DIRECTV unlikely to keep NFL Sunday Ticket

[SamCdbs]

Using the number of people with an antenna as somehow relevant shows either a fundamental lack of understanding of how the TV business works or a desire to find numbers that support a prediction that is proving false.

If you pay for the OTA channels, as most people do, either via cable or DBS or internet, you still get OTA TV, the most important part of TV, where the number of viewers of even a moderately successful show blow away any one particular melodrama on streaming.

Like AM radio, whose demise has been predicted for 70 years, OTA TV will adapt and survive for many decades to come. As will linear TV in all forms and delivery methods.

The 85% of people who have broadband number is significant only in the fact that it is way more than the number of people who have even one streamer. And WAY more than the number of people who live on only streaming. Because the number of people who want the goodness of linear TV is still huge. The vast majority. Meanwhile a handful of people wish oh wish that streaming did things it doesn’t, and never will, do. It is, for the vast majority, simply what HBO was 30 years ago. A nice supplement. In fact, the only major difference is that almost all streamers have never made a cent in profit.

As to Sunday Ticket, and its little brother, hopefully Amazon can get the audio and video in sync for the regular season.

 

[Bruce]

In the NFL's new contract they are getting $10 billion a year from Fox, CBS, ESPN and Amazon (NFLST will add another 2-3 billion on top of that)

I know all that, just comparing what the Networks each paid the NFL vs the Big Ten.

The Big Ten's contract was not too high,

It was too high since there is no nationwide appeal, for example, BTN channel is nation wide, in Big Ten Viewing Areas, the per sub fee is more and out of market is less ( in 2018, some estimates of their in-footprint and out-of-footprint per-subscriber fees came in at $1 and $0.39 respectively.)

Maybe the appeal will change when USC and UCLA enter the Big Ten.

it went up because sports rights have continued to go up - because that's about the only thing people will watch live anymore.

I have always said that the Rights go up every time the contracts are up.

The sports leagues are not going to get what they want out of ESPN and the likes anymore because of decreased revenues, so now they turn to Streaming ( or a hybrid model) to get the increases, the next big deal should be NFLST which will be streaming only ( except for businesses), what will the next deal be after that and who with.

 

[Juan]

Look at what Apple is doing with their big MLS contract they just signed. A sprinkling of national regular season games will be included in their general entertainment Apple TV+ service (and, IDK, maybe playoff/championship games too?). But for all the other games (the entire league, not just your local team), you'll need to buy their specific MLS package.

We'll see all the major sports league (except maybe NFL) do something similar: put a few regular season games, plus the big championship/playoffs (e.g. World Series), in a general entertainment service, satisfying casual fans. But for the hard-core fans of the sport, they'll have to pony up to buy access to all those regular-season games through a dedicated service/package (i.e. the replacement for today's RSNs, except divided out by league/sport). And it'll be pretty expensive, because that's a lot of games spread out over far fewer subs than the big services like Disney+ and Netflix will have.

I don't see much space for something like ESPN with a hodge-podge of select regular season games from various sports. Who's that supposed to appeal to? You never want to be caught in the middle and that's where ESPN is. It's not for casual sports fans (who will be served through the big general entertainment/variety apps they already get anyway). But it's also not for the big fans of any particular sport/league either.

Apple needs to make money on that contract before they can brag

 

[NashGuy]

Heck I'll bet most 20 somethings don't even know OTA exists and is free, they see "TV" as streaming and wouldn't be interested in watching TV in a way that required them be there at a certain time to watch something or miss it.

Yup, totally agree. Heck, a few years back my neighbors much older than me (in their 60s) saw me fooling with my OTA antenna and asked what it was. When I explained what I was doing, they seemed surprised to learn that free OTA TV still exists!

 

[NashGuy]

What happens to the local affliates?..local news...local commercials etc etc

Local commercials have, for a few years now, been inserted into various national streaming apps, both free (e.g. Pluto TV) and paid (e.g. Hulu).

As for local stations and their newscasts, the great majority of them across the country are already putting their content, live and/or on-demand, on one or more free app. Many have their own branded apps (as two of my local Nashville stations do) while others put their content into one or more apps alongside other local stations from across the country (as another of my local stations does by putting their full newscasts in the NewsOn and Stirr apps).

