3 ms·

Could be but you need to follow the money. Who pays the athletes and why should they pay the same when they don't get the same availability?

by mongol 5y ago

slg 5y ago
I'm not very familiar with the business of tennis specifically, but in sports in general a plurality or even a majority of the money comes from advertisers who pay to sponsor events or show ads on the TV broadcast. The rates for those ads depends on the ratings and popularity of the event. The next biggest chunk of money is directly from fans in the form of tickets, merchandise, and directly paying to watch through streaming or pay-per-view. Some of these journalists work for the TV networks that use those ad dollars to pay the league, organizers, and athletes. Some of those TV networks have contracts guaranteeing them access to the athletes for pre/post game/match interviews and other appearances, but the primary product they are purchasing is always the rights to broadcast the game/match itself because that is what gets the biggest ratings and the biggest ad dollars. Many of these journalists work for some other media company that is not paying anything beyond just the general promotion of the sport. So "the media pays the athletes for these interviews" is only true in a relatively lower dollar amount and in a rather indirect way. Nowadays these journalists need the athletes more than the athletes need the journalists (this shifting power dynamic comes with its own set of problems, but that is a different conversation).
paxys 5y ago
The majority of income for all top athletes comes from endorsements. Over the last year, Naomi Osaka made $5m from tournaments and $50m from advertisers. LeBron James has a lifetime contract with Nike worth over a billion dollars. It's pretty obvious why athletes don't care about engaging with traditional sports media anymore.
- deanCommie 5y ago
  Right, but if by some hypothetical Osaka was banned from all tournaments, it's not like her income would drop from $55M to $50. I mean, yes, depending on the circumstances, maybe she would still be an icon and a role model a la Colin Kapernick, but broadly speaking she needs the first $5M to make the next $50M. Obviously the LeBrons and the Jordans of the world continue to get paid even after they retire for the rest of their lives, but they are extreme outliers and the number of athletes that remain "marketable" and can move merchandise based on their name/face alone once they are no longer competing athletically is probably <10 alive today worldwide.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
tqi 5y ago
If you're referring to tv deals, those networks make money by selling ads against the events, not by covering the storylines. If the latter were the case, I think one would expect the sponsoring networks to negotiate exclusive post game press conference rights?

Could be but you need to follow the money. Who pays the athletes and why should they pay the same when they don't get the same availability?

by mongol 5y ago

Could be but you need to follow the money. Who pays the athletes and why should they pay the same when they don't get the same availability?

slg 5y ago

I'm not very familiar with the business of tennis specifically, but in sports in general a plurality or even a majority of the money comes from advertisers who pay to sponsor events or show ads on the TV broadcast. The rates for those ads depends on the ratings and popularity of the event. The next biggest chunk of money is directly from fans in the form of tickets, merchandise, and directly paying to watch through streaming or pay-per-view. Some of these journalists work for the TV networks that use those ad dollars to pay the league, organizers, and athletes. Some of those TV networks have contracts guaranteeing them access to the athletes for pre/post game/match interviews and other appearances, but the primary product they are purchasing is always the rights to broadcast the game/match itself because that is what gets the biggest ratings and the biggest ad dollars. Many of these journalists work for some other media company that is not paying anything beyond just the general promotion of the sport. So "the media pays the athletes for these interviews" is only true in a relatively lower dollar amount and in a rather indirect way. Nowadays these journalists need the athletes more than the athletes need the journalists (this shifting power dynamic comes with its own set of problems, but that is a different conversation).

paxys 5y ago

The majority of income for all top athletes comes from endorsements. Over the last year, Naomi Osaka made $5m from tournaments and $50m from advertisers. LeBron James has a lifetime contract with Nike worth over a billion dollars. It's pretty obvious why athletes don't care about engaging with traditional sports media anymore.

deanCommie 5y ago
Right, but if by some hypothetical Osaka was banned from all tournaments, it's not like her income would drop from $55M to $50. I mean, yes, depending on the circumstances, maybe she would still be an icon and a role model a la Colin Kapernick, but broadly speaking she needs the first $5M to make the next $50M. Obviously the LeBrons and the Jordans of the world continue to get paid even after they retire for the rest of their lives, but they are extreme outliers and the number of athletes that remain "marketable" and can move merchandise based on their name/face alone once they are no longer competing athletically is probably <10 alive today worldwide.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

tqi 5y ago

If you're referring to tv deals, those networks make money by selling ads against the events, not by covering the storylines. If the latter were the case, I think one would expect the sponsoring networks to negotiate exclusive post game press conference rights?