ESPN, COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF AGREE 6-YR, $7.8B DEAL: ATHLETIC

[elimunelson]

NM

 

[sutomcat]

NM

That is way lower than expected, isn't it?

This article was projecting $1.9 billion a year.

CFP expansion could increase annual revenue to $2 billion

A new College Football Playoff with triple the number of teams involved could bring in three times as much money to the conferences and schools that share the wealth.

apnews.com

Experts please weigh in. Everyone on this board can comment as well.

 

[kcsu]

Glad to see the values starting to taper off. I expect that with cable cutting moving to streaming that the days of massive contract increases are over. Increase yes, crazy bidding no.

 

[sutomcat]

That is way lower than expected, isn't it?

This article was projecting $1.9 billion a year.

CFP expansion could increase annual revenue to $2 billion

A new College Football Playoff with triple the number of teams involved could bring in three times as much money to the conferences and schools that share the wealth.

apnews.com

Experts please weigh in. Everyone on this board can comment as well.

Forgive the responding to my own post but The Athletic says the dollar amount corresponds to a number an ESPN article quoted not long ago.

CFP, ESPN agree to 6-year, $7.8 billion extension: Sources

The full contract’s completion is still contingent on CFP leaders finalizing details of the expanded format.

theathletic.com

 

[dasher]

Forgive the responding to my own post but The Athletic says the dollar amount corresponds to a number an ESPN article quoted not long ago.

CFP, ESPN agree to 6-year, $7.8 billion extension: Sources

The full contract’s completion is still contingent on CFP leaders finalizing details of the expanded format.

theathletic.com

The guy you responded to is wrong a lot

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Glad to see the values starting to taper off. I expect that with cable cutting moving to streaming that the days of massive contract increases are over. Increase yes, crazy bidding no.

Not so sure about that. Isn’t the bulk of the contracts Tier 1 rights? Those rights are network TV and not the cable model. The cable is Tier 2.

Also with a consolidation of leagues there is less product to buy. So now we see multiple rights holders instead of solo holders since no one can afford all the rights.

So in that case the top leagues get the money leaving nothing for the rest of the leagues which creates a bigger gap.

 

[NJCuse97]

Possible that the growing presence of the Power 2 has thrown the security of a sure thing into question and the price reflects that?

 

[jr4750]

Possible that the growing presence of the Power 2 has thrown the security of a sure thing into question and the price reflects that?

My thinking too. From a business perspective making 30 schools stand alone as opposed to 60, 100, just doesn't make sense. It limits the potential buyers tremendously. I can't see how the remaining states rally around a product that doesn't represent them.

 

[mscanlo]

I'm no expert, but NYT did a study that highlighted how much revenue ESPN was receiving from cable subscribers who don't watch sports (I.e. non-sports viewers are highly subsidizing ESPN). I think ESPN receives around $10-$15 a month from you cable subscription. NYT concluded that ESPN would have to receive $50 per streaming subscriber just to break-even on their costs (if cable went away).

I'm no expert in Tier 1/2 rights either, but I assume even network TV is hurting since all of them (I believe) have a conglomerate of channels that are at least somewhat exposed to cable subscriptions.

It's a model that has been propped up with non-sports watchers. It will be interesting to see how the networks can solve it. I know personally, I love sports (like everyone on here), but paying $50 a month, or $600 a year, to stream ESPN, seems a little steep (Disney+/Netflix/etc, price increases already give me pause)

 

[JRHEETER]

I'm no expert, but NYT did a study that highlighted how much revenue ESPN was receiving from cable subscribers who don't watch sports. I think ESPN receives around $10-$15 a month from you cable subscription. NYT concluded that ESPN would have to receive $50 per streaming subscriber just to break-even on their costs (if cable went away).

I'm no expert in Tier 1/2 rights, but I assume even network TV is hurting since all of them (I believe) have a conglomerate of channels that are at least somewhat exposed to cable subscriptions.

It's a model that has been propped up with non-sports watchers. It will be interesting to see how the networks can solve it. I know personally, I love sports (like everyone on here), but paying $50 a month, or $600 a year, to stream ESPN, seems a little steep (Disney+/Netflix/etc, price increases already give me pause)

Huh that’s something I’ve never thought about….

That with cable you’re collecting money for ESPN basically with every single subscriber out there as ESPN appears on the most basic packages…

This could be something that ESPN has overlooked or thought that people wouldn’t care about…

Can’t justify spending that much a month to watch sports on TV, I would just go to more games

 

[mscanlo]

Also, Mandel reported (or speculated) via The Athletic, that ESPN might've had first right of refusal, which kept the price down.

And for those hoping the games will be carried across other networks, ESPN reportedly has the options to sub-lease the broadcast rights to other networks