Sinclair CEO warns Dish: Agree to deal or risk becoming irrelevant

zippyfrog

SatelliteGuys Pro
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Dec 27, 2007
1,219
521
Chicago, IL
Based on stories here and there it seems Sinclair is asking for big increases, bigger than most. Maybe it is time for a sports streaming offering that exposes the high cost of sports channels instead might be in order. Then we would see just how willing the sports fans are to pay high costs just for sports instead of them being hidden in a broader channel selection.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Yeah...the Fox Sports RSN's are expensive and I can only imagine that Sinclair wants to charge more. Last year Fox Sports Detroit was $6.69 per subscriber; Fox Sports Arizona was $5.48. Contrast that with NBC Sports Chicago, when they had the Bulls, Hawks, Cubs, and White Sox, was $4.39, and Dish decided to drop NBC Sports Chicago.

Links that contain the prices I mention:
 

GPM

PIT MEMBER
May 26, 2015
295
328
Arizona
While it wouldn’t interest me, I can understand the allure for sports fans. I don’t know how a company could structure one though since the sports channels are owned by companies that have other channels and want to bundle them in.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Yeah, I'm certainly not holding my breath. Ideally Dish would offer an option that included all sports. Off the top of my head, all ESPNs including ESPN+, Fox Sports, all Regionals, NFL w/Redzone, all other pro sports networks, all services carrying boxing and MMA, etc. That way I'd get all the benefits of the H3, something I sorely missed when I recently tried YoutubeTV. Since I get great off air reception I'd be set.
 

AZ.

SatelliteGuys Pro
Mar 26, 2011
897
239
crazy
Sure is entertaining the ones who promote the Free Market, seam to be the ones always complaining about how the Free Market works for satellite providers.

Would be funny if it wasn't so obvious!
 

david_jr

SatelliteGuys Pro
Pub Member / Supporter
May 7, 2007
2,338
580
Hancock, MA - The Berkshires
Sure is entertaining the ones who promote the Free Market, seam to be the ones always complaining about how the Free Market works for satellite providers.

Would be funny if it wasn't so obvious!
The market works, but sometimes we don't like how it turns out. We all liked it when things were priced reasonably and we could all watch what we wanted for a reasonable amount each month and most sports was subsidized by most subscribers. Well then player contracts started going crazy and you have athletes commanding 3 to 4 hundred million dollar contracts, yes for one person. Next thing you know sports, whether watched on TV or observed live or pay per view has gotten ridiculously expensive. You can see the market reacting with channel drops and ludicrous price increase demands everywhere. The non sports viewers are revolting and the Cable and Sat companies are trying to survive by restructuring packages or dropping channels. The sports enthusiasts are upset that not everyone wants to pay. The market is working exactly as it should and the prices will settle where they have to. Whether 3 to 4 hundred million dollar contracts will continue or go away or get larger will be decided by the market one way or another. I like sports, but cannot afford to support it at the projected level of cost. Again not everyone will be happy with the outcome.
 

dare2be

SatelliteGuys God
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 15, 2011
12,617
7,463
FL
The market works, but sometimes we don't like how it turns out. We all liked it when things were priced reasonably and we could all watch what we wanted for a reasonable amount each month and most sports was subsidized by most subscribers. Well then player contracts started going crazy and you have athletes commanding 3 to 4 hundred million dollar contracts, yes for one person. Next thing you know sports, whether watched on TV or observed live or pay per view has gotten ridiculously expensive. You can see the market reacting with channel drops and ludicrous price increase demands everywhere. The non sports viewers are revolting and the Cable and Sat companies are trying to survive by restructuring packages or dropping channels. The sports enthusiasts are upset that not everyone wants to pay. The market is working exactly as it should and the prices will settle where they have to. Whether 3 to 4 hundred million dollar contracts will continue or go away or get larger will be decided by the market one way or another. I like sports, but cannot afford to support it at the projected level of cost. Again not everyone will be happy with the outcome.
You've got it backwards. It wasn't player salaries that drove up prices, it was exclusive multi-billion dollar carriage deals struck between the leagues and channel owners like ABC/ESPN and FOX that pushed prices for the consumer to unsustainable levels. The players union followed suit after seeing how much more money the league and owners were raking in. It was the channel owners who made their own bed, trying to "compete" with each other, expecting the consumers to just pony up.
 

sam_gordon

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 21, 2009
2,022
840
Lexington, ky
You've got it backwards. It wasn't player salaries that drove up prices, it was exclusive multi-billion dollar carriage deals struck between the leagues and channel owners like ABC/ESPN and FOX that pushed prices for the consumer to unsustainable levels. The players union followed suit after seeing how much more money the league and owners were raking in. It was the channel owners who made their own bed, trying to "compete" with each other, expecting the consumers to just pony up.
So do you think the channel owners just said "here's a bunch of money, as long as you let us carry the games" or did the channel owners say "we want to carry your games" and the leagues (seeing $$) said "ok, here's how much".

