My apologies if this has been addressed in another thread I couldn't find one on the subject alone. ESPN has a unilateral right to renew the media rights package or not with ACC starting in 2027 which they haven't signed off on yet. So essentially if they don't, ACC is sent scrambling to find a media rights partner or partners et al like the PAC. What are the chances ESPN decides to jettison the ACC and fit the wanted teams under the co-owned media right ESPN/FOX property B12? What would be the ramifications of such a action by ESPN?

No, the difference between the ACC and the PAC-12 is that the ACC owns the media rights of all it members until 2036. So what if ESPN declines the option to re-new the TV contract after 2027. That does not give ACC members the right to take their media rights with them to a new conference if they leave the conference before 2036.

PAC-12 members could easily leave in 2024 because they have no Grant Of Rights agreement with the PAC-12 after 2024.

The ramifications of ESPN walking are that the 18-team ACC would try and hawk its wares to other networks. Maybe they could get a smidge more money, but if the largest player in the market (ESPN) thinks you are too expensive (or they are too broke), it’ll be hard to find 2 others that’ll drive up the price.

The ACC would be approached by Apple. The ACC (with FSU) has more upside than the Pac-12 had, so an Apple deal may be more likely to make bank for them.

(12-26-2023 08:18 AM)Crayton Wrote:  The ramifications of ESPN walking are that the 18-team ACC would try and hawk its wares to other networks. Maybe they could get a smidge more money, but if the largest player in the market (ESPN) thinks you are too expensive (or they are too broke), it’ll be hard to find 2 others that’ll drive up the price.

The ACC would be approached by Apple. The ACC (with FSU) has more upside than the Pac-12 had, so an Apple deal may be more likely to make bank for them.

ESPN turned a 2 billion dollar profit last year. They ain't broke! It was the rest of Disney that had issues.

The ACC television deal is under market, so ESPN is not dropping it. This is precisely why Florida State wants out.

To better understand, the ACCN by itself pays for roughly 1/3 of the $30 million per school that ESPN pays ACC members. However, ESPN also gets an equal amount, which means that it is receiving $10 million per school from the cable companies. As a result its net cost for games that it shows on ESPN, ABC, etc., is only about $10 million per school per year. This includes the ACC Tournament, the ACC Championship Game, two UNC-Duke basketball games, 3-4 football games per week including multiple Thursday and Friday games, FSU-Clemson, 2-3 Notre Dame road games, and multiple SEC road games.

It is interesting to me that ESPN hasn't exercised this option.

I have believed for a long time, and said as much, that the ACC, like IMO the SEC, signed a poor deal in 2010, and have mistakenly doubled-down on that poor deal since, extending it out to 2036. Basically, that like the SEC, the ACC signed a deal circa 2010 that quickly became undervalued relative to what the open market of the moment would pay.

I am not sure about that at all these days. The current ACC deal is paying about $32m in media money to the ACC, with that likely to rise to around $40m a year in the coming five years. IMO, if the ACC were free to go to market right now, totally unencumbered, it seems to me that they would likely get something pretty similar to what they are getting right now. Maybe a smidge of an increase but not much of one.

So it seems to me that the deals the ACC has been operating under for several years is not a bad deal financially for the conference. It is bad for the top dog brands, in that they, who can make more elsewhere, are bound to it by a GOR. But the various ACC admins from 2010 forward have signed deals that are very reasonable financially for the conference on a per-school basis. Not "low ball" deals.

Just MO. Which I reserve the right to change, LOL.

In contrast, I still think the SEC deals since 2008 are "bad" for the conference in the financial sense, that the SEC could be making significantly more if it were to go to market freely right now. Even the deal signed in 2019, the ESPN deal that replaces the old CBS deal next year, was IMO signed prematurely and would be worth more if negotiated now.

And yet, ironically, the SEC seems totally happy with its deal. IMO, this is the power of relativism.

(12-26-2023 09:04 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The ACC television deal is under market, so ESPN is not dropping it. This is precisely why Florida State wants out.

