# Sunday Ticket 2023+ (Carrier TBD)



## juan ellitinez

This is huge









Report: Apple bows out of Sunday Ticket talks, leaving Amazon and Google as the finalists - ProFootballTalk


The company once regarded as the frontrunner for NFL Sunday Ticket has opted to take a Sunday drive, instead.Buried in an item on Puck.news from Dylan Byer and Julia Alexander regarding recent changes at the top of Disney is an NFL bombshell: Apple has bowed out of the bidding for the...




profootballtalk.nbcsports.com


----------



## codespy

Holy Whistles Batman!! Didn’t see that coming.


----------



## b4pjoe

So both Apple and Disney have bowed out. Rob37 may be right after all. 🤣


----------



## b4pjoe

I’d rather Google get it. They couldn’t do worse than the way Amazon does TNF.


----------



## dtv757

Glad Apple is out .


----------



## James Long

juan ellitinez said:


> Report: Apple bows out of Sunday Ticket talks, leaving Amazon and Google as the finalists - ProFootballTalk


_Here’s the key quote, from Byer: “I’m now told that Apple, once seen as a frontrunner for the rights, has also backed out of those negotiations — not because they can’t afford it, but because they don’t see the logic. So it’s down to Amazon and Google, and there’s certainly a logic there for both companies: Amazon can use it to drive Prime subscriptions; Google can use it to fuel its YouTube TV business.”

Apple’s decision to take a pass is a stunner, since Apple had emerged as the clear frontrunner for the package that DirecTV has held since its inception in 1994. Between, however, the extreme asking price and the strict limitations imposed on the product, there’s a point at which one corporate behemoth tells the other to get lost.

And that’s what Apple did to the NFL._


----------



## SledgeHammer

James Long said:


> _Here’s the key quote, from Byer: “I’m now told that Apple, once seen as a frontrunner for the rights, has also backed out of those negotiations — not because they can’t afford it, but because they don’t see the logic. So it’s down to Amazon and Google, and there’s certainly a logic there for both companies: Amazon can use it to drive Prime subscriptions; Google can use it to fuel its YouTube TV business.”
> 
> Apple’s decision to take a pass is a stunner, since Apple had emerged as the clear frontrunner for the package that DirecTV has held since its inception in 1994. Between, however, the extreme asking price and the strict limitations imposed on the product, there’s a point at which one corporate behemoth tells the other to get lost.
> 
> And that’s what Apple did to the NFL._


What happens if Amazon & Google pass? NFL goes crawling back to Dave?


----------



## codespy

SledgeHammer said:


> What happens if Amazon & Google pass? NFL goes crawling back to Dave?


I don’t see that happening, especially after still not making a profit on their ‘only’ 1.5B deal every year for years now. That along with subs constantly declining. I would love it to stay personally, but it’s not realistic.

With Apple bowing out, it sounds like someone got a little too big for their underwear.


----------



## gio12

From what I read, Apple wanted the NFLST to be included with AppleTv+ and NFL said no because it would hurt CBS and FOX. Apple was willing to pay the price if ATV+ could include.

Oh well. Was hoping Apple would have won. Even at $50 its a great deal compared to now.


----------



## compnurd

codespy said:


> I don’t see that happening, especially after still not making a profit on their ‘only’ 1.5B deal every year for years now. That along with subs constantly declining. I would love it to stay personally, but it’s not realistic.
> 
> With Apple bowing out, it sounds like someone got a little too big for their underwear.


Yeh. It’s not coming back to DIRECTV My guess is if they can’t get someone to buy it they sell it themselves


----------



## b4pjoe

In the article that was posted here today:








Bye Bye NFL Sunday Ticket on Directv.


No one knows.




www.dbstalk.com




it says:


> A new report from Sportico has some updates about the status of the next deal. Negotiations are at “a very critical point” for the NFL, Goodell apparently said Wednesday, though he also noted that “our decisions are not based on timelines.” Apple is still expected to get the rights, but one of its requests would be a giant ask: the company apparently wants NFL Sunday Ticket to be included with Apple TV Plus, which costs $6.99 per month, at no extra cost.


Not sure why that would be a sticking point as everyone has claimed all the NFL cares about is getting their money. If Apple meets their price why would they care if Apple just includes it with Apple TV+?


----------



## James Long

The article as mentioned:


Sixto said:


> Latest: Apple’s rumored NFL Sunday Ticket deal might not happen this year
> 
> Actually from Sportico but that's a paid subscription.


----------



## glrush

Not saying that this latest report isn't true, but if you recall Puck also reported earlier in the year the deal "may already be done". So, the new report may be true. Or not. 

Apple could have already inked NFL Sunday Ticket deal - 9to5Mac


----------



## James Long

There is a lot of unnamed sources, speculation and hearsay involved. Given two stories from the same root source with the same level of factual support I'd lean toward the more current speculation. But at this point it seems that we are discussing off hand comments by observers more than firm statements by the parties involved.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

_



Google can use it to fuel its YouTube TV business.”

Click to expand...

_So does this mean you will have to subscribe to YouTube TV in order to get it?


----------



## compnurd

TheRatPatrol said:


> So does this mean you will have to subscribe to YouTube TV in order to get it?


Probably.. its no different then Directv now but they could always bundle it with Youtube Premium


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> In the article that was posted here today:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bye Bye NFL Sunday Ticket on Directv.
> 
> 
> No one knows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dbstalk.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it says:
> 
> Not sure why that would be a sticking point as everyone has claimed all the NFL cares about is getting their money. If Apple meets their price why would they care if Apple just includes it with Apple TV+?


I was really surprised to see that Apple was willing to spend that kind of money -- reportedly $2 to 3 billion -- for additional content for their $6.99/mo Apple TV+ service. I'm sure they're already losing money on Apple TV+ and are willing to do so while they continue to build it but still -- that's a lot of dough. They could spend a fraction of that to create a lot of new series and films that might do more to bring in and retain subs than out-of-market Sunday afternoon NFL games.

But anyhow, to answer your Q, the problem with Apple doing that is that it would violate the NFL's deals with CBS and Fox for the in-market and select out-of-market Sunday afternoon games carried on those networks' local affiliates (and, in CBS's case, streamed live on Paramount+). Apparently those contracts require that NFLST be "premium priced" so that it won't be a widely subscribed service that would compete with the CBS and Fox telecasts.


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> I was really surprised to see that Apple was willing to spend that kind of money -- reportedly $2 to 3 billion -- for additional content for their $6.99/mo Apple TV+ service. I'm sure they're already losing money on Apple TV+ and are willing to do so while they continue to build it but still -- that's a lot of dough. They could spend a fraction of that to create a lot of new series and films that might do more to bring in and retain subs than out-of-market Sunday afternoon NFL games.
> 
> But anyhow, to answer your Q, the problem with Apple doing that is that it would violate the NFL's deals with CBS and Fox for the in-market and select out-of-market Sunday afternoon games carried on those networks' local affiliates (and, in CBS's case, streamed live on Paramount+). *Apparently those contracts require that NFLST be "premium priced" so that it won't be a widely subscribed service that would compete with the CBS and Fox telecasts.*


Yeah I have heard that mentioned but is it really in the contracts or journalistic guessing. CBS and Fox would still get the same games either way. I don’t really see how that hurts them or why the NFL would have that in their contracts.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> Yeah I have heard that mentioned but is it really in the contracts or journalistic guessing. CBS and Fox would still get the same games either way. I don’t really see how that hurts them or why the NFL would have that in their contracts.


Let's put it this way: if all those games carried in NFLST were widely available (e.g. aired on basic cable channels) that would definitely eat into the ratings that CBS and Fox get for the games their local affiliates carry at the same time. Reduced ratings means reduced ad revenue and reduced cable TV carriage (retrans) fees. So it's in CBS's and Fox's interests for NFLST to be a niche product due to its high cost so that it doesn't really compete for eyeballs.


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> Let's put it this way: if all those games carried in NFLST were widely available (e.g. aired on basic cable channels) that would definitely eat into the ratings that CBS and Fox get for the games their local affiliates carry at the same time. Reduced ratings means reduced ad revenue and reduced cable TV carriage (retrans) fees. So it's in CBS's and Fox's interests for NFLST to be a niche product due to its high cost so that it doesn't really compete for eyeballs.


But they wouldn’t be on basic cable channels. Only on Apple TV+. Now granted a LOT of people would probably subscribe to Apple TV+ just to get ST, which is what Apple want, but probably not as many as if the games were on basic cable channels. Apple also could only make it available to subscribers that get the yearly subscription to keep people from canceling at the end of each season too. But anyway I see the point I guess for Fox and CBS and kudo’s to them if they indeed do have that language in their contracts. I think the DIRECTV experience shows that not that many people will want to pay $300 - $400 or more for the package but we will see.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> Apparently those contracts require that NFLST be "premium priced" so that it won't be a widely subscribed service that would compete with the CBS and Fox telecasts.


And if that turns out to be true for 2023 and beyond (the beginning of the most recent broadcast renewals) that would affect whomever gets NFLST. No more "free with new subscription" deals. Offering $300+ off of the subscription IF someone bought NFLST with their programming package should work - but Apple doesn't cost $300 per year (yet).

If Apple got NFLST they could have charged $350-$400 for NFLST and threw in a year of Apple+ for "free".

Google and Amazon charge enough for their regular packages that they can discount their regular packages with purchase of NFLST.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> But they wouldn’t be on basic cable channels. Only on Apple TV+. Now granted a LOT of people would probably subscribe to Apple TV+ just to get ST, which is what Apple want, but probably not as many as if the games were on basic cable channels.


Right. I was using basic cable as an example of something that's widely available and therefore would produce competition for viewers against the Fox and CBS broadcasts. (Imagine how much less that those two networks might bid to carry their games if they knew the NFL was going to sell the out-of-market games airing at the same time to, say, the ESPN channels.) 

A cheap standalone streaming service (Apple TV+) is also broadly accessible, and so Fox and CBS fear that having NFLST on it would also erode their Sunday NFL ratings. Not as much as having those games on basic cable, of course, but I was using that as an exaggerated example to illustrate the point.



b4pjoe said:


> I think the DIRECTV experience shows that not that many people will want to pay $300 - $400 or more for the package but we will see.


