FSU vs The ACC

[IthacaMatt]

Do you work for ESPN?

Or do they just need to make everything they do behind the scenes public?


Again - why would they want to kill the ACC?

Just saying they're not doing anything doesn't make it so.

I worked in the cable industry in the legal dept. of a Fortune 100 company, where I learned about programming contracts. I interviewed for a licensing position with the NBA.

My law school buddy George McPhee shared lots information with me about sports league collective bargaining agreements, to try to help me break into sports representation.

I also worked as a consultant to IBM, when they were helping cable networks in Orlando, San Diego and a city in the midwest build the first broadband interactive networks. I also helped IBM host the first global sports websites ('94 US Open, '96 Atlanta Olympics, where I did data mining to suggest story ideas to the press), and helped them introduce secure payment technology and encryption for the Internet.

This experience doesn't directly talk to cable, but I have very extensive experience at the intersection of technology, content businesses and broadband.

I won a national award from ASCAP about copyright law and licensing.
I worked for the guy who Syracuse's Bandier Music Business School is named after.
I worked on international distribution agreements in the music business.

I know about sports contracts and licensing. In fact, I'll be speaking to a sports writing class at Newhouse next week about NIL, and content businesses like podcasts and blogs.

So, I don't work at ESPN, but I know a lot about the industry.

 

[IthacaMatt]

...and the ACCN is profitable... But who cares about facts when the lies are much more interesting.

(1) Why is the ACC paid so much less than the other major conferences?

(2) Why did the ESPN twice delay the launch of the ACC network?

(3) Why is ESPN sitting silently while the top 2 football teams in the ACC seek to invalidate their contract ten years early?

Shouldn't ESPN be a party in this lawsuit against the ACC? Are they not a party in interest?

Have you ever worked in an intellectual property business? I have, for more than 10 years, and spent another 10 in tech.

WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MINDS lets someone breach a multimillion dollar contract, where ESPN owns the rights?

How can a content company let someone break a contract that takes away your intellectual property and not do something about it?

Not doing anything at all, while all this is happening, is evidence that ESPN doesn't care if the ACC survives or not.

Do you disagree? What evidence to YOU have?

Why would anyone destroy the Pac-12, you might also ask, or the Big East, if you are old enough to remember?

Whatever you may think, it doesn't mean that those other things didn't happen.

 

[kcsu]

Apparently so.
You don't see them trying to do anything from stopping it from happening, do you?

Do some homework. They are doing plenty.

 

[orange79]

I worked in the cable industry in the legal dept. of a Fortune 100 company, where I learned about programming contracts. I interviewed for a licensing position with the NBA.

My law school buddy George McPhee shared lots information with me about sports league collective bargaining agreements, to try to help me break into sports representation.

I also worked as a consultant to IBM, when they were helping cable networks in Orlando, San Diego and a city in the midwest build the first broadband interactive networks. I also helped IBM host the first global sports websites ('94 US Open, '96 Atlanta Olympics, where I did data mining to suggest story ideas to the press), and helped them introduce secure payment technology and encryption for the Internet.

This experience doesn't directly talk to cable, but I have very extensive experience at the intersection of technology, content businesses and broadband.

I won a national award from ASCAP about copyright law and licensing.
I worked for the guy who Syracuse's Bandier Music Business School is named after.
I worked on international distribution agreements in the music business.

I know about sports contracts and licensing. In fact, I'll be speaking to a sports writing class at Newhouse next week about NIL, and content businesses like podcasts and blogs.

So, I don't work at ESPN, but I know a lot about the industry.

OK, fine. Now that I've read your vita, I've totally changed my mind.

J/K - no I haven't. At all.


Why would ESPN want to kill the ACC? You haven't answered the question. "You don't see them trying to do anything from stopping it from happening, do you?" isn't an answer. It's deflection.

Weird hill to die on, as all you can provide is "Why don't they do this? Why don't they do that?"

You keep asking for proof. Does that not apply to you also? Give me some proof that ESPN is trying to kill the ACC. Providing unsubstantiated thoughts and asking questions isn't an answer. Or proof.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Do some homework. They are doing plenty.