To better understand, the ACCN by itself pays for roughly 1/3 of the $30 million per school that ESPN pays ACC members. However, ESPN also gets an equal amount, which means that it is receiving $10 million per school from the cable companies. As a result its net cost for games that it shows on ESPN, ABC, etc., is only about $10 million per school per year. This includes the ACC Tournament, the ACC Championship Game, two UNC-Duke basketball games, 3-4 football games per week including multiple Thursday and Friday games, FSU-Clemson, 2-3 Notre Dame road games, and multiple SEC road games.

Not necessarily.

It’s under market for FSU. THAT is precisely why FSU wants out.

If is FSU gone, and potentially one or two more of the few good ACC brands, ESPN benefits from NOT picking up the option.

At that point, letting it go to market and freeing up linear would be a good risk/reward for ESPN. They’d likely retain most of anything left that they wanted, at $20 million/school


A bit of chicken or the egg, unless FSU goes madman and forces a lose-lose

Arguably, ESPN has motivation to first decline the option, making it more feasible for FSU to leave, followed by others…espn gets consolidation of its best brands, the process paid for by ACC exit fees and perhaps a year of GOR settlement. For ESPN this is better than ACC free agency at GOR expiration, or losing schools to BIG/Fox because they successfully got out of GOR

But only for the right breakup of ACC. What we’ve had for 2+ years is the delicate process of getting an ESPN approved exit combo on the few other desirable ACC schools

FSU was patiently and publicly shaking the situation to try and help. The time for playing nice ended, and now it’s attritional battle, with challenging the GOR and a PE funded exit as a backup

(12-26-2023 08:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 08:18 AM)Crayton Wrote:  The ramifications of ESPN walking are that the 18-team ACC would try and hawk its wares to other networks. Maybe they could get a smidge more money, but if the largest player in the market (ESPN) thinks you are too expensive (or they are too broke), it’ll be hard to find 2 others that’ll drive up the price.

The ACC would be approached by Apple. The ACC (with FSU) has more upside than the Pac-12 had, so an Apple deal may be more likely to make bank for them.

ESPN turned a 2 billion dollar profit last year. They ain't broke! It was the rest of Disney that had issues.

They're not broke, but they're a declining business who has been deviating from their historically free-spending ways. OTherwise the PAC-10 would still be a conference -- two, three years ago, ESPN would have been on the phone offering $300M a year when the Apple deal was imploding.

They're less willing to spend money than they have been.
The whole premise is ESPN making the strategic decision that spending marginal dollars to pick up marginal product isn't going to drive ESPN Mothership subscriptions. Moving away from a model where filling every fall Saturday window on ABC/ ESPN / 2/ U / SECn / ACCn was a necessity, to a model where the question is "how many subscriptions does this content bring, how many subscriptions drop if we lose this content."

ESPN dropping the ACC contract in 2027 would be a much more penny-pinching move than we've ever seen from them. But I keep coming back around to the suspicion -- why did ESPN bother to build in an option, all the way back in 2016? I don't think they'd ever done anythign like that before. What did they know then that we didn't know? What do they know now that we don't know?

We might wake up tomorrow to the news that ESPN has picked up the option and made all of these speculations moot. I think that's the most likely outcome. But.....

(12-26-2023 09:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  It is interesting to me that ESPN hasn't exercised this option.

I have believed for a long time, and said as much, that the ACC, like IMO the SEC, signed a poor deal in 2010, and have mistakenly doubled-down on that poor deal since, extending it out to 2036. Basically, that like the SEC, the ACC signed a deal circa 2010 that quickly became undervalued relative to what the open market of the moment would pay.

I am not sure about that at all these days. The current ACC deal is paying about $32m in media money to the ACC, with that likely to rise to around $40m a year in the coming five years. IMO, if the ACC were free to go to market right now, totally unencumbered, it seems to me that they would likely get something pretty similar to what they are getting right now. Maybe a smidge of an increase but not much of one.

