3 ms·

If I were one of the sports leagues I would be terrified of the next time one of these deals come up. On the one hand they are sitting on one of the few assets

If I were one of the sports leagues I would be terrified of the next time one of these deals come up. On the one hand they are sitting on one of the few assets that still has some value live (though I tend to watch all of my sports 30 minutes delayed). On the other, the entire media landscape is having the margins sucked out of it in an impressive pace. Those rights deals are outrageously expensive for the people that get them. I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon, Netflix or Google snapped up the rights deals at a blockbuster price. But I also wouldn't be surprised if the price was much less than people thought due to less competition as well.

dagw 9y ago
Both the NFL and MLB already have high quality streaming offerings today, including more advanced features like chose your own camera angle. They just don't distribute these services widely because TV pays so much better. If prices drop too far, they'll probably just keep the rights and start streaming the games themselves.
- kasey_junk 9y ago
  Yeah I thought of that as one option, but that means that the sports leagues need to get in the business of streaming video. Now they can dip their toe in it because the numbers are so low, but to support the Super Bowl for instance you'd have to be fairly sophisticated.
  - dagw 9y ago
    to support the Super Bowl for instance you'd have to be fairly sophisticated. That is a good point. Good old cable technology still has some advantages. From what I can find the current record for a single live video stream is 4.6 million concurrent viewers, and the Superbowl consistently gets over 100 million.
  - Touche 9y ago
    Right, which is why I see them to continue to outsource that to networks. Amazon and Netflix are in a position where they have the reach that leagues want, but they don't have the experience with live content. My guess is that is their (Amazon, etc.) hesitation in jumping into a bid.
euroclydon 9y ago
My experience is that even the best streaming is lower quality than (analog) cable or OTA sports broadcasts. The compression makes watching streaming sports worse.

dagw 9y ago

Both the NFL and MLB already have high quality streaming offerings today, including more advanced features like chose your own camera angle. They just don't distribute these services widely because TV pays so much better. If prices drop too far, they'll probably just keep the rights and start streaming the games themselves.

kasey_junk 9y ago
Yeah I thought of that as one option, but that means that the sports leagues need to get in the business of streaming video. Now they can dip their toe in it because the numbers are so low, but to support the Super Bowl for instance you'd have to be fairly sophisticated.
- dagw 9y ago
  to support the Super Bowl for instance you'd have to be fairly sophisticated. That is a good point. Good old cable technology still has some advantages. From what I can find the current record for a single live video stream is 4.6 million concurrent viewers, and the Superbowl consistently gets over 100 million.
- Touche 9y ago
  Right, which is why I see them to continue to outsource that to networks. Amazon and Netflix are in a position where they have the reach that leagues want, but they don't have the experience with live content. My guess is that is their (Amazon, etc.) hesitation in jumping into a bid.

euroclydon 9y ago

My experience is that even the best streaming is lower quality than (analog) cable or OTA sports broadcasts. The compression makes watching streaming sports worse.