DIRECTV unlikely to keep NFL Sunday Ticket
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 4K
- Views 376K
- Status
Who ever said that ST made a profit ???Just as I thought when I did the math, the survey is totally off, found this-
Axios, citing data from SNL Kagan, reported that 23 percent of DirecTV’s subscribers paid for Sunday Ticket during the 2021 NFL season. SNL Kagan surveyed 9,940 people, of which just over 2,000 were DirecTV subscribers. Of those, 54 percent said they do not subscribe to Sunday Ticket, 23 percent say they did subscribe, and 16 percent said they got Sunday Ticket as a “new subscriber perk.” An additional 7 percent said that they “don’t know.”
If 23% pay and another 16% get it for free, that is 3876.6 people out of 9940, yet in the survey, only 2000 said they get DirecTV.
How DirecTV Can Survive Losing NFL Sunday Ticket
DirecTV has been bleeding subscribers, and the loss of Sunday Ticket will likely cause it to bleed even more.nationalinterest.org
Then this-
The answer lies in uncovering one of the great myths about the NFL Sunday Ticket: It does not make a profit, has never made a profit, and will never make a profit.
How do I know this?
AT&T told us.
The telco last year filed a statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission that said it had agreed to pay up to $2.1 billion in losses stemming from the Sunday Ticket contract as part of its sale of a minority stake in DIRECTV to the private equity firm, TPG.
DIRECTV also generates revenue from selling the Ticket to bars and restaurants, but it’s not enough to offset the losses from the consumer business.
DIRECTV: Does NFL Sunday Ticket Make a Profit? - The TV Answer Man!
TV Answer Man, I am confused by something. If the Sunday Ticket makes a profit, why doesn’t DIRECTV try to keep it after this season? And if it doesn’t make a profit, why do companies like Apple and Amazon want it? What am I missing here? — Steve, Dallas. Steve, as you probably know, DIRECTV […]tvanswerman.com
They would make a profit if they didn't have to pay the NFL as much as they seem to ....
It brought subs to directv...over-all they made more with sunday ticket than without..much like locals
It was Never meant to make money .... just a draw for more subs, it worked for awhile.
OK ...
Why are you trying to antagonize ????????
Btw, they were still drawing well till around 2010-12 ish area.
They would still be doing fine if Streaming hadn't come about.
Potentially related.
Apple TV now has MLS on Wed/Thurs, MLB on Fridays.... NFL next?
View: https://twitter.com/MLS/status/1536741521185198080
Apple TV now has MLS on Wed/Thurs, MLB on Fridays.... NFL next?
View: https://twitter.com/MLS/status/1536741521185198080
- Nov 29, 2003
- 15,957
- 20,509
Just read about the deal, $2.5 billion for 10 years.
Wonder how much it will costs subscribers or be a part of AppleTV ( unlikely unless they up the monthly price).
This is what happens when companies have a lot of cash ( Apple and Amazon), they make these type of deals ( Amazon bought MGM for example) , I have no idea if they can get the money back from Soccer Fans, I do not think Apple cares, they seem more interested in growing their streaming service for the future.
And again, I still believe Amazon has the best chance of making money with NFLST, I believe Apple will get it because they want to be king of the streaming world.
Yup, no cost information yet, but it's on the site linked above.
Fans can get every live MLS match by subscribing to a new MLS streaming service, available exclusively through the Apple TV app.
And as cord cutters cut the cord to get away from expensive cable/sat driven by expensive sports... cord cutting services are adding sports to their programming. Hard to say, $2.5 billion over ten years isn't too far off what MLS was aiming for... (rumored at $300 million a year) but MLS isn't particularly popular nationally, it is bigger locally within team fanbases. So the value of this deal to Apple (or anyone that got it).
Comcast/NBC is paying $450 million for the EPL and that has linear broadcasting. $200 million more and Apple could have had football that'd been worth streaming. But I am not complaining. I like where the EPL is.
Comcast/NBC is paying $450 million for the EPL and that has linear broadcasting. $200 million more and Apple could have had football that'd been worth streaming. But I am not complaining. I like where the EPL is.
I have read different info on the Apple deal with the MLS. Some say it will be a separate stand alone service from Apple TV+, others say that one must first buy Apple TV+ in order to gain the ability to then pay yet more for the MLS. Some undisclosed number of games, however will be in the standard Apple TV+, some will be just "free" with no subscription at all, and Apple will "in the early years" sell some games to traditional linear TV channels.
This is, well, a massive overbid. The MLS is generally the lowest rated live sport shown. Ratings on "cable" channels are about 0.20. Last week it got 0.35 on a broadcast network. Its championship game gets a 0.4. That is awful.
Since at least some of the games will be included in regular Apple TV+, that means that at least some of the costs will be borne by its subscribers. This is not programming I wish to pay for.
Do the math. A million people, at best, watch it on free OTA TV. Assuming every single one would pay for it, which is a ridiculous assumption, and the price per season just to break even is $250.
Apple is overbidding for all sorts of content. At some point, especially considering the cellphone sales industry is reaching a new, more mature, stage (when you bought a new phone five years ago, it was better, if you buy a new phone next year, it will be blue) they have to start thinking about making logical decisions.
This is, well, a massive overbid. The MLS is generally the lowest rated live sport shown. Ratings on "cable" channels are about 0.20. Last week it got 0.35 on a broadcast network. Its championship game gets a 0.4. That is awful.
Since at least some of the games will be included in regular Apple TV+, that means that at least some of the costs will be borne by its subscribers. This is not programming I wish to pay for.
Do the math. A million people, at best, watch it on free OTA TV. Assuming every single one would pay for it, which is a ridiculous assumption, and the price per season just to break even is $250.
Apple is overbidding for all sorts of content. At some point, especially considering the cellphone sales industry is reaching a new, more mature, stage (when you bought a new phone five years ago, it was better, if you buy a new phone next year, it will be blue) they have to start thinking about making logical decisions.
When you stream...you pick up better data to advertisers...if they stream on a phone...they can get shopping habits..where you drive...etc etc
I have to think bidding on soccer is a long term play. Everyone under 35 grew up playing soccer, while pop warner football is extinct here now. The demographics for sports ratings are going to change a lot between soccer and football over time, with the young (i.e. the most likely to lead the charge towards watching sports via streaming rather than linear) leading that charge.
What ????
Pop Warner Football is being played in every Grade School out there (most anyways).
You think all these highly touted High School players just appear when they get to HS ?
Soccer been around a long time...the problem is the American version is very boring compared to European and South American soccer...there is no passion for american soccer ...nobody cares
Yes, soccer will be tops in the US when cold fusion is.
Disclaimer, I am a soccer fan. But Disney paid $400 million a year for NHL. Comcast, $450 million for the EPL. $250 million is relatively cheap for sports programming, but it is also a bit higher than I think it is worth.
- Status
Similar threads
