Sinclair CEO warns Dish: Agree to deal or risk becoming irrelevant

[zippyfrog]

Based on stories here and there it seems Sinclair is asking for big increases, bigger than most. Maybe it is time for a sports streaming offering that exposes the high cost of sports channels instead might be in order. Then we would see just how willing the sports fans are to pay high costs just for sports instead of them being hidden in a broader channel selection.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Yeah...the Fox Sports RSN's are expensive and I can only imagine that Sinclair wants to charge more. Last year Fox Sports Detroit was $6.69 per subscriber; Fox Sports Arizona was $5.48. Contrast that with NBC Sports Chicago, when they had the Bulls, Hawks, Cubs, and White Sox, was $4.39, and Dish decided to drop NBC Sports Chicago.

Links that contain the prices I mention:

Fox says it won't buy back regional sports network from Disney

The new-look Fox Corp. on Friday announced that it will not bid for the 22 regional sports networks the Walt Disney Co. is selling off in accordance with the terms of the two media giants' $71.3 billion asset transfer. In an 8-K filing with the Securities Exchange Commission, Fox stated that it …

www.crainsnewyork.com

NBC Sports Chicago to launch with Sox, Bulls, Hawks—but no Cubs

The NBC-Comcast regional sports network will cover the three Chicago sports teams and part ways with the Cubs.

www.chicagobusiness.com

 

[GPM]

While it wouldn’t interest me, I can understand the allure for sports fans. I don’t know how a company could structure one though since the sports channels are owned by companies that have other channels and want to bundle them in.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Yeah, I'm certainly not holding my breath. Ideally Dish would offer an option that included all sports. Off the top of my head, all ESPNs including ESPN+, Fox Sports, all Regionals, NFL w/Redzone, all other pro sports networks, all services carrying boxing and MMA, etc. That way I'd get all the benefits of the H3, something I sorely missed when I recently tried YoutubeTV. Since I get great off air reception I'd be set.

 

[AZ.]

Sure is entertaining the ones who promote the Free Market, seam to be the ones always complaining about how the Free Market works for satellite providers.

Would be funny if it wasn't so obvious!

 

[NYDutch]

According to SNL Kagan, Disney wants $16+ for the required complete "Disney bundle" (includes ESPN) plus a high penetration rate.

fuboTV Drops Fox Regional Sports Networks - Cord Cutters News

 

[david_jr]

Sure is entertaining the ones who promote the Free Market, seam to be the ones always complaining about how the Free Market works for satellite providers.

Would be funny if it wasn't so obvious!

The market works, but sometimes we don't like how it turns out. We all liked it when things were priced reasonably and we could all watch what we wanted for a reasonable amount each month and most sports was subsidized by most subscribers. Well then player contracts started going crazy and you have athletes commanding 3 to 4 hundred million dollar contracts, yes for one person. Next thing you know sports, whether watched on TV or observed live or pay per view has gotten ridiculously expensive. You can see the market reacting with channel drops and ludicrous price increase demands everywhere. The non sports viewers are revolting and the Cable and Sat companies are trying to survive by restructuring packages or dropping channels. The sports enthusiasts are upset that not everyone wants to pay. The market is working exactly as it should and the prices will settle where they have to. Whether 3 to 4 hundred million dollar contracts will continue or go away or get larger will be decided by the market one way or another. I like sports, but cannot afford to support it at the projected level of cost. Again not everyone will be happy with the outcome.

 

[Tampa8]

According to SNL Kagan, Disney wants $16+ for the required complete "Disney bundle" (includes ESPN) plus a high penetration rate.

 

[eddie willers]

View attachment 142593

That's what she said?

 

[Radioguy41]

As more of these carriers learn they don't need sports programming to survive it's only going to get worse for Sinclair.

 

[dare2be]

The market works, but sometimes we don't like how it turns out. We all liked it when things were priced reasonably and we could all watch what we wanted for a reasonable amount each month and most sports was subsidized by most subscribers. Well then player contracts started going crazy and you have athletes commanding 3 to 4 hundred million dollar contracts, yes for one person. Next thing you know sports, whether watched on TV or observed live or pay per view has gotten ridiculously expensive. You can see the market reacting with channel drops and ludicrous price increase demands everywhere. The non sports viewers are revolting and the Cable and Sat companies are trying to survive by restructuring packages or dropping channels. The sports enthusiasts are upset that not everyone wants to pay. The market is working exactly as it should and the prices will settle where they have to. Whether 3 to 4 hundred million dollar contracts will continue or go away or get larger will be decided by the market one way or another. I like sports, but cannot afford to support it at the projected level of cost. Again not everyone will be happy with the outcome.

