DBSTalk Forum banner
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
My guess, should Apple win ST, is that they sell it for a not-outrageous price that includes one year of Apple TV+. But Apple TV+ will remain its own separate thing and won't automatically include ST. You can buy one year of TV+ for $50 (or monthly at $5/mo). Maybe they sell ST with one year of TV+ for, IDK, $200. Maybe even as low as $150 (meaning that the ST part is costing you only an extra $100/yr). I expect something similar would be done by Amazon with ST vs. Prime. In either case, I don't expect the winning bidder to make back the annual cost of their ST contract via residential subscription sales but they're going to want to charge something for it to help recoup some of the cost.

As for commercial viewing of ST (e.g. in sports bars), the most likely scenario is that that will continue to be carried, sold and billed by DirecTV satellite service. Apple/Amazon would probably just work out some deal with DTV so that most of the revenue for commercial ST sales goes to Apple/Amazon, with DTV getting a cut for playing middle-man. It's also possible, I suppose, that Apple/Amazon sells commercial viewing directly to establishments that don't already have DTV satellite gear in place but do have robust broadband. Although I would imagine that DTV would balk at that arrangement as they would want to be the exclusive commercial distributor...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
Since this thread is all about pontificating and guessing what will happen, here's another thought if/when Apple takes over; Sunday Ticket remains within its own app.
I'd be shocked if Apple did that. Surely part of the reason they'd have to shell out big bucks for ST would be to get folks hooked on Apple TV+. And you don't do that unless ST is streamed inside the Apple TV app (where all their other add-on subscriptions, i.e. Apple TV Channels, exist). Maybe ST gets it own dedicated tab in that app, or maybe it just shows up on the Sports tab. But I really can't see it continuing to have its own separate app.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
The solution to the problem is multicast. So far, it has typically been limited to arenas and stadiums.
Multicast must be implemented on a network-by-network basis. Comcast can do multicast on their own network, AT&T on their own, Verizon on their own, Charter on their own, T-Mobile on their own, Frontier on their own, Cox on their own, etc. But a content provider (e.g. Apple) can't stream something in multicast to end users.

As everything eventually moves to direct-to-consumer streaming services (e.g. Prime Video, HBO Max, Apple TV+, etc.), perhaps we'll see the major content providers and the major network operators come together to create some kind of multicast consortium in the interests of economizing bandwidth usage and improving the reliability of popular live streams (e.g. major sports) for their customers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
We have a winner. Double the price needs to increase the DESIRED content for all subscribers - not just one niche.
This is the issue facing big general-entertainment streaming services with regard to sports. They have to be targeted in how much they spend on sports rights and which sports rights they buy. Spend too much and you have to raise the cost of the service to a degree that won't be tolerated by non-sports fans. This is essentially what happened with the traditional cable bundle and led to many cost-conscious non-sports-fans becoming cord-cutters who quit cable for Netflix.

I see it playing out this way: local (Sun. afternoon) and national (Sun/Mon/Thur night) regular season NFL games are very popular, due partially to how few of them there are each year compared to other major pro sports. It makes sense to splash the cash for those rights and the NFL will likely seek to spread those games between multiple big streaming outlets (e.g. Amazon, Apple, Disney, WBD) when the current contracts end in 2033.

Same holds true for the playoffs and championship of all the major pro sports, including MLB, NBA and NHL, as well as for some college sports, e.g. NCAA March Madness, NCAA Football Championship, etc. Lots of folks want to see those games, so there's a return on investment there for the big general-audience streamers to buy those rights.

Beyond that, you probably just see those big streamers buying the rights for a sprinkling of national regular season MLB, NBA and NHL games, plus maybe some other sports that can be bought cheaply enough to make sense (e.g. various soccer leagues, foreign sports, a Grand Slam tennis tourney).

But for the 95% of regular season local MLB, NBA and NHL games that aren't shown on one of the major streamers, you'll need a dedicated service for that, i.e. whatever the RSNs evolve into. Maybe they're operated by a third party (e.g. Sinclair/Bally), maybe by the league (e.g. MLB) or maybe by individual teams (e.g. Cubs). These services won't be cheap but if you're a big fan of your local team, you'll pony up.

