DIRECTV unlikely to keep NFL Sunday Ticket

[Mr Tony]

Yes, buy we were talking about college sports. Often one camera and some kid announcing.

You havent seen an ESPN+ game recently have you? The football games more often than not are just as good as a ESPN linear game. Some feeds are from the local teams linear TV broadcast (Big Sky games and North Dakota State Games as example) which are really well produced. Are some as you describe? Sure if we're talking a D3 game with 19 people in the stands. But for most of the football games its a really good production.

College basketball can be different...especially when you have 2 small colleges playing in a bandbox gym that holds 300 people.
But if all ESPN is doing is taking a feed from a local TV station broadcasting the game, you can' blame ESPN if it looks "subpar" production wise

But isn't this a thread about Sunday Ticket? 😉

 

[slice1900]

As I predicted in this thread, College Sports ( Football and Basketball) are starting the move to streaming off Traditional TV because of the money being offered.

As I said, live sports were primary only on Traditional TV and one of the big reasons why people still had a Live TV subscription, now another reason why you will not soon need it.

I also wrote in this thread that ESPN will start to have trouble with rights fees ( which always goes up) and the reduced money they are taking in because of the loss of 30 million households ( and increasing) per sub fees.

Here is evidence of that-

NBCUniversal and its Peacock streaming service will see the biggest change to their schedule, with the Comcast subsidiary announcing that it will “become the exclusive home of Big Ten Saturday Night football” starting in 2023. Peacock will also get an extra eight Big Ten football games each season.

CBS and Fox will split the rest of Saturday football, with Fox keeping the noon game and CBS (with its Paramount+ service) taking over the mid-afternoon game. ESPN, meanwhile, will end a 40-year streak of carrying Big Ten football games.

The deal also covers Big Ten men’s basketball games, plus a smaller slate of women’s basketball games.

Why is the Big Ten doing this, well I can give you 7 billion reasons.

Again, I give it 3-5 years before all sports will be on streaming services, a lot of it exclusive.

https://www.fiercevideo.com/video/big-ten-announces-new-rights-deals-cbs-fox-and-nbc

The Big Ten reportedly turned down an offer from Amazon that was 50% higher for a piece of their T1 rights (for 1/3 of their best games) so they are just dipping their toe into streaming for now but weren't willing to put their premiere content on it even for another $1 billion over the 7 year life of the contract.

But I agree it shows things are changing, and when they negotiate their next deal for 2030 I expect streaming will be a much bigger component.

It was probably bigger news that the Big Ten was willing to do a deal without ESPN. That would have been unimaginable a few years ago, but their days as the "sports leader" are numbered.

 

[Jimbo]

The Big Ten reportedly turned down an offer from Amazon that was 50% higher for a piece of their T1 rights (for 1/3 of their best games) so they are just dipping their toe into streaming for now but weren't willing to put their premiere content on it even for another $1 billion over the 7 year life of the contract.

But I agree it shows things are changing, and when they negotiate their next deal for 2030 I expect streaming will be a much bigger component.

It was probably bigger news that the Big Ten was willing to do a deal without ESPN. That would have been unimaginable a few years ago, but their days as the "sports leader" are numbered.

It also didn't help that while the Big Ten had an agreement with ESPN, they continually lacked any support for the conference ....
You would have thought the ESPN main offices were located in Atlanta.

They are the SEC's problem now.

 

[Bilbo1]

I am NOT so sure of that portion ....

I doubt you'll see the Top teams in the conference playing on Streaming Only.

This weekend, Liverpool, Chelsea, and Man City are on Peacock while Leeds v Brighton are on USA.

In Match week 3, Man United v Liverpool was only on Peacock.

If this is any indication, I’d expect that there will be a good sprinkling of top games that are streaming only.

 

[Jimbo]

This weekend, Liverpool, Chelsea, and Man City are on Peacock while Leeds v Brighton are on USA.

In Match week 3, Man United v Liverpool was only on Peacock.

If this is any indication, I’d expect that there will be a good sprinkling of top games that are streaming only.

Are they in the SEC or the Big Ten ???

Were talking AMERICAN FOOTBALL .... 🙂

 

[slice1900]

Are they in the SEC or the Big Ten ???

