[crackpot]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...r-contract

Infuriating look at NCAA's contract with CBS and how it makes it impossible for women's sports to turn a profit (despite eye-popping increases in viewership).

[crackpot]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...r-contract

Infuriating look at NCAA's contract with CBS and how it makes it impossible for women's sports to turn a profit (despite eye-popping increases in viewership).

[BobK]

Thank you for posting this.

[BobK]

Thank you for posting this.

[Jskass]

and the NCAA just extended him....got to go or women create own league.

[Jskass]

and the NCAA just extended him....got to go or women create own league.

[CTcard]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...r-contract



Infuriating look at NCAA's contract with CBS and how it makes it impossible for women's sports to turn a profit (despite eye-popping increases in viewership).

I didn't quite understand the specific complaint here.

It appears the main complaint was in this paragraph,

As part of the previously unknown terms, when the NCAA gave CBS-Turner broad exclusive rights to the men’s hoops championship, it also gave it the corporate sponsorship sales for all 90 NCAA championships. Get this: CBS gets to keep the revenue from 18 so-called “NCAA corporate champions,” such as AT&T and Coca-Cola, which comes to about $200 million, as part of the basketball contract. Yet these companies get to advertise all over women’s basketball, softball, volleyball, gymnastics and other championships as a throw-in.

I guess the complaint is that if corporate sponsorship sales were independent for each championship then the NCAA could raise more money total - is that it?

Or is it more specifically that by selling all the rights in one package the earnings are attributed to men's basketball instead of all the other sports?
(is it attributed in that way?)

[CTcard]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...r-contract



Infuriating look at NCAA's contract with CBS and how it makes it impossible for women's sports to turn a profit (despite eye-popping increases in viewership).

I didn't quite understand the specific complaint here.

It appears the main complaint was in this paragraph,

As part of the previously unknown terms, when the NCAA gave CBS-Turner broad exclusive rights to the men’s hoops championship, it also gave it the corporate sponsorship sales for all 90 NCAA championships. Get this: CBS gets to keep the revenue from 18 so-called “NCAA corporate champions,” such as AT&T and Coca-Cola, which comes to about $200 million, as part of the basketball contract. Yet these companies get to advertise all over women’s basketball, softball, volleyball, gymnastics and other championships as a throw-in.

I guess the complaint is that if corporate sponsorship sales were independent for each championship then the NCAA could raise more money total - is that it?

Or is it more specifically that by selling all the rights in one package the earnings are attributed to men's basketball instead of all the other sports?
(is it attributed in that way?)

[BostonCard]

Or is it more specifically that by selling all the rights in one package the earnings are attributed to men's basketball instead of all the other sports?
(is it attributed in that way?)

I believe that is the complaint.  Since it is part of the men's basketball contract, it makes it look like men's basketball is more profitable than it actually is, while the women's sports look less profitable.

BC

[BostonCard]

Or is it more specifically that by selling all the rights in one package the earnings are attributed to men's basketball instead of all the other sports?
(is it attributed in that way?)

I believe that is the complaint.  Since it is part of the men's basketball contract, it makes it look like men's basketball is more profitable than it actually is, while the women's sports look less profitable.

BC

[old spanish trail]

Yep, BC

[old spanish trail]

Yep, BC