I haven't posted in years, so forgive me. I no longer have DTV because of a lot of issues that not applicable to this discussion. But I always thought a lot of people only subscribe to DTV to get NFLST and I saw the news on Amazon. Are you guys saying that DTV doesn't care about them anymore? Seems strange to me, especially in these days of legalized sports betting. When I had DTV and NFLST, I suddenly had a lot of friends bugging me to come over on Sundays because they were huge fantasy football fans. One would think that legalized sports betting would make NFLST much more valuable than it is already. Appreciate your thoughts on this, just curious. Please don't flame me. Thanks.
DIRECTV unlikely to keep NFL Sunday Ticket
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 4K
- Views 376K
- Status
UM, not really. The point I was making was that the TRUE costs of sports programming is so high, that if the consumer had to pay a monthly fee to provide the funding for sports programming, the cost to the consumer who be MUCH, MUCH, more than any other type of programming because the COSTS of Pro Sports is FAR greater because the huge contracts end up paying for player's HUGE salaries and all the production necessary in a live sports telecast--even if it is announced and colored in a central location.
On the other hand, Reality Programming is incredibly popular with networks because it is so infamously CHEAP to produce. Further, a great many linear and streaming channels have vast libraries of "old" or "older" shows that have NONE of the truly expensive production costs of NEW programming (except for Reality programming which is a GOLD MINE with next to no costs compared to a scripted program with actors getting 1 million+ per episode at 26 episodes EACH (OVER 26 Million per year on ONE actor alone) plus all the other actors salaries that are in total millions per year while making money, but are still LESS PROFITABLE. Decades old shows like Friends, and all those linear channels still airing The Golden Girls are almost ALL CREAM with cost of rights being next to zero compared with newly produced programming, and we have all witnessed ESPN having killed off it ludicrously low viewership ESPN Classic channel long ago. Old sports broadcasts just don't age as well as some old TV sitcoms
In fact, there are all manner of "CHEAP" close to NO COST programming that can be produced beyond "reality" programming such as Game Shows, Interview shows, Documentaries, and shows that the audience bears the cost of production such as shows airing "Phenomenon caught on camera" type shows culling either publicly available video or FREE of COST submissions from viewers to the producers (A show like The Osbourne's Want to Believe has to be incredibly CHEAP to produce, can fetch even modest advertising revernue, but still be highly profitable because of how CHEAP it is to produce), "talking head" UFO shows and Eyewitness Account programming of all manner of whatever with very CHEAP actors at Scale Pay--for ONE DAY--re-enactments NOT using expensive studios, and ON and ON, and all those shows are not only CHEAP to produce and MORE profitable than scripted shows, but also very popular.
Yes, there are costs to all TV programming, but all but Sports programming are sustainable with modest monthly payments by MVPD's or consumers. Remember many of the channels on MVPD's were priced at less than $1 per subscriber per month, while ESPN demanded (and likely NEEDED) over $5 per month per subscriber (and ESPN was on the LOWEST Tier in all the major MVPD's), which even Charlie Ergen accepted because he was aware of the costs of providing a lot of Live Sports Production--at least for National Sports Channels who provide MUCH more LIVE sports content than the Regionals every did.
So, no, I would have to respectfully disagree with your statement of belief. Sports programming is highly expensive, yet (except for Championship games) has far fewer viewers OVERALL (Yes, some games can win their timeslot here and there. but not consistently total number of viewers day after day--I believe Kate & Allie was beating Monday NIght Football for some time). The lower number of overall viewers means that Sports channels require much higher contribution of COST from either MVPD's, Streaming services, or consumers. IMHO, a channels like ESPN--offered by itself or with sister ESPN channels--would likely require something very close to $30 per month, likely MORE than that. Disney is clever to couch ESPN along with Disney+ because the monthly rate for ESPN channels alone to stream would likely cause heart attacks in homes across America, even with commercials, but ESPN is still greatly subsidized by MVPD's, so the true cost of ESPN channels are not passed on the consumer of Disney+.
.
Last edited:
It is just that the continued rising cost of sports programming, like the cost of cable and sat, have reached its limit to the point that NOBODY sees the value of paying as much as DirecTV does for exclusive right to NFL ST. The worls has changed and how we get our TV content has changed with it, and we have all--TV content providers and consumers--have reached the limit of what we will pay for TV.