Were talking AMERICAN FOOTBALL .... 🙂

Maybe the Big Ten should add Manchester United and Liverpool next time they expand. Can you imagine the size of their next contract with all the people in the UK tuning in? 😛

 

[Juan]

This weekend, Liverpool, Chelsea, and Man City are on Peacock while Leeds v Brighton are on USA.

In Match week 3, Man United v Liverpool was only on Peacock.

If this is any indication, I’d expect that there will be a good sprinkling of top games that are streaming only.

Maybe we could have swat teams raiding bars and pubs for illegal streaming like they do in Europe..nah they make more money selling directv..easier to control

 

[Bilbo1]

Are they in the SEC or the Big Ten ???

Were talking AMERICAN FOOTBALL .... 🙂

Sure, there with be a Big Ten and SEC game on OTA/cable. But, the Big Ten and SEC aren’t just Ohio State and Florida.

You may need to get Peacock or Paramount+ to watch some of the games.

 

[Bruce]

Sure, there with be a Big Ten and SEC game on OTA/cable. But, the Big Ten and SEC aren’t just Ohio State and Florida.

You may need to get Peacock or Paramount+ to watch some of the games.

Big Games/Better Teams will be on Peacock or Paramount+ or NBC or CBS, the rest will still be on Big Ten Network, so if you follow one team ( U of M for me) you probably will need all 5 of the channels/apps, when Michigan plays a bad team, that will be the one to be on BTN.

The deal also includes Basketball, but I hate watching it, have not paid attention to how they are going to air it.

Also they have not brought up how they will handle the Bars/Restaurants viewers for the games only on Peacock and maybe Paramount+.

 

[AZ.]

Maybe we could have swat teams raiding bars and pubs for illegal streaming like they do in Europe..nah they make more money selling directv..easier to control

Well way back in the day of the BUD. The Chicago Blackhawks never showed home games, but you could always find the opponents feed. The Blackhawks hired people to go into bars to see if they were showing the games illegally! Then the bar would be fined!

 

[Juan]

Well way back in the day of the BUD. The Chicago Blackhawks never showed home games, but you could always find the opponents feed. The Blackhawks hired people to go into bars to see if they were showing the games illegally! Then the bar would be fined!

Not discussing piracy..just police enforcement against piraters

Kodi WARNING - UK Government raids target illegal set-top boxes in new crackdown

AN ILLEGAL set-top box seller has been arrested today in a government crackdown that could spell a grim future for Kodi users.

www.dailystar.co.uk

 

[AZ.]

Not discussing piracy..just police enforcement against piraters

Kodi WARNING - UK Government raids target illegal set-top boxes in new crackdown

AN ILLEGAL set-top box seller has been arrested today in a government crackdown that could spell a grim future for Kodi users.

www.dailystar.co.uk

Well something free and clear being piracy is a real stretch!....They got away with it, and a few bars it put out of business....Im sure it came to not having rights to show it, especially in public...And I would bet that is what they would use if showed to make money off it without the rights?

 

[Jimbo]

Sure, there with be a Big Ten and SEC game on OTA/cable. But, the Big Ten and SEC aren’t just Ohio State and Florida.

You may need to get Peacock or Paramount+ to watch some of the games.

Sure, the lower games ... then again, they have the Big Ten Network for that as well ...

 

[NashGuy]

But I agree it shows things are changing, and when they negotiate their next deal for 2030 I expect streaming will be a much bigger component.

For future sports rights contracts that commence in 2030 or later, they'll ALL be centered on streaming, with any linear rights simply going to whichever channels that still exist that are tied to the streamers (e.g. Paramount+ and CBS). But a lot of sports will be carried exclusively on streaming, because I don't see Netflix, Amazon or Apple ever launching traditional linear channels.

As for ESPN, the *original* basic cable network, I have a hard time seeing how it survives long-term, even as a streaming service. When Disney finally takes the entirety of ESPN to market as a standalone direct-to-consumer streaming service (maybe around '24), I think they'll have to split it up so as not to have one big thing with sticker-shock pricing. I could see them do an "ESPN Pro" app and an "ESPN College" app. Each might cost $15 on a monthly basis (with unskippable targeted ads in both live games and on-demand replays), but with some amount of discount for bundling the two and/or pre-paying on an annual basis.