Yeah. I think the total potential audience for NFLST sold any way you want it at $300 - $400 -- available either as a standalone streaming thing, or as an add-on to any cable TV service (i.e. the same way that MLB and NBA sell their out-of-market packages) -- would be greater than what we've seen with DirecTV, where you had to subscribe to a specific satellite cable TV service with an up-front 2-yr contract. But yeah, at that high price, there are only so many folks out there enthusiastic enough about out-of-market teams or the NFL overall to subscribe.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> And if that turns out to be true for 2023 and beyond (the beginning of the most recent broadcast renewals) that would affect whomever gets NFLST. No more "free with new subscription" deals. Offering $300+ off of the subscription IF someone bought NFLST with their programming package should work - but Apple doesn't cost $300 per year (yet).
> 
> If Apple got NFLST they could have charged $350-$400 for NFLST and threw in a year of Apple+ for "free".
> 
> Google and Amazon charge enough for their regular packages that they can discount their regular packages with purchase of NFLST.


DTV would give you one free season of NFLST if you got an upper-tier base package (Choice or higher, for one TV with DVR) with a 2-yr contract. But the total price you'd pay over those 24 months (even subtracting the value of a $300 up-front Visa gift card) would be something like $2,300 or more. When you're on the hook for that amount, a free $300 NFLST package for one year isn't a huge giveaway. The cost of the 2 years of DTV service that the "free" season of NFLST was tied to was high enough that I would think that would satisfy the regular NFL broadcasters (e.g. CBS and Fox) that NFLST wouldn't pose any real competition for eyeballs.

But neither YouTube TV nor Prime have contracts the way that DirecTV Satellite does. And their costs are lower. With Prime, the cost is just $139 per year. AFAIK, YouTube TV doesn't even offer an annual subscription, just monthly, at $65/mo. So I don't know how either would be able to offer a season of NFLST for free that's somehow tied to their base service (unless they put some kind of long-term contract in place, which I don't see either doing).

So then would options would that leave them? I guess just selling NFLST as an optional pricey add-on package to anyone who, at that point in time, is a Prime member or a YouTube TV subscriber. And I'm sure if they were the exclusive seller of NFLST, then that would bring in _some_ additional Prime or YTTV customers. But enough to warrant paying the NFL their desired $2-3 billion per year for the privilege of being the exclusive seller at $300 a pop? Or even $100 a pop? Nah, I just can't see it.

I just keep coming back to a bottom line that NFLST probably isn't worth the NFL's asking price to anybody. Apple kicked the tires for a year but bailed out. I think it's quite likely that Google and Amazon do the same unless the NFL is willing to significantly lower their price or somehow restructure the deal. So maybe t it ends up being sold like MLB's and NBA's out-of-market packages, both as a standalone streaming service through the NFL's own app and as an add-on to lots of different MVDP and vMVPD services, with the NFL just paying commissions on subscriptions sold and billed through those third parties.


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> So then would options would that leave them? I guess just selling NFLST as an optional pricey add-on package to anyone who, at that point in time, is a Prime member or a YouTube TV subscriber.


Again based on how many subscribers that have DTV and bought ST how is that going to work for YouTube TV that last I heard had around 5 million subscribers. My guess is a lot fewer than DTV’s 2 million. I don’t think the journalists reporting on this knows the difference between Google, YouTube, YouTube Premium, or YouTube TV. Pretty sure if Google wants it they would want to sell it to anyone. Amazon has the Prime membership where it could work without having to be tied to a streaming service. Prime membership is a lot larger than almost any streaming service. Their problem if it has to only be available to Prime members is the $139 per year for it plus $300 - $400 or more on top of that.


NashGuy said:


> I just keep coming back to a bottom line that NFLST probably isn't worth the NFL's asking price to anybody.


Agreed.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> I just keep coming back to a bottom line that NFLST probably isn't worth the NFL's asking price to anybody.


The service had value to DIRECTV as an exclusive to attract customers but DIRECTV can't afford to pay billions of dollars without turning a profit. The only way $1.5 billion made sense was that any line item losses (not collecting $1.5 billion in revenue specifically for NFLST ticket) would be covered by the billions of dollars in profit DIRECTV makes on their regular packages. The NFL asking for $2-3 billion and potentially restricting "free" distribution cuts into their profits.

I assume a new DIRECTV contract would finally include DIRECTV Stream but that is another no commitment package similar to YouTube TV ... NFLST would need to stand alone at $300 per subscriber and attract 10 million subscribers to break even at the NFL's asking price of $3 billion. That would apply whether carried by YouTube, Amazon or DIRECTV.

Are there 10 million people willing to pay $300 for NFLST? Out of a pool of 127 million broadband subscribers and 300 million internet subscribers in the US my answer would be "maybe". Remove the restriction that NFLST must be a premium package and Apple, Amazon or Google would gladly pay the $3 billion just to promote their services.

So the decision comes down to a "maybe" ... find some company who believes they can at least break even actually charging people $300-400 for a subscription or run at a slight loss that is made up for by increased subscriptions to the primary services. And if some company is not found? Punt. Get the best deal they can get and move on. Unless ego gets in the way and they refuse to punt and end up not scoring any deal.


----------



## Rob37

I have said it before & gonna say it again. The NFL is not going to get nearly what they are expecting which is somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 to $3.5 Billion. Not going to happen. Whatever company pays the price if it even HAPPENS would have to charge upwards of $500 a subscription just to cover what they pay out to gain the rights and then HOPE they get people to jump ship from whatever provider they currently have whether if it’s Satellite, Cable, some other streaming service. It’s just NOT going to happen. Amazon is finding this out with the Thursday Night Game. Viewership is in the toilet there. It has declined every week this season. Go look up the numbers.


----------



## Rob37

b4pjoe said:


> So both Apple and Disney have bowed out. Rob37 may be right after all. 🤣


I’ve tried to tell everybody over in that other forum but I have been laughed out of the building. When all this DOES not happen because the NFL’s asking price is WAY TOO STEEP even for one of the richest companies in the world Apple, everyone will find out. And Google or Amazon might still end up with the rights. BUT getting viewers to sign up is a whole different game. It will take a while and whoever gets the rights to Sunday Ticket will be out a lot of money to start out. Oh and by the way it’s the 4th Quarter & that clock is ticking fast for the NFL to select a tv carrier who can deliver and when fans can’t see the game they want it’s ballgame over. DIRECTV HAS delivered for nearly 3 decades. They are the best.


----------



## compnurd

Rob37 said:


> I’ve tried to tell everybody over in that other forum but I have been laughed out of the building. When all this DOES not happen because the NFL’s asking price is WAY TOO STEEP even for one of the richest companies in the world Apple, everyone will find out. And Google or Amazon might still end up with the rights. BUT getting viewers to sign up is a whole different game. It will take a while and whoever gets the rights to Sunday Ticket will be out a lot of money to start out. Oh and by the way it’s the 4th Quarter & that clock is ticking fast for the NFL to select a tv carrier who can deliver and when fans can’t see the game they want it’s ballgame over. DIRECTV HAS delivered for nearly 3 decades. They are the best.


The NFL had until next summer to decide. Just because Göodell initially said this fall doesn’t mean they don’t have time to decide. Either way it isn’t coming back to DIRECTV as an exclusive


----------



## Rob37

compnurd said:


> The NFL had until next summer to decide. Just because Göodell initially said this fall doesn’t mean they don’t have time to decide. Either way it isn’t coming back to DIRECTV as an exclusive


Exclusive or Non Exclusive nobody knows this for certain. Like I said NFL Sunday Ticket “probably” will end up going to a streaming service. Then again it may not. Nobody knows for certain where the out of market games will end up. I will predict this though that the NFL won’t get what they are asking for the package. $3 Billion is asking too much going into a possible recession year. When you have a company as rich as Apple back away and say wait a minute we just don’t see the logic. There is a problem.


----------



## b4pjoe

Rob37 said:


> Just go look on Amazon Posts and look at all the people who say they will never pay to watch the Thursday Night Game.


Most people don’t pay extra for TNF seeing as how there are around 150 million subscribers for Amazon Prime in the US. I doubt many people bought prime just to watch TNF. Also the Thursday night games have not been marquee matchups.


----------



## spidey

compnurd said:


> The NFL had until next summer to decide. Just because Göodell initially said this fall doesn’t mean they don’t have time to decide. Either way it isn’t coming back to DIRECTV as an exclusive


I really dont care if Directv has exclusive or not I still prefer it as my method to receive games. I just moved and no dish yet waiting for HOA issues, however I have been for years synching DTV with Sirius OTA of my team and would love to continue doing this. The NFLST app and network streaming of games has had picture quality issues and harder to synch to streamed radio feeds. I am waiting on this decision before putting up a dish and dumping DTV.


----------



## Steveknj

dtv757 said:


> Glad Apple is out .


Why?


----------



## AMike

I read a prediction article by John Ourand from Sports Business Journal that he thinks Amazon will win the package due to their existing relationship with the NFL. What does that mean for D*? They already have an arrangement for business accounts to show TNF and I would imagine that would be the same for Sunday Ticket. I don't think that would transfer to personal accounts.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Let's put it this way: if all those games carried in NFLST were widely available (e.g. aired on basic cable channels) that would definitely eat into the ratings that CBS and Fox get for the games their local affiliates carry at the same time. Reduced ratings means reduced ad revenue and reduced cable TV carriage (retrans) fees. So it's in CBS's and Fox's interests for NFLST to be a niche product due to its high cost so that it doesn't really compete for eyeballs.


But I suppose it still would be. People would still have to pay extra to get it, though it would be bundled as part of a "normal" sub fee. I get what FOX and CBS are getting at, but I also think it wouldn't hurt them as much as they think. It'd say the main driver of people watching the local broadcasts are local fans because most fans who "need" to watch an out of town game are going to subscribe to whatever service has it. Think GIants or Jets fans are going to eschew the local NY affiliate to watch Steelers-Bengals? I doubt it. Still, I guess shelling out $7 a month for ST is a lot different than shelling out $75 or whatever a month. I wonder though if they could come up with a compromise and this is all just posturing.


----------



## Drivingrain

b4pjoe said:


> Again based on how many subscribers that have DTV and bought ST how is that going to work for YouTube TV that last I heard had around 5 million subscribers. My guess is a lot fewer than DTV’s 2 million. I don’t think the journalists reporting on this knows the difference between Google, YouTube, YouTube Premium, or YouTube TV. Pretty sure if Google wants it they would want to sell it to anyone. Amazon has the Prime membership where it could work without having to be tied to a streaming service. Prime membership is a lot larger than almost any streaming service. Their problem if it has to only be available to Prime members is the $139 per year for it plus $300 - $400 or more on top of that.
> 
> Agreed.


As you say, Prime membership is. massive. And it was massive _before_ TNF and a large percentage of us never had to make the decision of whether to subscribe to TNF because we were pre-existing Prime members. Indeed if more subscribers joined prime because of TNF, the broadcast quality would have been an even bigger issue than it has been. Latency, audio, video, you name it-- it's been a rough go of it and though it has been reported by many outlets-- the outcry has been muted due to the fact that many of us didnt feel we went out of pocket for it..