And if you think about it, consumers HAVE just ponied up for decades.
 

david_jr

SatelliteGuys Pro
Pub Member / Supporter
May 7, 2007
2,338
580
Hancock, MA - The Berkshires
You've got it backwards. It wasn't player salaries that drove up prices, it was exclusive multi-billion dollar carriage deals struck between the leagues and channel owners like ABC/ESPN and FOX that pushed prices for the consumer to unsustainable levels. The players union followed suit after seeing how much more money the league and owners were raking in. It was the channel owners who made their own bed, trying to "compete" with each other, expecting the consumers to just pony up.
Sounds like which came first the chicken or the egg theory
 
  • Like
Reactions: sam_gordon

ChadT41

THE BEST THERE HAS EVER BEEN
Apr 20, 2014
10,676
4,143
Mesa, Az
Sounds like which came first the chicken or the egg theory
The egg. The egg has been around for millions of years, while the chicken was a genetic manifestation created by man, using the Red Jungle Fowl, and selective breeding to get the Gallus Gallus Domesticus. Off topic, but that question was verifiably answered. Lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crodrules and Bobby

dare2be

SatelliteGuys God
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 15, 2011
12,617
7,463
FL
So do you think the channel owners just said "here's a bunch of money, as long as you let us carry the games" or did the channel owners say "we want to carry your games" and the leagues (seeing $$) said "ok, here's how much".
No. I know that channel owners outbid each other for exclusive rights to broadcast games. Remember the ESPN deal for MNF, or the FOX deal for exclusive Saturday MLB? Those are just 2 that come to mind out of many. Were the leagues going to say no to those guaranteed cash flows? Hell no.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crodrules

sam_gordon

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 21, 2009
2,022
840
Lexington, ky
No. I know that channel owners outbid each other for exclusive rights to broadcast games. Remember the ESPN deal for MNF, or the FOX deal for exclusive Saturday MLB? Those are just 2 that come to mind out of many. Were the leagues going to say no to those guaranteed cash flows? Hell no.
According to Wiki, the ESPN contract for MNF runs out in 2021 (started in 06 and renewed in 11). It will be interesting to see if ESPN (any network for that matter) is willing to throw big money at the league assuming they can just pass the cost along to the consumer, or if they'll temper the offer knowing the amount of cord cutting happening.
 

zippyfrog

SatelliteGuys Pro
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Dec 27, 2007
1,219
521
Chicago, IL
According to Wiki, the ESPN contract for MNF runs out in 2021 (started in 06 and renewed in 11). It will be interesting to see if ESPN (any network for that matter) is willing to throw big money at the league assuming they can just pass the cost along to the consumer, or if they'll temper the offer knowing the amount of cord cutting happening.
There are reports out there that ESPN just outbid CBS for the SEC Football rights on Saturdays and the Championship Game for $300-330 million per year, up from the $55 million per year CBS is currently paying. So...I am guessing that the companies will continue to pay top bucks and pass along some of the cost to consumers...
 

navychop

Member of the Month - July 2014!
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2005
49,502
14,467
Northern VA
“The more you pay,
The more it’s worth.”

I thing fewer will be willing to pay ever more.
 

sam_gordon

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 21, 2009
2,022
840
Lexington, ky
Some of the costs??? Hahahaha
I would assume some of the costs would be made up via ads.

Also, according to Cable and satellite TV sinks again as online streaming soars, even with all the losses, there are about 76 million cable/satellite subscribers. If zippyfrog is correct, ESPN will now pay $280 million more/year (than CBS). That means $3.68/sub more per year. A whopping .30/month.

Even assuming CBS keeps their retrans the same and ESPN subs need to make up the entire $330mil... that will cost every sub $0.36/month.
 

ChadT41

THE BEST THERE HAS EVER BEEN
Apr 20, 2014
10,676
4,143
Mesa, Az
I would assume some of the costs would be made up via ads.

Also, according to Cable and satellite TV sinks again as online streaming soars, even with all the losses, there are about 76 million cable/satellite subscribers. If zippyfrog is correct, ESPN will now pay $280 million more/year (than CBS). That means $3.68/sub more per year. A whopping .30/month.

Even assuming CBS keeps their retrans the same and ESPN subs need to make up the entire $330mil... that will cost every sub $0.36/month.
That’s Just to make up the actual cost. Add any overhead and profit, about 35% on top of that per. Minimum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crodrules

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 4)

Top