Report: ESPN Asks Top Talent to Take Substantial Pay Cut

[CL82]

ESPN asks top 100 on air personnel to take a 15% pay cut

They apparently are feeling the heat from the lack of live sports, although one wonders why? I get that they have nothing to broadcast, but why would that impact their bottom line? Are advertisers asking for money back? Are cable companies redoing their deals?

 

[HuskyAlum012]

ESPN asks top 100 on air personnel to take a 15% pay cut

They apparently are feeling the heat from the lack of live sports, although one wonders why? I get that they have nothing to broadcast, but why would that impact their bottom line? Are advertisers asking for money back? Are cable companies redoing their deals?

Bud light surely wont be paying the same price for a commercial during a 24 hour Sportscenter marathon that nobody watches compared to NBA playoff games. No eyeballs = no $$$$

 

[Chief00]

Bud light surely wont be paying the same price for a commercial during a 24 hour Sportscenter marathon that nobody watches compared to NBA playoff games. No eyeballs = no $$$$

Agree, these re-runs don‘t attract the eyeballs.

 

[AD DB Burner]

Agree, these re-runs don‘t attach the eyeballs.

And neither does HORSE.

 

[CL82]

Bud light surely wont be paying the same price for a commercial during a 24 hour Sportscenter marathon that nobody watches compared to NBA playoff games. No eyeballs = no $$$$

Good point. March Madness and the NBA playoffs almost certainly would command a premium for ads and they didn't happen.

 

[Chin Diesel]

Well, it's not like FOX or anyone else is going to sign most of them to bigger contracts and then put them in the icebox.

 

[Waquoit]

If I have a contract I'm telling them to pound sand.

 

[UConnJim]

If I have a contract I'm telling them to pound sand.

For the really top talent, like Herbsteit, you could probably say no. For most of the talent, if they don't take a pay cut, which is their right, there might not be a next contract.

During the financial crisis in 2008/2009, financial employers had "voluntary" pay cuts as many employees had contracts, but it was tough to say no given the situation and the outlook for other employment.

 

[mauconnfan]

By the original title I was thinking the best players at LSU, Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky and a few others were going to be asked to get some money back from their parents. Good thing it was actually the ESPN employees.

 

[UConnTrumbull]

Most average joes are dealing with this, not sure why commentators would be immune. We all got dealt a bad hand.

 

[Chin Diesel]

If I have a contract I'm telling them to pound sand.

For the really top talent, like Herbsteit, you could probably say no. For most of the talent, if they don't take a pay cut, which is their right, there might not be a next contract.

During the financial crisis in 2008/2009, financial employers had "voluntary" pay cuts as many employees had contracts, but it was tough to say no given the situation and the outlook for other employment.

It's a bit of a self-confidence and gamble on your individual market value. Those who feel they are paid near the top of their market value or maybe a bit much are more likely to take the chop in pay. Those who think they can pull their salary from competitors may dig in the sand a bit.

 

[Waquoit]

For most of the talent, if they don't take a pay cut, which is their right, there might not be a next contract.

But that's the case even if they do give money back. I remember when Dan Dierdorf was a hot commodity. But let's be serious, any industry where Kirk Herbstreit is a "top talent" is one where you take your money when you can get it.

 

[huskeynut]

I haven't watched ESPN since the NCAA's got shut down. Don't plan on going back.

 

[Seamus84]

They need top talent first.

 

[DOZE860]

espn is owned by Disney, last i check all of the parks are closed, which has got to be a huge revenue hit. they just furloughed 43,000 employees

 

[Slick]

If I have a contract I'm telling them to pound sand.

You could tell them to pound sand. However their revenues have shrunk to nothing so ESPN could lay them off and let them collect unemployment which would probably be much less then they earn.

They need top talent first.

 

[Waquoit]

You could tell them to pound sand. However their revenues have shrunk to nothing so ESPN could lay them off and let them collect unemployment which would probably be much less then they earn.

No, they can't.

 

[UconnU]

15%? I was expecting more.

 

[BlueMAB]

You could tell them to pound sand. However their revenues have shrunk to nothing so ESPN could lay them off and let them collect unemployment which would probably be much less then they earn.

If the on-air talent has contracts, and there's no clause that gives them an out for pandemics (highly unlikely) then ESPN has to honor the contract and pay them. Unless they agree to renegotiate.

 

[CTBasketball]

I cancelled my $5/month ESPN+ subscription and am asking for a refund for the month of March. I want my $5 you swine!

 

[WhereistheDove?]

The Disney family as a whole is hurting BIG TIME with this. I’m not surprised at all and would not be surprised to see some further cost-cutting measures.

 

[BlueMAB]

15%? I was expecting more.

Why? They don't have to agree to it. Seems inline to what they've already done. You're more likely to get buy-in with a lower haircut than what the execs are getting.

"In response to the pandemic, ESPN has already reduced executive VP pay by 30 percent, senior VP pay by 25 percent and VP pay by 20 percent."

 

[LIUCHusky]

If I have a contract I'm telling them to pound sand.

I'd hate to be on your team.

 

[Chuck]

If the on-air talent has contracts, and there's no clause that gives them an out for pandemics (highly unlikely) then ESPN has to honor the contract and pay them. Unless they agree to renegotiate.

If I'm one of those asked to take less, I renegotiate. Certainly "loyalty" is risky, but talent and management should both hope for the continued success of the company. I would agree to take less based upon receipt of a benefit/consideration (which is really needed to change the contract anyway). Extend the contract, increase the amount of compensation on the back-end, receipt of Disney stock options (at a depressed price). To me, that's fair to both sides. If Disney offers benefits like that, you'll look pretty crappy if you don't agree to renegotiate in these times. But just agreeing to walk away from 15% may not be fair either if you have a contract.

 

[Waquoit]

I'd hate to be on your team.

Not a problem, you would have been cut.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

They and the executives can take it as a dry run of higher marginal tax rates, if/where applicable.

Never even heard of Herbsteit, though out of respect, I did scroll up to do a spell check and removed the second "r" I had in originally.

I suppose I could care less, but I'll stop here.

 

[CL82]

I'd hate to be on your team.

The notion that we're all a part of team and have to share losses is only a reasonable proposition if the extra revenue is shared during good years. Often that's not the case.

 

[Wildgopher]

I haven't watched ESPN since the NCAA's got shut down. Don't plan on going back.

Same here. Probably won't watch a minute of it for a few more months at least.

 

[J187Money]

Hard part about the salary cuts - not for the talent, but for the exec team - is that the bonus pools will likely be 0% this year. Meaning that if you had a contract that was $X in salary with a 50% bonus opportunity - you already gave up 1/3rd of your total comp just by showing up (assuming you typically get paid out). Taking another 20/25/30% on top of that is rough. The EVP level folks are probably at 100% bonus pool. Meaning they are taking a 65% cut if they take a 30% salary cut.

 

[Waquoit]

Are they going to have a dividend this quarter? They can cut that first.