What I have a hard time envisioning, though, is where ESPN fits into this scheme after cable TV collapses and everything is in one direct-to-consumer streaming service or another. Even now, I'm not sure which fans ESPNs caters to. In terms of live sports, it seems like the ESPN family of channels is mainly for college sports fans -- particularly via the SEC and ACC Networks they own. IDK, perhaps they could nab rights to some or all of the NASCAR and/or PGA calendar when those rights are up for bidding again. But then we might see those leagues do their own DTC services too, with a few of their most popular events (e.g. Daytona 500, The Masters) streaming instead on Amazon, Apple, Disney or WBD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
ESPN, um well, Disney Streaming is going to do the distribution of a lot of sports. Currently they have NHL and MLS out of market, along with a lot of international sports no one carries.
Yeah. What I'm thinking ahead to is when cable TV penetration falls low enough that Disney is forced to begin selling the entirety of ESPN as a direct-to-consumer streaming service. Not just ESPN+ (which is essentially a streaming-only ESPN 4) but all the content across all the ESPN channels. My guess is that that day arrives by some point in 2025.

By that point, Disney will have shut down Hulu as a standalone service, trimmed down its content library (to reduce the amount they spend to license third-party content for Hulu), and made it a non-optional adult-focused branded hub inside of a more expensive Disney+, right next to the Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars and Nat Geo branded hubs. (This is how it already exists in the UK, except the hub is branded Star instead of Hulu.)

But I don't think ESPN gets sucked into Disney+ as yet another non-optional content hub. Because the cost of those sports rights are too high. If they made all of ESPN part of Disney+, they'd probably have to jack up the price of Disney+ by $12/mo, which would run off a lot of their subscribers who aren't big sports fans (or who don't care for the particular sports that ESPN mainly carries). So instead, I think they'd sell all of ESPN via the standalone ESPN app, maybe for $16-18/mo, with a bundling discount for folks who bought it and Disney+ too. At least, those are my guesses in terms of price points that they'd need to charge so that ESPN could bring in the same amount of revenue via streaming as it has been bringing in via cable TV, where a lot of folks are paying $8/mo out of their cable bill for it even though they don't watch it.

But I guess my larger question is whether a standalone ESPN service would be viable. It won't be for the hard-core fans of MLB, NBA or NHL, who will need their local RSN service to see their nearest team play the vast majority of their regular season games. And in terms of the most-watched sport, NFL, ESPN only carries Monday Night Football there. Would ESPN survive mainly as a place to watch college football and basketball? And what's to keep the SEC, ACC and Big 12 (which is on ESPN+) from eventually just rolling out their own direct-to-consumer subscription services for their games, as the Pac-12 has already done on cable with their Pac-12 network? Meanwhile, coverage of another major conference, the Big 10, is already on the Fox-owned Big 10 Network (which, like the Pac-12 Network, will eventually need to be taken direct-to-consumer OTT).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
Disney would lose billions selling the ESPNs for $15. The break even price for the ESPNs is thought to be about $40/month.

All you people who wanted “a la carte”, well, enjoy.
$40/mo?! Nah, don't think it's that high. Would like to see your source for that. It would definitely be higher than the per-sub carriage fees they get from cable TV distributors, though. Industry analyst Kagan put that figure at $7.64 in 2020, plus $1.04 for ESPN 2, $0.93 for SEC Network and $0.67 for ACC Network, totaling up to $10.28. I guess round up to $10.50 to include ESPNews and ESPN U. That's surely a bit higher now in 2022, so maybe $11.50/mo total.

But even so, I don't think they'd need to charge anywhere close to $40/mo if ESPN were to only be sold as a standalone DTC product. Sure, there are quite a few cable TV subs who wouldn't opt to pay for it separately but a ton of non-sports fans have already ditched cable TV anyhow.

