5 ms·

I watch any live sporting event I fancy, for free. Once you know where to look, the cost is about a minute of your time to pick which particular feed, among ma

I watch any live sporting event I fancy, for free. Once you know where to look, the cost is about a minute of your time to pick which particular feed, among many, to watch. Do you want the home-team's broadcaster, the visiting team broadcaster, and do you want that in another language, maybe? It's à-la-carte. A cable company password is never involved. In the future, the old-fashioned companies we know today who don't "get" it will not exist. This Bloomberg article illustrates why, albeit indirectly.

CPLX 9y ago
If your theory is that in the future people will field expensive teams for sporting events surrounded by high quality cameras and informed commentators who will send out engaging content streams without anyone paying for it you may wish to examine your premise.
- talmand 9y ago
  It's funny you say that, I grew up with that very system for decades before streaming became a thing. We had multiple choices of entertainment to watch on TV for completely free. Yes, that's right! Completely free! The only cost was the TV and the time to watch commercials.
  - CPLX 9y ago
    > the time to watch commercials Indeed.
  - xxpor 9y ago
    The difference was that in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, baseball players (for example) made between $5,000 and $100,000 a year. Even with inflation, that's nowhere close to the $500,000 to $30 million they make today.
    - QAPereo 9y ago
      Great, I’m fine with that. While we’re at it can taxpayers stop paying for stadiums?
      - majormajor 9y ago
        You're gonna need more rational / less worried taxpayers for that one. ;)
    - majormajor 9y ago
      The cause and effect is backwards here. Player salaries haven't driven up the cost of broadcasting. Being able to make money from broadcasts has driven up player salaries. And the biggest change was the move to cable subscriber fees for dedicated sports networks in addition to pure ad-revenue supported OTA broadcasts (with the NFL being a bit of an exception, as the infrequency of the games and the overlapping times makes its OTA broadcasts much more valuable than other leagues'). The bigger a subscriber fee you can charge as a cable channel -> the more you can bid on the rights for the local team -> the more the team receives -> the more the team can bid on players.
      - xxpor 9y ago
        I think we agree here. Your analysis is correct in how it got to be this way, but my point is that it's basically impossible to reverse the situation. If you get rid of your team's TV contract, you'll never sign another free agent ever again. Even if every MLB team colluded to get rid of the TV contracts, the NPB and KBO would become the new MLB.
        kodablah 9y ago
        It's not impossible. The CBAs in the capped leagues aren't going to grow the cap as much. In cases like the MLB, you'll just see a larger separation between owners willing to lose a lot of money and those not willing. Some of the MLB TV contracts (like Fox Sports Southwest for the Rangers) are for 20 years and the MLB doesn't even give them global streaming rights. It'll be the TV companies not upping their bids as high next go round. In the meantime, they will milk it for all they can, and you see more innovative and subtle ad placement (compared to traditional commercials and signage) already as a result of this. Also, just this past week, ESPN sucked up all of these regional Fox channels and are on the hook for these contracts. There is a real bubble in sports salaries right now, and it won't be supported by viewer eyeballs forever.
  - majormajor 9y ago
