NYSTATEOFMIND
Superstar
Nah fam Drax needs to cover Ufc
You got that......let Dr Strange cover basketball then
ESPN Cutting Nearly $100 Million In On-Air Talent
- Thread starter ReturnOfJudah
- Start date
-
- Tags
- espn
You got that......let Dr Strange cover basketball then
If you're aren't the NFL, I'd be kind of worried about what the next TV contract will work. The NFL will get theirs, while everyone else will be fighting for what's left over.
RammerJammer
#RollTide #TSC #RiseUp #BullsNation #RIPKobe
College Football won’t have to worry about TV contracts either, well at least the SEC, B1G, ACC, and Big 12
I should have specified football in general rather the NFL in particular. MLB is first up and companies might use COVID-19 as an excuse to come in with a lowball offer.
Copy Ninja
Superstar
Thanos reporting NFL action
Nick Fury doing MLB
Drax covering the NBA
maybe this would work
Get this guy to do sideline reporting
dora_da_destroyer
Master Baker
The decline in viewing, if it continues at this clip, will hurt traditional TV contracts, but I firmly believe that the negotiations for sports will look a lot different in 2-5 yrs when these current contracts are up. The leagues will get their money as I'm expecting Amazon, Apple and Google (via their YT streaming offering) to be part of the negotiations. They have so much cash, they may not even ask for exclusivity, simply being able to offer their streaming customers live sports will be a win.
Plus, they can come up with all sorts of ways to serve games to viewers - watch any game you want live or pick "your team" and that's whose games you get to see (fukk having sunday ticket to watch out of market teams), chopping games into just the scoring drives/plays or highlights that you can watch after a game aire, etc. One mentality we have to let go of in the next TV negotiations is that sports are still all about live viewing (on traditional TV).
I agree with everything you have said except the last sentence. Sports are all about live viewing/streaming live and that's why they have been getting paid the big bucks/will continue to get paid big money. Your notion completely deemphasizes the purpose of why live sports are such high demand as they are/have been.
If I am Amazon, Apple or Google, I'm now ponying up billions of dollars for sports right if they can easily be chopped up and viewed at a later date. Live means that people can't fast forward through advertisements which is why the NFL charges as much as it does for advertisements during the Superbowl as it's live with 120+ million viewers watching.
Live viewing is still king and it always will be.
Last edited:
dora_da_destroyer
Master Baker
the advertisers are there because that's how tv networks make money to pay for the contracts they bought, the NFL doesn't charge for nor earn revenue from commercials. the tech companies want your data, they can also insert ads (more relevant at that) in on-demand or replay offerings, but they don't need all those commercials.
lastly, sports have seen ratings decline the past couple of years, tho not as extreme as this year, whether it's streams or different watching habits, there's clearly space to try something new with sports. tech companies jumping into this wouldn't affect the live aspect of sports for those who want them live, the traditional networks would still air them too, but since they likely won't be paying what they used to, the leagues can close the gap with deals with tech companies, and for people who don't mind watching at a different time or a different format of the game, the tech coomanies could easily make that a possibility.
The NFL doesn't make money from those commercials, but the company who owns the rights to them does and that's why they'd rather have it live than on tape delay/DVR. They need the money from all those commercials to help justify the cost in why they payed as much as they did for the rights in the first place and getting their ROI..
Yes those tech companies could bring those types of formats to the games, but at the end of the day they'd rather have viewers watching live compared to at a delay or later date. People want to watch sports without intrusive ads and unfortunately that's just not going to happen in a live TV format and no company who owns the rights will be able to prevent that. And if it ever does, be prepared to pay an arm and leg to make it happen.
Sports league can close the gap by introducing sports gambling into the leagues as there's where the money is and will be. That would help bridge the gap of COVID-19 revenue lost and what could potentially be lost depending on the next television contracts.
ESPN+ used to be ESPN insider. I've had it for years. They have plenty of combat sports on there...which I eat all the time so it's worth it to me.They need to cut the price of ESPN + or add more content to it
I pay $39 a year. But I'm probably grandfathered into the old deal.
How much is it now?
Last edited:
Okay lol.Either $4.99 or 5.99 a month.
I don’t watch all that fighting bullshyt
It's cheaper if you buy it annual versus monthly.