But I do think it's likely that ESPN will never be anywhere close to as profitable as it's been up to now once the dam finally breaks on the cable bundle and everything moves to DTC. Which may be one reason Disney is considering selling ESPN. The more I think about it, the less I think that ESPN would make sense as a standalone DTC service. As I said before, the main content they seem to offer now is college sports and I don't know why the Pac-12 (which already owns their own cable channel) doesn't get together with the SEC, ACC, and Big 10 to form a joint DTC streaming service, at least once current distribution agreements lapse and allow such a move. Why use ESPN or Fox as a middle-man? Why not take their product directly to consumers OTT as the Pac-12 has already been doing on cable TV?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
I don't see DirecTV involved at all. Perhaps they sell the service to various cable/sat services as an add in, but this goes against everything Apple has done ever. Apple always wants as much control as possible. Selling this to some other party and letting them broadcast doesn't make sense. I don't understand why people here don't believe that Apple (APPLE of all companies...perhaps the most innovative company of our lifetime), cannot come up with a scheme to make this work commercially, or, cut out the commercial aspect altogether use the scheme I'm suggesting. Nobody here seems to think that it's even remotely possible to make this work without DirecTV and it could ONLY work the way DirecTV has been doing it for more than 20 years? Why? That's beyond silly. Think out of the box people. If it's Apple, they will make it work. Might be lots of glitches to start, but it's hard to imagine DirecTV had it all working perfectly the first year or so either. To me it's a matter of how it's going to work, but what they will charge. Are they willing to take a major loss in the hope that bringing in ST will lead to subscribers and sales of their devices? Or will they charge close to what DirecTV does and hope that this how they can recoup some of their money. To me, that's the interesting part of the equation. I couldn't care less about how bars deal with it. They will work it out, or just move on to something else.
Eh, you could be right. I've argued that side before myself, ha! (Although with Amazon being the distributor, not Apple.) But more than one rumor piece in the past few months has talked about the NFL wanting satellite distribution to still be available, at least for commercial establishments. So I do think that that's the most likely scenario. Could many sports bars live stream the games? Yes. But there are certainly some that couldn't or wouldn't want to deal with it. Maybe Apple/Amazon don't care about those bars, but maybe the NFL does. IDK.

As for Apple/Amazon not licensing ST to commercial establishments at all, that doesn't seem likely to me as it would be leaving too much money on the table. I suspect they'll lose money on ST regardless, if they spend the rumored $2 billion a year on it, but I'd think they'd prefer to lose as little as they can and chalk up the shortfall as a marketing expense for their other services.

If DTV does carry satellite feeds for ST games as a sub-contractor for Apple or Amazon, I would expect the on-screen graphics/branding to look identical to the version streamed directly from Apple/Amazon, with no mention of DirecTV at all. Viewers in the sports bar wouldn't know that they're watching via satellite TV. Well, once the picture goes out because it's raining, they'd probably figure it out... ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
If you watch ESPN, I don't except for games, but I was laid up for a few weeks and had limited TV so watched some ESPN, and it caters to...first and foremost, NFL football fans. The majority of their day, maybe 50% is spent on NFL stories, even during the off season. So where do they fit in? Their partnership with the NFL includes a lot of off game content, but remember, they have the MNF package and a few playoff games. In 2033? Who knows? They are trying to build up ESPN+ as a viable streaming service and THAT'S their future. Right now it feels like a bit of a joke, but there's a reason why they have brought in a lot of game available through ONLY that service. I could envision them, in the future porting MNF to that service at some point. Heck, it was originally on a broadcast network, then moved to cable. The next logical step is streaming. Amazon is doing it with TNF. Why not MNF. That's where this is going.
Some or all MNF games were on ESPN+ last year (in addition to being on regular ESPN). I think on ESPN+, they had an alternate audio feed with Manning doing the color, though.

Seems odd to me to think of ESPN as a mainly NFL-appeal service given that they only carry one live NFL game a week (and that's obviously only from Sept. through Dec.). Plus maybe a few playoff games in Jan. and maybe some pre-season games in Aug. I mean, sure, they can fill time with lots of NFL talk, highlights, etc. but then every other sports outlet can too. The free streaming CBS Sports HQ can do that. Talk is cheap. The future of any subscription sports channel/service will come down to which and how many live sports events it carries.

Once the cable bundle subscriptions (and therefore ESPN revenue) sinks low enough, they'll have to try to reach some of those streaming-only customers via a DTC service. And they obviously already have that with ESPN+, but that will have to expand. I think it's plausible in the next few years that ESPN reduces what they spend on broadcast/streaming rights, doing fewer/cheaper sports, so that by the time ESPN goes fully standalone DTC, it looks like something in between the current ESPN and ESPN+. IDK. Seems like they've passed their peak revenue level and will probably never get back up there again due to the long-term irreversible decline of cable TV. So if revenue goes down, their costs must go down too. Or their profits. Or both.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
They've been rattling this saber for years and it still hasn't happened. I think they may be concerned that it will cause more departures than new accounts given that account holders can't spread the cost across their extended families.
Hasn't yet happened in the US. But Netflix has, in fact, already rolled out an account sharing fee in three Latin American test markets: Costa Rica, Chile and Peru. Obviously, account sharing isn't something they're concerned about only in three small LatAm countries. They're trying it out in relatively unimportant markets first before shaking things up in bigger, more impactful markets. (See link posted above by b4pjoe.)

