HuskyHawk
The triumphant return of the Blues Brothers.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2011
- Messages
- 33,399
- Reaction Score
- 87,090
You're correct that present-day sports broadcasting is an expensive business. But you'd be foolish to ignore this basic math:
Viewers - especially millenials - are rapidly moving away from traditional cable TV, and ESPN is cutting expenses to compensate. They've already laid off hundreds of tenured employees, and are utilizing cost-saving methods in their broadcasts, such as having announcers call games from a remote location.
The days of relying on non-sports-fan-cable-subscribers to subsidize sports broadcasting are dwindling. Networks need new ways to monetize viewers, and streaming is the future.
This thread isn't so much about Twitter or another streaming service overtaking ESPN or eliminating cable altogether. Instead, it's a discussion about how the changing landscape of broadcasting will cut into ESPN's marketshare, and how that will impact future sports media negotiations.
No argument. But there's no magic elixir in streaming. Somebody has to monetize those rights fees somehow, and pay to produce the content. If streaming and cable cord cutting makes that harder, then (a) streamed content will have to become more costly to consumers and/or (b) rights fees will go down.