Is ESPN involved in either lawsuit?
It's THEIR contract that Florida State and Clemson are trying to break.
Fill me in.
What are they doing to defend their IP rights?
What are they doing to help the ACC prosper, if we are so damn profitable to them?

 

[kcsu]

Here are a few facts.
ESPN joined the ACC in support of keeping the agreement private and the venue in NC.
ESPN went so far as to imply that the FSU individuals directly responsible for disclosing the look in may have " committed a felony " .
ESPN is not being sued by FSU so as most realize they need to remain on the outside at this point.
What I'm interested in is will the league and collectively the other member institutions sue FSU for a myriad of claims.

 

[IthacaMatt]

OK, fine. Now that I've read your vita, I've totally changed my mind.

J/K - no I haven't. At all.


Why would ESPN want to kill the ACC? You haven't answered the question. "You don't see them trying to do anything from stopping it from happening, do you?" isn't an answer. It's deflection.

Weird hill to die on, as all you can provide is "Why don't they do this? Why don't they do that?"

You keep asking for proof. Does that not apply to you also? Give me some proof that ESPN is trying to kill the ACC. Providing unsubstantiated thoughts and asking questions isn't an answer. Or proof.

BECAUSE THERE IS A LAWSUIT TO BREAK THEIR CONTRACT.

DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?

The Big 10 teams are paid $59M a year.
SEC teams were paid $50M a year in 2022, when these figures are from.

Big 12 teams get $44M each.
(Why should they get more than the ACC after Texas & Oklahoma left?)

ACC teams get around $40M each.
Pac-12 $37M each - and now nothing, that league is gone.

And now, it turns out that the ESPN contract with the ACC that supposedly runs through 2036?
Apparently, it's a mirage, and ESPN is the only party with the option to extend it past 2026.
How about that?

ESPN's ACC rights from 2027-36 are reportedly at their option

Florida State's lawsuit against the ACC states ESPN's 2027-36 rights are only an ESPN option, but that may not matter all that much.

awfulannouncing.com

 

[721Comstock]

I worked in the cable industry in the legal dept. of a Fortune 100 company, where I learned about programming contracts. I interviewed for a licensing position with the NBA.

My law school buddy George McPhee shared lots information with me about sports league collective bargaining agreements, to try to help me break into sports representation.

I also worked as a consultant to IBM, when they were helping cable networks in Orlando, San Diego and a city in the midwest build the first broadband interactive networks. I also helped IBM host the first global sports websites ('94 US Open, '96 Atlanta Olympics, where I did data mining to suggest story ideas to the press), and helped them introduce secure payment technology and encryption for the Internet.

This experience doesn't directly talk to cable, but I have very extensive experience at the intersection of technology, content businesses and broadband.

I won a national award from ASCAP about copyright law and licensing.
I worked for the guy who Syracuse's Bandier Music Business School is named after.
I worked on international distribution agreements in the music business.

I know about sports contracts and licensing. In fact, I'll be speaking to a sports writing class at Newhouse next week about NIL, and content businesses like podcasts and blogs.

So, I don't work at ESPN, but I know a lot about the industry.

Yeah, but -

did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

Also - are you taller than 5’2”?

 

[IthacaMatt]

Yeah, but -

did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

Also - are you taller than 5’2”?

We'll see how this turns out.
What are you going to do if ESPN decides not to renew the ACC contract for 2027?
shtt yer pants probably.

 

[orange79]

BECAUSE THERE IS A LAWSUIT TO BREAK THEIR CONTRACT.

DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?

The Big 10 teams are paid $59M a year.
SEC teams were paid $50M a year in 2022, when these figures are from.

Big 12 teams get $44M each.
(Why should they get more than the ACC after Texas & Oklahoma left?)

ACC teams get around $40M each.
Pac-12 $37M each - and now nothing, that league is gone.

And now, it turns out that the ESPN contract with the ACC that supposedly runs through 2036?
Apparently, it's a mirage, and ESPN is the only party with the option to extend it past 2026.
How about that?