And Netflix indicated on their last quarterly call (when they announced a surprising, small Q1 global sub dip and anticipated a huge 2M drop for Q2) that they're contemplating some way to address account sharing here in the US (or even globally). Don't kid yourself. It's coming here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
My point was that this wasn't the first time that Netflix had broached the subject and it probably isn't the last time they talk/warn about it before it actually happens in the US market.
Agreed. They'll make some noise about it at least once more, to get American consumers conditioned to what's coming, before they finally do drop the bomb on us. If it hasn't arrived here within the next 12 months, I'll be quite surprised. And I expect an ad-supported Netflix plan to become available in the US by the end of 2023, if not sooner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
Netflix is in a strange position since they encouraged account sharing a few years ago (friends and family beyond the household). They were more worried about raising their viewer count than staying profitable. With the downturn in paid subscribers and looming debt they need to make sure people are paying for the service. And so do the competing services.
What would make sense and seem the fairest to me is for the SVODs to do more or less what the vMVPDs have done and tie most of your viewing to your home network. Maybe your subscription lets you watch on, say, 5 screens of any type simultaneously on your home network, plus an additional 2 screens off-network (i.e. via cellular or a different wifi network), but those 2 additional screens would be limited to computers and mobile devices (i.e. no smart TVs or TV-connected devices like Roku, Apple TV, Xbox, etc.). This would basically make the service appealing only to a single household/family. For those instances when a household member is traveling, or for a kid away at college, viewing on a mobile/laptop would be available. If you need more than 2 off-network screens at the same time, you could pay a little extra for more.

I think something like this is where it will eventually have to end up as the MVPD cash cow dries up and DTC SVODs shoulder more of the profit-making burden for these companies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
The other way they can do it is to tie it to a device for outside the house streaming. So perhaps you can tie it to only 2 cell phones at a time or a cell phone and a streaming device. I'm sure people who want to will figure out ways to get around that, but the casual user who wants to let their family and friends use their account won't bother.
Yeah, that'd work too. Although assuming you're not supposed to share your account with another household, I'm not sure what the rationale would be for allowing one of your out-of-home devices be a TV-connected device. OK, yes, it is nice if you travel a lot to be able to connect your Roku to the TV in the hotel/AirB&B so that all your content is there with you on the big screen, as opposed to watching on your laptop/tablet/phone or settling for whatever they have on their TV.

But this also seems like an edge-case. And I'm sure those streaming services would like to sell subscriptions to those hotels so that those establishments can offer that content via their in-room TVs to all guests (the same way every hotel and motel in the USA would advertise "free HBO" or "free Showtime" starting back in the 70s or 80s).

Rectangle Bumper Billboard Font Automotive exterior
Building Font Art Display device Advertising
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
It’s been a long time since I even bothered with what the hotel offered. We have a FireTV Stick 4k that we use just for travel. We connect it to the hotel tv and either use the hotel WiFi or if we can’t or they charge a fee we just connect to our phone hotspot. Same when we go on family vacations and rent houses. It’s convenient having all the same content just like we are at home.
I agree, it is convenient for consumers who do that. I'm just proposing that that kind of out-of-home TV usage may not always be included at no additional charge for OTT services as they look to crack down on sharing between households.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
Agreed. They'll make some noise about it at least once more, to get American consumers conditioned to what's coming, before they finally do drop the bomb on us. If it hasn't arrived here within the next 12 months, I'll be quite surprised. And I expect an ad-supported Netflix plan to become available in the US by the end of 2023, if not sooner.
Just as a follow-up on my own post, the latest word out of Netflix this week is that both the password-sharing crackdown and a new cheaper ad-supported plan will be introduced in the US in 4Q 22, i.e. about 6 months from now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
Somewhat relevant to the original topic of this thread, i.e. Sunday Ticket streaming via Apple, is today's post by The TV Answer Guy, where he takes a question from a sports bar owner about streaming the upcoming season of Thursday Night Football on Amazon Prime Video.


