DBSTalk Forum banner
1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Mentor
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
My question is who is getting the windfall profits when sports programming is for the most part non-existent. My RSN fee for channels 696 and 698 is $9.99/mo. D* continues to collect this fee when the only programming on these channels are sports reruns and a bunch of infomercials. For those in the know, does D* still pay the RSN's the same amount as when there was normal programming? If they are not, shouldn't us subscribers be getting a cut in the fee or maybe a option to drop the RSN until live sports returns? If the carriers are paying the same amount to the RSN's as before, why aren't they being called out on it. From what I understand, from listening to the leagues/teams, they are losing tons of money because of the loss from TV revenue which to me means, the RSN's are not paying anything to any of the leagues or individual teams. The auto insurance companies can give back a percentage of their fees back to their customers because of less driving so why aren't we getting anything back for the lack of programming which we are paying for. Sorry if this has been brought up in a different thread. I searched, couldn't find it and thank you for letting me rant. I feel better now.




Back to my original question. WHERE ARE THE WINDFALL PROFITS GOING???

Don't know if this includes RSN's but it's something.

AT&T is Giving DirecTV Customers Credits for Sports Packages - Cord Cutters News
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
3,866 Posts
My question is who is getting the windfall profits when sports programming is for the most part non-existent. My RSN fee for channels 696 and 698 is $9.99/mo. D* continues to collect this fee when the only programming on these channels are sports reruns and a bunch of infomercials. For those in the know, does D* still pay the RSN's the same amount as when there was normal programming? If they are not, shouldn't us subscribers be getting a cut in the fee or maybe a option to drop the RSN until live sports returns? If the carriers are paying the same amount to the RSN's as before, why aren't they being called out on it. From what I understand, from listening to the leagues/teams, they are losing tons of money because of the loss from TV revenue which to me means, the RSN's are not paying anything to any of the leagues or individual teams. The auto insurance companies can give back a percentage of their fees back to their customers because of less driving so why aren't we getting anything back for the lack of programming which we are paying for. Sorry if this has been brought up in a different thread. I searched, couldn't find it and thank you for letting me rant. I feel better now.




Back to my original question. WHERE ARE THE WINDFALL PROFITS GOING???
If you aren't watching sports, drop down to the Preferred Xtra package and you don't pay an RSN fee.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,407 Posts
All the pay TV distributors and even Sinclair have stated that the leagues first have to provide rebates to the RSNs first for the lack of games where they failed to meet their minimal quota (whatever that maybe). Then the RSNs will pass those rebates to the pay TV distributors and the pay TV distributors like Comcast and AT&T have pledged to pass on whatever rebates they get to their customers. Sinclair noted this process could be a while in an article a few weeks back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dishdude714

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,275 Posts
Yeah nothing has actually been canceled yet from the major big leagues. Only postponed really. It’ll be fall or the start of next season before we might see something.

As an example though if the nba goes strait to the playoffs only some channels will get a rebate not all.

Some money will come back from the nhl. But no idea how much.

Really the big one is MLB. Time will tell with that one...
 

·
Mentor
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Thank you for the reply techguy88
For clarification on my part, D* is sending NBC Bay Area their agreed amount to broadcast the Giants, Warriors, Kings and Sharks games even though there are no live games and then NBC Bay Area is sending their agreed amount to each of the teams mentioned. These teams receive their funds from the RSN and just keep it? From all the news reports I have seen none of the players or team managers or coaches are getting paid. Again, thank you for spelling it out for me. Guess you answered my question. The windfall profits, as of right now, are ending up with the individual team associated with each RSN.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
3,278 Posts
DirecTV is giving credits for subscription sports

I got a refund for MLB EI



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
1,269 Posts
Only 1 month of canceled games, but nothing refunded for my NHL Center Ice....
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,489 Posts
The RSN fee is already a sore point ... when one is paying an additional $9.99 and there are no real sports (not even competitive marble racing) on the RSNs it makes one wonder where the money is going. I assume that the teams and leagues are still getting their rights payments from the RSNs even though they are not providing new content? Lawyers have probably dug through all of the contingency wordings in the contracts.

The right thing to do would be to suspend RSN fees for the past two months and any additional months when the content is not provided. But the financial thing to do is to point fingers up the chain ... DIRECTV is still paying the RSNs, RSNs are still paying teams and leagues. Without ticket revenues they probably welcome any money they can collect.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
2,500 Posts
It has been reported that the contracts for RSNs provide for a unspecified minimum of games in each sport to be played over a 2 year period. RSNs are still being paid and a not out of compliance with their contracts and cannot be for at least a year. This is a major reason there has been few cancelations and rather grandiose schemes to play well out the proper season.

AT&T just issued credits for MLBEI customers and "M"LSDK customers.

IMHO, it will be clear in the next two weeks that the greedy baseball players have no interest in playing and then some kind of deal will be announced relative to the RSNs.
 

