2 ms·
I think only half of this is ESPN, the other half is professional sports leagues which negotiate contracts that prevent networks from providing alternative broa
by kodablah 11y ago
I think only half of this is ESPN, the other half is professional sports leagues which negotiate contracts that prevent networks from providing alternative broadcast methods. If they could, Fox/NBC/CBS Sports I am sure would not hesitate to offer streaming services to undercut ESPN (granted there is Fox Sports GO and NBC extra time for EPL, but they are more limited than their full channels). But the sports leagues they negotiate with won't allow it.
If I were ESPN, I'd ride it out. Sure you may lose compare to the old TV hegemony you had, but you'd never make it up from the streaming side while leagues have their own services.
- aesthetics1 11y agoI agree that the problem is the league's negotiations locking the content down to specific viewing methods, but I disagree with your second point. I think creating a good solid product wins. Something like www.ballstreams.com is much better than NBA League Pass. HBO Go is a better experience than your cable + HBO Subscription. Good products and services win out in the long run. That's why this is even a debate - services like Netflix are destroying the cable companies. It's only a matter of time. If ESPN built their own platform that was simple to use, worked wherever you were (without a cable subscription), and maybe most importantly did not have blackouts, I think they would make a killing.
- kodablah 11y agoMy second point was less about quality and more concerned the fact that ESPN can't create a system without blackouts because the leagues won't let them. So there is nothing they can do, they should ride it out.