well as them going back to having the Archives in the cost. I was Not impressed when they decided to charge an extra, separate fee for 'Archives'.
I've always wanted to see MXGP practice / timed qualifying / whatever it will be called - for example, I Will stay up a bit later , generally after watching MXGPs Saturday races, to watch the US Outdoors Practice, then, go to bed and happily catch the US Motos later on Sunday arvo.
Look, I utterly Despise Luongo, and whoever he goes into 'partnership' with, and many , many things that that p**k does, but I love the GPs, so, to me, it's easily affordable, High quality production Racing coverage that I can access easily, and, anywhere, with No faffing around.
Though, I do wonder how much of the bill is down to JT$ participation, in a few GPs a year, and the MXdN.
As we all know, JT$, does not work for Peanuts........... 😁🤑😁
Seriously Malin, and, a bit of JT$, is bloody great!
When converted its £40 but over here it’s £132, big difference.
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
Free shipping: VITALMX
How do you know that JT gets paid a lot?
He's good, but I wouldn't expect him to be paid enough to affect ticket or subscription prices.
David Bailey might be available, or Jeff Emig.
It's a play / joke on JT's JT$ moniker.
Another bloke earlier in this thread brought the 'joke' up in a single line post - at least I took it as such.
I'm not that sure how the "JT$" came to be - I think it comes from his racing OS a whole lot after the US season(s), and, there's a bit of a parallel in his announcing career now, to that.
I think he's bloody great - does his US TV work really, really well, and steps right into his occasional 'gigs' in MXGP and MXdN with huge aplomb.
Not when they control the sport you love…
Stop being so emotional about it. From an outside perspective 130$ isn’t a lot to watch something you love for a year.
Keep ticket prices low, make tv broadcasts free or very cheap, sell tons of tickets, get huge crowds and a shitload of tv viewers.. then you have ground to stand on to get big money from companies wanting to advertise and sponsor the events. Make your money off them.
Instead they keep milking the shit out of the fans and less and less are going/watching because of it. It’s a cannibalistic practice and they’re just shooting themselves in the foot. Crowds have been pathetic at most nationals and supercross for the past 10-15 years at least. They’re non existent at many mxgp rounds.
Crowds are tiny> so why would they attract possible advertisers> they raise ticket prices to make up for it> then less people show up. That’s where we’re at now
They probably make the local promoter pay to get it there as part of the cost to have the show. That's the franchise YS/Insport bought from the FIM, the right to sell the event out on their terms. I don't know that is the case, but YS/Insport traditionally offloads a lot of the expense and risk to others, including the local promoters and all the teams paying their way to a profit making commercial event that banks stacks for Insport.
How much money is infront making? Does anybody have any numbers?
I googled but nothing.
You also have the power and freedom to not spend your money on thIs event or any other.IF you feel that strongly about the money thing, that's OK, time to dumpster dive for highlights instead.
If the streaming was solid, I would be less unhappy about the increase. The MXdN broadcast dropped on me 5x when it was solid the rest of the year.
I get Peacock free under my internet plan, but if I could get the broadcast team quality of Malin (and JT$ occasionally) I'd pay out of pocket for a dedicated stream. However, in the US that isn't the way apparently. To grow the sport it has to be on a mainstream network from what has been bantered about here.
I have trimmed internet and other subscriptions year to year when the value doesn't make sense anymore, or when I just get fed up with >20% increases with no value added (at least to me, they always have a "value proposition" for the increase).
MXGP is not on my chopping block though. At some point I may give it up and just go to free youtube highlights and MXDN only package.
I bought the MXGP-TV season pass for 2023 and I think I paid around $100.00. I was pretty happy with the cost per race break down. I had not followed the European series for years so it took a while to associate the name and country of the riders with the number on their bike.
The price at $145 is more than I am willing to pay and since Prado ended up being my favorite Euro and he's coming to the USA, MXGP-TV is not in the plans for 2025. If it was around $110 or less I would have still purchased. Peacock per month is still quite a bit less expensive
Infront is owned by Dalian Wanda Group, a Chinese company, good luck getting detailed financials out of them!
I thought it went back to his racings days when he would race 125sx & 250sx on the same night?
It blows my mind that full season of F1 live coverage is actually cheaper than MXGP or AMA SX/MX. Something is wrong when a niche sport like motocross costs more than a true mainstream premier sport.
I watch it for free on CBS sports.
and I do agree that most of those tracks seem like 1 day pop ups to me. (besides the well-known ones of course)
Pit Row
You’ll likely never really know. Entries fees have to be paid in cash, event hosting is done in cash. It’s unlikely they actually report ‘real’ profits for tax reasons other than keeping a flat level of turnover for the books to look positive
I'm already saying no. Spending my money on TT+ two weeks of road racing for 20 bucks.
That's good, at least you've done something other than piss and moan.
I just wait a few hours, or even a full day, to watch some races. Cuts the cost down a lot.
It’s a damn shame the promoters can’t/ won’t pay the performers for putting on a very profitable show.
Maybe I am wrong but the increase in viewership of the NBC rounds would seem much more attractive to sponsors (TV and Race) than peacock. You are stepping out of the captive, niche viewership. Is it more potential revenue than they are milking the subs for?
I'm genuinely baffled by the reactions here. My original comment has received more downvotes than upvotes; telling me I have the right to not subscribe; and even someone saying to stop voting blue(??). I think everyone on here is sick of the rate of "inflation," and when I merely draw attention to the wide disparity between the rate Inmoto is increasing pricing (15%) to, say, the GDP growth rate (~3%) or wage growth rate (~5%), I'm being told to suck it up and people want to defend Inmoto? I guarantee you Inmoto's profits are growing at a much higher % rate than my savings, and I get everyone has the right to their own opinion, but I feel like I'm living in some weird alternate universe where we're defending the people that are making us poorer. Again, I don't mind and understand price increases, but there's a difference between a reasonable increase and gouging, especially when the end product isn't improving and the talent driving the product isn't sharing in those profits. But to each their own.