From the sound of this guy, I suspect there will be a lot of unhappy sports bar owners if Amazon doesn't provide them an alternate way to buy access to their games. Not that Amazon would necessarily care, mind you...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
For out of market bars trying to show the Thursday Night game, streaming (whether licensed for public viewing or not) seems to be the only option. Does Amazon care? Will Amazon or the NFL try to enforce residential viewing only rules? I believe the NFL will enforce residential only if Sunday Ticket is not officially available to commercial establishments.
Yup. But as I said last year, let's see what happens this fall with out-of-market TNF games in sports bars. That should be a good indicator of what may happen with NFLST next year. (Well, at least, if we see Amazon make alternate arrangements for sports bars to show TNF, e.g. via DirecTV, then I'd say that will set a precedent for what happens later with NFLST.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
This might have some relevance here, since about 1/3 of MLS owners are also NFL owners. It also goes to Apple going big on sports. Supposedly $2.5 billion for 10 years.

So this news about a new MLS-specific direct-to-consumer streaming service, offered by Apple, is a great illustration of the thesis I've repeatedly laid out about the future of sports broadcasting. To recap, I think we're going to see the vast majority of popular sports' regular season games be sold through services dedicated to a particular sport/league/team. This may be done directly by the owner of the league/team or, as in this case, through a powerful third party such as Apple to help improve the service's distribution/reach. This kind of service is intended to reach serious fans of that particular sport/league/team.

However, a sprinkling of the sport's regular season games, as well as most of its playoff/championship games, will instead be included on a major general entertainment streaming service -- this is the level/type of sports content that can appeal to casual fans, many of whom will want to subscribe to that service anyhow.

And this appears to be exactly what will happen here. To see most MLS matches, you'll need to specifically pay for the forthcoming Apple-branded MLS service, which will be offered inside the Apple TV app. (My guess is that it will simply be another of the so-called a la carte "Apple TV Channels," which currently include the likes of Showtime, Cinemax, AMC+, PBS Living, BritBox, etc.) But select MLS matches will be offered as part of the main Apple TV+ service, which of course mainly features a variety of Apple Original series like Ted Lasso and Severance as well as various original feature films, documentaries, kids' shows, plus other select live sports like Friday Night MLB.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
And this appears to be exactly what will happen here. To see most MLS matches, you'll need to specifically pay for the forthcoming Apple-branded MLS service, which will be offered inside the Apple TV app. (My guess is that it will simply be another of the so-called a la carte "Apple TV Channels," which currently include the likes of Showtime, Cinemax, AMC+, PBS Living, BritBox, etc.) But select MLS matches will be offered as part of the main Apple TV+ service, which of course mainly features a variety of Apple Original series like Ted Lasso and Severance as well as various original feature films, documentaries, kids' shows, plus other select live sports like Friday Night MLB.
From the latest I'm reading, it sounds like a subscription to Apple's MLS service will not require a subscription to Apple TV+, the same as is true of existing Apple TV Channels. But it also sounds like that service will include access to all MLS matches, including whichever ones Apple decides to also stream as part of Apple TV+. This is a surprisingly pro-consumer move, IMO. I'd have expected any specific match to be featured only on one service or the other. Or perhaps for the MLS service to be an add-on requiring Apple TV+, making the distinction unimportant to those buying the MLS service.

Makes me wonder if my prediction is correct that NFL Sunday Ticket, should Apple be the distributor, will necessarily include an Apple TV+ subscription. I still tend to think so, given that it can be bought on its own for just $50/yr and I expect NFLST to cost significantly more than that. Wonder how much the MLS service might cost though?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
It’s looking like Apple is getting streaming right for everything… in market, out of market and international.

The league appears to still be able to sell linear broadcast rights, and expects to have ESPN and Univision broadcast national games. Local rights for teams is a mixed bag… some OTA, some RSN, some none, but most teams make little off local rights.
Yes, OTT/DTC sports rights are a separate thing versus traditional TV (broadcast/cable) rights. In some cases, they're sold together, although in this new case with MLS, they're being sold separately. The recent new decade-long deal the NFL struck with various distributors -- Paramount/CBS, NBCUniversal, Disney/ESPN, Fox, Amazon -- include both. In the case of Amazon, it appears that they won't exercise the traditional rights, just the OTT/DTC rights.

