Being the Star Wars fan I am, Dish had better keep the Disney stations this September.
- Thread starter edisonprime
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 84
- Views 11K
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.
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.
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.
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.)
The fact that Nikes still cost $150, even though made by children and abused workers for next to nothing, is a shining example of how product pricing does not necessarily depend on labor cost.
How much do you folks think the guy gets paid who serves you that $10 beer at the stadium?
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 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!
Posted Using The New SatelliteGuys Reader App!
And that is why cord cutting is becoming very popular. They are not willing to pay for it any longer.
The number of cord cutters is increasing but the number of people that want their sports no matter what still outnumber them.
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.
Hate to disagree with you on this one. Paramount saturated TV (remember Next Gen and Deep Space Nine were on air at same time) and was pushing movies too quickly. People went into Star Trek overload. Ratings fell, the movies did not live up to fan expectations. That is why they never did another Next Gen movie or even one Voyager,Deep Space Nine or Enterprise movie. And I am speaking as a fan who went to many conventions and heard directly from so many actors what had happened.
This is my fear for Star Wars, they overload the public with Star Wars to the point people will just turn away. But I remain hopeful I am wrong, but with the reports coming from Disney I just don't know.
I agree also. My point is Star Wars will be another major leverage tool used by Disney. Just read the OP's title of the thread. Disney is not oblivious of this fact. This leverage can be used in many ways, fee increases or forced carrying of some other less desirable channels or both.
Yes I agree if Dish were to take down ESPN there will be major fallout. But you also realize there are those who could care less about sports and would just as agitated if Dish lost Disney.
I base my definition of competitiveness on the facts from this story.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/blog/_/name/stark_jayson/id/8908029/mlb-more-parity-nfl
I believe it provides clear evidence that having a salary cap doesn't make a sport more competitive.
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 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.
Actually, I think you should have representation and leverage and be able to negotiate over terms of employment with your boss. A lot of workers used to have that, in the form of unions, and unions are why businesses had to start providing living wages, paid vacations, health and pension benefits, 2 day weekends, 40 hour workweeks, etc.. Used to be you could be a one income household and raise a family, have a nice house in the suburbs, health benefits, a pension, a vacation every summer, and so on and so forth on that without a college degree. Now two incomes will barely get you an apartment in the ghetto and a salary you need to supplement with food stamps. Why? Because we don't have enough unions and laws protecting unions and encouraging the organization of unions anymore. Big corporations run the show and the little people suffer.
Anyway, when it comes down to it, professional athletes don't completely dictate what they make. Let's say there were no sports unions and owners paid athletes middle class incomes. Take a guy like Joe Flacco, the quarterback for the Super Bowl Champion Baltimore Ravens. He generates probably $30-$40 million dollars in revenue for his team and his league, easy. If the NFL were to decide to only let the Ravens and their other teams pay him and players like him $30,000 a year, you know what would happen? Another league would pop up and pay him and guys like him $10,000,000 or $20,000,000 each to sign with one of their teams. That new league would suddenly be the one that packed stadiums and got the good television ratings, and soon they'd be raising ticket prices and getting big bucks for their television contracts and so forth. Basically, the market dictates that these players are worth big money. They generate big money for their employers with their unique skill set. Not just anyone can do what they do. If the leagues that currently exist were to stop paying them, new leagues would pop and pay them well because there'd be money to be made in doing so, and those new leagues would supplant the old ones as the acknowledged top level of competition and in the minds and hearts of the fans, unless the old leagues started spending money again to compete for the services of the players people want to watch.
If a family has two incomes and can barely afford an apartment in the ghetto then I think it's time to move out of the city and into a smaller town where living expenses are more affordable. If a family can't afford to live in a city why not move to another?