So it seems to me that the deals the ACC has been operating under for several years is not a bad deal financially for the conference. It is bad for the top dog brands, in that they, who can make more elsewhere, are bound to it by a GOR. But the various ACC admins from 2010 forward have signed deals that are very reasonable financially for the conference on a per-school basis. Not "low ball" deals.

Just MO. Which I reserve the right to change, LOL.

In contrast, I still think the SEC deals since 2008 are "bad" for the conference in the financial sense, that the SEC could be making significantly more if it were to go to market freely right now. Even the deal signed in 2019, the ESPN deal that replaces the old CBS deal next year, was IMO signed prematurely and would be worth more if negotiated now.

And yet, ironically, the SEC seems totally happy with its deal. IMO, this is the power of relativism.

SEC teams haven't been as reliant on media revenue because the SEC has bigger donors and substantially more revenue from ticket sales and concessions than any other conference.

I agree that it is very uncertain whether the current ACC deal is undervalued in the current market. Even with all its members staying put, I doubt they command more than the Big12. Their network revenue buoys their payout considerably. If ESPN were to decline to renew its media deal past 2027, they would still be half owner of the ACCN, unless the agreement giving them that option also involves ceding their share of the ACCN to a successor media partner or to the ACC itself. At this point, we don't fully know what the terms of that agreement are.

Whether the ACCN would be as lucrative to another media company that doesn't have as many channels to offer as ESPN does is an open question.

(12-26-2023 09:26 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 08:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 08:18 AM)Crayton Wrote:  The ramifications of ESPN walking are that the 18-team ACC would try and hawk its wares to other networks. Maybe they could get a smidge more money, but if the largest player in the market (ESPN) thinks you are too expensive (or they are too broke), it’ll be hard to find 2 others that’ll drive up the price.

The ACC would be approached by Apple. The ACC (with FSU) has more upside than the Pac-12 had, so an Apple deal may be more likely to make bank for them.

ESPN turned a 2 billion dollar profit last year. They ain't broke! It was the rest of Disney that had issues.

They're not broke, but they're a declining business who has been deviating from their historically free-spending ways. OTherwise the PAC-10 would still be a conference -- two, three years ago, ESPN would have been on the phone offering $300M a year when the Apple deal was imploding.

They're less willing to spend money than they have been.
The whole premise is ESPN making the strategic decision that spending marginal dollars to pick up marginal product isn't going to drive ESPN Mothership subscriptions. Moving away from a model where filling every fall Saturday window on ABC/ ESPN / 2/ U / SECn / ACCn was a necessity, to a model where the question is "how many subscriptions does this content bring, how many subscriptions drop if we lose this content."

ESPN dropping the ACC contract in 2027 would be a much more penny-pinching move than we've ever seen from them. But I keep coming back around to the suspicion -- why did ESPN bother to build in an option, all the way back in 2016? I don't think they'd ever done anythign like that before. What did they know then that we didn't know? What do they know now that we don't know?

We might wake up tomorrow to the news that ESPN has picked up the option and made all of these speculations moot. I think that's the most likely outcome. But.....

1. They aren't angering their #1 asset.
2. They aren't going to strengthen their #1 competitor.

The rest is Big 10 propaganda because they have an interest ACC schools. S.O.P. And there's a degree of likelihood that Apple partners up with ESPN. Oops!

(12-26-2023 09:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 09:26 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 08:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 08:18 AM)Crayton Wrote:  The ramifications of ESPN walking are that the 18-team ACC would try and hawk its wares to other networks. Maybe they could get a smidge more money, but if the largest player in the market (ESPN) thinks you are too expensive (or they are too broke), it’ll be hard to find 2 others that’ll drive up the price.

The ACC would be approached by Apple. The ACC (with FSU) has more upside than the Pac-12 had, so an Apple deal may be more likely to make bank for them.

ESPN turned a 2 billion dollar profit last year. They ain't broke! It was the rest of Disney that had issues.

