The real potential BIG Problem for DTV and Football

[Ned Flanders]

It's just another carriage agreement squabble.  Apparently, the ESPN/Disney carry agreements purchased several years ago by DTV are up September 30th.  Hence, the sabre rattling by both sides, not unlike the CBS/ABC debacle that many DTV customers encountered this year.

 

My DTV complaints are well documented on this forum but years ago, the station blackouts were usually commonplace on cable and DTV seemed to avoided these persistent battles.  Now, DTV seems to have fallen in-line with their cable brethren and blacked out channels if agreements aren't reached.

 

I'll say this though in a sort of veiled defense of the satellite and cable operators: ESPN, and the ESPN family of channels, are by far the most expensive for operators to broadcast.  The cost of live sports has skyrocketed in recent years, to the point where these carriage agreements become financially unstable.  When the agreements are up, ESPN needs to recoup their financial investments, to the tune of jacking up prices to never before seen heights.

 

What's the ultimate solution?  Maybe the ESPNs of the world stop being so reckless in their negotiations with the various leagues (BTW, ESPN is paying the NFL more for MNF than NBC is paying the NFL for SNF).  What it may ultimately come down to, but this is years away, is that these networks stream their own product without carriage agreements, for example ABC or CBS stream independent of any satellite or cable carrier.  Networks will miss the carrier revenue but the relationships with the cable and satellite behemoths are reaching a price point that will soon be untenable.  

[Nextmanup]

47 minutes ago, Buffalo Junction said:

I’m waiting for this to turn into a PPV by the game situation. I don’t see a way around that with streaming becoming more dominant. 

 

Not sure about that.  The money being paid to the NFL by the TV networks and Direct TV is real and accounted for.

 

A PPV system would rely on zillions of individuals paying the fee; people would come up with illegal technological work arounds, and the # of legitimately paying customers may not amount to as much money as what the TV networks are paying now.

 

I.E., the NFL would lose money switching to the PPV system.

 

Just a theory; I don't really know.

 

 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

2 hours ago, bigK14094 said:

I can do without Monday night football for a long time........since the Bills are not on there this year.  (DirectV customer here)

 

...sleepless nights without Booger??....just askin'......

[MDH]

11 minutes ago, Nextmanup said:

 

Not sure about that.  The money being paid to the NFL by the TV networks and Direct TV is real and accounted for.

 

A PPV system would rely on zillions of individuals paying the fee; people would come up with illegal technological work arounds, and the # of legitimately paying customers may not amount to as much money as what the TV networks are paying now.

 

I.E., the NFL would lose money switching to the PPV system.

 

Just a theory; I don't really know.

 

 

 

 

My guess is they wouldn't use a PPV system, they'd do a Sunday Ticket system without DTV being the only way to get it. That would open up a lot of other customers. 

 

It would also kill DTV. I'm guessing there are many people who are like me and only have DTV for Sunday Ticket. The moment they lose that I cut the cord. 

[MDH]

A quick internet search found this

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonogus/2019/03/28/nfl-commissioner-goodell-says-sunday-ticket-could-soon-have-a-streaming-partner/#2a9ad6c450fa

 

Quote

The latest agreement was restrictive, as it does not expire until the completion of another four seasons, but an option was created at the time that allows the league the opportunity, if it chooses, to opt out of the deal at the end of the upcoming 2019 NFL season. It was first reported back in October that the NFL was considering implementing the opt-out provision, and now NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has confirmed that the league is strongly considering this option.  The opt-out to provide access to previously unavailable out-of-market games on multiple platforms, which could split up the rights for fans and change the way they access and view NFL games.

 

[MJS]

Direct TV is still around? Learn something every day.

[Buffalo Junction]

55 minutes ago, Nextmanup said:

 

Not sure about that.  The money being paid to the NFL by the TV networks and Direct TV is real and accounted for.

 

A PPV system would rely on zillions of individuals paying the fee; people would come up with illegal technological work arounds, and the # of legitimately paying customers may not amount to as much money as what the TV networks are paying now.

 

I.E., the NFL would lose money switching to the PPV system.

 

Just a theory; I don't really know.