Except for those major market affiliates actually owned by the networks (e.g. New York's WABC, LA's KNBC, etc.), local stations understand that some years down the road they'll be existing solo, no longer connected to the big networks. Instead, to the extent that they feature national content, it will come from their national station group owner, e.g. Nexstar, Sinclair, Gray, etc. (Note that Nexstar already owns the NewsNation cable net, which was formerly WGN America, and they're buying majority ownership of The CW network now.)

 

[NashGuy]

Found this on Reddit about the Big Ten Deal—

Fox will carry 24-32 football games per season during the agreement, while NBC will carry 14-16 games on its linear network and eight games per year on Peacock. Beginning in 2024, CBS will carry 14-15 Big Ten games per season, including a number to be determined of games on Paramount+.

CBS does not start up until 2024 because of it’s deal with the SEC, which expires after the 2023 season.

I am not a big fan of this, while this deal does indicate a start in our change over to streaming, I was hoping to be rid of paid Live TV, I will still need BTN if I wish to watch every Michigan game, the games on the Networks I can get via antenna and streaming, I will have to keep Peacock ( planned on getting rid of it after my discounted year was up, never use the service).

Assuming all the current services still exist come 2024, you'd need to keep Peacock Premium to get the NBC games plus the Peacock exclusive ones and you'd need to keep Paramount+ to get the CBS games plus any Paramount+ exclusive ones.

The problem, of course, is Fox, who doesn't own an SVOD where they stream their sports. They just operate their Tubi FAST app and give next-day access of entertainment shows to Hulu (and maybe Tubi too). You could use an OTA antenna to catch the Big 10 games airing on the main Fox network but not the ones they air on their cable nets like Big 10 Network and FS1.

But as cable subscriptions keep falling and total cable network revenue now appears to have crested and begun a secular decline, I keep saying that Fox is crazy not to meet consumers where they are and monetize whatever live streaming rights they hold for the sports they broadcast. Either sublicense those rights to another company (e.g. ESPN+, Apple TV+, Prime Video, etc.) or launch a paid "Tubi Sports Live" subscription tier in the otherwise free Tubi app that would offer live streams of their Sunday NFL games, their Big 10 sports, their MLB games, their NASCAR races, etc. They could easily charge $4-5/mo for it and it would also encourage more viewing of free ad-supported non-sports content in Tubi as well.

By keeping their live sports content exclusive to the cable bundle, Fox is leaving money on the table.

 

[televisionarchivesorlando]

Would it be safe to say that if Apple doesn't announce a deal with the NFL on the next Apple Event on September 7th, they're probably not going to get it?

 

[Bruce]

Assuming all the current services still exist come 2024, you'd need to keep Peacock Premium to get the NBC games plus the Peacock exclusive ones and you'd need to keep Paramount+ to get the CBS games plus any Paramount+ exclusive ones.

Paramount+ is handled, I am paid up with Gift Cards for 4 more years ( including Showtime).

Peacock, I am hoping for another deal( paid $30 for the year, Commercial Free), if not will cancel ( up in November)and see if they give me a Win back offer, Big Ten is the first thing on Peacock I want to watch, Universal TV has such a big content Library they could mine from, like how Paramount did with Star Trek, I am amazed they have not yet.

The problem, of course, is Fox, who doesn't own an SVOD where they stream their sports. They just operate their Tubi FAST app and give next-day access of entertainment shows to Hulu (and maybe Tubi too). You could use an OTA antenna to catch the Big 10 games airing on the main Fox network but not the ones they air on their cable nets like Big 10 Network and FS1.

If all the news stories are correct, no Big Ten on any Cable Channel except BTN, no FS1, no USA, etc, just Networks and Streaming.

But as cable subscriptions keep falling and total cable network revenue now appears to have crested and begun a secular decline, I keep saying that Fox is crazy not to meet consumers where they are and monetize whatever live streaming rights they hold for the sports they broadcast. Either sublicense those rights to another company (e.g. ESPN+, Apple TV+, Prime Video, etc.) or launch a paid "Tubi Sports Live" subscription tier in the otherwise free Tubi app that would offer live streams of their Sunday NFL games, their Big 10 sports, their MLB games, their NASCAR races, etc. They could easily charge $4-5/mo for it and it would also encourage more viewing of free ad-supported non-sports content in Tubi as well.