So when taking into account that Amazon would need to charge extra for NFLST and that Amazon's TNF product, _with just one game per week of inventory, _has been sub-par for many users for reasons that cannot be effectively isolated----- indeed there could be a very rocky road ahead. Why?

The product issues, when expanding inventory by around 1000% vs TNF alone, though they will get better as time goes on-- will be very bad for a while even if a sub is just watching one game on NFLST at one time as they do TNF. But when you factor in that a large percentage of NFLST subs use multiple TV setups that will create serious & immediate user issues due to bandwidth then *AMZN better be ready to offer refunds en masse if they wish to keep subscribers for year 2.* And dont tell me that's the user's problem. They've had NFLST for decades and used it fine with multiple TVs-- _this will be positioned as Amazon's problem. _In reality, IMHO, this is the NFL's problem for being so short-sighted to go 100% streaming a few years too quickly.


----------



## Steveknj

b4pjoe said:


> But they wouldn’t be on basic cable channels. Only on Apple TV+. Now granted a LOT of people would probably subscribe to Apple TV+ just to get ST, which is what Apple want, but probably not as many as if the games were on basic cable channels. Apple also could only make it available to subscribers that get the yearly subscription to keep people from canceling at the end of each season too. But anyway I see the point I guess for Fox and CBS and kudo’s to them if they indeed do have that language in their contracts. I think the DIRECTV experience shows that not that many people will want to pay $300 - $400 or more for the package but we will see.


The NFL itself has diluted the ST package, with more and more games on Thursday, the whole spate of NFL Network games on Saturdays and even a few DH on both networks at the same time. But I guess when you are paying billions of fishnagles you want to protect your investment too.


----------



## b4pjoe

Drivingrain said:


> As you say, Prime membership is. massive. And it was massive _before_ TNF and a large percentage of us never had to make the decision of whether to subscribe to TNF because we were pre-existing Prime members. Indeed if more subscribers joined prime because of TNF, the broadcast quality would have been an even bigger issue than it has been. Latency, audio, video, you name it-- it's been a rough go of it and though it has been reported by many outlets-- the outcry has been muted due to the fact that many of us didnt feel we went out of pocket for it..
> 
> So when taking into account that Amazon would need to charge extra for NFLST and that Amazon's TNF product, _with just one game per week of inventory, _has been sub-par for many users for reasons that cannot be effectively isolated----- indeed there could be a very rocky road ahead. Why?
> 
> The product issues, when expanding inventory by around 1000% vs TNF alone, though they will get better as time goes on-- will be very bad for a while even if a sub is just watching one game on NFLST at one time as they do TNF. But when you factor in that a large percentage of NFLST subs use multiple TV setups that will create serious & immediate user issues due to bandwidth then *AMZN better be ready to offer refunds en masse if they wish to keep subscribers for year 2.* And dont tell me that's the user's problem. They've had NFLST for decades and used it fine with multiple TVs-- _this will be positioned as Amazon's problem. _In reality, IMHO, this is the NFL's problem for being so short-sighted to go 100% streaming a few years too quickly.


Maybe I am just lucky but I haven't had any audio/video issues with TNF but I have seen plenty of people complaining about having those issues. What I do have issues with is their software where you only get all functions if you have an Amazon device. They have crippled the Prime Video app on the Apple TV. Probably on Roku too but I don't have one of them to check.


----------



## Steveknj

Rob37 said:


> I’ve tried to tell everybody over in that other forum but I have been laughed out of the building. When all this DOES not happen because the NFL’s asking price is WAY TOO STEEP even for one of the richest companies in the world Apple, everyone will find out. And Google or Amazon might still end up with the rights. BUT getting viewers to sign up is a whole different game. It will take a while and whoever gets the rights to Sunday Ticket will be out a lot of money to start out. Oh and by the way it’s the 4th Quarter & that clock is ticking fast for the NFL to select a tv carrier who can deliver and when fans can’t see the game they want it’s ballgame over. DIRECTV HAS delivered for nearly 3 decades. They are the best.


From what I read, it seems that Apple WOULD have paid the price AND wanted to include it in their normal price tier, it's the NFL that balked at it due to not wanting to have issues with FOX and CBS. So it's not that the NFL wouldn't get their money, it's that Apple wanted the service with less strings attached than the NFL was willing to give them (including Internetional rights which had been a sticking point previously according to some of these sources).

Still none of this points to DirecTV getting the service back in any capacity, at least not yet.


----------



## spidey

AMike said:


> I read a prediction article by John Ourand from Sports Business Journal that he thinks Amazon will win the package due to their existing relationship with the NFL. What does that mean for D*? They already have an arrangement for business accounts to show TNF and I would imagine that would be the same for Sunday Ticket. I don't think that would transfer to personal accounts.


hoping that residential DTV subs will still be able to subscribe to NFLST delivered over the sat feed. Otherwise I see DTV loosing many customers and also NFL losing fans since not everyone has reliable or even streaming available in areas of the country


----------



## Drivingrain

Steveknj said:


> From what I read, it seems that Apple WOULD* have paid the price* AND wanted to include it in their normal price tier, it's the NFL that balked at it due to not wanting to have issues with FOX and CBS. So it's not that the NFL wouldn't get their money, it's that Apple wanted the service with less strings attached than the NFL was willing to give them (including Internetional rights which had been a sticking point previously according to some of these sources).


"Paid the price"

The catch is that the NFL would have valued a product with those additional rights at a substantially higher amount.


----------



## compnurd

spidey said:


> hoping that residential DTV subs will still be able to subscribe to NFLST delivered over the sat feed. Otherwise I see DTV loosing many customers and also NFL losing fans since not everyone has reliable or even streaming available in areas of the country


They wont lose too many customers the last count had Directv with less then 2 million Sunday ticket subs.. This is also part of the reason Directv didnt re-bid The math to keep it doesnt add up


----------



## Steveknj

b4pjoe said:


> Maybe I am just lucky but I haven't had any audio/video issues with TNF but I have seen plenty of people complaining about having those issues. What I do have issues with is their software where you only get all functions if you have an Amazon device. They have crippled the Prime Video app on the Apple TV. Probably on Roku too but I don't have one of them to check.


I have both a Roku and Firestick (4K Max) and the strange thing is, I have almost no latency or video issues using the Roku app, but have them occassionaly using the Firestick (you'd think it would be the opposite). So no, the Roku app is fine for TNF (and for Yankees broadcasts that they have as well). I'll also say, that the ATV+ app on Roku is flawless for baseball as well. At least for me. I do have the top of the line Roku Ultra, so can't speak to someone who has the $30 Roku.


----------



## Steveknj

spidey said:


> hoping that residential DTV subs will still be able to subscribe to NFLST delivered over the sat feed. Otherwise I see DTV loosing many customers and also NFL losing fans since not everyone has reliable or even streaming available in areas of the country


Do you pay $400 for a subscription fee on DTV now? Or $300? I'm just curious how many of the folks who are hoping that DTV keeps the service are actually paying for it.


----------



## Steveknj

Drivingrain said:


> "Paid the price"
> 
> The catch is that the NFL would have valued a product with those additional rights at a substantially higher amount.


That's speculation. It's all really speculation. But it seems Apple would have paid it, if they got the concessions they wanted. I get that maybe what the NFL wanted added to it's value (though if it's only an issue with meeting what's in the CBS and FOX contracts, then I don't know).


----------



## Mike Lang

I suspect most of us here are of a certain age and have our own ethics but my son says he can watch any live NFL game he wants for free via multiple sources. His generation sees things like Sunday Ticket as an unethical overpriced cash grab that can be easily sidestepped.


----------



## b4pjoe

Steveknj said:


> I have both a Roku and Firestick (4K Max) and the strange thing is, I have almost no latency or video issues using the Roku app, but have them occassionaly using the Firestick (you'd think it would be the opposite). So no, the Roku app is fine for TNF (and for Yankees broadcasts that they have as well). I'll also say, that the ATV+ app on Roku is flawless for baseball as well. At least for me. I do have the top of the line Roku Ultra, so can't speak to someone who has the $30 Roku.


I don't have any video/audio issues with the Apple TV Prime Video app. That is fine. But I do not have the ability to resume a game if I leave it. It always goes back to the live view. Also I do not have the Advanced stats and the choice of alternate announcers. I only see those options on the Amazon device. Also rewind and FF take forever if you want to go back or forward by a long amount. Those issues are not on the Amazon device. At least a couple of weeks ago those have not been fixed in the ATV Prime Video app. I haven't watched it the last couple of weeks to check again though.


----------



## spidey

Steveknj said:


> Do you pay $400 for a subscription fee on DTV now? Or $300? I'm just curious how many of the folks who are hoping that DTV keeps the service are actually paying for it.


well i haven't actually paid for it in probably the last 10 years or more only because I get deep discounts and loyalty credits.


----------



## b4pjoe

spidey said:


> well i haven't actually paid for it in probably the last 10 years or more only because I get deep discounts and loyalty credits.


Are you leaving DirecTV satellite service after the season ends?


----------



## spidey

b4pjoe said:


> Are you leaving DirecTV satellite service after the season ends?


unclear at this time. As I said earlier in the thread I always enjoyed the Sat version since it was easy to synch game with the sirius Radio feed which is also a sat feed via outdoor antenna. I get spectrum as part of my HOA in new home so really not in the need for DTV other programming. Synching the NFLST streams or even streams of games via spectrum or Amazon prime with Sirius stream is more challenging since I haven't developed the algorithm yet. Right now I am on a vey limited plan just enough that I was able to keep the ST till end of season.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

NashGuy said:


> Let's put it this way: if all those games carried in NFLST were widely available (e.g. aired on basic cable channels) that would definitely eat into the ratings that CBS and Fox get for the games their local affiliates carry at the same time. Reduced ratings means reduced ad revenue and reduced cable TV carriage (retrans) fees. So it's in CBS's and Fox's interests for NFLST to be a niche product due to its high cost so that it doesn't really compete for eyeballs.





Steveknj said:


> From what I read, it seems that Apple WOULD have paid the price AND wanted to include it in their normal price tier, it's *the NFL that balked at it due to not wanting to have issues with FOX and CBS*. So it's not that the NFL wouldn't get their money, it's that Apple wanted the service with less strings attached than the NFL was willing to give them (including Internetional rights which had been a sticking point previously according to some of these sources).


Maybe I’m missing something here. Whats the difference if someone watches the game on their local channels via antenna/cable/satellite, NFL+ or via NFLST? I think what Apple wanted to do was integrate all of the games into one package by combing the games on the local channels/NFL+ with NFLST, by inserting the local ads, don‘t they have that technology nowadays? Or would that have been way too complicated to do?