 

 

 

I’m not saying it’s fully viable right now, but with more and more folks cord cutting or using tablets, etc to watch games.... sooner or later. I’m sure amazon and Hulu have sniffed around. Disney wants its own as well. This could get interesting with reduced DTV money supplemented by streaming revenue. The NFL isn’t going to leave money on the table if they can avoid it. 

 

As an example. I stream spectrum. I’m not willing to pay for DTV and deal with the contract. However, I would definitely fork over $10 on at least 8-10 days to watch certain games. 

[Mango]

2 hours ago, RobbRiddicksTDLeap said:

Tell me when i can buy individual games on Prime or Hulu, and then I’ll be interested. This whole monopoly that DirecTV has with the NFL is just such a wasted effort. Proprietary deals are irrelevant in today’s economy. You make more money offering the same product individually for more money. It’s basic math. 

 

Agreed. I just moved to Saratoga Springs and cut the cord mostly. I have an antenna and subscribe to CBS, Hulu, Prime, and Netflix. I use families log in for a few other stations but don’t use them much. I also use a VPN and Kodi maybe 6 times per year for a specific movie I can’t find on other platforms. 

 

I tried to PAY for Sunday ticket, and I couldn’t without subscribing to DTV. It’s garbage. I am trying to give you $300 . Take my money. Give me the product! I used to have DTV. Loved it at the time. But my content is better elsewhere and I’m not paying for 100 stations of used gem stones for sale. There just isn’t enough good content for me to pay for and lock in a contract. 

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

5 hours ago, RobbRiddicksTDLeap said:

Tell me when i can buy individual games on Prime or Hulu, and then I’ll be interested. This whole monopoly that DirecTV has with the NFL is just such a wasted effort. Proprietary deals are irrelevant in today’s economy. You make more money offering the same product individually for more money. It’s basic math. 

 

So the NFL isn't smart enough to figure that out.  Wow! Sounds like they need to talk to you so you can straighten them out.  Always amazes me how so many people here are smarter  than all the coaches out there and even the people that run entire leagues.

 

DTV has a monopoly with the NFL because every time the contract has come up for renewal, they'd offer the NFL a boat load of money becasue they know if they don't and they lose ST, their subscriber base will go way down.  Though was surprised to read an article the other day that estimates if DTV were to lose ST, they'd lose 10% of their subscribers. I would have expected that number to be much higher.

 

Regardless one thing I'm pretty certain of is that the NFL looked at alternatives and if they could have made more money from some other service, they'd have done it in a heartbeat.

 

On the Sunday Ticket thread there was a link to an article about why the NFL is the last sport to go to a streaming service and why they don't.  They like having the games on local networks every week.

 

One other thing different with football than the other sports is MLB package, NBA buy the content from companies that produce and broadcast a teams games.  MSG has the Yankee's, Knick's Rangers,  NESN has Sox, Bruins, and Celtics.  The one exception of games not offered by these packages are any games broadcast to the whole country which essentially are all of the NFL games.

 

Having said all that I do think the next contract may not go to DTV for exclusive rights as sounds like DTV i.e. ATT isn't willing to spend a boat load of money for it..

Edited September 12, 2019 by Ed_Formerly_of_Roch

[RobbRiddicksTDLeap]

29 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

So the NFL isn't smart enough to figure that out.  Wow! Sounds like they need to talk to you so you can straighten them out.  Always amazes me how so many people here are smarter  than all the coaches out there and even the people that run entire leagues.

 

DTV has a monopoly with the NFL because every time the contract has come up for renewal, they'd offer the NFL a boat load of money becasue they know if they don't and they lose ST, their subscriber base will go way down.  Though was surprised to read an article the other day that estimates if DTV were to lose ST, they'd lose 10% of their subscribers. I would have expected that number to be much higher.

 

Regardless one thing I'm pretty certain of is that the NFL looked at alternatives and if they could have made more money from some other service, they'd have done it in a heartbeat.

 

On the Sunday Ticket thread there was a link to an article about why the NFL is the last sport to go to a streaming service and why they don't.  They like having the games on local networks every week.

 

One other thing different with football than the other sports is MLB package, NBA buy the content from companies that produce and broadcast a teams games.  MSG has the Yankee's, Knick's Rangers,  NESN has Sox, Bruins, and Celtics.  The one exception of games not offered by these packages are any games broadcast to the whole country which essentially are all of the NFL games.

