4 ms·

Pre-existing TV deals. For example, the rights to non-national NBA games are sold to LocalCableCompany SportsNet. On occasion, these games get promoted to one o

Pre-existing TV deals. For example, the rights to non-national NBA games are sold to LocalCableCompany SportsNet. On occasion, these games get promoted to one of that national rights holders (TNT, ESPN/ABC) so there's some mechanism for that in the contract. But the league is no doubt precluded from selling to the local cable channel and then undercutting them via their own website. TL;DR - it's not a technical problem but a licensing problem that will solve itself once the contracts expire.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
Yes, but video streaming has been out for 5+ years. How long are these licensing deals? I guess they must be betting that the TV deals will earn them more money in the short term than snubbing them and hoping to build up their audience directly. But I wonder how many new generation viewers they are losing. Or perhaps major sports was inevitably going to decline anyway compared to alternative entertainment options, so might as well milk the cow while they can.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  TV deals are usually somewhere on the order of 10 years long. And as you said, they are betting that the TV contracts are earning them more than selling direct to consumers would. Because once they go direct to consumer, the TV deals are gone. ESPN isn't going to pay $1 billion per season for Monday Night Football if the NFL is trying to steal viewers from them. There's also a ton of added complexity for them aside from the streaming, including having to staff and schedule production facilities for every game. It's not insurmountable, but it's also something they don't deal with today.
  - mdasen 5y ago
    I'd also note that selling directly to customers can mean fewer viewers. For a long time, people complained about cable bundles because they were paying for things they didn't want. Now people are complaining because they need to pay for 5-10 different subscriptions. If a sports league makes a deal with ESPN and most people get ESPN as part of a bundle, a lot of people are going to watch who might not otherwise watch. If you need to buy NFL-TV to watch a game, many people will simply not watch the game. Think about how many things that are included with Netflix that you've watched, but you'd never pay for individually. Sports leagues don't want to put people in the situation of deciding if they like the sport enough to pay for it individually. They'd rather have their programming as part of a larger bundle that customers already pay for. Hard-core fans would pay for their sports league, but they'd lose out on all the casual fans, people who might watch a game or two a week (and wouldn't feel like paying for so many games was worth it to them), and people who might watch a game with other people if it was on (and free).
    - jaywalk 5y ago
      Direct to consumer will almost certainly mean fewer viewers. You're cutting out casual fans completely, because they can't just flip on the game when they feel like watching.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        They only worked because the only entertainment pipe into your house was a one way coaxial cable.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

Yes, but video streaming has been out for 5+ years. How long are these licensing deals? I guess they must be betting that the TV deals will earn them more money in the short term than snubbing them and hoping to build up their audience directly. But I wonder how many new generation viewers they are losing. Or perhaps major sports was inevitably going to decline anyway compared to alternative entertainment options, so might as well milk the cow while they can.

jaywalk 5y ago
TV deals are usually somewhere on the order of 10 years long. And as you said, they are betting that the TV contracts are earning them more than selling direct to consumers would. Because once they go direct to consumer, the TV deals are gone. ESPN isn't going to pay $1 billion per season for Monday Night Football if the NFL is trying to steal viewers from them. There's also a ton of added complexity for them aside from the streaming, including having to staff and schedule production facilities for every game. It's not insurmountable, but it's also something they don't deal with today.
- mdasen 5y ago
  I'd also note that selling directly to customers can mean fewer viewers. For a long time, people complained about cable bundles because they were paying for things they didn't want. Now people are complaining because they need to pay for 5-10 different subscriptions. If a sports league makes a deal with ESPN and most people get ESPN as part of a bundle, a lot of people are going to watch who might not otherwise watch. If you need to buy NFL-TV to watch a game, many people will simply not watch the game. Think about how many things that are included with Netflix that you've watched, but you'd never pay for individually. Sports leagues don't want to put people in the situation of deciding if they like the sport enough to pay for it individually. They'd rather have their programming as part of a larger bundle that customers already pay for. Hard-core fans would pay for their sports league, but they'd lose out on all the casual fans, people who might watch a game or two a week (and wouldn't feel like paying for so many games was worth it to them), and people who might watch a game with other people if it was on (and free).
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    Direct to consumer will almost certainly mean fewer viewers. You're cutting out casual fans completely, because they can't just flip on the game when they feel like watching.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      They only worked because the only entertainment pipe into your house was a one way coaxial cable.