But longer term, I think all the major pro sports leagues (except maybe the NFL) -- MLB, NBA, NHL, MLS -- as well as the NCAA (or at least its two power conferences, the SEC and Big 10) end up either doing their own direct-to-consumer thing or just partnering up with an exclusive distributor to handle it, as the MLS is doing on the streaming side with Apple. "Here's the price for a single team season pass (whether in or out of market), here's the price for an all-team season pass, here's the price to buy access to X individual games of your choice." But all those sports will want to also allow broader audiences to sample a certain number of their live games, either in free apps (e.g. YouTube, Pluto TV, etc.) or in very popular mainstream entertainment subscription apps (e.g. Prime Video, Netflix, Disney+). Gotta keep hooking new young fans or the sport will die.

 

[Juan]

For future sports rights contracts that commence in 2030 or later, they'll ALL be centered on streaming, with any linear rights simply going to whichever channels that still exist that are tied to the streamers (e.g. Paramount+ and CBS). But a lot of sports will be carried exclusively on streaming, because I don't see Netflix, Amazon or Apple ever launching traditional linear channels.

As for ESPN, the *original* basic cable network, I have a hard time seeing how it survives long-term, even as a streaming service. When Disney finally takes the entirety of ESPN to market as a standalone direct-to-consumer streaming service (maybe around '24), I think they'll have to split it up so as not to have one big thing with sticker-shock pricing. I could see them do an "ESPN Pro" app and an "ESPN College" app. Each might cost $15 on a monthly basis (with unskippable targeted ads in both live games and on-demand replays), but with some amount of discount for bundling the two and/or pre-paying on an annual basis.

But longer term, I think all the major pro sports leagues (except maybe the NFL) -- MLB, NBA, NHL, MLS -- as well as the NCAA (or at least its two power conferences, the SEC and Big 10) end up either doing their own direct-to-consumer thing or just partnering up with an exclusive distributor to handle it, as the MLS is doing on the streaming side with Apple. "Here's the price for a single team season pass (whether in or out of market), here's the price for an all-team season pass, here's the price to buy access to X individual games of your choice." But all those sports will want to also allow broader audiences to sample a certain number of their live games, either in free apps (e.g. YouTube, Pluto TV, etc.) or in very popular mainstream entertainment subscription apps (e.g. Prime Video, Netflix, Disney+). Gotta keep hooking new young fans or the sport will die.

Streaming isn't really making money yet...the same customers who left cable and satellite due to high prices will refuse to pay high prices to streamers who carry sports...its alot easier to cancel and replace a streaming service than traditional cable/ satellite...streaming is just not going to be the profit cow that many think where as the traditional satellite/ cable model is garunteed income fir sports

 

[slice1900]

Streaming isn't really making money yet...the same customers who left cable and satellite due to high prices will refuse to pay high prices to streamers who carry sports...its alot easier to cancel and replace a streaming service than traditional cable/ satellite...streaming is just not going to be the profit cow that many think where as the traditional satellite/ cable model is garunteed income fir sports

They don't have include sports in the base subscription, they can make that an extra cost option. That's obviously what Apple will do with NFLST if they win those rights as rumored.

For lesser games you can just roll them into a package, but once they start getting top end content - like if a streamer wins some of the college football playoffs when they expand and do new contracts - I wouldn't be shocked to see that become some sort of extra cost add on. Or only available to customers on yearly full price subscriptions, something like that.

They have a lot of options with streaming they didn't have with cable. They did the model they did because there was no way to limit who could watch a channel at a particular time (well maybe there is now but certainly not when they first started showing sports on TV) That model worked for them, until it didn't, they aren't going to try to recreate it in a streaming world.

 

[Juan]

They don't have include sports in the base subscription, they can make that an extra cost option. That's obviously what Apple will do with NFLST if they win those rights as rumored.

For lesser games you can just roll them into a package, but once they start getting top end content - like if a streamer wins some of the college football playoffs when they expand and do new contracts - I wouldn't be shocked to see that become some sort of extra cost add on. Or only available to customers on yearly full price subscriptions, something like that.