I have no idea if Fox secured the rights to put sports on a streaming service, either as a license or do it themselves, they might not of done it since they do not offer such a service.

By keeping their live sports content exclusive to the cable bundle, Fox is leaving money on the table.

Agreed.

I think the same of ESPN, they have lost billions ( over 3 billion) in per sub fees, as of now, almost $900 million in those fees are gone every year now, never coming back.

In the next 3 years they have no choice, they have to change ESPN+ to ESPN and offer the same content, raise the price to $15 (sweet spot for streaming) and hopefully some of the 62 million they do not have paid Live TV will go for it.

What other option do they have, in 3 years, another $2.5 Billion will be gone in per sub fees, that is assuming the numbers stay the same for those leaving Paid Live TV, I know they will increase.

 

[Juan]

Local commercials have, for a few years now, been inserted into various national streaming apps, both free (e.g. Pluto TV) and paid (e.g. Hulu).

As for local stations and their newscasts, the great majority of them across the country are already putting their content, live and/or on-demand, on one or more free app. Many have their own branded apps (as two of my local Nashville stations do) while others put their content into one or more apps alongside other local stations from across the country (as another of my local stations does by putting their full newscasts in the NewsOn and Stirr apps).

Except for those major market affiliates actually owned by the networks (e.g. New York's WABC, LA's KNBC, etc.), local stations understand that some years down the road they'll be existing solo, no longer connected to the big networks. Instead, to the extent that they feature national content, it will come from their national station group owner, e.g. Nexstar, Sinclair, Gray, etc. (Note that Nexstar already owns the NewsNation cable net, which was formerly WGN America, and they're buying majority ownership of The CW network now.)

Not so much commercials...its the local affliate that is the heart and soul of a community

 

[meStevo]

Would it be safe to say that if Apple doesn't announce a deal with the NFL on the next Apple Event on September 7th, they're probably not going to get it?

Not really. It will be safe to say that when someone else gets it, little else.

 

[cosmo_kramer]

Would it be safe to say that if Apple doesn't announce a deal with the NFL on the next Apple Event on September 7th, they're probably not going to get it?

The NFL is not going to work around someone else’s corporate timeline. If a deal is consummated in time and Apple ends up as the winner, then yes.

 

[slice1900]

Assuming all the current services still exist come 2024, you'd need to keep Peacock Premium to get the NBC games plus the Peacock exclusive ones and you'd need to keep Paramount+ to get the CBS games plus any Paramount+ exclusive ones.

I could be wrong since some of the information I've seen is conflicting, but I don't think Paramount+ will be carrying any exclusive Big Ten content. It will only be simulcasting games that are on CBS.

Peacock is the only streamer that will have exclusive games, but it is only 8 football per season and they won't be the big matchups. Probably where you will see crappy matchups against non-P5 opponents, and probably not the big name schools like Ohio State either. So like Indiana vs North Texas State or Minnesota vs UNLV type matchups. You might need Peacock to see all your school's important basketball games though, I'm not sure.

Other conferences already have this, the Big 12 already has football games on ESPN+, and the SEC and ACC are getting that too. At least Peacock also has some non sports content to watch so its a better value for those buying only because they have to for their school's games.

It could be worse. Pac 12 fans who can't get Pac 12 Network have been SOL for a while. Though Pac 12 Network has reappeared as a "test channel" on Directv as of last week so maybe the new owners of Directv have decided to make a deal. Though too little too late as far as USC & UCLA were concerned.

 

[NashGuy]

I have no idea if Fox secured the rights to put sports on a streaming service, either as a license or do it themselves, they might not of done it since they do not offer such a service.

I think the same of ESPN, they have lost billions ( over 3 billion) in per sub fees, as of now, almost $900 million in those fees are gone every year now, never coming back.

In the next 3 years they have no choice, they have to change ESPN+ to ESPN and offer the same content, raise the price to $15 (sweet spot for streaming) and hopefully some of the 62 million they do not have paid Live TV will go for it.

What other option do they have, in 3 years, another $2.5 Billion will be gone in per sub fees, that is assuming the numbers stay the same for those leaving Paid Live TV, I know they will increase.