----------



## Herdfan

Steveknj said:


> Do you pay $400 for a subscription fee on DTV now? Or $300? I'm just curious how many of the folks who are hoping that DTV keeps the service are actually paying for it.


How about $0. DirecTV has given it to me free for the past 3 years for being a long-time (1994) Subscriber.



spidey said:


> I really dont care if Directv has exclusive or not I still prefer it as my method to receive games. *I just moved and no dish yet waiting for HOA issues, *however I have been for years synching DTV with Sirius OTA of my team and would love to continue doing this. The NFLST app and network streaming of games has had picture quality issues and harder to synch to streamed radio feeds. I am waiting on this decision before putting up a dish and dumping DTV.


What kind of HOA issues?

----------------------------------

I wonder how the streaming services will Blackout games in certain cities. When I first got ST, I could watch all the games in the 700's. Now the games that are showing on the local channels are blacked out on ST so I have no choice but to watch some games via my local affiliate.

But where you are located will be much harder for a streaming service to figure out. And apply to what could be a few million customers. For example, if I am using my cell connection sometimes it reports my location as being in NY or MD. That is a completely different market than I am in, so if they apply the blackout rules based on that, I won't get the games I would be paying to see.


----------



## Steveknj

spidey said:


> well i haven't actually paid for it in probably the last 10 years or more only because I get deep discounts and loyalty credits.


And that's exactly what I suspected. I am of the firm belief that at least 3/4 of the people who are hoping that DirecTV keeps ST are getting it for free. The fear is that if it goes somewhere else, they will now have to pay for it. For me, the ONLY time I watched ST is when I got it for free, and if I didn't get the freebee, I just didn't get it, nor do I care if I get it one way or the other. Personally I won't pay more than $50 for the season for ST no matter where it goes. Sorry guys, but in this landscape, DirecTV having ST as a loss leader to get subscribers is not going to happen. I think even IF ST goes back to DIrecTV, I'd be shocked if they keep giving it away as a freebee much longer.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> I was using basic cable as an example of something that's widely available and therefore would produce competition for viewers against the Fox and CBS broadcasts.


That most people get their Fox and CBS affiliates through a cable TV subscription with a high OTA channel surcharge substantially nullifies that argument.


----------



## Steveknj

Herdfan said:


> How about $0. DirecTV has given it to me free for the past 3 years for being a long-time (1994) Subscriber.


Would you pay for it if you didn't get the freebee?


----------



## b4pjoe

Steveknj said:


> For me, the ONLY time I watched ST is when I got it for free, and if I didn't get the freebee, I just didn't get it, nor do I care if I get it one way or the other. Personally I won't pay more than $50 for the season for ST no matter where it goes.


Same for me. I rarely watch the games on Sunday Ticket. Usually I just keep it on the Redzone channel which, to have the option, you must have the ST Max package for $400. I would like to have the option and would pay for it just to have the Redzone channel if it is not ridiculously priced. But am I ever going to pay $400 just to get the package it requires to get the Redzone channel? Nope.


----------



## b4pjoe

Herdfan said:


> I wonder how the streaming services will Blackout games in certain cities.


The same way they do it now with the streaming NFL Sunday Ticket app.


----------



## Steveknj

b4pjoe said:


> Same for me. I rarely watch the games on Sunday Ticket. Usually I just keep it on the Redzone channel which, to have the option, you must have the ST Max package for $400. I would like to have the option and would pay for it just to have the Redzone channel if it is not ridiculously priced. But am I ever going to pay $400 just to get the package it requires to get the Redzone channel? Nope.


Yep, and I think that's the case with most. They get it for free and if it moves to another platform, their freebee goes away and thus they are complaining. I think most wouldn't pay for it and I wonder how many $400 subscriptions DirecTV actually has.


----------



## Drivingrain

Steveknj said:


> Yep, and I think that's the case with most. They get it for free and if it moves to another platform, their freebee goes away and thus they are complaining. I think most wouldn't pay for it and I wonder how many $400 subscriptions DirecTV actually has.


Agree. Which makes those that actually use NFLST as opposed to RZ fairly obsessive about the whole thing. In large part, they're either rabid out of town fans or have multi-TVs--- and are very sensitive to product quality/disruptions. A fairly different sub-set of the market versus that of TNF.


----------



## spidey

i will pay for it from whomever provides. The days of going to a sports bar dishing out 30-50 for over priced drinks n food are over. From my view I would have no issue paying 1000$ a year for NFLST. I basically watch my team however I love the option of choosing the other games I may want to watch.


----------



## spidey

Herdfan said:


> How about $0. DirecTV has given it to me free for the past 3 years for being a long-time (1994) Subscriber.
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of HOA issues?
> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> I wonder how the streaming services will Blackout games in certain cities. When I first got ST, I could watch all the games in the 700's. Now the games that are showing on the local channels are blacked out on ST so I have no choice but to watch some games via my local affiliate.
> 
> But where you are located will be much harder for a streaming service to figure out. And apply to what could be a few million customers. For example, if I am using my cell connection sometimes it reports my location as being in NY or MD. That is a completely different market than I am in, so if they apply the blackout rules based on that, I won't get the games I would be paying to see.


Just the stupid approval process took me months to get a fence approved. Plus don’t want to install a dish and then end relationship with directv been a subscriber since 1996 and was involved in a lot of early beta testing . But if they will no longer offer a NFL package I will end since I get TV service as part of HOA fees even though it’s crappy spectrum


----------



## Bender The Lab

spidey said:


> Just the stupid approval process took me months to get a fence approved.


When we were looking at houses in Florida ( moved from Michigan in 2020), my main criteria was no HOA, it took almost 2 years to find the perfect house, searching on Zillow, it would go from over 150 Houses till I turned on the filter for no HOA, then the choices were under 20, none the right house until we found this one in May, 2020.

Since I bought it, had to put in a vinyl white fence, stand-by generator, giant propane tank, antenna, all of which would of put a HOA into fits.


----------



## Herdfan

Steveknj said:


> Would you pay for it if you didn't get the freebee?


Yes. Paid for 25+ years before I got the freebees.


----------



## Herdfan

spidey said:


> Just the stupid approval process took me months to get a fence approved. Plus don’t want to install a dish and then end relationship with directv been a subscriber since 1996 and was involved in a lot of early beta testing . But if they will no longer offer a NFL package I will end since I get TV service as part of HOA fees even though it’s crappy spectrum


Just don't forget HOA's have very limited jurisdiction over dishes no matter what they might write into their covenants.

The FCC's OTARD rules are way tilted in your favor.


----------



## spidey

Herdfan said:


> Just don't forget HOA's have very limited jurisdiction over dishes no matter what they might write into their covenants.
> 
> The FCC's OTARD rules are way tilted in your favor.


I still have to submit the freaking stupid forms can’t stop it from going up


----------



## Herdfan

Drivingrain said:


> Agree. Which makes those that actually use NFLST as opposed to RZ fairly obsessive about the whole thing. *In large part, they're either rabid out of town fans *or have multi-TVs--- and are very sensitive to product quality/disruptions. A fairly different sub-set of the market versus that of TNF.


In my case, I live where the NFL thinks I want to only watch the Bengals, Browns, Steeler's or Redskins. So I rarely get any national games and it gets old watching the same teams every week.

We are moving to AZ in the spring so at least there is only 1 team they think I want to watch so hopefully I can get some more national games. No cable in the neighborhood., so will be with DirecTV for the foreseeable future.


----------



## spidey

Herdfan said:


> In my case, I live where the NFL thinks I want to only watch the Bengals, Browns, Steeler's or Redskins. So I rarely get any national games and it gets old watching the same teams every week.
> 
> We are moving to AZ in the spring so at least there is only 1 team they think I want to watch so hopefully I can get some more national games. No cable in the neighborhood., so will be with DirecTV for the foreseeable future.


This is why I still think directv will have a deal with the streamer to offer now maybe ya will have to prove no streaming ability


----------



## Drivingrain

spidey said:


> This is why I still think directv will have a deal with the streamer to offer now maybe ya will have to prove no streaming ability


That's what should happen, but exclusivity is so important to these bidders when the objective is not necessarily making money off of NFLST, but instead continuing to build a sub-base. 

That being said, it would be nice if the NFL recognized that most households are not capable of full streaming multiple games at one time--at least not as of 2022-2023-- and that in order to protect their product that they insist on a linear option of some sort. Even if it is at a steep premium from what is already a premium price.

NFL Fans Slam Amazon Over 'Thursday Night Football' Issues (outsider.com)


----------



## Bender The Lab

Drivingrain said:


> That's what should happen, but exclusivity is so important to these bidders when the objective is not necessarily making money off of NFLST, but instead continuing to build a sub-base.
> 
> That being said, it would be nice if the NFL recognized that most households are not capable of full streaming multiple games at one time--at least not as of 2022-2023-- and that in order to protect their product that they insist on a linear option of some sort. Even if it is at a steep premium from what is already a premium price.
> 
> NFL Fans Slam Amazon Over 'Thursday Night Football' Issues (outsider.com)


Amazon did not give DirecTV the rights to air TNF for homes that do not have fast enough internet, no reason to believe they would for ST.

Second, how would DirecTV know someone does or does not have Broadband and what speed.

For example, I live in a Rural area, but I have 1G service thanks to Florida and Federal Governments tossing money to the ISPs to provide service in underserved areas.

DirecTV would have no idea what/who service I have.


----------



## harsh

Drivingrain said:


> That being said, it would be nice if the NFL recognized that most households are not capable of full streaming multiple games at one time--at least not as of 2022-2023-- and that in order to protect their product that they insist on a linear option of some sort. Even if it is at a steep premium from what is already a premium price.


The NFL doesn't care how many streams you can get or even if it is none. The NFL's revenues come from the winning bidder, not from the subscribers.

Requiring DIRECTV was clearly a much higher hurdle and why the NFL demanded that DIRECTV make NFLST streaming available in the first place.


----------



## Herdfan

On another board there was speculation that DirecTV might keep it for existing subscribers only. Any new subs would be streaming. 

Not sure how bars and restaurants will do streaming. Some have enough trouble working a simple DirecTV receiver. Now you will have to 1) either set up every TV in the place to be able to stream, or 2) add a bunch of streaming boxes to the head end and a matrix switch to be able to switch back and forth. And that's assuming there is enough bandwidth. My BW3's WiFi sucks and would have trouble streaming 1 game, much less 6 or 7.


----------



## Drivingrain

harsh said:


> The NFL doesn't care how many streams you can get or even if it is none.


Let's not get silly.