    No, you didn't grow up with that sort of system. I was there too, and I remember the details you're leaving out. How do you think you watched the average college football game in 1980? The answer is: you didn't. It wasn't broadcast. A handful of games a week were broadcast anywhere. Cable slowly increased the number of games available over a few decades, but it was no longer free. There simply weren't enough broadcast channels, or enough interested eyeballs, in order to justifying broadcasting the average Oregon State @ Utah random weekly matchup anywhere before big cable bundles with lots of expensive ESPN and regional sports networks. Same for local pro sports: the 90s gradually saw more and more of my home teams' games being available on TV, but not purely on free over the air TV, the economics of that rarely made sense. Regional sports networks were the driver here, and they collected subscriber fees. The amount of advertisements shown saw some big increases too, to help recoup the costs with both revenue streams. You didn't use to always have the dude with the red hat stepping onto the field to stop play for TV timeouts nearly as much. You sure as fuck did not watch "any live sporting event I fancy, for free." That poster is living in a dream world if he thinks that will continue to happen without people paying for the goddamn content.
    - talmand 9y ago
      Did I watch every single possible sports event for free on TV when I was a child? Of course not, but I do recall seeing quite a lot of it. I recall pro sport games in football, basketball, baseball, and hockey. I recall college games in football, basketball, and baseball. I even recall local high school games in football and baseball. All on broadcast TV before cable; for that matter after cable because we still got our local broadcast channels via cable with the exact same content. Did I get to watch high school football from three states over? Nope, I admit to that one. Did some people experience broadcast blackouts? Yes, but that was done to get the locals to actually buy tickets to go to the game. Was it the utopia of sports we have today? Nope, and I claimed no such thing. As for today, if there's money in it then they'll do it. There wasn't as much money in sports at the time. There's money there now. If they wish to continue that revenue by exploring a free streaming model with commercials, then they will find a way. Many creators said "we'll never do that" in many things over the years, and then they eventually do when they decide to not turn the money away. The only constant is that things change. In the end, if people don't want to contribute to the costs of entertainment via payment or ads, then that entertainment dies. But the model is there, has been there for years, and it's up to the content creators decide how they wish to move forward.
sowbug 9y ago
Usually when people use the term "get it" on this topic, they're referring to a better business model that sustainably supports all the participants in the marketplace. You don't seem to be using the term that way. Rather, you seem to describing ordinary theft. What exactly is there to "get" from your comment? That you're gleefully infringing copyright? If so, yes, we already know you exist. You're not adding anything to this conversation. (By the way, this comment also applies to ad blockers in web browsers. If you don't like ads, that doesn't mean you still get to view the content without ads, any more than you still get to attend a concert whose ticket prices are too high for you.)
- SauciestGNU 9y ago
  Actually, I think to your point about blocking ads, if your server sends me data I am entitled to render it any way I choose, omitting any element I am not interested in (ads, etc). Similar to how it is not infringing copyright to leave the room or not look at the screen during a commercial break on broadcast television. If you don't want ad blockers to view a site then find a technical means to prevent it. You are not going to convince me that I have a moral obligation to consume psychologically manipulative content that is unrelated to what I am seeking to view.
  - sowbug 9y ago
    Don't be surprised when that happens. Entire websites sent as a single PNG, or Widevine increasingly determining how/whether you view content. It didn't have to be this way. You can frame this as civil disobedience against duress, or attack a strawman of morality (which I never brought up). It's not that complicated or subjective. It's a business transaction. I'm saying if you don't like the store, don't patronize it. You're saying that if you don't like the store's prices or how they do business, then you get to take the goods without paying.
    - bestnameever 9y ago
      > Entire websites sent as a single PNG, Interesting. Are there any sites that you know which do this?