I'm pretty sure that the NFL included streaming rights in their deal with Fox, same as they did for CBS. The two deals cost about the same and they each get half the Sunday afternoon local games. CBS puts all of those games on Paramount+ (even the entry-level $5/mo plan). All Fox has talked about doing so far with their streaming rights is putting clips or condensed recaps of games on Tubi for free, I think.

Now, whether Fox is getting streaming rights for the Big 10, IDK. But since they're being included in the deals for CBS and NBC, my guess is that they are.

Whether Fox has the right to sub-license any of their streaming rights out to a third party (e.g. Amazon, Apple), leaving Fox to only exercise the traditional TV rights on broadcast and cable, I also don't know. But one way or another, Fox needs to monetize whatever live streaming rights they're paying for beyond just their cable-authenticated Fox Sports and Fox Now apps...

 

[Juan]

I'm pretty sure that the NFL included streaming rights in their deal with Fox, same as they did for CBS. The two deals cost about the same and they each get half the Sunday afternoon local games. CBS puts all of those games on Paramount+ (even the entry-level $5/mo plan). All Fox has talked about doing so far with their streaming rights is putting clips or condensed recaps of games on Tubi for free, I think.

Now, whether Fox is getting streaming rights for the Big 10, IDK. But since they're being included in the deals for CBS and NBC, my guess is that they are.

Whether Fox has the right to sub-license any of their streaming rights out to a third party (e.g. Amazon, Apple), leaving Fox to only exercise the traditional TV rights on broadcast and cable, I also don't know. But one way or another, Fox needs to monetize whatever live streaming rights they're paying for beyond just their cable-authenticated Fox Sports and Fox Now apps...

OTA for the next 10 years and streaming

NFL announces new broadcast deals running through 2033 season

The NFL announced Thursday it has signed long-term agreements with media partners Amazon, CBS, ABC/ESPN, FOX and NBC to distribute NFL games across television and digital platforms, along with additional media rights.

www.nfl.com

 

[Bruce]

I'm pretty sure that the NFL included streaming rights in their deal with Fox, same as they did for CBS. The two deals cost about the same and they each get half the Sunday afternoon local games. CBS puts all of those games on Paramount+ (even the entry-level $5/mo plan). All Fox has talked about doing so far with their streaming rights is putting clips or condensed recaps of games on Tubi for free, I think.

OTA for the next 10 years and streaming

NFL announces new broadcast deals running through 2033 season

The NFL announced Thursday it has signed long-term agreements with media partners Amazon, CBS, ABC/ESPN, FOX and NBC to distribute NFL games across television and digital platforms, along with additional media rights.

www.nfl.com

From Juan’s link it says something different for Fox vs the rest-

CBS will maintain rights for AFC coverage -- which dates back to 1998 -- of Sunday afternoon games and will simulcast on Paramount+, its flagship streaming service.

ESPN will continue to be the home of Monday Night Football, while ESPN+ subscribers can stream one International Series contest on an exclusive national basis each season. ESPN can also simulcast all ABC and ESPN games on ESPN+.

FOX will also maintain its NFC package of Sunday afternoon games, which started back in 1994, though it has expanded digital rights to including its AVOD streaming platform, Tubi, to deliver NFL content on digital platforms.

NBC will continue to air Sunday Night Football and will simulcast games on Peacock, the NBCUniversal streaming service. Peacock will also air an exclusive feed of a select amount of games over the span of the agreement.

For CBS, NBC and ESPN it says games for all 3, but for Fox it says content which might be only clips or condensed recaps as Nashguy wrote.

Also, looks like ESPN+ can have Monday Night Football, I wonder if TV Providers will allow that.

 

[Mochuf]

Like AM radio, whose demise has been predicted for 70 years, OTA TV will adapt and survive for many decades to come. As will linear TV in all forms and delivery methods.

AM radio sucks and should have died here like it did in Europe. But sadly, I can see OTA TV getting that pathetic.

 

[Juan]

From Juan’s link it says something different for Fox vs the rest-

CBS will maintain rights for AFC coverage -- which dates back to 1998 -- of Sunday afternoon games and will simulcast on Paramount+, its flagship streaming service.