The NFL approves everything that all of its broadcast partners do. They care about the pre-game shows, the announcer pairings, the list could go on and on and on-- *and of course they care if the broadcast is functional.*


----------



## Bender The Lab

Herdfan said:


> On another board there was speculation that DirecTV might keep it for existing subscribers only. Any new subs would be streaming.


Why would Amazon/Google want to do DirecTV any favors, reads more like a hope then a rumor , a unrealistic rumor.



Herdfan said:


> Not sure how bars and restaurants will do streaming. Some have enough trouble working a simple DirecTV receiver. Now you will have to 1) either set up every TV in the place to be able to stream, or 2) add a bunch of streaming boxes to the head end and a matrix switch to be able to switch back and forth. And that's assuming there is enough bandwidth. My BW3's WiFi sucks and would have trouble streaming 1 game, much less 6 or 7.


Again, most expect DirecTV to provide for the business market, but sooner or later, businesses need to upgrade their broadband, DirecTV is not launching any new Satellites, equipment is getting old, they are obviously not planning on lasting in the future as a Satellite Provider.


----------



## James Long

Steveknj said:


> I think most wouldn't pay for it and I wonder how many $400 subscriptions DirecTV actually has.


Survey says 2 million pay. But the survey also had respondents that didn't know whether or not they got NFL ST.

I do not expect DIRECTV to lose 2 million subscribers just because they no longer carry NFL ST. They have been losing a fair amount of subscribers despite having NFL ST. While estimates are the only numbers we can get, I am not expecting the end of NFL ST to be the end of DIRECTV.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Requiring DIRECTV was clearly a much higher hurdle and why the NFL demanded that DIRECTV make NFLST streaming available in the first place.


Are you sure that the NFL made that demand and it wasn't DIRECTV that was trying to reach homes that could not be served via satellite? The NFL didn't get any extra money when DIRECTV was able to sell a streaming version (to a very limited group of subscribers).



Drivingrain said:


> The NFL approves everything that all of its broadcast partners do. They care about the pre-game shows, the announcer pairings, the list could go on and on and on-- and of course they care if the broadcast is functional.


Give the NFL $1.5 billion dollars (for the past eight years) and they will be happy to accept the limited distribution DIRECTV offered. To the point where they refused to allow AT&T|DIRECTV to expand NFL ST to UVerse / AT&T TV / DIRECTV Stream.

The deal isn't about reaching viewers, it is about collecting dollars. And now the NFL is asking for $2-3 billion dollars a year plus restrictions on who will be able to subscribe (premium price required). Potential subscribers with poor or non-existent Internet are a problem for the subscribers and the company that pays for the rights -- not the NFL.


----------



## Drivingrain

Herdfan said:


> The deal isn't about reaching viewers, it is about collecting dollars. And now the NFL is asking for $2-3 billion dollars a year plus restrictions on who will be able to subscribe (premium price required). Potential subscribers with poor or non-existent Internet are a problem for the subscribers and the company that pays for the rights -- not the NFL.


Agree for the most part, but speaking in absolutes does not reflect what the actual views are of the NFL. 

"Internet are a problem for the subscribers and the company that pays for the rights -- not the NFL." _*The NFL simply does not view it in a non-nuanced fashion such as this. *_ They just dont. _Do the dollars come first? Usually, yes. _But they will care greatly if sub numbers plummet, or if there is a Twitter-storm when latency issues cause us all to have to turn off our phones bc Twitter is two minutes ahead of NFLST, or if refund percentages are high due to poor streaming quality. If they go to 100% streaming and these issues persist, they would absolutely re-think their approach.


----------



## Bender The Lab

James Long said:


> Survey says 2 million pay. But the survey also had respondents that didn't know whether or not they got NFL ST.
> 
> I do not expect DIRECTV to lose 2 million subscribers just because they no longer carry NFL ST. *They have been losing a fair amount of subscribers despite having NFL ST. While estimates are the only numbers we can get*, I am not expecting the end of NFL ST to be the end of DIRECTV.


Last quarter was a tad less then 500,000, reported here-



https://www.fitchratings.com/research/corporate-finance/fitch-affirms-directv-entertainment-holdings-llc-at-bb-outlook-stable-05-12-2022



_DIRECTV's subscriber loss rates have substantially improved over the last two years, driven by lower churn, and were less than* 500,000 in 3Q22*_

Also reported total sub numbers for the company as a whole-

_*DIRECTV's video subscriber base (combined DIRECTV, U-verse, DIRECTV Stream) is the third largest traditional multi-channel video programming distributor (MVPD) in the U.S. with approximately 13.3 million subscribers at the end of 3Q22,* behind Comcast which has 16.6 million video subscribers and Charter Communications, Inc. which has 15.3 million video subscribers._

So, based on the rumors that Uverse has about 2-3 Million subs left ( most in multi-dwellings) and Stream roughly 1-1.5 million , that would mean DirecTV Sat is under 10 Million subs.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

I don’t understand why the NFL was against Apple giving it to everyone within their Apple TV+ package. The NFL would still get their money while getting more eyeballs on their games.


----------



## b4pjoe

Drivingrain said:


> But they will care greatly if sub numbers plummet, or if there is a Twitter-storm when latency issues cause us all to have to turn off our phones bc Twitter is two minutes ahead of NFLST, or if refund percentages are high due to poor streaming quality. If they go to 100% streaming and these issues persist, they would absolutely re-think their approach.


Actually that would not be an NFL problem. They would, at that point in time, already have their money. You think the NFL is going to reimburse the company for anyone that cancels because they are having issues with either that companys delivery system or their customers poor internet service? And since you mentioned canceling...the company that gets it will probably have the same kind of policy for canceling as DIRECTV. No refunds after the first week of the season.


----------



## b4pjoe

TheRatPatrol said:


> I don’t understand why the NFL was against Apple giving it to everyone within their Apple TV+ package. The NFL would still get their money while getting more eyeballs on their games.


The rumor is that FOX and CBS have language in their contract that NFL Sunday Ticket has to be sold as a premium service. If that is true or not is anyone's guess or how much they would have to charge as defined by "premium.


----------



## Drivingrain

b4pjoe said:


> Actually that would not be an NFL problem. They would, at that point in time, already have their money. You think the NFL is going to reimburse the company for anyone that cancels because they are having issues with either that companys delivery system or their customers poor internet service? And since you mentioned canceling...the company that gets it will probably have the same kind of policy for canceling as DIRECTV. No refunds after the first week of the season.


Reimburse? No. 

Streaming 100% of everything is coming. Linear, as we know it, is dying. Sports will be the last man standing though. The NFL was shocked by the Thanksgiving numbers and they know that such a number is not achievable via streaming....yet.

as much as we *will* be moving to streaming, it's silly to think that the NFL doesnt value the fact that their product achieved that level of exposure via linear. They didnt say to themselves "Gee, Fox and CBS already paid us, so we dont care about the fact that the ratings were stratospheric". They care greatly.


----------



## b4pjoe

Drivingrain said:


> The NFL was shocked by the Thanksgiving numbers


What numbers are those that they were shocked by? Those games were on linear channels so not sure what you are claiming.


----------



## glrush

Did Apple Overestimate Its Value To The NFL? | Barrett Media (barrettsportsmedia.com)


----------



## Drivingrain

b4pjoe said:


> What numbers are those that they were shocked by? Those games were on linear channels so not sure what you are claiming.


1) The rating was historic. It was a little shot in the arm for linear in a war that linear will be losing sooner or later.
2) That the theme in the this thread that all the NFL cared about is that Fox and CBS paid the invoice for the game rights is lunacy. They care about much more than just that; they were thrilled with the rating partly due to the fact that ratings=value for the next contract, but also the exposure-- which would not have been close to that number if it was all-streaming. If we think the league is indifferent about Amazon recently disclosing that they've had to give away free advertising because of how weak the ratings have been for TNF, then we're fooling ourselves.


----------



## James Long

Drivingrain said:


> Streaming 100% of everything is coming. Linear, as we know it, is dying. Sports will be the last man standing though. The NFL was shocked by the Thanksgiving numbers and they know that such a number is not achievable via streaming....yet.


The NFL is embracing streaming in their new contracts by allowing the broadcasters to stream their own games. ESPN+ will stream Monday Night Football, Peacock will stream Sunday Night Football, Fox and CBS games will be streamed on their streaming services.

High ratings for their broadcast partners is proof that they have made the right choice in the broadcast contracts that start next year. Contracts worth honoring and protecting.

The NFL has made it clear that they want NFL ST on a streaming service. They have also made it clear that they want to be paid a lot of money for the rights and they won't undercut their lucrative broadcast deals.



Drivingrain said:


> But they will care greatly if sub numbers plummet, or if there is a Twitter-storm when latency issues cause us all to have to turn off our phones bc Twitter is two minutes ahead of NFLST, or if refund percentages are high due to poor streaming quality[/URL]. If they go to 100% streaming and these issues persist, they would absolutely re-think their approach.


As long as it does not affect the contract winner's ability to pay the NFL will accept the outcome. As previously noted, they cared more about the $1.5 billion DIRECTV paid them than how much DIRECTV could collect to cover the contract. Or how many subscribers DIRECTV could serve.

What do you expect the NFL to do if subscriber count is down or there are streaming issues? Break their contract with the streamer? Throw away the billions of dollars they are receiving? Not going to happen.


----------



## b4pjoe

Drivingrain said:


> 1) The rating was historic. It was a little shot in the arm for linear in a war that linear will be losing sooner or later.
> 2) That the theme in the this thread that all the NFL cared about is that Fox and CBS paid the invoice for the game rights is lunacy. They care about much more than just that; they were thrilled with the rating partly due to the fact that ratings=value for the next contract, but also the exposure-- which would not have been close to that number if it was all-streaming. If we think the league is indifferent about Amazon recently disclosing that they've had to give away free advertising because of how weak the ratings have been for TNF, then we're fooling ourselves.


This thread is about NFL Sunday Ticket which the NFL sells on an exclusive basis to a single provider. If this were about how many people were watching they would have sold the rights to multiple providers but they would have gotten less money. When AT&T bought DIRECTV, they wanted to add Sunday Ticket to their streaming service and U-Verse which would have brought in more viewers. The NFL said no. Sunday Ticket is all about the money.


----------



## Rob37

It would be nice in the next NFL Sunday Ticket Deal if you could subscribe to just get one team. I know it probably will NEVER happen, BUT if I could just get my favorite team every week and not have to worry whether or not they are gonna be Blacked Out would be GREAT. If you could pay $150 a year to just get your team and not get every other team that you care absolutely nothing about would be ideal for people. I know I know it’s probably never gonna happen that way.