 

Having said all that I do think the next contract may not go to DTV for exclusive rights as sounds like DTV i.e. ATT isn't willing to spend a boat load of money for it..

 

Considering that i work in the television industry, I think i have a pretty good understanding of how this all works. Not sure why you felt the need to be condescending in your response. 

 

You are certainly correct that the NFL does not want to lose its network affiliation. But streaming the games won’t effect that. You see, the networks are responsible for producing the content on Sunday and Monday and Thursday. So, the NFL needs the networks just as much as the networks need the NFL.

 

What MLB, NBA, NHL, have that the NFL doesn’t have, is team owned networks, they subcontract out the broadcasting of the games to networks, sometimes their own. The Yankees are a perfect example of that model. What allows MLB to have such a great streaming service, is that everyone gets their cut. The teams, the league, the team owned networks, and the broadcast networks. Everyone takes a smaller piece of the pie, but it’s a bigger pie. 

 

The biggest issue is platform stability and the cost effectiveness for assembled viewing spaces (bars, restaurants, casinos, etc...). 

 

As I wrote in my original post. The model that the NFL is using is not relevant in today’s market. Yes they make money because they are the only game in town. The only way to see their product is to get it from them. It seems obvious to me, and many others, that allowing pay per game for a premium price, is a better way of getting more dollars from people who are willing to spend it, but don’t want a terrible service provider for internet and television.

Edited September 12, 2019 by RobbRiddicksTDLeap

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

1 minute ago, RobbRiddicksTDLeap said:

 

Considering that i work in the television industry, I think i have a pretty good understanding of how this all works. Not sure why you felt the need to be condescending in your response. 

 

You are certainly correct that the NFL does not want to lose its network affiliation. But streaming the games won’t effect that. You see, the networks are responsible for producing the content on Sunday and Monday and Thursday. So, the NFL needs the networks just as much as the networks need the NFL.

 

What MLB, NBA, NHL, have that the NFL doesn’t have, is team owned networks, that subcontract out the broadcasting of the games to networks, sometimes there own. The Yankees are a perfect example of that model. What allows MLB to have such a great streaming service, is that everyone gets their cut. The teams, the league, the team owned networks, and the broadcast networks. Everyone takes a smaller piece of the pie, but it’s a bigger pie. 

 

The biggest issue is platform stability and the cost effectiveness for assembled viewing spaces (bars, restaurants, casinos, etc...). 

 

As I wrote in my original post. The model that the NFL is using is not relevant in today’s market. Yes they make money because they are the only game in town. The only way to see their product is to get it from them. It seems obvious to me, and many others, that allowing pay per game for a premium price, is a better way of getting more dollars from people who are willing to spend it, but don’t want a terrible service provider for internet and television.

 

The thing that's obvious to me is the NFL is alot smarter than you, me and everyone on this board put together and if they could make more money doing as you suggest, why aren't they?

[RobbRiddicksTDLeap]

3 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

The thing that's obvious to me is the NFL is alot smarter than you, me and everyone on this board put together and if they could make more money doing as you suggest, why aren't they?

 

Like i said, platform stability is the biggest issue. They are aware of the market that exists, they don’t have a platform, that is stable enough to broadcast their product across the globe. 

 

But youre right, I’m just a stupid nobody.

[BobbyC81]

10 hours ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

So the NFL isn't smart enough to figure that out.  Wow! Sounds like they need to talk to you so you can straighten them out.  Always amazes me how so many people here are smarter  than all the coaches out there and even the people that run entire leagues.

 

 

Hey, when Pete Carroll calls a pass play at the goal line in the Super Bowl when he has Marshawn Lynch in the backfield, McD starts a Nathan Peterman on the road when Taylor had led the team to a winning record, Maybin is drafted, Wade Phillips decides he wants an Eric Flowers in the first round when everyone else rated him much lower, and Rex Ryan doesn’t challenge an obvious wrong call in KC because they didn’t show it on the big board, I know some of us are smarter than these guys. ?

[nucci]

14 hours ago, MJS said:

Direct TV is still around? Learn something every day.

Yes, they are....have you heard of The Sunday Ticket? it's pretty popular

[GG]

The business model needs a shakeout. 