ESPN will continue to be the home of Monday Night Football, while ESPN+ subscribers can stream one International Series contest on an exclusive national basis each season. ESPN can also simulcast all ABC and ESPN games on ESPN+.

FOX will also maintain its NFC package of Sunday afternoon games, which started back in 1994, though it has expanded digital rights to including its AVOD streaming platform, Tubi, to deliver NFL content on digital platforms.

NBC will continue to air Sunday Night Football and will simulcast games on Peacock, the NBCUniversal streaming service. Peacock will also air an exclusive feed of a select amount of games over the span of the agreement.

For CBS, NBC and ESPN it says games for all 3, but for Fox it says content which might be only clips or condensed recaps as Nashguy wrote.

Also, looks like ESPN+ can have Monday Night Football, I wonder if TV Providers will allow that.

All network games are OTA for 10 years..streaming an extra

 

[Bilbo1]

Also, looks like ESPN+ can have Monday Night Football, I wonder if TV Providers will allow that.

Do they have a choice? Same thing can be said if Fox, CBS and NBC since the cable providers have carriage agreements with them, too.

While not privy to the carriage agreements, my assumption is that a streamer can not offer content on the channel via their streamer. This would mean under the current agreements, they can’t put the game on cable and the streamer. But, this gives the streamer’s owner leverage in future agreement negotiations… they no longer need cable companies.

Also, we see a lot discussed about people who don’t watch sports complaining about the cost of sports on cable. About 13% of people watch live sports almost daily, and 42% watch it weekly. Only 28% don’t watch sports at all.

Live sports on TV viewership in the U.S. 2020 | Statista

Fans can follow their favorite sports, teams and podcasts in a variety of different ways, including live TV, internet and radio.

www.statista.com

I could counter that people that pay for a mid tier cable package to watch sports should be complaint about all of the non sports channels in their package. Put another way, right now, there are a large number of people buying cable packages for $70+ to get ESPN because they can’t pay Disney $30 to just get it.

 

[Bruce]

From Juan’s link it says something different for Fox vs the rest-

CBS will maintain rights for AFC coverage -- which dates back to 1998 -- of Sunday afternoon games and will simulcast on Paramount+, its flagship streaming service.

ESPN will continue to be the home of Monday Night Football, while ESPN+ subscribers can stream one International Series contest on an exclusive national basis each season. ESPN can also simulcast all ABC and ESPN games on ESPN+.

FOX will also maintain its NFC package of Sunday afternoon games, which started back in 1994, though it has expanded digital rights to including its AVOD streaming platform, Tubi, to deliver NFL content on digital platforms.

NBC will continue to air Sunday Night Football and will simulcast games on Peacock, the NBCUniversal streaming service. Peacock will also air an exclusive feed of a select amount of games over the span of the agreement.

For CBS, NBC and ESPN it says games for all 3, but for Fox it says content which might be only clips or condensed recaps as Nashguy wrote.

Also, looks like ESPN+ can have Monday Night Football, I wonder if TV Providers will allow that.

I just went to ESPN’s site, looked at the schedule for ESPN+ and Monday Night Football is listed to be on plus.

I am surprised, thought it would be about 3 years before ESPN started merging content with plus, things are really happening fast with sports on streaming services.

Thanks Juan for posting that link, I had no idea MNF would be on ESPN+ this season.

I believe, after Football Season is done, it is time to get rid of Live TV, next year with Big Ten on streaming services and OTA ( I know, not every Mich game), NFLST, MNF and TNF on streaming, MLB I already get with the Extra Innings package and the NHL on ESPN+, I am about all set.

All other programming from Broadcast/Cable Channels are already on streaming services, just no need for Paid Live TV anymore.

 

[slice1900]

I believe, after Football Season is done, it is time to get rid of Live TV, next year with Big Ten on streaming services and OTA ( I know, not every Mich game), NFLST, MNF and TNF on streaming, MLB I already get with the Extra Innings package and the NHL on ESPN+, I am about all set.

BTN and FS1 are still cable only so probably too soon to go OTA/streaming just yet unless you are willing to miss a few Michigan football games a year that might be on one or the other - let alone basketball which will continue to have more games on one of those channels than anywhere else.