Bally Sports Network

Discussion in 'Internet Streaming Services' started by Andrew Sullivan, Mar 24, 2021.

  1. Mar 24, 2021 #1 of 109
    Andrew Sullivan

    Andrew Sullivan Active Member

    469
    107
    Dec 7, 2017
    Who is going to broadcast the new Bally Sports Network now that its replacing Fox Sports Network for Sinclair?
     
  2. Mar 24, 2021 #2 of 109
    compnurd

    compnurd Hall Of Fame

    4,447
    915
    Apr 23, 2007
    Evans City PA
    Unless they sign new contracts nothing will change
     
    boukengreen likes this.
  3. Mar 24, 2021 #3 of 109
    Andrew Sullivan

    Andrew Sullivan Active Member

    469
    107
    Dec 7, 2017
    How in the hell can Sinclair stay in business with Bally generating no income from COX Cable, DirecTV, Dish Network, YouTube TV, Sling, HULU, ETC. and why in the world would the Diamonbacks stay with Bally if nobody not wanting to Pay ATT $85 +Tax a month can watch their games?
     
  4. Mar 24, 2021 #4 of 109
    compnurd

    compnurd Hall Of Fame

    4,447
    915
    Apr 23, 2007
    Evans City PA
    Lol
     
    SamC likes this.
  5. Mar 25, 2021 #5 of 109
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    52,300
    2,661
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    AT&T|DIRECTV has a contract to carry the Sinclair former FSN channels regardless of the name. The name change doesn't change the distribution of the channels.

    The teams will stay with the channels as long as Sinclair can pay their rights fees. It may be more difficult for Sinclair to make that rights payment after losing many different systems over the past couple of years, but they don't seem to be having problems yet.
     
  6. Mar 25, 2021 #6 of 109
    cmasia

    cmasia Icon

    1,294
    227
    Sep 18, 2007
    Las Vegas
    Compnurd, I laughed out loud when I read the OP's 2 posts.
    Then I really LOL'ed when I saw your LOL! :) :)
    Cheers!

    To the OP:
    Absolutely nothing is changing in the agreements between MLB, NBA, and NHL teams with Fox Sports, now Bally Sports.
    Sinclair bought the RSN's from FOX, then decided to sell the naming rights. Nothing more, nothing less.

    In fact, one team, the Brewers, reupped with FOX AFTER the sale to Sinclair and BEFORE the rebranding.

    Brewers and FOX Sports Wisconsin announce multi-year agreement

    Sinclair's ability to stay in business is their problem, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

    And except for Dish and the streamers you mentioned, you should be able to find D'Backs games.

    How to Stream FOX Sports Arizona Live Without Cable (2021 Guide)

    https://www.foxsports.com/arizona/story/fox-sports-arizona-channel-finder-110315

    Google is your friend, Andrew.
     
    harsh, B. Shoe and compnurd like this.
  7. Mar 25, 2021 #7 of 109
    Andrew Sullivan

    Andrew Sullivan Active Member

    469
    107
    Dec 7, 2017
    Google is and always is the first place I check for just about anything. How to stream FSNArizona gives you one choice, ATT. No other options.
    I am aware how Sinclair works but consider that almost every streaming service I mentioned was carrying one of the FSN's but every single one has refused to renew their contracts. You said I should be able to find Dbacks games beyond ATT and the streamers I mentioned. Maybe you could elaborate because I can't find any and the ATT package that includes BALLY is $85 mo.
     
    HGuardian likes this.
  8. Mar 25, 2021 #8 of 109
    HGuardian

    HGuardian Godfather

    513
    20
    Aug 9, 2010
    If the people going streaming exclusively were ok paying $85/month for in-market sports they'd have neve cancelled cable or satellite to begin with. There's such a disconnect on this forum because it's filled with people paying well over $100/month for streaming (which makes sense, because it's DIRECTV, which has always been a premium product), but in reality the only reason live tv streaming products exist and are as popular as they are now is because the PRICE of cable and satellite was too high for 90% of cord-cutters, not because they didn't like the picture quality of cable/sat or the usability of the apps is far superior.
     
  9. Mar 25, 2021 #9 of 109
    Andrew Sullivan

    Andrew Sullivan Active Member

    469
    107
    Dec 7, 2017
    Everything you day is 100% accurate and most of these streaming services at one time carried the FSN local sports affiliates. It all came to a screeching halt when Sinclair came on the scene. My question is, how can these teams survive with limited attendence because of Covid along with losing their TV fan base?
     