They have a lot of options with streaming they didn't have with cable. They did the model they did because there was no way to limit who could watch a channel at a particular time (well maybe there is now but certainly not when they first started showing sports on TV) That model worked for them, until it didn't, they aren't going to try to recreate it in a streaming world.

Sports made money because everyone was paying for it...they are not going to make as much money only charging only those who watch...thus prices will sky rocket for sports and with the internet..things are much easier to steal...should be interesting to say the least

 

[slice1900]

Sports made money because everyone was paying for it...they are not going to make as much money only charging only those who watch...thus prices will sky rocket for sports and with the internet..things are much easier to steal...should be interesting to say the least

ESPN will have the toughest time because they've got so much to lose from not being able to get non sports fans to pay for it.

I agree about theft / account "sharing", that's a big problem for streaming and one they will eventually be forced to get serious about dealing with. I think they are all mostly ignoring it now because streaming is still in its growth phase. Once the streaming market matures and the only way to get more customers is to make people who aren't paying for your service do so, we'll see more crackdowns.

Rather than a model like ESPN's where you get a whole bunch of different sports they'll have to make the payments finer grained. ESPN would have to charge $40+ per month to get equal revenue with what they get now, which is obviously not going to fly, but if it was split out so you can get their NFL content for x, their college football content for y, their MLB content for z etc. it becomes more palatable financially (but more of a pain for consumers to manage subscription wise)

But of course ESPN will never have anything like the amount of content they have now, it will be split out amongst a half dozen streamers. We just have to hope we won't have to subscribe to them all just to watch one sport but I imagine NFL / Big Ten like packages spread across multiple providers will not be rare.

It is going to be a big change to get used to, that's for sure.

 

[Juan]

ESPN will have the toughest time because they've got so much to lose from not being able to get non sports fans to pay for it.

I agree about theft / account "sharing", that's a big problem for streaming and one they will eventually be forced to get serious about dealing with. I think they are all mostly ignoring it now because streaming is still in its growth phase. Once the streaming market matures and the only way to get more customers is to make people who aren't paying for your service do so, we'll see more crackdowns.

Rather than a model like ESPN's where you get a whole bunch of different sports they'll have to make the payments finer grained. ESPN would have to charge $40+ per month to get equal revenue with what they get now, which is obviously not going to fly, but if it was split out so you can get their NFL content for x, their college football content for y, their MLB content for z etc. it becomes more palatable financially (but more of a pain for consumers to manage subscription wise)

But of course ESPN will never have anything like the amount of content they have now, it will be split out amongst a half dozen streamers. We just have to hope we won't have to subscribe to them all just to watch one sport but I imagine NFL / Big Ten like packages spread across multiple providers will not be rare.

It is going to be a big change to get used to, that's for sure.

They need a OTA broadcasting model..free based on advertising..in europe they gave FTA satellite...the greediness of the 4 or 5 media companies destroyed sateillite and cable with high prices..now they want to destroy streaming...soon they will become just like the record companies..irrelevant

 

[Bruce]

They need a OTA broadcasting model..free based on advertising..

Why OTA, they could get more with something like Pluto TV, easier to track what people are watching, then could make more money with targeted advertising.

Even so, still going to be a lost of revenue whatever route they take, right now, ESPN 1 and 2 get roughly $9 per sub, have already lost, roughly, 30 million subscribers, that is $270 million a month or $3.2 billion gone, never coming back.

Now, they are losing another 2 million subs a quarter, 8 million a year gone, so by the end of the year, they have lost another $864 million in sub fees that are never coming back-( Math-$9 x 8,000,000 x 12 months).

Now, with less revenue coming in, they are starting to lose rights to certain sports, Big Ten was the start, they have reportedly dropped out of the Sunday Ticket rights because it is too expensive, as more rights come up they are going to find themselves out bided a lot more, because they cannot afford the overpayment for Sports Rights that others are doing.

By the way, I love watching the Big Ten, there is no way that deal should of been $7 billion (1 billion a year) dollars, for basically 3-4 games a week with limited appeal Nationwide, heck, the NFL gets $2 Billion a year each from Fox and CBS, the NFL has a lot more appeal then the Big Ten and that contract was too high.