----------



## b4pjoe

Rob37 said:


> It would be nice in the next NFL Sunday Ticket Deal if you could subscribe to just get one team. I know it probably will NEVER happen, BUT if I could just get my favorite team every week and not have to worry whether or not they are gonna be Blacked Out would be GREAT. If you could pay $150 a year to just get your team and not get every other team that you care absolutely nothing about would be ideal for people. I know I know it’s probably never gonna happen that way.


You can blame FOX, CBS, NBC, ESPN, Amazon, NFL Network, and whoever gets NFL Sunday Ticket for why that will never happen.


----------



## Rob37

b4pjoe said:


> This thread is about NFL Sunday Ticket which the NFL sells on an exclusive basis to a single provider. If this were about how many people were watching they would have sold the rights to multiple providers but they would have gotten less money. When AT&T bought DIRECTV, they wanted to add Sunday Ticket to their streaming service and U-Verse which would have brought in more viewers. The NFL said no. Sunday Ticket is all about the money.


The NFL might find out that their asking price is too much. If no service ponies up the $3 Billion asking price the NFL is seeking, old Goodell might be in for what’s called a rude awakening if everyone says no we’re not gonna pay ya’ this much anymore.


----------



## b4pjoe

Rob37 said:


> The NFL might find out that their asking price is too much. If no service ponies up the $3 Billion asking price the NFL is seeking, old Goodell might be in for what’s called a rude awakening if everyone says no we’re not gonna pay ya’ this much anymore.


Might happen. And there may not be an out of market product anymore.


----------



## Drivingrain

b4pjoe said:


> This thread is about NFL Sunday Ticket which the NFL sells on an exclusive basis to a single provider. If this were about how many people were watching they would have sold the rights to multiple providers but they would have gotten less money. When AT&T bought DIRECTV, they wanted to add Sunday Ticket to their streaming service and U-Verse which would have brought in more viewers. The NFL said no. Sunday Ticket is all about the money.


Do they care, for example, that TNF ratings have been below expectations? As usual, the answer is YES-- but they care less than other contracts in the portfolio. 

To your point, they care about NFLST even less in that regard. But each of the deals have a murky line in the sand. But Im sure we can all agree that functionality is important for even the most disposable of contracts. My opinion, backed up by plenty of reporting on the topic, is that going to 100% streaming with no linear option for NFLST _in 2023 _will cause a lot of trouble for, say, the next couple of years-- as the tech from all perspectives just isn't there yet to deliver 1,000 hours of overlapping inventory in a way that will meet that murky line in the sand; which I agree is a vastly lower threshold than other contracts. 

But again, to your point, the NFL doesnt seem to want to recognize the functional problems at this point-- so all signs point to your view prevailing when it's all said and done here in the near future. We'll have 100% streaming next year, there will be the same PR-problems of this year's TNF multiplied by 10, if not more, and the NFL is likely to just look away. If they do that I think it's a mistake. Many like me who have subscribed for 25 years (shoot, has it been that long?)-- will at least partially divest in their product and the new, young, incremental subs' initial view of this premium product will be soured. It's not that it's a bad idea-- as streaming is definitely going to take over everything eventually. It's simply a concept that is a just a couple years too early to make it a win-win-win for the league-customers-carrier; and, again, the NFL may just decide to look away from that.


----------



## Drivingrain

b4pjoe said:


> Might happen. And there may not be an out of market product anymore.


Joe, can you flesh that out a little? Do you foresee the NFL walking away from offering it below a certain price or do you see no other bidders (streaming or linear) stepping up? Or something else?


----------



## James Long

Rob37 said:


> If you could pay $150 a year to just get your team and not get every other team that you care absolutely nothing about would be ideal for people. I know I know it’s probably never gonna happen that way.


NBA League Pass $69.99, one team $59.99. $10 or 14% off.
MLB $94.99, one team $74.99. $20 or 21% off.
$235-$250 for NFL Sunday Ticket for one team sound good to you?


----------



## Rob37

James Long said:


> NBA League Pass $69.99, one team $59.99. $10 or 14% off.
> MLB $94.99, one team $74.99. $20 or 21% off.
> $235-$250 for NFL Sunday Ticket for one team sound good to you?


Why not? I have been subscribed to NFL Sunday Ticket on DIRECTV every year since 1997 been paying for it loyally every year with the exception of this year of course because we got it free (loyalty gift).


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> NBA League Pass $69.99, one team $59.99. $10 or 14% off.
> MLB $94.99, one team $74.99. $20 or 21% off.
> $235-$250 for NFL Sunday Ticket for one team sound good to you?


If a deep-pocketed tech giant -- and at this point, it's apparently down to Amazon or Google -- doesn't stump up what the NFL wants in order to be the exclusive provider of NFLST, and the NFL ends up selling it the same way that MLB and NBA sell their OOM packages, then we might see NFLST prices even lower than what you're speculating. Who knows, maybe something like $150. If it went that way, then the goal is going to be to maximize sales. Lower the price and get more subs. Would they get over twice as many subs at $150 as they'd get at $300? My guess is yes.


----------



## Drivingrain

NashGuy said:


> If a deep-pocketed tech giant -- and at this point, it's apparently down to Amazon or Google -- doesn't stump up what the NFL wants in order to be the exclusive provider of NFLST, and the NFL ends up selling it the same way that MLB and NBA sell their OOM packages, then we might see NFLST prices even lower than what you're speculating. Who knows, maybe something like $150. If it went that way, then the goal is going to be to maximize sales. Lower the price and get more subs. Would they get over twice as many subs at $150 as they'd get at $300? My guess is yes.


The timing is interesting. The financial news is full of big-tech cost-cuts/job-cuts due to a sudden drive toward profitability. I've caught a few mentions of NFLST in this context on CNBC.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> If a deep-pocketed tech giant -- and at this point, it's apparently down to Amazon or Google -- doesn't stump up what the NFL wants in order to be the exclusive provider of NFLST, and the NFL ends up selling it the same way that MLB and NBA sell their OOM packages, then we might see NFLST prices even lower than what you're speculating. Who knows, maybe something like $150. If it went that way, then the goal is going to be to maximize sales. Lower the price and get more subs. Would they get over twice as many subs at $150 as they'd get at $300? My guess is yes.


10 million subscribers plus a few more to cover expenses just to break even? 20 million to raise the $3 billion that the NFL wants (plus a few more to pay expenses). The NFL would need to give MVPDs some piece of the action.

20 million is a big jump from 2 million paying $300. Would they get 10 times as many subs at $150 than at $300? Not a risk the NFL wants to take - but it is something they might fall back on.


----------



## b4pjoe

Drivingrain said:


> Do they care, for example, that TNF ratings have been below expectations? As usual, the answer is YES-- but they care less than other contracts in the portfolio.
> 
> To your point, they care about NFLST even less in that regard. But each of the deals have a murky line in the sand. But Im sure we can all agree that functionality is important for even the most disposable of contracts. My opinion, backed up by plenty of reporting on the topic, is that going to 100% streaming with no linear option for NFLST _in 2023 _will cause a lot of trouble for, say, the next couple of years-- as the tech from all perspectives just isn't there yet to deliver 1,000 hours of overlapping inventory in a way that will meet that murky line in the sand; which I agree is a vastly lower threshold than other contracts.
> 
> But again, to your point, the NFL doesnt seem to want to recognize the functional problems at this point-- so all signs point to your view prevailing when it's all said and done here in the near future. We'll have 100% streaming next year, there will be the same PR-problems of this year's TNF multiplied by 10, if not more, and the NFL is likely to just look away. If they do that I think it's a mistake. Many like me who have subscribed for 25 years (shoot, has it been that long?)-- will at least partially divest in their product and the new, young, incremental subs' initial view of this premium product will be soured. It's not that it's a bad idea-- as streaming is definitely going to take over everything eventually. It's simply a concept that is a just a couple years too early to make it a win-win-win for the league-customers-carrier; and, again, the NFL may just decide to look away from that.


I’m sure the NFL would rather their providers have good ratings but at the same time it is Amazons problem on TNF. At the same time they have an 11 year contract with Amazon so it is money in the bank for the NFL. Same with their other providers that are all on long term contracts. Alol money in the bank.

Also I think the thought of streaming technology not being there at this point in time is overblown. Look at MLB-TV. They carry far more games via streaming than NFL Sunday Ticket will. I think the streaming structure is sufficient. Where it may not be is in the homes of its subscribers. Again that is not the NFL’s problem. Sure they don’t want there to be problems but once that contract is signed…money in the bank.


----------



## b4pjoe

Drivingrain said:


> Joe, can you flesh that out a little? Do you foresee the NFL walking away from offering it below a certain price or do you see no other bidders (streaming or linear) stepping up? Or something else?


If for example Amazon and Google make the same determination that it sounds like Apple and Disney has already made what are they going to do? I think it would be drastic for the NFL to walk away from it completely. They might just try selling it themselves through their NFL+ app much in the way MLB does MLB-TV. If there are issues delivering that product then it will be the NFL’s problem and I don’t think they want that. They could try to sell it to multiple providers but they won’t make what they would by selling an exclusive to one provider.


----------



## harsh

Herdfan said:


> On another board there was speculation that DirecTV might keep it for existing subscribers only. Any new subs would be streaming.


It has never been reasonable to assume that DIRECTV is seeking to maintain some level of NFLST offering (even when Roger Goodell said they were trying to negotiate it). DIRECTV well knows that NFLST is an exclusive deal.

The speculation of which you speak is probably based mostly, if not entirely, on wishful thinking.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Are you sure that the NFL made that demand and it wasn't DIRECTV that was trying to reach homes that could not be served via satellite?


Given how uncertain the qualification process is, I'm pretty well convinced.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Given how uncertain the qualification process is, I'm pretty well convinced.


It would be much easier for the NFL to have allowed U-Verse and AT&T Stream to carry NFL ST than to somehow "demand" DIRECTV to offer streaming to people who could not get DIRECTV. The simplest way of expanding delivery would have been to say yes to AT&T's desires. The NFL chose to say no.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> It would be much easier for the NFL to have allowed U-Verse and AT&T Stream to carry NFL ST than to somehow "demand" DIRECTV to offer streaming to people who could not get DIRECTV. The simplest way of expanding delivery would have been to say yes to AT&T's desires. The NFL chose to say no.


The NFL can't allow something that isn't permitted by the contract. Restricting the streaming product to AT&T Broadband and Uverse customers would be an even bigger slap in the face and not in the spirit of universal access.


----------



## James Long

A couple of years ago both the NFL and DIRECTV had the explicit opportunity to end or modify the contract. Both parties decided to finish out the 8 year term (the NFL not granting any further rights, DIRECTV not paying any more money). The contract could have been changed at any time before that as long as no other party was harmed.