The opposite appears to be the case with Fox, at least so far. They don't own a subscription OTT/DTC service, just a free ad-supported one (Tubi). And they don't want to undercut the value of their Fox broadcast network, which fetches lots of retrans money from MVPD subscriptions, by live streaming their local Sunday afternoon NFL games for free on Tubi. But I wonder how long Fox will resist monetizing those streaming rights. So far, I think their thinking is that they want to keep those games exclusive to their broadcast network to prop up those cable retrans fees charged by Fox affiliates (only some of which are directly owned by Fox). But the reality is that more and more Americans cut the cord every year and most of those folks, if they care to bother with an OTA antenna, could watch Fox's Sunday NFL games live for the low monthly cost of $0.00. So I don't think that Fox's logic really holds. They would increase, not decrease, their overall profits if they met an increasing number of consumers where they are and allowed them to pay to live stream their NFL games.

I guess it's possible that Fox could launch a little NFL-only subscription tier to Tubi. Maybe you'd have to buy the entire season, with the price dropping gradually as the season progresses? But it would be simpler, and probably more lucrative for Fox, and therefore just more plausible all the way around, if Fox just sold the OTT/DTC rights to their local NFL games to a deep-pocketed third party. Like Apple. Or Amazon. Or, who knows, maybe Disney/ESPN+.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
Now how much can the league take away from the team's with out running in to anti-trust issues or Sherman Act issues ?

The Supreme Court found in that decision that individual NFL teams are separate economic actors. But clearly the league can and does negotiate broadcast deals on behalf of all NFL teams, apparently with the legal consent of all the league's individual teams.

I don't know how other leagues are legally structured. Well, I do know that individual MLB teams are very much independent actors -- teams are individually owned and can make individual decisions with regard to TV streaming rights unless they cede those rights to the league. With the much newer Major League Soccer, IDK. What we do know is that the MLS was able to pull off a historic, sweeping deal with Apple for a new DTC service that will include both in-market and out-of-market games with no blackouts. Really great for MLS fans. (Meanwhile, MLS will continue to sell traditional broadcast TV rights too, completely separate from the Apple deal.)

It's looking like streaming of MLB in-market games is going to be a bit of a messy, piecemeal affair. So far, there are five or so teams that have sold those rights to Sinclair/Bally Sports to be part of their new DTC app launching this summer. It's expected that the Cubs may work with them to have their own separate DTC app, given that they already co-own with them their separate Marquee regional sports net on cable. My guess would be that the Yankee and maybe one or two other popular, rich MLB teams would also launch their own DTC app. And the Boston Red Sox have sold their DTC streaming rights to NESN, who just launched their new app.

As for the rest of the teams in the league, I think most/all of them end up selling their DTC streaming rights to the league itself. Why not? They already have a great app, MLB.tv, that streams out-of-market games for the entire league. It's always made the most sense to me that that same service would eventually sell in-market games too.

I predict that the next thing we see happen is the bankruptcy of Sinclair's Diamond Sports division in a couple years, which will mean that those MLB teams that have signed on with them (Brewers, Tigers, Royals, Marlins, Rays) will end up being released from that deal and will end up just joining the league's service in the MLB.tv app. The economics of the whole RSN model are very unstable right now and I think Sinclair overextended themselves with the purchase of all those former Fox RSNs which now constitute Diamond Sports. And, of course, since they hold both the broadcast and DTC streaming rights to a whole bunch of NBA and NHL teams too, that means that a hypothetical future collapse of Diamond/Bally Sports would mean the NBA and NHL would probably follow MLB's lead in offering their own DTC app. Again, might be one or two of the biggest teams who insist on their own app but the vast majority would participate in the league solution. The NBA already has an app for out-of-market games, so they'd just extend that to handle in-market games too (same as the MLB will do). The NHL sold their out-of-market rights to ESPN+. So, who knows, they might work with them again to create an ESPN-branded NHL in-market games service, either as its own app or as an add-on to ESPN+.

EDIT: To extend the prediction above, perhaps we'd see the MLB and NBA form a JV production company that would buy the assets of a bankrupt Diamond Sports from Sinclair, giving them the instant talent, equipment and contracts necessary to produce and air live games for all the MLB and NBA teams that currently air on Diamond's various RSNs. But each league would sell their own in-market and out-of-market viewing packages, both via DTC streaming as well as on traditional cable TV. Meanwhile, those MLB and NBA teams already affiliated with non-Diamond RSNs might see those relationships continue on for awhile, at least for in-market games on the traditional TV side.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top