03-11-2017, 01:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-11-2017, 04:07 PM by OutsiderFan.)
Perhaps you posted the link, BC, in hopes you might see some intelligent responses to the issues raised in the story? My gawd, what pitiful display of replies. Not any of them focused on the business issues, just a bunch of ranting and raving over ESPN being too political, errr, I'm sorry, too liberal. Yes, the anthem protest is why ESPN is hurting, SMH...
Anyway, this has been predictable for a long time. Like I used to say when Garvin was around and would post on this topic, the reality is the value of being a distributor is not high anymore. The value is owning the content people want to see, and today anyone can be a distributor. ESPN is not needed. But there is a tradeoff. As the cable TV distribution model goes the way of the newspaper business, rights holders will be in a better position than distributors like ESPN, because they have content to directly sell to end consumers - like me who want to get the Pac-12 Network without a cable subscription. However, it is also a fact that revenues will fall for rights holder as those guaranteed subscriber fees from ESPN evaporate.
Many have lamented the Pac-12 Networks not delivering the same revenue for schools as the Big Ten in particular. But as you see this slow motion train wreck happening to the cable rights market, the Pac-12 won't be in a place where it has become dependent and made financial commitments based on exorbitant cable rights fees that are going to evaporate. The Big Ten is going to be in a world of hurt, as will other leagues and their teams.
This is a classic bubble situation and the victims will be many, as the chain reaction of the cable TV model breaking down impacts first ESPN, then leagues, then teams, then coaches, administrators and athletes. But at the end of the day, I think it's justified. I mean I wonder how many professional athletes realize how much of their salary is being paid by people who don't even know who they are, let alone if given a choice wouldn't be paying them for what they do? My guess is a lot, and when that's the case the market isn't equitable. Pro athletes are not getting paid what the market says they are worth, really. They are getting paid what a rigged market says they are worth. Only when cord cutting has ended the cable TV model, will sports properties and athletes be paid their true market value; whatever they can earn based on what people actually are willing to voluntarily pay to consume their product
Anyway, this has been predictable for a long time. Like I used to say when Garvin was around and would post on this topic, the reality is the value of being a distributor is not high anymore. The value is owning the content people want to see, and today anyone can be a distributor. ESPN is not needed. But there is a tradeoff. As the cable TV distribution model goes the way of the newspaper business, rights holders will be in a better position than distributors like ESPN, because they have content to directly sell to end consumers - like me who want to get the Pac-12 Network without a cable subscription. However, it is also a fact that revenues will fall for rights holder as those guaranteed subscriber fees from ESPN evaporate.
Many have lamented the Pac-12 Networks not delivering the same revenue for schools as the Big Ten in particular. But as you see this slow motion train wreck happening to the cable rights market, the Pac-12 won't be in a place where it has become dependent and made financial commitments based on exorbitant cable rights fees that are going to evaporate. The Big Ten is going to be in a world of hurt, as will other leagues and their teams.
This is a classic bubble situation and the victims will be many, as the chain reaction of the cable TV model breaking down impacts first ESPN, then leagues, then teams, then coaches, administrators and athletes. But at the end of the day, I think it's justified. I mean I wonder how many professional athletes realize how much of their salary is being paid by people who don't even know who they are, let alone if given a choice wouldn't be paying them for what they do? My guess is a lot, and when that's the case the market isn't equitable. Pro athletes are not getting paid what the market says they are worth, really. They are getting paid what a rigged market says they are worth. Only when cord cutting has ended the cable TV model, will sports properties and athletes be paid their true market value; whatever they can earn based on what people actually are willing to voluntarily pay to consume their product