ESPN's ACC rights from 2027-36 are reportedly at their option

Florida State's lawsuit against the ACC states ESPN's 2027-36 rights are only an ESPN option, but that may not matter all that much.

awfulannouncing.com

So, again, you can't answer the question. Not surprised.

I'm done here. You've made up your mind, and that's all that matters to you. You're right and everyone else is wrong. Congrats.

 

[IthacaMatt]

So, again, you can't answer the question. Not surprised.

I'm done here. You've made up your mind, and that's all that matters to you. You're right and everyone else is wrong. Congrats.

I've answered you 5 times.

ESPN (and Fox) wouldn't mind 2 super leagues because it would simplify future contract negotiations with the conferences.

College football is soon going to be unionized, and not long after that, players will become employees of universities.

Then today's NIL will turn into something like how the draft doesn't negotiate every single first round pick's salary like they used to have to do; there are designated salary slots. A #10 pick in the first round gets this much money. Pick #20 gets that much.

The ACC gets paid much less than the SEC, also an ESPN property.

The Big 10 gets paid much more than the Pac-12, two Fox properties, before they were encouraged to go out of business by the networks.

As cable loses subscribers, and as even streaming is reaching saturation point, as they ALL try to keep raising their fees, the amount of money being paid for college sports is going to plateau, and then fall.

The Big 10 and the SEC are trying to ensure they get most of the money, as evidenced by their recent gambit that their conferences should get automatic, and extra, births in the future college playoffs.

The new ESPN college playoff contract pays almost 2/3 of the money being paid to the ACC under a 16 year deal.

ESPN blinked when politicians in Oklahoma and Texas threatened to bring an anti-trust suit if the SEC didn't take Okie State and Texas A&M (or was it Texas Tech) a couple years ago. ESPN gave a huge raise to the Big 12 under their contract, when they could have voided it, or renegotiated it down.

Why would they do that? Economically, it makes no sense. Why pay more for an inferior product?
Because ESPN remembered the State of Virginia threatening an anti-trust action if Syracuse, and not Virginia Tech, were added when they raided the Big East 20 years ago.

Also in that interest, ESPN avoided political problems and paid up.

When Florida State, and then Clemson, sued to get out of the ESPN contract with the ACC, ESPN should have been the first one to spring into action and join the lawsuit.

Why didn't they? Tell us.

Now, we find out that this GOR until 2036 is really only until 2026, if ESPN declines to pick up the option if Clemson and Florida State find their way to the SEC.

If ESPN can void the $1.8 billion contract they have with the ACC, or let it lapse in 2 years, that frees up a lot of money to lock down the expanded SEC's rights, and make sure they all make even more money.

You're just in denial. Tell me what question I didn't answer. Be explicit. You've said nothing so far, just "no, you don't know".

 

[IthacaMatt]

So, again, you can't answer the question. Not surprised.

I'm done here. You've made up your mind, and that's all that matters to you. You're right and everyone else is wrong. Congrats.

ESPN is party to a contract where they pay almost $2 billion for programming from the ACC.

The 2 best football brands in the ACC seek to break the contract 12 years early.

ESPN does not sue either school for breach of contract.

Why?

You don't have any answer. You just stick your fingers in your ears, and say "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, I can't hear you!"

 

[Hoo's That]

Is ESPN involved in either lawsuit?
It's THEIR contract that Florida State and Clemson are trying to break.
Fill me in.
What are they doing to defend their IP rights?
What are they doing to help the ACC prosper, if we are so damn profitable to them?

No, the GoR contract is between the schools and the ACC; ESPN is not a party to the GoR. The GoR sets the conditions for leaving (the exit fee and forfeiture of all future TV money payments in the new conference). Once the GoR was in place, the ACC then negotiated with ESPN to form the ACC Network as an adjunct to the "regular", existing contract with ESPN. Getting everyone to sign the GoR was a condition set by ESPN to begin the negotiations. SMU, Cal, and Stanford all had to sign the GoR as a condition of entry.

 

[Hoo's That]

ESPN is party to a contract where they pay almost $2 billion for programming from the ACC.

The 2 best football brands in the ACC seek to break the contract 12 years early.

ESPN does not sue either school for breach of contract.

Why?

You don't have any answer. You just stick your fingers in your ears, and say "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, I can't hear you!"

Because ESPN's contract is with the ACC, not Clemson or Florida State. In wanting to leave early, they are contesting the GoR, their contract with the ACC, to which (as I said before) ESPN is not a party. If they manage to leave, under the terms of ESPN's contract with the ACC, ESPN can (and probably will) lower the payout, which is their only recourse.

 

[oldpinepoint]

I worked in the cable industry in the legal dept. of a Fortune 100 company, where I learned about programming contracts. I interviewed for a licensing position with the NBA.

My law school buddy George McPhee shared lots information with me about sports league collective bargaining agreements, to try to help me break into sports representation.

I also worked as a consultant to IBM, when they were helping cable networks in Orlando, San Diego and a city in the midwest build the first broadband interactive networks. I also helped IBM host the first global sports websites ('94 US Open, '96 Atlanta Olympics, where I did data mining to suggest story ideas to the press), and helped them introduce secure payment technology and encryption for the Internet.

This experience doesn't directly talk to cable, but I have very extensive experience at the intersection of technology, content businesses and broadband.

I won a national award from ASCAP about copyright law and licensing.
I worked for the guy who Syracuse's Bandier Music Business School is named after.
I worked on international distribution agreements in the music business.

I know about sports contracts and licensing. In fact, I'll be speaking to a sports writing class at Newhouse next week about NIL, and content businesses like podcasts and blogs.

So, I don't work at ESPN, but I know a lot about the industry.

I stayed at a Holiday Inn once, just saying is all.

 

[HtownOrange]

Is ESPN involved in either lawsuit?
It's THEIR contract that Florida State and Clemson are trying to break.
Fill me in.
What are they doing to defend their IP rights?
What are they doing to help the ACC prosper, if we are so damn profitable to them?

ESPN is Not involved with any of the three lawsuits except to inform the court that FSU has violated confidentiality/industrial secrets. FSU KNOWS they cannot sue ESPN even though the GOR is the deal the must be broken for them to move. FSU likely hopes that they can withdraw from the ACC on the cheap and con ESPN to pay them more in the SEC. Yes, FSU's brain trust is as ignorant as this sounds.

EDIT: NOTE: While Hoo'sThat and I disagree a little (I think we are closer than it may appear), the point remains that FSU must defeat the GOR. I differ from Hoo's in that ESPN is the practical holder of the GOR rights and they will need to be properly brought in. ESPN is the beneficiary and at some point courts will likely want to know how this affects ESPN.

You are correct, FSU must break the GOR but cannot attack ESPN directly so they must do so through the ACC. The intimidation failed. First FSU failed with a low-ball number (the $100MM offer last summer, even though FSU had no money to pay the $100MM floating the concept of paying it out of FSU's new money -assuming they end up in the B1G or SEC). Again, yes, FSU's brain trust is as ignorant as this sounds. Anyway, FSU hopes that they can force their way out of the ACC and leverage ESPN into paying more for the rights ESPN already holds. The opportunity to jump to the B1G is less likely because ESPN would have to give up their rights completely to FSU. Recall, FSU believes the ACC world revolves around FSU, if this is so, ESPN would dump the ACC to keep FSU.

ESPN has no duty to do anything to defend their IP rights, they are not a party to any of the lawsuits. Yes, FSU and Clemson will need to bring ESPN into one or more of the lawsuits. U tim then, ESPN isn't wasting time and money worrying about the lawsuits. Most attorneys agree that the lawsuits will likely fail based on contract and IP law. The easier task is to ask an FSU believer to point out two IP cases on point that support FSU. Throw in Clemson for the bonus. You are not likely to find one case directly on point supporting either position.

