I somehow think it has to do with DirecTV's contracts with the providers. We had a similar situation here in Western NY where the Rangers, Islanders games on MSG were blacked out on what is now Charter/Spectrum and Dish but not on DirecTV. This was over 10 years ago though.
Salaries didn't go stratospheric until the huge media dollars showed up. The NFL/NHL/NBA contract actually specifies that the players get a percentage of revenue, meaning the contracts don't go up if the money isn't coming in first. MLB is different but still the money is there first then the contracts explode. Why do you thing the Yankees, Cubs, Dodgers and Angels usually have the highest payrolls, media money and the size of the market they are in. Personally if the money is there I would rather the players get it than the multi-billionaire owners. Just my 2 cents.
Wait until the streaming services start requiring contracts to subscribe. I bet it happens within 5 years. Plus the content providers have been giving the streaming services a break on the prices allowing them to get established, just like with NetFlix you can bet the content providers will put the squeeze on when the contracts renew. That is when we'll see a shake out and contracts happen.
You are right on. We have not gone to a movie , concert, or watched a pro sports event for more than 15 years. When you can buy a groups songs and videos for less than 1 concert ticket, we said stop the robbery. Too bad we are in the minority and the robbery gets bigger.
How exactly do you propose those athletes and artists put food on the table if nobody pays for the product? The vast majority of music artists are being squeezed out of the business by the pittance that streaming pays them.
No they don't but the owners wouldn't be paying that much money it they didn't have the media dollars coming in. Do you think Harper, Machado or even A-Rod should have said no thanks?
I would start by suggesting they get a real job that actually brings a real benefit to the people... if it is about the sport, they won’t mind $50K/year. Question is, how many athletes do it for money and how many do it for love of game. Same with musicians. It’s a service, if less people want that service, then it is a service that is unneeded, correct?
Damn near all of the start playing for love of the game, they discover they have a rare talent that allows them to get paid to play a kids game and most of the know it is a kids game. We build billion dollar stadiums for them to play them and watch fanatically on TV. I personally believe that they should get a decent cut of the revenues and except for MLB the contracts specify that a certain percentage of the revenue goes to the players.
Most of those guys didn't take huge pay cuts to stay, "hometown discounts" aren't all that common. The only one that really took millions less that I can think of is Brady and well Giselle makes more than he does. Prior to 1970 and the Curt Flood decision it wasn't even and option as you took what the owner offered or didn't play anywhere.
From your response I will assume you wouldn't turn down that payday.You're starting to sound a lot like a pro ballplayer; somebody who thinks they're a celebrity and worth more than they really are. Albert Pujols, is that you?!
Currently, yes, however if people stop watching them, and stop paying for them, then we now have a service that is needless. So to ask “how do you expect them to do this on pennies”.., well, I don’t, which is why I recommended a real job. If people are done with paying for it, it needs to be understood that their services are no more than a commodity.
