How TV's Sports Addiction Could Destroy Its Business

VideoEagle · October 7, 2014

I saw this article referenced in a broadcasters email I get. The cost of sports rights is getting so high a number of broadcasters are starting to question if it can be sustained. The average cost of a pay-tv bill is up 188% since 1995, but family incomes are only up 5%.

It's certainly going to be interesting when the CUSA and other rights come up for renewal next time. The automatic assumption that it will just increase by millions can't be sustained for ever!

Here's the article.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · October 7, 2014

I think that the network - whichever one wants to own the rights to Sun Belt, Sr. televised games - will pretty much dictate to Banowsky the terms of the deal. That is something I will pretty much guarantee.

untjim1995 · October 7, 2014

I think that the network - whichever one wants to own the rights to Sun Belt, Sr. televised games - will pretty much dictate to Banowsky the terms of the deal. That is something I will pretty much guarantee.

I totally agree here. I'm not sure there's much he or anyone else can do about it, but they will try to maximize the dollars for whatever content they can provide. I'd pretty much expect that CUSA conference games on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday nights will become a regular, just like the MAC and the SBC do.

Of course, if the G5 actually went in together--I know its a crazy thought--maybe they could actually build a better TV contract for all of them. Hell, maybe they could actually build a better set of CONFERENCES and a better playoff system than the Criminal 5 will do.

Oh, never mind...

ColoradoEagle · October 7, 2014

Networks have been hit hard over the past few years. DVRs are near ubiquitous in homes with cable, so it's hard to sell spots during non-sports events. Lots of people spend a lot of time on Netflix, which means no eyes whatsoever.

I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop. Either some of these networks are going to get dropped/go under to balance out cable bills, or Netflix/Hulu are going to have a dramatic price increase. Maybe both.

Cerebus · October 7, 2014

What else are they going to replace it with? Sports is the only thing younger audiences don't dvr, stream or pirate. It's the only thing people watch live, and therefore the only thing they have to watch commercials on.

VideoEagle · October 8, 2014

What else are they going to replace it with? Sports is the only thing younger audiences don't dvr, stream or pirate. It's the only thing people watch live, and therefore the only thing they have to watch commercials on.

At some point, the number of viewers for an ESPN3 game are going to equal those for a broadcast. When that happens - and it's still a way down the road - then the schools themselves will start marketing their games directly to viewers. For a P5 school like Texas or Notre Dame, they can actually make more money doing that than by selling their rights to a network. Don't forget the schools can sell ads in the games themselves in addition to $5 to $10 a game that streams cleanly on your device of choice.

I guarantee the pro leagues are already investigating and testing the technology. When it happens, the whole pay-tv structure is going to be in trouble. If I can stream it, why pay for both TV AND internet?

ColoradoEagle · October 8, 2014

Netflix, Hulu, HDTV antenna, and borrowing the parents' cable login info for WatchESPN means I'm done with cable once the contract runs out in a couple months. Missing some Mavs and Stars games is a small price to pay for saving about $80 a month. Even if someone only has an antenna, there's still way more sports over the air on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays all year long than most people can watch.

That 188% inflation really is astounding.

Edited October 8, 2014 by ColoradoEagle

MeanMag · October 8, 2014

Netflix, Hulu, HDTV antenna, and borrowing the parents' cable login info for WatchESPN means I'm done with cable once the contract runs out in a couple months. Missing some Mavs and Stars games is a small price to pay for saving about $80 a month. Even if someone only has an antenna, there's still way more sports over the air on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays all year long than most people can watch.

That 188% inflation really is astounding.

Already finished with cable. Mean Green on TXA 21 and a watching party for cable shows at local establishments is cheaper than paying for crap I don't watch.

Best decision I've made in a while.

oldguystudent · October 8, 2014

Already finished with cable. Mean Green on TXA 21 and a watching party for cable shows at local establishments is cheaper than paying for crap I don't watch.

Best decision I've made in a while.

Cut cable five or six years ago. Even then, it was an easy decision. My kid told me the DVR wasn't working. I asked how long it had been, and she told me something like four or five months. I watched so little television, I had no idea that my cable wasn't even working.

Now with digital antenna, Netflix, and Amazon Prime, along with ESPN3 through the Roku, there is very little that I care about on subscription television.

Like you, I can always hop a train to Eastside if I wanna watch a road game. I'd much rather give my disposable income to John Williams in exchange for beer than Time Warner/COX/Comcast in exchange for shitty service and arbitrary rape you in the butt fee increases (not to mention the TWO YEARS of shitty wouldn't stay on for more than five minutes internet).

Outside of the fantasy football geeks, I don't think the younger generation is very far behind me. The cable model isn't sustainable in an a la carte on demand world, professional dancing animated steroid robots or no.

The big question for me is how that ultimately affects the big boys like the SEC And B1G. They will get so unsustainably expensive to consume that I can't see anybody outside Ohio or Louisiana caring, so where will those millions in ad revenue come from?