(02-06-2019 10:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 09:35 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 09:16 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 07:55 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 04:52 PM)usffan Wrote:  There are way too many moving parts for this to be as simple as people are making it out to be. Remember, the AAC has a deal with CBS as well that allows some of their live events (including, but not exclusive to, football and basketball). Plus, I'm sure there are discussions about numbers of games required to be carried on the air instead of on ESPN+ (and the compensation that goes with that, since ESPN is trying to build that platform). Furthermore, there's the sublicensing issue - what compensation could/should the conference expect if/when ESPN looks to sublicense rights to certain games to other outlets?

In 2012, there was a thought that NBC was trying to become a player in what was perceived to be the value of airing live sports. We now know that NBC really never got into that game, and Fox has only entered it in a limited capacity, since FS1 never really became a true ESPN competitor. Nobody really expects that to be the case in 2019.

USFFan

Never? Well they aren't done and no one expected them to be at ESPNs level by now. I think they are doing quite well seeing all the content they have gathered. They have taken the step as becoming a place people look for live sports.

But it's now pretty clear they're never going to be able to do what ESPN was able to do, charge 100M subscribers $6-7-8 a month. That was the end goal, that was the reason that Murdoch was willing to see Fox lay out big money for sports properties, whether or not they were profitable propositions on their own.

So now the calculus for Fox buying sports rights is very different. (And Comcast's dreams of doing the same thing with NBC-SN are equally shot)

But the goal wasn't to be what ESPN was because thats unrealistic since they have had a 30+ year head start and a monopoly.

The goal was to be a "baby ESPN", pulling in $2, 3, 5 a month for FS1. That's the goal that's now out of reach, with cord-cutting eating into ESPN's revenues.

Quote:They can and are making money which is the goal and are growing every year. You think they are going to give up because they can never be the behemoth ESPN once was?

Umm, yeah?

The business strategy was to possibly lose money in the short or medium term, in order to build a multibillion dollar business in the long term. That's what they did with the Fox network and the NFC package. Fox didn't make money on the NFC package--but the NFC package made them a "real live boy" network, not a fly-by-night operation like UPN or the WB or CW.

(I'm not saying that Fox will dump FS1, but they're not going to sink hundreds of millions into sports rights to build up FS1. Fox Sports contracts will have to be justified by ad revenues on Fox OTA and FS1, not by hoping to increase FS1 per month subscriber fees)

Quote:They can be very successful being the Pepsi to ESPN's Coke.

But truth be told, Coca-Cola has won the cola war. Coke controls 42% of the total carbonated soft drink market, compared with Pepsi's 30%, according to Beverage Digest.

Coke Has Won -- But Does It Matter For Investors?
Despite Coke's clear victory, I expect this will have little relevance going forward for investors.

Due to changing tastes and a healthier consumer, both cola brands have been in decline. Research firm IbisWorld has forecast that per-capita soda consumption's downward trend will continue with no end in sight. No matter how much money is spent on clever marketing, the overwhelming secular trend against sugary, calorie-filled carbonated beverages cannot be reversed.https://www.nasdaq.com/article/coke-vs-p...s-cm337909

After reading that, would you sign off on a business plan to lose billions of dollars over 10 years to BECOME Pepsi?

They already have sunk millions into TV rights on major properties. You took an analogy literally and tried to sound smart in the process. The execs at Pepsico are doing just fine in second place. FS1 will do the same. Just like ESPN Coke had a huge head start and no one will ever overtake them. That doesn't mean others can't make money in the same field and Fox has been doing just fine with FS1. They are a legit alternative channel to watch sports. This isn't NBCsports, CBSsports or early days of ESPN airing whatever they can get their hands on. MLB, B1G, Big XII, Big East, World Cup and WWE. Oh and they are still in the short term. It's year 5, in the TV world thats short term.