However, I see this coming change as a GOOD change because it is likely that LACK of exclusivity will allow MORE MVPD's or Streaming Services or OTT MVDP"s (Like YouTube TV and Sling TV as examples) to offer NFL ST at lower cost to football fans, and they won't necessarily have to change providers to enjoy NFL ST.
It is nothing personal, nor have to to do with DirecTV no caring about its customers--at least in regards to NFL ST--it is a purely an issue of economics, especially with the leagues eroding the value of needing any MVPD for sports programming and even NFL ST. The old model of paying BILLIONS over a few years for exclusively rights for the very short NFL season, and fewer home games NFL no longer makes sense. In fact, Mike While, just before DirecTV being sold to AT&T seemed to make it clear that he was NOT interested in renewing NFL ST as an exclusive, at least--BUT--AT&T made it clear that DTV without NFL ST would sink any deal to buy DTV. So, Mike White renewed with NFL ST just to sell it to AT&T, and I have no doubt that the ridiculously OVER priced amount for which AT&T paid for DTV was directly related to the costs of NFL ST.
Last edited:
I would not worry about Disney. They are poised to reap very well as Corona Virus subsides over time, and they have money AT&T does not to weather the debt, and not only because Disney is notoriously CHEAP in a great many things. They have tons of money, but they really don't like to spend it on ANYTHING. That helps keep them in good economics. Also, the Disney+ has been beyond successful, especially as income DURING the Covid mess with people at home. The puchase of most of Fox Studios provides Disney+ and its Hulu with the additional content it needed to make Disney+ attractive, so it will help pay for that debt. Disney is still in very good economics along with its film division and the ABC Television Network, an easy money maker even it had low rated shows.
If Disney had NOT been a media company and only a Parks and Cruise company, then Disney would be looking at bankers owning the company by now. As bad as Michael Eisner may have been in his later years at Disney, he as to be given credit for transforming Disney into a MEDIA company. Disney survives quite well during these times due to its continued profits on the film and media sides of the company.
Many who bet on NFL games are very happy just to have the Red Zone channel. It pains me to see the number of subscribers lost by Directv. I was one of the first to get the service in Florida. I had a friend go to a Sears in one of the States that first offered it and mail it to me. And the NFL Sunday Ticket was one of many reasons I got it. I had neighbors coming over to my house when they noticed the Dish on the outside of my home.
I don't have Directv either because I get Cable and internet for free because my wife works for Comcast. But I would still have it if not for getting cable for free. Things have really changed for Directv. I never would have predicted the future numbers of lost subscribers back in 1995. They can't continue to lose so much money on Sunday Ticket. Amazon seems like the logical choice to keep it going. I still expect Directv and Dish to merge just to survive.
I don't have Directv either because I get Cable and internet for free because my wife works for Comcast. But I would still have it if not for getting cable for free. Things have really changed for Directv. I never would have predicted the future numbers of lost subscribers back in 1995. They can't continue to lose so much money on Sunday Ticket. Amazon seems like the logical choice to keep it going. I still expect Directv and Dish to merge just to survive.
Last edited:
Red Zone is the best thing to ever happen to Football, I'm glad there's more than one version and it's more widely available than to just NFLST subs.
1 side loves the Red Zone, the other side doesn't ... I'm on the side that doesn't.
I want to watch MY GAME ....
RZ I'm sure is nice for Fantasy guys .... I'm into the actual Game of football ...
I agree, Jimbo. My game is never shown here. I want to watch it and nothing else. I will watch Red Zone when my game is not on but that is it. I do not want Sunday Ticket to go on some dumb app like Amazon. Think of how annoying that will be having the ST games on an app and the local games OTA. Always buffering, spinning circles. I never have a problem with Directv's Sunday Ticket. You get what you pay for. I watch real football, I do not live in fantasy.
Agree not everyone has good broadband... I would hate it going streaming only ...
Hopefully it will still be on residential D*
And I like Andrew Siciliano s red zone better !!
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Yeah, I can see how legalized sports betting might increase interest in watching out-of-market football games, therefore making NFLST more valuable. But that only drives up the amount that the NFL will want for it. DTV has reportedly been paying about $1.5 billion per year under the current contract and the NFL is rumored to be asking for as much as $2.5 billion per year for the next contract. DTV is losing money on it now, there's no way they can afford to pay more. There just aren't enough consumers interested in both NFLST *and* satellite TV.