You've got it backwards. It wasn't player salaries that drove up prices, it was exclusive multi-billion dollar carriage deals struck between the leagues and channel owners like ABC/ESPN and FOX that pushed prices for the consumer to unsustainable levels. The players union followed suit after seeing how much more money the league and owners were raking in. It was the channel owners who made their own bed, trying to "compete" with each other, expecting the consumers to just pony up.

 

[sam_gordon]

You've got it backwards. It wasn't player salaries that drove up prices, it was exclusive multi-billion dollar carriage deals struck between the leagues and channel owners like ABC/ESPN and FOX that pushed prices for the consumer to unsustainable levels. The players union followed suit after seeing how much more money the league and owners were raking in. It was the channel owners who made their own bed, trying to "compete" with each other, expecting the consumers to just pony up.

So do you think the channel owners just said "here's a bunch of money, as long as you let us carry the games" or did the channel owners say "we want to carry your games" and the leagues (seeing $$) said "ok, here's how much".

And if you think about it, consumers HAVE just ponied up for decades.

 

[david_jr]

You've got it backwards. It wasn't player salaries that drove up prices, it was exclusive multi-billion dollar carriage deals struck between the leagues and channel owners like ABC/ESPN and FOX that pushed prices for the consumer to unsustainable levels. The players union followed suit after seeing how much more money the league and owners were raking in. It was the channel owners who made their own bed, trying to "compete" with each other, expecting the consumers to just pony up.

Sounds like which came first the chicken or the egg theory

 

[ChadT41]

Sounds like which came first the chicken or the egg theory

The egg. The egg has been around for millions of years, while the chicken was a genetic manifestation created by man, using the Red Jungle Fowl, and selective breeding to get the Gallus Gallus Domesticus. Off topic, but that question was verifiably answered. Lol.

 

[dare2be]

So do you think the channel owners just said "here's a bunch of money, as long as you let us carry the games" or did the channel owners say "we want to carry your games" and the leagues (seeing $$) said "ok, here's how much".

No. I know that channel owners outbid each other for exclusive rights to broadcast games. Remember the ESPN deal for MNF, or the FOX deal for exclusive Saturday MLB? Those are just 2 that come to mind out of many. Were the leagues going to say no to those guaranteed cash flows? Hell no.

 

[sam_gordon]

No. I know that channel owners outbid each other for exclusive rights to broadcast games. Remember the ESPN deal for MNF, or the FOX deal for exclusive Saturday MLB? Those are just 2 that come to mind out of many. Were the leagues going to say no to those guaranteed cash flows? Hell no.

According to Wiki, the ESPN contract for MNF runs out in 2021 (started in 06 and renewed in 11). It will be interesting to see if ESPN (any network for that matter) is willing to throw big money at the league assuming they can just pass the cost along to the consumer, or if they'll temper the offer knowing the amount of cord cutting happening.

 

[zippyfrog]

According to Wiki, the ESPN contract for MNF runs out in 2021 (started in 06 and renewed in 11). It will be interesting to see if ESPN (any network for that matter) is willing to throw big money at the league assuming they can just pass the cost along to the consumer, or if they'll temper the offer knowing the amount of cord cutting happening.

There are reports out there that ESPN just outbid CBS for the SEC Football rights on Saturdays and the Championship Game for $300-330 million per year, up from the $55 million per year CBS is currently paying. So...I am guessing that the companies will continue to pay top bucks and pass along some of the cost to consumers...

 

[dare2be]

Some of the costs??? Hahahaha

 

[navychop]

“The more you pay,
The more it’s worth.”

I thing fewer will be willing to pay ever more.

 

[sam_gordon]

Some of the costs??? Hahahaha

I would assume some of the costs would be made up via ads.

Also, according to Cable and satellite TV sinks again as online streaming soars, even with all the losses, there are about 76 million cable/satellite subscribers. If zippyfrog is correct, ESPN will now pay $280 million more/year (than CBS). That means $3.68/sub more per year. A whopping .30/month.

Even assuming CBS keeps their retrans the same and ESPN subs need to make up the entire $330mil... that will cost every sub $0.36/month.

 

[ChadT41]

I would assume some of the costs would be made up via ads.

Also, according to Cable and satellite TV sinks again as online streaming soars, even with all the losses, there are about 76 million cable/satellite subscribers. If zippyfrog is correct, ESPN will now pay $280 million more/year (than CBS). That means $3.68/sub more per year. A whopping .30/month.

Even assuming CBS keeps their retrans the same and ESPN subs need to make up the entire $330mil... that will cost every sub $0.36/month.

That’s Just to make up the actual cost. Add any overhead and profit, about 35% on top of that per. Minimum.

 

[sam_gordon]

That’s Just to make up the actual cost. Add any overhead and profit, about 35% on top of that per. Minimum.

OK. $0.36 + 35%. $0.48. Hey, wadda you know, you've almost gotten up to 50 cents per month. Wow. That might force me to give up satellite.