"telling me I have the right to not subscribe"
It's free market economics, if you don't subscribe, demand will be lower and price will go down...
"even someone saying to stop voting blue(??)"
Some people love to blame politicians for the economy, when it's more complex than that.
"suck it up"
GDP growth rate, wage growth rate and the rate of inflation are different measures, they are not always aligned. People have short memories, the 70s and early 80s were much more volatile...
"I guarantee you Inmoto's profits are growing at a much higher % rate than my savings"
They price their product at a price the market can bear to maximize profits.
"difference between a reasonable increase and gouging"
Many companies increased their prices during the pandemic and found demand did not fall, indicating demand is less price sensitive than they thought, so have continued increasing their prices. The only ways to stop this is a decrease in demand, shareholder pressure or regulation of the market.
Thanks for the reply, and I appreciate the discussion. However, I respectfully disagree with your notion which seems to be that the free market will always dictate fair prices, and here’s why.
1. Markets aren't always in perfect equilibrium
The assumption that free markets always find a “fair” price rests on the idea of perfect equilibrium. In reality, markets are often imperfect, with several external factors distorting price mechanisms:
• Monopolistic or oligopolistic control: Many industries, including streaming services, are controlled by a small number of major players, reducing competition. This allows companies to set prices without fear of losing significant market share, even in the face of rising prices. This is similar to what’s seen in the housing market—where land scarcity, zoning laws, and large corporate ownership have driven prices sky-high, despite demand being present.
• Price inelasticity: As you mentioned, companies, including streaming services, have found that consumers are more tolerant of price hikes than previously expected. This creates a scenario where prices rise faster than inflation or wage growth, not because of increased value, but because consumers don’t have viable alternatives. Studies during the pandemic showed that certain sectors, including digital services, faced inelastic demand, meaning consumers continued to pay higher prices despite economic pressures.
2. Wage growth and price increases aren't in sync
A big part of the frustration here is that prices for many essential goods and services—like housing, streaming, and healthcare—have outpaced wage growth. Let’s look at some stats:
• Wage growth: In the U.S., real wage growth has averaged about 5.1% annually in 2024.
• Housing prices: Housing prices have grown at an average rate of about 8.6% annually over the past decade. The disconnect here is a prime example of why just “letting the market decide” often leaves consumers worse off.
• Streaming price increases: As I pointed out earlier, the price for MXGP TV has increased by over 15% in a single year. This far outpaces both inflation (around 3% in 2024) and wage growth. When prices increase at a faster rate than wages, consumers lose purchasing power, leading to the feeling of being priced out without real improvements in service quality.
3. Income disparity and market power
Another critical point is the growing income disparity, which highlights how market mechanisms often fail to result in equitable outcomes:
• Income disparity: The wealth gap has continued to widen, with the top 1% of households in the U.S. holding over 30% of the nation’s wealth. This is a global trend as well. If the market always found “fair prices,” why would we see such disparity? Instead, companies (like Inmoto in this case) may prioritize maximizing profits over maintaining reasonable price levels.
• Corporate profits: Corporate profits, especially in industries with less competition, have risen dramatically. For example, during the pandemic, many companies posted record profits despite stagnant wage growth and rising living costs for the average consumer. Streaming services, digital platforms, and media companies have leveraged these conditions, increasing prices while their cost structures remain relatively stable.
4. Housing market analogy
You mentioned affordability, and the housing market is a perfect parallel:
• In the '70s and '80s, housing was much more affordable relative to wages. Over the past few decades, however, housing prices have outpaced wage growth, leaving millions of families unable to afford homes that previous generations took for granted. Why?
• It’s not just supply and demand, but speculative investment, zoning laws, and a concentration of ownership that have driven up prices—factors that distort the idea of a “free market” solving everything.
• The same can be said for streaming services, where we are no longer just paying for the service itself but for the increasingly consolidated control over content distribution. This lack of meaningful competition allows companies like Inmoto to raise prices aggressively without corresponding increases in service value.
5. Final thought: A free market isn't always fair
Lastly, while free markets are theoretically self-correcting, they often lack the safeguards to ensure fair outcomes for all consumers. Pricing based solely on what the market can bear—without regulation or ethical considerations—can lead to situations where companies prioritize profit margins far above delivering value to customers. This is especially true when we see disproportionate price increases (as in the case of MXGP TV), with little to no corresponding improvement in product or service quality.
I believe that while companies have the right to set prices, customers also have the right to call out unjustifiable price hikes and demand more transparency, especially when there’s an imbalance in the value being delivered to consumers versus the profits being taken in by the companies.
Again, my two cents.
I agree, but I never said free market were fair!
I agree with a lot of that, but for God’s sake, please don’t let the government try to fix it anymore. The gov can’t fix a pothole without catastrophic ripple effects..
When corporate interests and government are so intertwined it’s hardly a free market. I call it more like a planed economy. The western world is like a privately owned/corporate controlled planned economy operating through the mechanisms of the state. China for example is a planned economy where the state/goverment owns the corporations. Here the corporations own the government. It’s just flipped-flopped, though they’re both capitalism. One is state controlled the other is corporate controlled. Neither are free market and neither are good for innovation because of all the handicaps lobbied/payed for by the corporations and applied by the state to small business in order to stifle competition.
CDOs were a free market with lots of innovation, no government regulation, lots of competition with many suppliers, prices set by the market, but it was never fair!
Post a reply to: Am I the only one tired of Infront / MXGP's corporate greed?