IMO, Amazon is the most likely next home for NFLST, although I wouldn't count out Disney/ESPN. My hunch is that Apple is just kicking the tires but isn't serious about it; they have the money but I can't figure out how it makes much sense for them.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 15,957
- 20,509
You probably do not have a choice, there is one company you would expect should be there, that is missing in all the stories about who is in negotiations to carry NFLST lately, that is DirecTV.
There are also no mentions about spitting it up and letting everyone carry it ( like HBO for example) Comcast, Charter or even Dish, not one Traditional Provider, the only companies that seem to want it at the NFL’s price of 2.5 billion are Amazon ( who has cash to burn) and, to a lessor extent, Disney/ESPN+.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 15,957
- 20,509
In 2 years ( when the new contract starts) Broadband options should be a lot better, StarLink should be going full out by then to cover all the areas that do not receive fast Broadband.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 15,957
- 20,509
Amazon is the only company I can see that could make a profit with NFLST.
Amazon has 147 million prime members in the US, the majority ( roughly 80%) have fast enough broadband, that is a lot of potential customers, if only 10 million of that get Sunday Ticket at $200 a year, that is 2 billion a year.
Now DirecTV only has 2 million ST Subs( and every article I have read does not say if those are paid, I assume some are giveaways), DirecTV only has 13.6 million subs total, a lot less people then Prime, so there is no potential to get enough subs to make a profit.
The NFL ratings (households) from last week (for the games you get free):
CBS Sunday late afternoon 10.03
Fox Sunday late afternoon 8.30
CBS Sunday early afternoon 7.50
Fox Sunday early afternoon 5.98
The average rating in 2019 for a single NFL game was about 19M (people not households).
Expecting 10M people to PAY for games in the same time slots as the games that are on free is not going to happen.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 15,957
- 20,509
DirecTV has 13.6 million subs, 2 million of those subscribe to NFLST, that is 15% of total subscribers.
Now, Prime has 147 million members, if you use the same 15%, that is 22 million potential subs, I was using 10 million ( which is only 7% of members) because it was a easy number, but I think it could be more, including myself, I would subscribe to ST if it came to Amazon, I have no desire to go to DirecTV.
As far as ratings go, but here are some actual numbers of how many people, not just a percentage-
CBS ran multiple games out of the nine-game early slot, and averaged a 7.5 rating (up 1 percent over 2020) and 13.93 million average viewers (up 3 percent)
Fox showed the less-than-inspiring matchup of Philadelphia vs. Atlanta to 50 percent of the country, and 50 percent of the country had less interest than in 2020. Fox averaged a rating of 6.0 and 11.18 million viewers,
Final numbers for the first game of the season showed a significant uptick over 2020. The rating (the percentage of television sets tuned to the game) came in at 13.4, a 19 percent increase over 2020's Texans-Chiefs game. A per-minute average of 24.81 million people watched the game, a 21 percent increase over 2020.
Sunday's late games included several marquee franchises: Kansas City, New England, New Orleans and Green Bay. The combined ratings on both Fox and CBS were a huge improvement over last year's Fox telecast, which was an unopposed showing of Tampa Bay-New Orleans. Combined, the Fox and CBS games had an 18.0 rating and 35.78 million average per-minute viewers
NBC's Sunday Night Football matchup, Chicago at the Los Angeles Rams, lacked the team star power of last year's Cowboys-Rams game, and initial results trended a bit lower than 2020, with a rating of 9.6 and an audience per-minute average of 17.64 million.
NFL ratings, Week 1: The long climb up from 2020
Ratings for the NFL's first week aren't yet back to pre-pandemic levels, but they're edging closer.
sports.yahoo.com
- Nov 29, 2003
- 15,957
- 20,509
Agreed, but I think they could get 10 million, which at $200 ( which is less then D* charges except for the student fee) could still make a profit.
Ratings are up first week, as far as attendance goes, last and this year, we are still dealing with Covid, so things are still wacky.
How in the world could they get 10 million, when not many more than that watch the in market broadcasts? Most people are fans of the team in their market, so they don't need NFLST.
NFL superfans are going to get NFLST if they can - the only subscribers Directv is missing are those who can't get satellite because they live in an apartment building or something. Those people probably go to a friend's house or a bar, if all of them get it at home via Amazon it would increase subscribers by a minimal amount - less than 2x. No way in hell it goes up by 5x and comes within spitting distance of the numbers who watch the market broadcasts!
- Status
Similar threads