·
Legend
Joined
·
387 Posts
IMHO, it will be clear in the next two weeks that the greedy baseball players have no interest in playing and then some kind of deal will be announced relative to the RSNs.
What a naive statement!....Your pissed at multimillion dollar players, but cheer on the billionaires that pay them?

Go look at anti trust laws that make baseball billions and keep their books closed!....Did someone put a gun against their head to sign Mike Trout 400 millions dollars?
I think not!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,598 Posts
What a naive statement!....Your pissed at multimillion dollar players, but cheer on the billionaires that pay them?

Go look at anti trust laws that make baseball billions and keep their books closed!....Did someone put a gun against their head to sign Mike Trout 400 millions dollars?
I think not!
Product Sleeve Gesture Font Slope
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,279 Posts
That difference between a mlllion and a billion looks like the "English billion", which is equivalent to our trillion.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
2,500 Posts
Of course owners (of baseball teams, or any other product) do not pay their employees, their customers do.

Football analogy, but in 1973 the starting QB of the Cowboys made about what a mid-career federal prosecutor made. A solid upper-middle class living. A better time and a better system.

Sorry, but in any sports labor deal it is the owners, as representatives of us all vs. the greedy players.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,275 Posts
Of course owners (of baseball teams, or any other product) do not pay their employees, their customers do.

Football analogy, but in 1973 the starting QB of the Cowboys made about what a mid-career federal prosecutor made. A solid upper-middle class living. A better time and a better system.

Sorry, but in any sports labor deal it is the owners, as representatives of us all vs. the greedy players.
No owners do. Baseball doesn't share revenue or have any cap. It's the one league where the owners truly pay their salaries instead of splitting revenue in any way. The owners keep whatever they can make off us minus what they chose to pay their players scouts managers etc. that's why the A's have such a small payroll and the Yankees have such a large one overall. The owner decides how much of his money he wants to spend.

A month ago or so, The owners went to the players and said we are going to not make as much money this year. (Note I'd didnt say they'd lose money, just not make as much) so they said how about we pay you based on how many games we play. Take your pay, cut it into 162, then multiple it by however many games we play.

Players say that's fair go for it.

Owners a month later say, we want more, let's be partners now instead of employers and split revenue 50%. Never done before in baseball. Players say, ok, then open your books and lets see how much you are making. Owners say no, you need to just trust us.

That's not how it works.

No in this case on this particular issue this particular year, this is all on the owners. All of it now.

And then there was this...

The owner of the Oakland A's decides to fire hundreds of people instead of spend 700k over the next several months when he is the 8th richest billionare owner for a ton of minor leaguers. Instead of taking care of your own, he decided to make those players seek unemployment and ask me, a taxpayer to kick in unemployment for those people he could easily still pay and not even notice it as more than a rounding error.

Most teams are not doing that. Most teams understand that you should help out when you can. And maybe cut some salaries of people who make over 100k. The players agreed to that too... but then some owners got greedy and want a lot more now for no reason whatsoever.
 

·
Legend
Joined
·
387 Posts
No owners do. Baseball doesn't share revenue or have any cap. It's the one league where the owners truly pay their salaries instead of splitting revenue in any way. The owners keep whatever they can make off us minus what they chose to pay their players scouts managers etc. that's why the A's have such a small payroll and the Yankees have such a large one overall. The owner decides how much of his money he wants to spend.

A month ago or so, The owners went to the players and said we are going to not make as much money this year. (Note I'd didnt say they'd lose money, just not make as much) so they said how about we pay you based on how many games we play. Take your pay, cut it into 162, then multiple it by however many games we play.

Players say that's fair go for it.

Owners a month later say, we want more, let's be partners now instead of employers and split revenue 50%. Never done before in baseball. Players say, ok, then open your books and lets see how much you are making. Owners say no, you need to just trust us.

That's not how it works.

No in this case on this particular issue this particular year, this is all on the owners. All of it now.

And then there was this...

The owner of the Oakland A's decides to fire hundreds of people instead of spend 700k over the next several months when he is the 8th richest billionare owner for a ton of minor leaguers. Instead of taking care of your own, he decided to make those players seek unemployment and ask me, a taxpayer to kick in unemployment for those people he could easily still pay and not even notice it as more than a rounding error.

Most teams are not doing that. Most teams understand that you should help out when you can. And maybe cut some salaries of people who make over 100k. The players agreed to that too... but then some owners got greedy and want a lot more now for no reason whatsoever.
Thank you.....Sure is funny when people just love to fawn over the rich, but it it comes to pro sports, people who are the upper .99% and incredible athletes....well they are just greedy?....lol
Just more inequality, with a list of many more!
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
2,500 Posts
Actually the owners (our representatives) have shown that they would lose $640K per team per game if they paid the players on a pro rata basis. The greedy players have offered no math to refute this. In fact the chief agent for the most greedy has stated that the owners should "pay the players out of previous years' profits" thus admitting the owners (our representatives) are right. As they (we) are.