ESPN has a very favorable deal. Yes, it sucks for the ACC. However, most of the ignorant web mouthpieces use old projections to "prove" the Big 12 will receive more money. This while the ACC is receiving more than the projected payouts. And no projection of Big12 payouts shows the Big 12 staying ahead of the ACC. Many "factor" in FSU and Clemson bringing more money to the Big12. Like OU and UT did to the SEC, but miss the point that the Big 12 has a clause that any new teams will only receive a pro rata share, there will not be an increase. Thus, FSU and Clemson are leaving the ACC for a pay cut. Stop me if you have heard this: The Big 12 trolls are as ignorant as this sounds.

Finally, I have yet to see a business entity destroy a profit center, especially when only one division is profitable for the parent corporation.


Bonus: Now that two states, possibly soon to be three, are hearing the same issue, unless they agree, the chances are that this will end up in Federal court, where most IP matters belong, and it is not likely to go well for FSU and Clemson. Contract law and IP law are fairly well settled. Law must be stable for business to continue. This is not political, this is reality.

Apologies for the worst response. Hope it helps a little.

 

[IthacaMatt]

No, the GoR contract is between the schools and the ACC; ESPN is not a party to the GoR. The GoR sets the conditions for leaving (the exit fee and forfeiture of all future TV money payments in the new conference). Once the GoR was in place, the ACC then negotiated with ESPN to form the ACC Network as an adjunct to the "regular", existing contract with ESPN. Getting everyone to sign the GoR was a condition set by ESPN to begin the negotiations. SMU, Cal, and Stanford all had to sign the GoR as a condition of entry.

You misunderstood. The contract could be voided, according to Florida State court filings, if ESPN fails to renew for 2027.

The GOR through 2036 would have no value if the ACC-ESPN contract is not renewed.
I said the GOR was illusory, if ESPN could kill the contract after 2 years.

 

[IthacaMatt]

ESPN is Not involved with any of the three lawsuits except to inform the court that FSU has violated confidentiality/industrial secrets. FSU KNOWS they cannot sue ESPN even though the GOR is the deal the must be broken for them to move. FSU likely hopes that they can withdraw from the ACC on the cheap and con ESPN to pay them more in the SEC. Yes, FSU's brain trust is as ignorant as this sounds.

EDIT: NOTE: While Hoo'sThat and I disagree a little (I think we are closer than it may appear), the point remains that FSU must defeat the GOR. I differ from Hoo's in that ESPN is the practical holder of the GOR rights and they will need to be properly brought in. ESPN is the beneficiary and at some point courts will likely want to know how this affects ESPN.

You are correct, FSU must break the GOR but cannot attack ESPN directly so they must do so through the ACC. The intimidation failed. First FSU failed with a low-ball number (the $100MM offer last summer, even though FSU had no money to pay the $100MM floating the concept of paying it out of FSU's new money -assuming they end up in the B1G or SEC). Again, yes, FSU's brain trust is as ignorant as this sounds. Anyway, FSU hopes that they can force their way out of the ACC and leverage ESPN into paying more for the rights ESPN already holds. The opportunity to jump to the B1G is less likely because ESPN would have to give up their rights completely to FSU. Recall, FSU believes the ACC world revolves around FSU, if this is so, ESPN would dump the ACC to keep FSU.

ESPN has no duty to do anything to defend their IP rights, they are not a party to any of the lawsuits. Yes, FSU and Clemson will need to bring ESPN into one or more of the lawsuits. U tim then, ESPN isn't wasting time and money worrying about the lawsuits. Most attorneys agree that the lawsuits will likely fail based on contract and IP law. The easier task is to ask an FSU believer to point out two IP cases on point that support FSU. Throw in Clemson for the bonus. You are not likely to find one case directly on point supporting either position.

ESPN has a very favorable deal. Yes, it sucks for the ACC. However, most of the ignorant web mouthpieces use old projections to "prove" the Big 12 will receive more money. This while the ACC is receiving more than the projected payouts. And no projection of Big12 payouts shows the Big 12 staying ahead of the ACC. Many "factor" in FSU and Clemson bringing more money to the Big12. Like OU and UT did to the SEC, but miss the point that the Big 12 has a clause that any new teams will only receive a pro rata share, there will not be an increase. Thus, FSU and Clemson are leaving the ACC for a pay cut. Stop me if you have heard this: The Big 12 trolls are as ignorant as this sounds.