    HGuardian likes this.
  10. Mar 25, 2021 #10 of 109
    evotz

    evotz Active Member

    239
    56
    Jan 23, 2014
    Sinclair should have busted their ass and gotten an OTT streaming platform built before Opening Day.

    As others have said there's still going to be Covid restrictions, so less fans in the stands. And there's a whole slew of fans that can't get their in-market teams because a lot of TV providers balked at carrying the stations (and I don't really blame them).

    How hard can it be to develop a streaming app that sees what zip code your IP address is in and what "in-market" teams are in that zip code, then you get those teams games. ... I'm sure it's not a snap your fingers easy... but they've had a solid year to come up with something.
     
    HGuardian likes this.
  11. Mar 25, 2021 #11 of 109
    cmasia

    cmasia Icon

    1,294
    227
    Sep 18, 2007
    Las Vegas
    Evotz, while yours is a great idea, the agreements RSN's have with cable and sat operators prevent them from selling directly to the consumer.

    There is no way an RSN would get carriage agreements anywhere if consumers could bypass cable or sat to buy the channel directly.

    Remember, RSN's "in-market" are on the lowest tier of most, if not all cable / sat packages, meaning every sub pays for the channel, whether they watch it or not.
    That keeps the cost per sub way down.

    If the cable / sat revenue went away, you'd be paying at least $15 to $25 per month for an RSN, as they'd likely lose 75% of their customers - the people who never watch sports, combined with sports fans who wouldn't pay that much.

    In an earnings call, a Sinclair spokesperson said the loss of streaming agreements cut revenue by 10%.
    That's significant, but does make it easier for Sinclair to hold the line on fees.
    I wonder if the OP got a rebate when his streamer dropped the channel.

    Another thing....It is interesting to remember Sinclair bought these channels from Disney - not FOX.

    Disney Gets Gov’t Approval After Agreeing to Sell Fox RSNs

    So, I'm a bit surprised continued carriage on Hulu was not baked into the deal.
     
  12. Mar 25, 2021 #12 of 109
    evotz

    evotz Active Member

    239
    56
    Jan 23, 2014
    Make no mistake about it, these Sports/TV partnerships VASTLY overestimated their total viewership. All of these regional sports operators paid millions of dollars to sports teams thinking that everybody and their dead uncle would watch these games. That's not the case. Consumers have shown that if given the option, they'll drop these sports packages to reduce price. I know several people that are this way. That's why I don't have a problem with Hulu, Youtube, Dish, etc all dropping these regional sports packages. People don't want to be forced to pay $120/mo for content they're not going to watch.

    That's why OTT makes the most sense. Sell direct to the customer that wants the content. Now... it's entirely possible that the OTT package would price itself out of the hands of most consumers - that remains to be seen because there isn't such a product available. Again, they overestimated their viewership, so it very well may be that an OTT package would cost consumers $200/mo just so these RSNs can break even with their contracts. But where ever they price it... is 20 cents on the dollar better than 0 cents?

    The industry as a whole needs to use this as a learning experience. Number of subscribers does not equal viewership. Just because I'm subscribing to the Food Network, doesn't mean I ever watch the Food Network.

    As far as an OTT offering, Sinclair did give some references to an OTT offering:


    Sinclair Gives Update on Direct-To-Consumer Plans and Carriage Dispute with Hulu & YouTube TV - The Streamable


    and at

    Sinclair CEO Speaks Out On Dish, Hulu, Betting - The TV Answer Man!


    RSNs are going to have to wise up and understand that the vast majority of people don't care about sports. Does that mean that sports teams get less money from these agreements? Yes, it does. It also means that RSNs will have to stop requiring that these RSNs be in the base packages of TV packages and instead would need to be a (probably hefty) addon.

    MLB wants to know what's killing viewership... read this thread.
     
    HGuardian likes this.
  13. Mar 25, 2021 #13 of 109
    HGuardian

    HGuardian Godfather

    513
    20
    Aug 9, 2010
    100% spot on. 10 years ago did anyone think they'd be able to get ESPN anywhere in a package for less than $50 a month? Now it's in a sling package (with Turner, Viacom, Discovery channels) for $35. I'm sure ESPN is doing fine (in a sense they can still afford NFL, NHL, MLB, NBA, College Football/Basketball rights, couldn't care less about their actual profits). And now they are available to more people at a lower price point. RSN's need to learn from ESPN.
     