If you want to believe some whacked out theory that the NFL demanded DIRECTV provide streaming feel free to do so. As stated, if the NFL was pushing the streaming there would have been much easier ways to reach that goal.

If AT&T TV would have carried NFL ST it would have been available via any broadband provider ... so your universal service complaint is moot. The inclusion of Sunday Ticket may have helped launch the OTT service earlier or made a stronger entry but one would need to check an alternate universe for proof.


----------



## spidey

Rob37 said:


> It would be nice in the next NFL Sunday Ticket Deal if you could subscribe to just get one team. I know it probably will NEVER happen, BUT if I could just get my favorite team every week and not have to worry whether or not they are gonna be Blacked Out would be GREAT. If you could pay $150 a year to just get your team and not get every other team that you care absolutely nothing about would be ideal for people. I know I know it’s probably never gonna happen that way.


Add in that the single team stream would include that home teams radio feed properly synched.


----------



## Herdfan

Rob37 said:


> It would be nice in the next NFL Sunday Ticket Deal if you could subscribe to just get one team. I know it probably will NEVER happen, BUT if I could just get my favorite team every week and not have to worry whether or not they are gonna be Blacked Out would be GREAT. If you could pay $150 a year to just get your team and not get every other team that you care absolutely nothing about would be ideal for people. I know I know it’s probably never gonna happen that way.


Back in the mid-90's you could get the NBA that way.

Edit: Seems like you still can.

I understand why the NFL want's streaming. There are millions of people who live where they can't get satellite. But at the same time, there are also millions of people who live where they don't have broadband (although that number is getting smaller every year).

DirecTV seems to be in a perfect position to do both.


----------



## harsh

Herdfan said:


> DirecTV seems to be in a perfect position to do both.


DIRECTV clearly believes that they _aren't_ in a perfect position when it comes to NFLST.

Saying that they aren't interested isn't just a negotiation ploy; it is a head's up that they want out.


----------



## Herdfan

harsh said:


> DIRECTV clearly believes that they _aren't_ in a perfect position when it comes to NFLST.
> 
> Saying that they aren't interested isn't just a negotiation ploy; it is a head's up that they want out.


I mean technically. 

At the prices being discussed, I completely understand them not wanting to pay them.


----------



## Bender The Lab

Herdfan said:


> I mean technically.
> 
> At the prices being discussed, I completely understand them not wanting to pay them.


DirecTV has lost, roughly, 12 Million subs, of course they are not going to bid on it, that and they have announced no more new Satellites, they know they are on a slow train to oblivion.


----------



## Steveknj

b4pjoe said:


> I’m sure the NFL would rather their providers have good ratings but at the same time it is Amazons problem on TNF. At the same time they have an 11 year contract with Amazon so it is money in the bank for the NFL. Same with their other providers that are all on long term contracts. Alol money in the bank.
> 
> Also I think the thought of streaming technology not being there at this point in time is overblown. Look at MLB-TV. They carry far more games via streaming than NFL Sunday Ticket will. I think the streaming structure is sufficient. Where it may not be is in the homes of its subscribers. Again that is not the NFL’s problem. Sure they don’t want there to be problems but once that contract is signed…money in the bank.


The ratings for AP are tricky in that the vast majority games have been terrible match-ups. And unlike ESPN which is on most cable subs (and OTT services), AP loses ALL the local broadcasts to local TV, so they wouldn't even get any type of home team bump (i.e. this week most Jets fans will watch the game on local OTA instead of AP, just because it's easier. If the game was an ESPN game for example, the viewership could be split or ABC could be the local affiliate). If the NFL gives AP better games next year, the ratings will probably go up.


----------



## James Long

Herdfan said:


> I understand why the NFL want's streaming. There are millions of people who live where they can't get satellite. But at the same time, there are also millions of people who live where they don't have broadband (although that number is getting smaller every year).


There are under 13 million people subscribed to DIRECTV satellite (13.3 million including DIRECTV Stream) ... there are over 127 million US households with broadband. Even if half of the broadband subscribers did not have good enough service to stream that would be five times as many potential subscribers to a service.


----------



## Bender The Lab

James Long said:


> There are under 13 million people subscribed to DIRECTV satellite (13.3 million including DIRECTV Stream) ...


You are forgetting Uverse in that 13.3 million total.


----------



## James Long

Bender The Lab said:


> You are forgetting Uverse in that 13.3 million total.


Nope. Uverse is included in the 13.3 million and the number of satellite subscribers is below 13 million (how much below 13 million I did not say - but even at it's highest potential it is a tenth of broadband subscribers).

Think about it. There are under a million posts in this thread.


----------



## glrush

From tonite's WSJ :

"The National Football League is in advanced talks to give Google’s YouTube exclusive rights to NFL Sunday Ticket, a subscription-only package that allows football fans to watch most Sunday afternoon games, people familiar with the matter said.
An agreement could be reached as early as Wednesday, following a meeting of NFL owners, who approve rights deals."

Here is a link to the article (behind a paywall):

NFL in Advanced Talks With Google’s YouTube for ‘Sunday Ticket’ Rights Deal - WSJ


----------



## Bender The Lab

James Long said:


> Nope. Uverse is included in the 13.3 million and the number of satellite subscribers is below 13 million (how much below 13 million I did not say - but even at it's highest potential it is a tenth of broadband subscribers).
> 
> Think about it. There are under a million posts in this thread.


The last time Uverse was reported was in Q4 2020, had 3.5 Million, so today I would think 2 Million would be a good guess.









AT&T: no of video subscribers in the U.S. 2014-2020 | Statista


AT&T had 3.51 million pay TV subscribers in the United States in the fourth quarter of 2020.




www.statista.com




.


----------



## James Long

Bender The Lab said:


> The last time Uverse was reported was in Q4 2020, had 3.5 Million, so today I would think 2 Million would be a good guess.


The last time AT&T|DIRECTV reported U-Verse separately was at the end of 2018 (3.681 million). If they had 3.5 million at the end of 2020 that would indicate a much slower decline than the satellite service. (Satellite and U-Verse became "Premium TV" at the end of 2018.)

The exact number is irrelevant to the point ... there are still at least 10 times more broadband subscribers than DIRECTV satellite subscribers.


----------



## James Long

From another thread ...


Bender The Lab said:


> NFL nears deal with YouTube for exclusive rights to 'Sunday Ticket'
> 
> 
> The National Football League is in advanced talks to give Google’s YouTube, part of Alphabet Inc., exclusive rights to “Sunday Ticket,” a subscription-only...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.marketwatch.com


"An agreement could be reached as early as Wednesday, following a meeting of NFL owners, who approve rights deals."


----------



## gio12

Guess Google and YouTube TV will get NFLST. Makes sense as they have RZ already and NFL Network. DIRECTV Stream has neither. Was hoping for Apple but let’s see what a NFLST will now cost to add on to YTTV. 
I bet under $150 for a while.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bender The Lab

Little more news, explains why they close Google-$$$.

_Google has discussed paying about *$2.5 billion a year *to the league, $1 billion more than DirecTV, which had the rights for years, according to two of the people, who would speak only anonymously to discuss confidential negotiations.

The league could receive additional payments based on the number of YouTube subscribers that Google is able to add, as well as other performance benchmarks, the people said. The length of the contract is unclear._

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/20/business/nfl-sunday-ticket-youtube.html


----------



## b4pjoe

I wish they would clarify if it is YouTube or YouTube TV. Obviously the people writing these articles don‘t know the difference.


----------



## Sixto

It’s both. YouTube Primetime add on or YouTube TV add on.


----------



## b4pjoe

Where did it mention YouTube Primetime?


----------



## b4pjoe

Both of these articles say it is YouTube TV.









AP sources: YouTube TV front-runner for NFL "Sunday Ticket"


YouTube TV has emerged as the favorite to land the NFL's “Sunday Ticket” package of out-of-market games, but the sides have not finalized a deal, two people with knowledge of the negotiations said Tuesday evening.




apnews.com













YouTube TV is closing in on a Sunday Ticket deal - ProFootballTalk


Apple is out. Google is in.Days after a report emerged that Apple, the perceived frontrunner for the Sunday Ticket package for months, has exited the bidding, multiple reports indicate that YouTube TV will land the package for 2023 and beyond.Other candidates were Amazon and Disney.A source with...




profootballtalk.nbcsports.com


----------



## Sixto

The initial WSJ article: Under the scenario being discussed, NFL games would be available to be streamed on two subscription services, YouTube TV and YouTube Primetime Channels, next season.


----------



## spidey

I hate the idea of losing NFLST access on directv. The ability for PIP to watch two games side by side, easy flipping between games, ability to easily pause, rewind or fwd, along with recording multiple games if interested. I don’t understand why directv isn’t bidding on this with an integrated solution utilizing the DTV stream and sat subs. Still hoping that all this discussion about NFLST streaming means there still may be a sat based offering.


----------



## Bender The Lab

spidey said:


> I hate the idea of losing NFLST access on directv. The ability for PIP to watch two games side by side, easy flipping between games, ability to easily pause, rewind or fwd, along with recording multiple games if interested. I don’t understand why directv isn’t bidding on this with an integrated solution utilizing the DTV stream and sat subs.


Why they are not bidding, because the company has lost 12 Million subscribers and continues to lose 400-500,000 per quarter.

They, as a company, has telegraphed the end, by announcing they will not build or launch any new Satellites, for a Sat TV company , that is a pretty bold statement.

Also, their Stream offering does not seem to be catching on, looks like the sub numbers are under a million, while YTTV is over 5 Million and Hulu Live over 4 Million, it is already the most expensive streaming Live TV service, now even more so with the price increase.



> Still hoping that all this discussion about NFLST streaming means there still may be a sat based offering.


Keep dreaming, Google is not going to spend $2.5 Billion just to share it with a company that did not even bid on it.

I do wonder about the business side, if it was Amazon, they already have a deal with DirecTV with TNF, so I would think no big deal.

Google has more of a relationship with Dish then DirecTV.


----------



## compnurd

spidey said:


> I hate the idea of losing NFLST access on directv. The ability for PIP to watch two games side by side, easy flipping between games, ability to easily pause, rewind or fwd, along with recording multiple games if interested. I don’t understand why directv isn’t bidding on this with an integrated solution utilizing the DTV stream and sat subs. Still hoping that all this discussion about NFLST streaming means there still may be a sat based offering.


Why would they bid on a product they don’t make money on?


----------



## AMike

spidey said:


> I hate the idea of losing NFLST access on directv. The ability for PIP to watch two games side by side, easy flipping between games, ability to easily pause, rewind or fwd, along with recording multiple games if interested. I don’t understand why directv isn’t bidding on this with an integrated solution utilizing the DTV stream and sat subs. Still hoping that all this discussion about NFLST streaming means there still may be a sat based offering.