CPLX 9y ago

If your theory is that in the future people will field expensive teams for sporting events surrounded by high quality cameras and informed commentators who will send out engaging content streams without anyone paying for it you may wish to examine your premise.

talmand 9y ago
It's funny you say that, I grew up with that very system for decades before streaming became a thing. We had multiple choices of entertainment to watch on TV for completely free. Yes, that's right! Completely free! The only cost was the TV and the time to watch commercials.
- CPLX 9y ago
  > the time to watch commercials Indeed.
- xxpor 9y ago
  The difference was that in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, baseball players (for example) made between $5,000 and $100,000 a year. Even with inflation, that's nowhere close to the $500,000 to $30 million they make today.
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    Great, I’m fine with that. While we’re at it can taxpayers stop paying for stadiums?
    - majormajor 9y ago
      You're gonna need more rational / less worried taxpayers for that one. ;)
  - majormajor 9y ago
    The cause and effect is backwards here. Player salaries haven't driven up the cost of broadcasting. Being able to make money from broadcasts has driven up player salaries. And the biggest change was the move to cable subscriber fees for dedicated sports networks in addition to pure ad-revenue supported OTA broadcasts (with the NFL being a bit of an exception, as the infrequency of the games and the overlapping times makes its OTA broadcasts much more valuable than other leagues'). The bigger a subscriber fee you can charge as a cable channel -> the more you can bid on the rights for the local team -> the more the team receives -> the more the team can bid on players.
    - xxpor 9y ago
      I think we agree here. Your analysis is correct in how it got to be this way, but my point is that it's basically impossible to reverse the situation. If you get rid of your team's TV contract, you'll never sign another free agent ever again. Even if every MLB team colluded to get rid of the TV contracts, the NPB and KBO would become the new MLB.
      - kodablah 9y ago
        It's not impossible. The CBAs in the capped leagues aren't going to grow the cap as much. In cases like the MLB, you'll just see a larger separation between owners willing to lose a lot of money and those not willing. Some of the MLB TV contracts (like Fox Sports Southwest for the Rangers) are for 20 years and the MLB doesn't even give them global streaming rights. It'll be the TV companies not upping their bids as high next go round. In the meantime, they will milk it for all they can, and you see more innovative and subtle ad placement (compared to traditional commercials and signage) already as a result of this. Also, just this past week, ESPN sucked up all of these regional Fox channels and are on the hook for these contracts. There is a real bubble in sports salaries right now, and it won't be supported by viewer eyeballs forever.
- majormajor 9y ago
  No, you didn't grow up with that sort of system. I was there too, and I remember the details you're leaving out. How do you think you watched the average college football game in 1980? The answer is: you didn't. It wasn't broadcast. A handful of games a week were broadcast anywhere. Cable slowly increased the number of games available over a few decades, but it was no longer free. There simply weren't enough broadcast channels, or enough interested eyeballs, in order to justifying broadcasting the average Oregon State @ Utah random weekly matchup anywhere before big cable bundles with lots of expensive ESPN and regional sports networks. Same for local pro sports: the 90s gradually saw more and more of my home teams' games being available on TV, but not purely on free over the air TV, the economics of that rarely made sense. Regional sports networks were the driver here, and they collected subscriber fees. The amount of advertisements shown saw some big increases too, to help recoup the costs with both revenue streams. You didn't use to always have the dude with the red hat stepping onto the field to stop play for TV timeouts nearly as much. You sure as fuck did not watch "any live sporting event I fancy, for free." That poster is living in a dream world if he thinks that will continue to happen without people paying for the goddamn content.
  - talmand 9y ago
    Did I watch every single possible sports event for free on TV when I was a child? Of course not, but I do recall seeing quite a lot of it. I recall pro sport games in football, basketball, baseball, and hockey. I recall college games in football, basketball, and baseball. I even recall local high school games in football and baseball. All on broadcast TV before cable; for that matter after cable because we still got our local broadcast channels via cable with the exact same content. Did I get to watch high school football from three states over? Nope, I admit to that one. Did some people experience broadcast blackouts? Yes, but that was done to get the locals to actually buy tickets to go to the game. Was it the utopia of sports we have today? Nope, and I claimed no such thing. As for today, if there's money in it then they'll do it. There wasn't as much money in sports at the time. There's money there now. If they wish to continue that revenue by exploring a free streaming model with commercials, then they will find a way. Many creators said "we'll never do that" in many things over the years, and then they eventually do when they decide to not turn the money away. The only constant is that things change. In the end, if people don't want to contribute to the costs of entertainment via payment or ads, then that entertainment dies. But the model is there, has been there for years, and it's up to the content creators decide how they wish to move forward.

sowbug 9y ago

Usually when people use the term "get it" on this topic, they're referring to a better business model that sustainably supports all the participants in the marketplace. You don't seem to be using the term that way. Rather, you seem to describing ordinary theft. What exactly is there to "get" from your comment? That you're gleefully infringing copyright? If so, yes, we already know you exist. You're not adding anything to this conversation. (By the way, this comment also applies to ad blockers in web browsers. If you don't like ads, that doesn't mean you still get to view the content without ads, any more than you still get to attend a concert whose ticket prices are too high for you.)

SauciestGNU 9y ago
Actually, I think to your point about blocking ads, if your server sends me data I am entitled to render it any way I choose, omitting any element I am not interested in (ads, etc). Similar to how it is not infringing copyright to leave the room or not look at the screen during a commercial break on broadcast television. If you don't want ad blockers to view a site then find a technical means to prevent it. You are not going to convince me that I have a moral obligation to consume psychologically manipulative content that is unrelated to what I am seeking to view.
- sowbug 9y ago
  Don't be surprised when that happens. Entire websites sent as a single PNG, or Widevine increasingly determining how/whether you view content. It didn't have to be this way. You can frame this as civil disobedience against duress, or attack a strawman of morality (which I never brought up). It's not that complicated or subjective. It's a business transaction. I'm saying if you don't like the store, don't patronize it. You're saying that if you don't like the store's prices or how they do business, then you get to take the goods without paying.
  - bestnameever 9y ago
    > Entire websites sent as a single PNG, Interesting. Are there any sites that you know which do this?