They're not broke, but they're a declining business who has been deviating from their historically free-spending ways. OTherwise the PAC-10 would still be a conference -- two, three years ago, ESPN would have been on the phone offering $300M a year when the Apple deal was imploding.

They're less willing to spend money than they have been.
The whole premise is ESPN making the strategic decision that spending marginal dollars to pick up marginal product isn't going to drive ESPN Mothership subscriptions. Moving away from a model where filling every fall Saturday window on ABC/ ESPN / 2/ U / SECn / ACCn was a necessity, to a model where the question is "how many subscriptions does this content bring, how many subscriptions drop if we lose this content."

ESPN dropping the ACC contract in 2027 would be a much more penny-pinching move than we've ever seen from them. But I keep coming back around to the suspicion -- why did ESPN bother to build in an option, all the way back in 2016? I don't think they'd ever done anythign like that before. What did they know then that we didn't know? What do they know now that we don't know?

We might wake up tomorrow to the news that ESPN has picked up the option and made all of these speculations moot. I think that's the most likely outcome. But.....

1. They aren't angering their #1 asset.
2. They aren't going to strengthen their #1 competitor.

The rest is Big 10 propaganda because they have an interest ACC schools. S.O.P. And there's a degree of likelihood that Apple partners up with ESPN. Oops!

If (as is rumored) Disney finds a way to disentangle abc from espn, I think it's quite likely that the rumor that Apple wants espn, is true.

And I think that that would be good news for everyone.

The ACC deal is financially advantageous to ESPN and the Disney Shareholders. They get quality content for a cheap price.

(12-26-2023 09:44 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  The ACC deal is financially advantageous to ESPN and the Disney Shareholders. They get quality content for a cheap price.

And I think that that is still true, even if FSU and a partner leave. Even if 4 more leave, too.

(12-26-2023 04:31 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  My apologies if this has been addressed in another thread I couldn't find one on the subject alone. ESPN has a unilateral right to renew the media rights package or not with ACC starting in 2027 which they haven't signed off on yet. So essentially if they don't, ACC is sent scrambling to find a media rights partner or partners et al like the PAC. What are the chances ESPN decides to jettison the ACC and fit the wanted teams under the co-owned media right ESPN/FOX property B12? What would be the ramifications of such a action by ESPN?

If ESPN does not renew the ACC's media rights package in 2027, the ACC will still own FSU's media rights until 2036.

(12-26-2023 09:40 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 09:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 09:26 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 08:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 08:18 AM)Crayton Wrote:  The ramifications of ESPN walking are that the 18-team ACC would try and hawk its wares to other networks. Maybe they could get a smidge more money, but if the largest player in the market (ESPN) thinks you are too expensive (or they are too broke), it’ll be hard to find 2 others that’ll drive up the price.

The ACC would be approached by Apple. The ACC (with FSU) has more upside than the Pac-12 had, so an Apple deal may be more likely to make bank for them.

ESPN turned a 2 billion dollar profit last year. They ain't broke! It was the rest of Disney that had issues.

They're not broke, but they're a declining business who has been deviating from their historically free-spending ways. OTherwise the PAC-10 would still be a conference -- two, three years ago, ESPN would have been on the phone offering $300M a year when the Apple deal was imploding.

They're less willing to spend money than they have been.
The whole premise is ESPN making the strategic decision that spending marginal dollars to pick up marginal product isn't going to drive ESPN Mothership subscriptions. Moving away from a model where filling every fall Saturday window on ABC/ ESPN / 2/ U / SECn / ACCn was a necessity, to a model where the question is "how many subscriptions does this content bring, how many subscriptions drop if we lose this content."

ESPN dropping the ACC contract in 2027 would be a much more penny-pinching move than we've ever seen from them. But I keep coming back around to the suspicion -- why did ESPN bother to build in an option, all the way back in 2016? I don't think they'd ever done anythign like that before. What did they know then that we didn't know? What do they know now that we don't know?

