(01-26-2021 03:44 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 03:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 02:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 10:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-15-2021 11:21 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The follow up article with the real substance has now been posted!
https://www.sportico.com/business/media/...234620276/

Their prediction: major streaming platforms like Amazon Prime have the size to compete directly with linear networks for major rights packages and are likely to do so.


The author notes that Amazon Prime already has 112 million US subscribers, which is more subscribers than the entire multichannel (cable/satellite/virtual) industry. Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+ collectively have over 100 million. Smaller SVOD services, like Peacock and CBS All Access, could combine to make competing bids. Individuals are likely to have multiple services, so distributing rights over several services would resemble the split of rights over different networks today.

Cellphone giants AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile also have over 100 million subscribers each and could be players.

My observation: one benefit to leagues and teams from the entry of such bidders is that, like cable today, the bundling with other programming will allow the cost to be spread over subscribers who may not have a high degree of interest in the sports programming, i.e. it would resemble the traditional cable bundle. Critically, this would relieve sports fans from bearing the full cost of sports programming.

We will see where this is going, but if the networks are going to push more and more of the production costs to the leagues, my guess is leagues will look at doing it themselves and keeping the revenue. YouTube, Facebook, and other platforms have “channels” that allow for someone to monetize content with zero costs to build out a streaming broadcast distribution network. All that MLB technology isn’t really needed for the vast majority of leagues or events. Other than men’s football or basketball games—the numbers requiring huge MLB streaming infrastructure technology arent there.

Besides, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (as well as others) already have technology capable of streaming live content to millions of viewers at a time. At this point, ESPN really doesn’t have any dramatically special technology as far as I can tell that’s going to make any real difference for most leagues or their viewers.

The type of channels you're talking about are designed for independent creators or entities that wish to increase their exposure on already popular platforms. They're insufficient to carry real time broadcasts to tens of millions of people.

Even if they were capable then it would be a terrible investment on the part of the sports leagues. They need to own the technology, but they also need to own the platform otherwise a Google or Facebook or whatnot has sole discretion in the type of content that could be distributed at any given moment. That sort of power is the impetus behind tightly structured contracts that are worth literally billions of dollars. You don't give that away for free just to have sole discretion to consume ad revenue.

Now, you're correct in that these networks might just take control of the broadcasts, but if they did then it would be through independent platforms.

The platforms Ive mentioned have done NFL, NBA games, and political/news events which draw far more than the average college sporting event. Yes, utilizing someone else's platform gives up some level of control---but then---signing your rights away to a broadcaster is the ultimate loss of control. The difference is you can always go to another platform rather than being at the mercy of your rights holder for the contract duration. The method I suggested, the leagues have the ability to make changes to IMMEDIATELY increase their earnings. No need to wait for the next tv deal to realize a financial benefit from a move made today. That said---there is more risk---so, we will see whether profit maximization wins out over security.

No, they wouldn't increase their earnings.

The ad revenue from YouTube and the like is based on subscriptions and views, and the formula is predetermined by the owning company. It's not an open-ended system and it's not revenue sharing. You agree to the platform's user agreement and the company has the right to change that user agreement at any time they choose. It's not a contract and if it was a money-maker then sports leagues would already be doing it.

The sports leagues bid out their contracts to TV networks because the rights are worth billions of dollars and there's very little risk. That's what the contract is for...to create a framework for how the product will be distributed and presented. The TV networks can't just do whatever they want. They have to abide by the contract that they are paying good money to own. In truth, no media company owns any league's rights in the general sense of ownership. They are renting them and then when the contract comes up for renewal, ownership reverts back. The media company can't simply sell those rights like a piece of property unless their contract allows them to and only then for a specified period of time.

The only reason a YouTube or a Facebook has broadcast games before is because they've signed a contract to do so...likely to increase exposure on a platform that generates its own traffic and is popular with consumers. Twitter has done the same. We're not talking about the same thing here, not even close.

The type of change you're describing would be akin to a free agent in baseball deciding he's not going to sign with another team. Rather, he's going to travel the country with a ball and a bat and sell tickets for people to watch him play. It's not a perfect analogy, but that's the gist of it.

Now, TV networks(media companies) are middle men. I agree with that, but to some degree they will be with us for a long time. You can cut the middle man out, but it's not as simple as creating a YouTube account. The leagues will have to create or lease their own platforms. That's the only way they could own the mechanism of distribution.

Incorrect. What Im suggesting is that a conference might hold on to its rights, where it pays to do so, and create their own outlet--on an existing platform or via some other contract hosting set up. Basically---all Im suggesting is a conference network---something most conferences already have. I mean---if its all going to be streaming and streamers are looking to push more and more production costs to the leagues/schools---why do you really need ESPN or ABC? The fact is, in a future world where almost all athletic content has gone to a streaming format---I dont see where the leagues really need ESPN/ABC/CBS. In a broadcast world like broadcast TV or cable---the platform was as valuable as the content because there were only a few places for the content to be shown. But in a streaming world, it seems to me there are an unlimited number of broadcast outlets----thus ESPN/ABC/CBS/etc need the leagues much more than the leagues need them.