 

We're biased because we like watching sports, but we're subsidized by 90% of cable viewers who could care less about ESPN, but still pay the equivalent of $7/mo. for ESPN to be carried in the basic cable/satellite package.  Do the math on how much ESPN would cost on a monthly basis if there was no subsidy.

[Ned Flanders]

12 hours ago, RobbRiddicksTDLeap said:

The biggest issue is platform stability and the cost effectiveness for assembled viewing spaces (bars, restaurants, casinos, etc...). 

 

This is indeed an issue.  The beer barons have been lobbying the NFL for years to keep out-of-market games limited because some of their biggest customers, sports bars in particular, have told big beer that if ST becomes easily accessible, their Sunday business is dead.  So, that's another voice in Goodell's ear...a big advertiser that contributes millions to the NFL's bottom line.

[TheFunPolice]

NFL wants exclusive partners. Look at the video game deal. There used to be multiple NFL video games. Sunday Ticket is even more exclusive, because at least anyone who wants to buy Madden can do so. Not true with Sunday Ticket.

 

But the NFL wants Sunday Ticket to be hard to get for all the reasons stated before in this thread by many posters. They want it expensive and difficult to obtain in order to protect local markets and big businesses. 

 

Plus, Direct TV would be bankrupt if it lost the ticket, so it will bid insane amounts of money to keep it. If they let cable in on it and made it non-exclusive then the $$ Direct TV would pay (if they bothered at all) would be way, way less. More options= lower prices. 

Edited September 12, 2019 by TheFunPolice

[dlonce]

19 hours ago, sullim4 said:

ESPN is garbage outside of live sports.  I honestly can't think of anyone I know that would pay for their original "content".

 

I rarely watch ESPN. It used to be a great Network.

 

Their SC program is filled with useless stats, absurd, silly stats. They must have a team of pimple poppers applying

these stats to each score and story they do.

Garbage.

[dlonce]

13 hours ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

The thing that's obvious to me is the NFL is alot smarter than you, me and everyone on this board put together and if they could make more money doing as you suggest, why aren't they?

 

It’s  not beneficial for the league because their dollars are contingent upon advertising revenue. Trickle down revenue.

 

The networks generalize their viewership, optimizing ad rates. Pay per View will show limited viewership, exact viewership.

This will eliminate massive advertising rates.

 

This would not be a smart move for the NFL.

[RobbRiddicksTDLeap]

1 hour ago, TheFunPolice said:

NFL wants exclusive partners. Look at the video game deal. There used to be multiple NFL video games. Sunday Ticket is even more exclusive, because at least anyone who wants to buy Madden can do so. Not true with Sunday Ticket.

 

But the NFL wants Sunday Ticket to be hard to get for all the reasons stated before in this thread by many posters. They want it expensive and difficult to obtain in order to protect local markets and big businesses. 

 

Plus, Direct TV would be bankrupt if it lost the ticket, so it will bid insane amounts of money to keep it. If they let cable in on it and made it non-exclusive then the $$ Direct TV would pay (if they bothered at all) would be way, way less. More options= lower prices. 

 

This is and isn’t true. 

 

If if i have more options, that creates a demand for service. The market dictates the price and the service provided for the price. 

 

If the NFL makes $3 billion from DTV alone, then that’s the number that they need to keep making. As stated before, DTV will continue to pay that, maybe a little less to insure that their business continues. But if you add in a streaming service across multiple platforms, similar to HBO Go, then you are expanding your service, reaching new viewers, and increasing your revenue. 

 

It’s possible that under this scenario, DTV will not pay $3 billion for non-exclusive rights, maybe they pay $1.5 billion instead, but with an Amazon, Hulu, and gaming platform deal, you can easily make that up within the first season. 

 

The numbers are there, it’s a matter of user interface and platform stability that is preventing this from happening. 

 

And for the poster that mentioned Madden. That game hasn’t been good in over a decade. The current iteration has brought back old flaws in the gameplay engine that were engineered out. Why? No competition in the marketplace. You let another developer come up with an engine that won’t allow a LB to jump 37 feet into the air to intercept a pass, and i guarantee that game will sell just as many copies as Madden. And EA will be forced by the market to actually produce a good video game worthy of the NFL shield.