Why are we still paying so much for sports?

[ncted]

No Live Sports on TV? Consumers Want a Refund (Published 2020)

Some providers break out sports fees on bills. With seasons on pause because of the coronavirus, it’s another reminder to customers of what they’re paying for but not getting.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

The channels have a contract with providers for a set price, and the providers have to pay that amount.

I have not heard of any TV provider being told by any sports station they can pay less as there is no sports going on.

 

[ncted]

The channels have a contract with providers for a set price, and the providers have to pay that amount.

I have not heard of any TV provider being told by any sports station they can pay less as there is no sports going on.

I'm sure it all comes down to contracts, but people are starting to ask why they are paying so much money to get sports when there are no sports. This will likely push a lot more people to rethink their current package or provider, especially in the coming belt-tightening that seems inevitable at this point.

 

[rvvaquero]

Nope, this absence of sports is just making me appreciate sports even more. I never realized how much I looked forward to seeing the next game or tournament or event. I never watched a whole lot of TV, but sports were a big part of what I did watch.

 

[osu1991]

It will be interesting to see what happens with Sinclair and Comcast as those RSN contracts comes up soon. Sinclair has no product to offer and if Comcast walks, they may find like Dish, that they don't need the RSN's once sports do resume.

 

[dishdude]

I would love to see ESPN and the RSNs put in an optional "Sports Pack".

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I would love to see ESPN and the RSNs put in an optional "Sports Pack".

ESPN's contract forbids that. As they know if this was the case they would lose a majority of their income.

Dish looked at doing that before and a Disney said hell no.


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[dishdude]

ESPN's contract forbids that. As they know if this was the case they would lose a majority of their income.

Dish looked at doing that before and a Disney said hell no.


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

That's what really ticks me off and is a real driver at the cost of programming. Last I checked, I think ESPN was about $7/mo and they insisted it be in the base package. Something has to give here, might be time to drop all the Disney channels from Dish.

 

[olds403]

Gotta love the Flex pack, was able to do away with ESPN altogether.

 

[Yespage]

The channels have a contract with providers for a set price, and the providers have to pay that amount.

I have not heard of any TV provider being told by any sports station they can pay less as there is no sports going on.

Actually, that might become a problem soonish. After all, they aren't getting commercial revenue for the sports they aren't showing. Channel pays to show baseball, but there is no baseball to show. I'm sure the network lawyers on top of that. I doubt this will trickle down to the subs, but networks are paying for stuff they aren't able to show.

First world problems, but it is a high dollar one.

 

[bnewt]

I would love to see ESPN and the RSNs put in an optional "Sports Pack".

I can understand why you would say that if you don't watch or enjoy sports...….but what if people that don't watch CNN, Fox News or those channels said the same thing. They are paying for channels they don't watch or enjoy. Every consumer can say that.

My problem is the continual battles in the name of "keeping prices low". IMO, all that does is allow Dish to raise their fees & create new ones. Yet they never drop our prices when a channel is dropped or goes off the air. They have finally added some more of the movie channels in HD, which is great, but those like me that were RSN viewers, I would like for them to come back. Of course now it really doesn't matter, but hopefully it will soon

 

[dishdude]

I can understand why you would say that if you don't watch or enjoy sports...….but what if people that don't watch CNN, Fox News or those channels said the same thing. They are paying for channels they don't watch or enjoy. Every consumer can say that.

My problem is the continual battles in the name of "keeping prices low". IMO, all that does is allow Dish to raise their fees & create new ones. Yet they never drop our prices when a channel is dropped or goes off the air. They have finally added some more of the movie channels in HD, which is great, but those like me that were RSN viewers, I would like for them to come back. Of course now it really doesn't matter, but hopefully it will soon

If the price of the sports channels were in line with other channels, that would be one thing. ESPN and the RSNs are prohibitively expensive and demand to be in the base packages.

 

[mwdxer1]

I'm sure it all comes down to contracts, but people are starting to ask why they are paying so much money to get sports when there are no sports. This will likely push a lot more people to rethink their current package or provider, especially in the coming belt-tightening that seems inevitable at this point.

As mentioned Dish is still under contracts and we have the choice either to stay or move. I don't like paying for any sports, but if I want the rest of the channels in my packages I am stuck to pay it.

 

[dare2be]

Dish looked at doing that before and a Disney said hell no.

Then how did Dish get away with the National Action Pack add on? ESPN, ESPN2 are both in there.

 

[ncted]

Actually, that might become a problem soonish. After all, they aren't getting commercial revenue for the sports they aren't showing. Channel pays to show baseball, but there is no baseball to show. I'm sure the network lawyers on top of that. I doubt this will trickle down to the subs, but networks are paying for stuff they aren't able to show.

First world problems, but it is a high dollar one.

As I understand it, the sports leagues don't get paid for broadcasts of games they don't play, so the Sports channels might be losing ad revenue, but they aren't having to pay big bucks to the leagues either. All the while, the channels are still getting money from carriage fees that cable and satellite customers pay.

 

[krynn]

I would love to see ESPN and the RSNs put in an optional "Sports Pack".

same here i know a few people that would love to get the the ultimate from dtv but want no sports...

 

[Joe h]

As I understand it, the sports leagues don't get paid for broadcasts of games they don't play, so the Sports channels might be losing ad revenue, but they aren't having to pay big bucks to the leagues either. All the while, the channels are still getting money from carriage fees that cable and satellite customers pay.

Mlb, nba, and the nhl may issue a discount in the future when the tv rights are negotiated, due to the cancelled games, but the leagues are 100% getting paid regardless if a game is played or not. Same with the nfl and nascar deal.

 

[ChadT41]

It has been said on this site multiple times over the many years.

Sports channels, they are different than most other channels. They want to be paid premium prices, while available in every major package. The reason people are saying to change that designation is that they either get paid in line with the other channels, or they take a premium status and go into their own package. It's not like the USA network in all packages, but only makes $0.76/subscriber. Same with the Spanish, and other channels. They take a low amount to be placed in packages with larger bases. This is the EXACT reason HBO is off Dish. They want paid for subscribers that do not exist(their minimum) and then paid for any over that minimum. It's be easier to say "what is an annual cost you need, and we can sell it to everyone for a broken down cost to all in the packages". They don't want that either. So many solutions, and Dish is leading the way of telling them that only a reasonable one will be entertained.


Haven't heard much on Orby lately, how has their growth come along?

 

[rvvaquero]

Haven't heard much on Orby lately, how has their growth come along?

Last I heard, they had 13 subscribers and 7 who were considering it.

 

[SamCdbs]

When all of this is over, lawyers and insurance companies will figure all of this out. Whether leagues and athletes get paid in full will be among the issues sorted out. If you remember back in 1980 when Carter boycotted the Olympics, NBC had this insurance policy that covered the whole deal and during one of the baseball strikes, the owners (BTW, if you want sports costs to go down, understand that labor is by far the highest cost factor) had strike insurance and were covered.

Reading between the lines I would bet that the winter sports (NBA and NHL) have to be played to a conclusion in order to get the bulk of their money, which is why they are so hellbent on playing in July or August. Baseball probably has to play a certain number of games and come to a conclusion as well, which is why they are discussing playing into winter. The truly odd one is NASCAR, which if you don't follow that sport has shed 2/3rds of its fans since its signed its last TV contract and thus, unlike most other sports, is not going to get more money in the next one. Thus it wants to run two or even three races per week to get a full season of payments.

Here is the main point. Just as there is a sports drought now, there is a coming sports glut. ASSUME everything is about normal by, say mid-July. The 1000 pound gorilla in the room is the NFL and its little brother in most of the country is college football. A lot of spring and summer sports are going to try to take on football and may find that the networks have not as much interest in some event, say the Kentucky Derby or Indy 500 or even The Masters, during football season.