We might wake up tomorrow to the news that ESPN has picked up the option and made all of these speculations moot. I think that's the most likely outcome. But.....

1. They aren't angering their #1 asset.
2. They aren't going to strengthen their #1 competitor.

The rest is Big 10 propaganda because they have an interest ACC schools. S.O.P. And there's a degree of likelihood that Apple partners up with ESPN. Oops!

If (as is rumored) Disney finds a way to disentangle abc from espn, I think it's quite likely that the rumor that Apple wants espn, is true.

And I think that that would be good news for everyone.

Apple/Google/Microsoft gaining more power is bad for everyone, not matter what field they expand in.

I think ESPN saw the market changing and so built in the option. Since the option had to be exercised in 2021, it wasn't that bad for the ACC. Now extending the option to 2025 without consideration was bad for the ACC.

(12-26-2023 09:04 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The ACC television deal is under market, so ESPN is not dropping it. This is precisely why Florida State wants out.

To better understand, the ACCN by itself pays for roughly 1/3 of the $30 million per school that ESPN pays ACC members. However, ESPN also gets an equal amount, which means that it is receiving $10 million per school from the cable companies. As a result its net cost for games that it shows on ESPN, ABC, etc., is only about $10 million per school per year. This includes the ACC Tournament, the ACC Championship Game, two UNC-Duke basketball games, 3-4 football games per week including multiple Thursday and Friday games, FSU-Clemson, 2-3 Notre Dame road games, and multiple SEC road games.

ESPN owns the AAC Network since it used to be ESPN Classic. They are not going to let any schools leave. People forget that part of the ACC Network. ESPN made the same offered to the PAC 12, and partnered them to be part owner of the PAC 12 Network? If they accepted then? The PAC 12 would be in a GORs deal and they would still be together.

Shouldn't this thread be titled "The Mouse in the Room"?

(12-26-2023 09:49 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 04:31 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  My apologies if this has been addressed in another thread I couldn't find one on the subject alone. ESPN has a unilateral right to renew the media rights package or not with ACC starting in 2027 which they haven't signed off on yet. So essentially if they don't, ACC is sent scrambling to find a media rights partner or partners et al like the PAC. What are the chances ESPN decides to jettison the ACC and fit the wanted teams under the co-owned media right ESPN/FOX property B12? What would be the ramifications of such a action by ESPN?

If ESPN does not renew the ACC's media rights package in 2027, the ACC will still own FSU's media rights until 2036.

Disgree. The ACC owns FSU media rights only as long as espn agreement with the conference is in place. That’s in the GOR. If espn does not exercise its unilateral option in 2027, FSU gets its rights back, the ACC goes back to negotiations.

(12-26-2023 09:49 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 04:31 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  My apologies if this has been addressed in another thread I couldn't find one on the subject alone. ESPN has a unilateral right to renew the media rights package or not with ACC starting in 2027 which they haven't signed off on yet. So essentially if they don't, ACC is sent scrambling to find a media rights partner or partners et al like the PAC. What are the chances ESPN decides to jettison the ACC and fit the wanted teams under the co-owned media right ESPN/FOX property B12? What would be the ramifications of such a action by ESPN?

If ESPN does not renew the ACC's media rights package in 2027, the ACC will still own FSU's media rights until 2036.

Yes.

I wish that this would be stickied to the top of the forum:

A grant of rights does NOT need to match the length of a TV deal.

A grant of rights does NOT need to match the length of a TV deal.

The Big Ten grant of rights is LONGER than the length of their TV deal.

The Big Ten grant of rights is LONGER than the length of their TV deal.

This whole discourse about the FSU and ACC is honestly making me want to gouge my eyes out over the past few days with so many terrible and flat out wrong statements about the law. It must be how like doctors feel when they get people challenging them on medical advice based on what Joe Rogan said on his podcast that day. People just want to believe what they want to believe because they want a particular outcome so badly even if it’s flat out wrong.