  14. Mar 25, 2021 #14 of 109
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    52,300
    2,661
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Perhaps in the lowest level package with few other channels. The bigger surprise would be a base level package WITHOUT ESPN. They normally use their leverage to insist that if ESPN is available to any sub it is available in all packages. And often use their leverage to say if companies want to carry other ABC/Disney owned channels they must also carry ESPN. ESPN in a low cost package makes me look to see how few other channels are included for that price.

    ESPN is trying to be in 80 million plus homes at $7+ per home per month. The RSN's don't reach that market. Outside of where an RSN has blackout protected carriage of their local sports teams RSNs can't demand or expect a full price subscription ($2-3 ?). ESPN has done a lot of cost cutting over the past few years as their viewership dropped from the 100 million level to the 80 million level. Do RSNs have that much room to cut costs?
     
  15. Mar 25, 2021 #15 of 109
    HGuardian

    HGuardian Godfather

    513
    20
    Aug 9, 2010
    They don’t really have a choice, especially with the Sinclair networks only hitching themselves to expensive (and continued declining subscriber numbers) cable and AT&T. It also can’t help their ad revenue numbers as well.
     
  16. Mar 25, 2021 #16 of 109
    cmasia

    cmasia Icon

    1,294
    227
    Sep 18, 2007
    Las Vegas
    Wow.... where to start.

    First, any discussion trying to compare ESPN with RSN's is like comparing apples and razor blades. So, please don't conflate the 2. They cannot be compared.

    Second, if you think RSN's are going away anytime soon, check the end date of these agreements in baseball.

    Let’s Update the Estimated Local TV Revenue for MLB Teams

    Only a few expire before 2025, and a couple go into the '40's.

    The Marlins, Rockies, Brewers, and Pirates have all signed new multi-year RSN agreements.

    Third, 14 MLB clubs have ownership stakes in their RSN's. They will not do anything to dismantle their agreements with cable / sat companies.

    Fourth, baseball is a very "local" sport compared to the NFL. And the ratings reflect how well MLB performs locally.
    Here's one example. The Cardinals / FOX Sports Midwest are number 1 in their market when they play.

    Prime-time TV ratings in St. Louis on nights the Cardinals played this season

    So, stop saying no one is watching.

    Here's one more - Atlanta

    https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta...ta-braves-tv-ratings-reach-highest-level.html

    Are all markets that good? No, but it's clear the RSN's see the value of a long term relationship with local teams.

    And the NHL is even more "local" than baseball.

    So, for people screaming about how much RSN's have overpaid, they continue to sign these deals.
    Just ask the Pirates, Brewers, Rockies, Marlins, and even the NHL's Kraken.

    https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/seattle-kraken-local-tv-rights-root-sports-att-mariners

    Fifth, I've said this elsewhere and it's still the only way I can see a bridge between Cable/sat and OTT.
    Allow people to buy MLB.tv or NHL.TV and pay an additional $50 (an arbitrary figure) to eliminate local blackouts.
    100% of that "local" fee would be funneled directly to the affected RSN.
    If I paid an extra $50 for MLB and an additional $50 for NHL, the RSN would get more money from me than if I had cable!
     
    compnurd likes this.
  17. Mar 25, 2021 #17 of 109
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    22,919
    453
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    I imagine that some operators are taking a wait and see approach to what the fully-transitioned Bally's offers and how hard they press various forms of gambling.

    I'd guess that Sinclair needs that to happen soon as they've got a lot of irons in the fire and the various OTA endeavors (repacking, NEXTGEN TV deployment and station acquisition) weren't cheap.
     
  18. Mar 25, 2021 #18 of 109
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    52,300
    2,661
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Perhaps Bally is giving Sinclair enough money for branding (and the gambling tie ins) that Sinclair can adjust their prices to something more acceptable for other carriers. (At the risk of charging AT&T|DIRECTV and other carriers less money.)
     
  19. Mar 25, 2021 #19 of 109
    TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    8,597
    713
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    $50-$100 extra a month or for the season?
     
  20. Mar 25, 2021 #20 of 109
    HGuardian

    HGuardian Godfather

    513
    20
    Aug 9, 2010
    Nobody is against RSN's (though their buddy-buddy partnerships with the teams have made broadcasts increasingly more like reading Pravda than actual analysis of the local team with every passing year), they just want to watch their games. The insistence by Sinclair that they can only view them only on expensive platforms encourages either piracy or disengagement. Many times the consumers have been far ahead of the corporation, particularly in television.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements