Double-plus like.It was JJ Abrams (and Robert Orci & Alex Kurtzman) that killed Star Trek, not Paramount.
Double-plus like.It was JJ Abrams (and Robert Orci & Alex Kurtzman) that killed Star Trek, not Paramount.
No doubt this is the fault of all those pro athletes that demand those high contracts that they don't deserve. Please thank them all you can, that is why I don't watch pro sports. They say they love the fans but they don't care if their little extra that means nothing to them costs you your job. The same thing can be said about college coaches' salaries.
I don't for an instant blame the players. I don't say that because I think they are as a group less greedy than the owners or anything like that. I simply say it because basic economics dictate that if the owners can charge a fortune for tickets, merchandise, and television rights and sell them all, they will, regardless of underlying costs. So, in the realm of TV, if the players didn't get paid a dime, I fully believe that the NFL would ask for the same rights fees from television networks and get them, and that television networks would ask for the same rights fees from television providers and get them. The only difference would be that the money that is now going to the players who work, sweat, toil, and put their health on the line to provide your entertainment would be taken away from them and used to provide some extra gold for the billionaire owners to add to their vaults and swim in ala Scrooge McDuck on Ducktales.
Real world evidence? Look at college football and college basketball. The players get nothing in salary, except for a free college education, a dorm room, and probably text books and an on-campus meal plan, if you want to count those things. Television rights fees for those products are still very high, and networks pay them and then ask for higher rights fees from providers. Personally, I'd rather see the players I am actually indirectly paying to watch via my television bill get a share of the money like they do in the pros.
By the way, does anyone know the exact date the contract between ESPN/Disney/ABC and Dish expires? Is it all of their channels, or just some of them? This would be helpful to know as I contemplate how to juggle my bills and plan out which provider makes the most sense for me at what time. I won't pay for a television service that doesn't include the ESPN family of networks.
This may be one of the best posts I've seen you make on here Hanover. LOL. You make a solid point and I would not pay for a television service that doesn't provide the ESPN family as well.
The only way I would consider staying with a provider that didn't have them is if my bill dropped $20 and I could get just the ESPN channels by alone through another device for $20 or less.
I don't for an instant blame the players. I don't say that because I think they are as a group less greedy than the owners or anything like that. I simply say it because basic economics dictate that if the owners can charge a fortune for tickets, merchandise, and television rights and sell them all, they will, regardless of underlying costs. So, in the realm of TV, if the players didn't get paid a dime, I fully believe that the NFL would ask for the same rights fees from television networks and get them, and that television networks would ask for the same rights fees from television providers and get them. The only difference would be that the money that is now going to the players who work, sweat, toil, and put their health on the line to provide your entertainment would be taken away from them and used to provide some extra gold for the billionaire owners to add to their vaults and swim in ala Scrooge McDuck on Ducktales.
Real world evidence? Look at college football and college basketball. The players get nothing in salary, except for a free college education, a dorm room, and probably text books and an on-campus meal plan, if you want to count those things. Television rights fees for those products are still very high, and networks pay them and then ask for higher rights fees from providers. Personally, I'd rather see the players I am actually indirectly paying to watch via my television bill get a share of the money like they do in the pros.
By the way, does anyone know the exact date the contract between ESPN/Disney/ABC and Dish expires? Is it all of their channels, or just some of them? This would be helpful to know as I contemplate how to juggle my bills and plan out which provider makes the most sense for me at what time. I won't pay for a television service that doesn't include the ESPN family of networks.
It's like blaming the high cost or poor quality of American automobiles on the "exorbitant" wages of union workers. (as if $20-something an hour was Thurston Howell III income.)I agree with you completely. Anyone who believes the cost of sports programming is significantly affected by the salaries of the professional athletes lacks an understanding of basic economic principles.
As long as there are people, like one poster earlier in this thread, who "can't live without college football" or some other sport, there will be companies like ESPN, leagues like the NFL, and teams like the Yankees, that will squeeze the fans every which way they can to wring out another drop of cash.The prices will increase as long as people are willing to pay it.
The prices will increase as long as people are willing to pay it.
The fact remains that tv rights and tickets were much more in line when the salaries were. I am not saying they should not get paid well they have gotten way out of hand and yes that is the problem. I am not leaving the owners blameless, they need to police themselves and have a cap per player, not just per team.
Posted Using The New SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Define "competitive". (Not arguing. Just want to know more.)Obviously you don't have an understanding of basic economic principles. It can be argued that the increase in player salaries is a result of the massive increases in ownership revenues not the other way around. As a side note, the NBA does have a cap on individual player salaries and I would wager to guess that ticket prices for the NBA have increased the most while at the same time from a competitive standpoint the NBA is the least competitive of the major sports. Baseball has little to no salary cap restrictions and yet it is the most competitive of the major sports. Yes, statistics show baseball is more competitive than the NFL.
It was JJ Abrams (and Robert Orci & Alex Kurtzman) that killed Star Trek, not Paramount.
I'm in agreement with Scott on the subject. Both Disney and Dish need each other. It would not be in either's interest to drop any channels. ESPN is the major leverage here, not Star Wars. I know there is a huge Star Wars fan base but it's not because of the cartoon series. I love Star Wars too but I would not leave Dish because I couldn't watch the series on TV. I can find other ways to watch that show. I can not find any other way to watch football unless I go to the game though. If they lose ESPN expect a major fallout.
Define "competitive". (Not arguing. Just want to know more.)
Obviously you don't have an understanding of basic economic principles. It can be argued that the increase in player salaries is a result of the massive increases in ownership revenues not the other way around. As a side note, the NBA does have a cap on individual player salaries and I would wager to guess that ticket prices for the NBA have increased the most while at the same time from a competitive standpoint the NBA is the least competitive of the major sports. Baseball has little to no salary cap restrictions and yet it is the most competitive of the major sports. Yes, statistics show baseball is more competitive than the NFL.
I think I understand economic principles fine, what you don't get is that the players are the hired help! I don't have an agent to meet with my boss and tell him what I will work for, I know what the pay is and gladly take it so I can eat, (I like to do that. ) The players dictate what they make and that is wrong. Before you say, no they don't, have you ever seen them strike and then talk about how they love the fans while all those dependent on them playing suffer and lose jobs, while they have the money to weather the storm. I believe what we have here is a philosophical disagreement about how a business runs. I am not a union guy and don't support them maybe you do, I don't know, but the players' unions have ruined pro sports and that is why I don't watch them anymore.
I don't have an agent to meet with my boss and tell him what I will work for, I know what the pay is and gladly take it so I can eat, (I like to do that. ) The players dictate what they make and that is wrong.