Finally, I have yet to see a business entity destroy a profit center, especially when only one division is profitable for the parent corporation.


Bonus: Now that two states, possibly soon to be three, are hearing the same issue, unless they agree, the chances are that this will end up in Federal court, where most IP matters belong, and it is not likely to go well for FSU and Clemson. Contract law and IP law are fairly well settled. Law must be stable for business to continue. This is not political, this is reality.

Apologies for the worst response. Hope it helps a little.

That's a good post. Nice discussion.

How do you feel about the leak that only ESPN can extend the ACC deal beyond 2026?

To me, if politicians get involved like they did before, the ACC could blow up in 2 years, regardless of their advantages in the lawsuit.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Because ESPN's contract is with the ACC, not Clemson or Florida State. In wanting to leave early, they are contesting the GoR, their contract with the ACC, to which (as I said before) ESPN is not a party. If they manage to leave, under the terms of ESPN's contract with the ACC, ESPN can (and probably will) lower the payout, which is their only recourse.

Yes, and if Clemson and Florida State have their way and are allowed to leave for the SEC, who will be paying the money? ESPN, right?

And if ESPN does that, is that helping the ACC, or accelerating its demise?

 

[HtownOrange]

You misunderstood. The contract could be voided, according to Florida State court filings, if ESPN fails to renew for 2027.

The GOR through 2036 would have no value if the ACC-ESPN contract is not renewed.
I said the GOR was illusory, if ESPN could kill the contract after 2 years.

Point 1: If FSU and Clemson believed their line that ESPN is going to cancel the ACCN, their respective lawsuits are a waste of good money as they need only wait a couple years and walk away.

Point 2: Both FSU and Clemson have enjoyed the payments for many years. Voiding the contract which has been ratified legally by board votes and execution of each of the contracts and two by each school's actions. If both FSU and Clemson were to pay back the full payments received plus interest, they might be able to argue the contracts are voidable, though the ratification says otherwise.

Point 3: GORs have been analyzed by virtually every college and conference in D1, their respective outside counsel firms, and every private firm hoping to make easy money. Not one legitimate firm would touch the GOR. UT, OU, USC, and UCLA all decided it was not worth attacking the GOR. That should weigh heavier on people than blowhard fanboys with no legal training. Just a reminder, not one credible attorney or firm agrees with FSU or Clemson. Most of the legal eagles who are fans of FSU or Clemson remain unimpressed with the lawsuits.

 

[wiseman3]

Yeah I ain't reading all of this

 

[HtownOrange]

That's a good post. Nice discussion.

How do you feel about the leak that only ESPN can extend the ACC deal beyond 2026?

To me, if politicians get involved like they did before, the ACC could blow up in 2 years, regardless of their advantages in the lawsuit.

I think ESPN fired a shot across the FSU now. Also, it is likely moot as the option would have some measurable to ensure both sides are protected and clear about the basis to discontinued the ACCN. Also, the fact that the two schools can save more money by waiting until ESPN plus the plug than they can make suiting the ACC indicates that FSU and Clemson are confident that the ACCN is sticking around until 2036.

 

[HtownOrange]

Yes, and if Clemson and Florida State have their way and are allowed to leave for the SEC, who will be paying the money? ESPN, right?

And if ESPN does that, is that helping the ACC, or accelerating its demise?

If ESPN assists FSU or Clemson in any way that damages the ACC/ACCN before they win it all in court, ESPN would be susceptible to a tortious interference claim. This is why neither the SEC nor the B1G will even slightly indicate their positions regarding ACC schools because a tortious interference suit is more costly than any value they may gain.

 

[HtownOrange]

Yeah I ain't reading all of this

I don't blame you.

 

[longtimefan]

OMG. Quoting "The Dud from WV."

And where is Miami in this pipe dream?