And, BTW, remember the idiotic "collusion" case. With NO EVIDENCE the owners were found to have "colluded" to keep pay reasonable, and are now forced into this fantastic and artificial system.

However, please understand basic economics. In ANY business no one pays higher wages, higher taxes, higher insurance premiums, lawsuit settlements, higher energy costs, or ANY other expense, except the customers. Period. Basic economics.

Fact is if you think RSN fees, ticket prices, or whatever else are too high, remember they used to be (in constant inflation adjusted $$) FAR LESS. When the greedy players made far less. This can happen again. It begins with destroying the player's union.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,598 Posts
The owners have shown nothing as they refuse to let anyone see their books. They can make any baseless claim they want but they better offer up some actual proof at some point.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,275 Posts
Actually the owners (our representatives) have shown that they would lose $640K per team per game if they paid the players on a pro rata basis. The greedy players have offered no math to refute this. In fact the chief agent for the most greedy has stated that the owners should "pay the players out of previous years' profits" thus admitting the owners (our representatives) are right. As they (we) are.

And, BTW, remember the idiotic "collusion" case. With NO EVIDENCE the owners were found to have "colluded" to keep pay reasonable, and are now forced into this fantastic and artificial system.

However, please understand basic economics. In ANY business no one pays higher wages, higher taxes, higher insurance premiums, lawsuit settlements, higher energy costs, or ANY other expense, except the customers. Period. Basic economics.

Fact is if you think RSN fees, ticket prices, or whatever else are too high, remember they used to be (in constant inflation adjusted $$) FAR LESS. When the greedy players made far less. This can happen again. It begins with destroying the player's union.
Let's be clear... they have never shown any proof they'd lose money. None. They have never opened up their books and let the players see it much less you or I. Where are you getting this idea they have?

And even if they did so what. They never paid the athletes hundreds of millions more when they made massive tv deals that paid them more. Sure they offered more money to players but at no where near even half the increase in what they made. And their teams they bought for hundreds of millions are now worth multiple billions. They can easily afford a down year where as many of the non top players can't if they expect to live off their baseball earnings till they die.

They signed a contract with players that specifically doesn't tie their salaries to how much money they make in a given year but one year where they won't make a hundred million they suddenly want to tie their pay to revenue. Without opening the books... you would never do that if you where the employee and just take their word for it.

And actually let's be clear, the RSN fee has gone up because of the owners not the players. The owners of all the teams in all the leagues are the ones who negotiate the tv deals and bid channels against each other to increase their revenue higher and higher. Some of that then gets passed along to the players. But not all of it. In fact most the sports it's limited to 50% or less by contract. Except baseball. They could pass along 10% and still be in the rules if they want.

The players demand more money because they see how much more money the owners are making off them and want more of the owners profits. Even if they where all paid 100k a season we'd still be paying the same RSN fee, just that much more money would be going into the owners pockets.

The owners aren't even close to our representatives. They want to make as much money as possible off of us. They are the ones who determine how much we have to spend to go to a game and watch it on tv. Most leagues force the owners after all the negotiating to pass a lot along to players but be clear the owners are the ones who figure out how to get the money in the first place.

We have no representative except maybe DIRECTV and other providers. But it sure as heck isn't the owners.

I do not believe the owners colluded either. Their system was setup so that if they spent a certain amount over a certain amount for to many years in a row they'd have to share their profits with other owners. The big spenders all happened to hit that mark at the same time so they all decided to take a year off from spending high so they didn't have to share profits with the other owners. Had nothing to do with the players. They have a salary cap for the owners to try and make all the teams spend the same but it's not tied to how much money teams make.

The basic economics argument proves the owners are the greedy ones. They get their money from us and then pay their employees. If they where they getting as much from ya they wouldn't be paying their players as much. Players in no league have ever gone on strike to demand owners get more money from customers via ticket prices or tv deals. They always go after the money after the owners get the money from us. Not before.

I'm not big on unions but for sports leagues it's pretty essential. Otherwise owners would still charge whatever they can and then pay players pennies on the dollar. Sadly the MLB players have a bad rep that has gotten worked by the owners in this negotiation.

If you think the players should be paid less do you also think the owners should make less? They will disagree with that and they are the ones who set the deals for tv and tickets. Why do you think that if they didn't have to pay players as much that the owners would give massive discounts on tickets and tv deals? There is a reason they are billionaires and it's not because they give massive deals to people.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,489 Posts
The important point for this thread is that the "customers" are continuing to pay for a product that they are not receiving and will never receive.

No matter if the buck they are paying stops at DIRECTV, the RSN, the leagues, the teams or the players - millions of DIRECTV subscribers are paying for something they will not get. Even if every major sport figured out a way to play every game in compressed seasons, that is not what the subscribers are paying for.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top