It doesn't look like Satellite in any form or fashion will be part of the mix. There is speculation that Google/YTTV will not distribute ST to businesses. If true, that will have a major impact on the death of D*.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

AMike said:


> Google/YTTV will not distribute ST to businesses.


and will they have agents to enforce that? or just hope that due to there lack of RSN's that businesses will not buy YTTV + NFL Ticket maybe X3 to get around the low max multi streams limits


----------



## AMike

JoeTheDragon said:


> and will they have agents to enforce that? or just hope that due to there lack of RSN's that businesses will not buy YTTV + NFL Ticket maybe X3 to get around the low max multi streams limits


I need to clarify my comment. It is speculated that Google/YTTV will not distribute ST to satellite for business customers. Basically, unlike the Amazon deal, Google/YTTV will distribute ST to business customers via another way. It's all speculation at this point, but if satellite is completely out of the mix, then it will be a crushing blow.


----------



## AZ.

AMike said:


> I need to clarify my comment. It is speculated that Google/YTTV will not distribute ST to satellite for business customers. Basically, unlike the Amazon deal, Google/YTTV will distribute ST to business customers via another way. It's all speculation at this point, but if satellite is completely out of the mix, then it will be a crushing blow.


Well for the handful of sports bars in a 40 mile radius from here, thats not going to fly. We dont have enough speed for 3 feeds at once?


----------



## Steveknj

AZ. said:


> Well for the handful of sports bars in a 40 mile radius from here, thats not going to fly. We dont have enough speed for 3 feeds at once?


But again, the idea here is not to placate the bars in outlying areas who don't have great internet. it's to expand the service to those who do have good internet coverage which is far more than what DirecTV can offer. And like other utilities, eventually broadband will be universal and be available in 95% of the country. I remember the day that you couldn't get cell phone coverage in many parts of the country and now it's pretty ubiquitous. So, sorry for those few bars who can't get decent internet. Eventually they will. And as I've also said, there are many ways to offer ST in bars, not the least of which is having a personal account and casting it to a TV at your table. The fact that it's Google, could mean speculation that you could have an account on your phone, and use chromecast to send it to a TV (and imagine this could be a shot across Apple's bow as well, needing Android to chromecast perhaps. It's all rather interesting to me to see how this plays out.


----------



## glrush

I have been a DirecTV (and NFL Sunday Ticket) subscriber since they first offered the product in 1994. It will be fascinating to see how many people bail on DirecTV once Sunday Ticket is gone, and to see what the impact will be on YTTV's numbers, if the speculation turns out to be true.


----------



## AMike

AZ. said:


> Well for the handful of sports bars in a 40 mile radius from here, thats not going to fly. We dont have enough speed for 3 feeds at once?


I have been to a restaurant that used streaming for their televisions. They suffered from constant buffering which was quite frustrating. Whether or not their streams were legal, well, that's another story.


----------



## harsh

spidey said:


> I hate the idea of losing NFLST access on directv.


You've had more than two years to get used to the idea. AT&T and DIRECTV have been unwavering in their position.


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> Both of these articles say it is YouTube TV.


This is why it is important to seek out the source of the story rather than relays and re-blogs. Every step in the reporting seems to obscure what was said in an attempt to "enhance" the given facts with reasoning and speculation.


----------



## Bender The Lab

AMike said:


> I have been to a restaurant that used streaming for their televisions. They suffered from constant buffering which was quite frustrating. Whether or not their streams were legal, well, that's another story.


Depends on what speed they pay for.


----------



## dcwebman

glrush said:


> I have been a DirecTV (and NFL Sunday Ticket) subscriber since they first offered the product in 1994. It will be fascinating to see how many people bail on DirecTV once Sunday Ticket is gone, and to see what the impact will be on YTTV's numbers, if the speculation turns out to be true.


Count me as one of those. I have been with ST since 1995. Over the years, I switched to different TV providers and only maintained DTV at the most minimalist package just to keep ST. I look forward to removing the satellite dish and subscribing to whatever services ST. Unfortunately, we just switched to Hulu Live TV from cable this past summer. I am hoping whoever gets ST will offer it separately because I really don't want to pay for two channel services all the time again just to have ST.


----------



## slickpete

The best part of Directv was that if you had the sat and 3-4 rcvrs you could watch 3-4 games.. with Streaming option you got 1. if youtubetv gets it I wonder if they will let someone watch more than 1 game?

there were lots of rumors that to make this work they were going to let whoever wins sub it out so that the other 90% of the country could still watch ST games, even then its probably 1 stream not 3-4..

Most bars have no setup to deal with streaming this way where multiple tvs can change games with a single switch and control sound..

Streaming sucks for live games with pausing and FF/RW etc.

Its gonna be a new world.


----------



## jkseger

slickpete said:


> The best part of Directv was that if you had the sat and 3-4 rcvrs you could watch 3-4 games.. with Streaming option you got 1. if youtubetv gets it I wonder if they will let someone watch more than 1 game?
> 
> there were lots of rumors that to make this work they were going to let whoever wins sub it out so that the other 90% of the country could still watch ST games, even then its probably 1 stream not 3-4..
> 
> Most bars have no setup to deal with streaming this way where multiple tvs can change games with a single switch and control sound..
> 
> Streaming sucks for live games with pausing and FF/RW etc.
> 
> Its gonna be a new world.


This! We set up multiple TVs and move D* boxes from room to room to accommodate our love for (fantasy) football. Without ST, we’ll be leaving D* after being a sub and ST sub, since 1999.

File it under progress, I guess.


----------



## harsh

glrush said:


> It will be fascinating to see how many people bail on DirecTV once Sunday Ticket is gone, and to see what the impact will be on YTTV's numbers, if the speculation turns out to be true.


I doubt that we'll ever really know what the impact is in either case as neither DIRECTV nor YouTube is required to _publicly_ report their financials.

What may be fascinating is what DIRECTV does to address the loss of the offering and any subscribers (both actual and threatened) contemplating leaving with it.


----------



## AMike

slickpete said:


> The best part of Directv was that if you had the sat and 3-4 rcvrs you could watch 3-4 games.. with Streaming option you got 1. if youtubetv gets it I wonder if they will let someone watch more than 1 game?
> 
> there were lots of rumors that to make this work they were going to let whoever wins sub it out so that the other 90% of the country could still watch ST games, even then its probably 1 stream not 3-4..
> 
> Most bars have no setup to deal with streaming this way where multiple tvs can change games with a single switch and control sound..
> 
> Streaming sucks for live games with pausing and FF/RW etc.
> 
> Its gonna be a new world.


It is going to be a whole new world. 

YTTV has stated they are experimenting with multi-streaming on one device. There's no time frame on that but it could alleviate this issue. Of course, the challenge will be bandwidth.


----------



## harsh

slickpete said:


> Most bars have no setup to deal with streaming this way where multiple tvs can change games with a single switch and control sound.


I remember a similar lament when HDMI/HDCP became an issue. The venues managed to make it work and I see little reason to believe that this transition will be nearly that difficult or expensive.


----------



## AMike

jkseger said:


> This! We set up multiple TVs and move D* boxes from room to room to accommodate our love for (fantasy) football. Without ST, we’ll be leaving D* after being a sub and ST sub, since 1999.
> 
> File it under progress, I guess.


I had set up my man cave with 3 televisions and 3 D* receivers. Once I dropped satellite D*, I set up streaming devices to replace the three since D* stream has unlimited connections. I don't always use all three TVs since I don't have ST any longer, but I did future proof myself for ST being streaming only.


----------



## glrush

NFL Reportedly Near Deal With Google for Sunday Ticket Package (frontofficesports.com) 

From the article: 

"However, another source said the Google/YouTube deal could center around so-called “residential rights,” with Sunday Ticket carving out a separate package for “commercial” rights involving 300,000 sports bars and restaurants."


----------



## glrush

AMike said:


> I had set up my man cave with 3 televisions and 3 D* receivers. Once I dropped satellite D*, I set up streaming devices to replace the three since D* stream has unlimited connections. I don't always use all three TVs since I don't have ST any longer, but I did future proof myself for ST being streaming only.


I am similar in my game room. 3 TV's, one TV has a quad screen using an Apple TV box, one on the local game via antenna and one on the "main" game (usually the Dolphins) but I can flip easily. Upstairs, the wife is watching her Browns. 
I will miss the ease and speed of swapping games using DirecTV, but I'll get used to it I guess.


----------



## Daniel loomis

NashGuy said:


> DTV would give you one free season of NFLST if you got an upper-tier base package (Choice or higher, for one TV with DVR) with a 2-yr contract. But the total price you'd pay over those 24 months (even subtracting the value of a $300 up-front Visa gift card) would be something like $2,300 or more. When you're on the hook for that amount, a free $300 NFLST package for one year isn't a huge giveaway. The cost of the 2 years of DTV service that the "free" season of NFLST was tied to was high enough that I would think that would satisfy the regular NFL broadcasters (e.g. CBS and Fox) that NFLST wouldn't pose any real competition for eyeballs. But neither YouTube TV nor Prime have contracts the way that DirecTV Satellite does. And their costs are lower. With Prime, the cost is just $139 per year. AFAIK, YouTube TV doesn't even offer an annual subscription, just monthly, at $65/mo. So I don't know how either would be able to offer a season of NFLST for free that's somehow tied to their base service (unless they put some kind of long-term contract in place, which I don't see either doing). So then would options would that leave them? I guess just selling NFLST as an optional pricey add-on package to anyone who, at that point in time, is a Prime member or a YouTube TV subscriber. And I'm sure if they were the exclusive seller of NFLST, then that would bring in _some_ additional Prime or YTTV customers. But enough to warrant paying the NFL their desired $2-3 billion per year for the privilege of being the exclusive seller at $300 a pop? Or even $100 a pop? Nah, I just can't see it. I just keep coming back to a bottom line that NFLST probably isn't worth the NFL's asking price to anybody. Apple kicked the tires for a year but bailed out. I think it's quite likely that Google and Amazon do the same unless the NFL is willing to significantly lower their price or somehow restructure the deal. So maybe t it ends up being sold like MLB's and NBA's out-of-market packages, both as a standalone streaming service through the NFL's own app and as an add-on to lots of different MVDP and vMVPD services, with the NFL just paying commissions on subscriptions sold and billed through those third parties.


 I priced tickets and food and parking and putting up with all the idiots..I’ll pay


----------



## harsh

glrush said:


> "However, another source said the Google/YouTube deal could center around so-called “residential rights,” with Sunday Ticket carving out a separate package for “commercial” rights involving 300,000 sports bars and restaurants."


Until such time as the winner indicates how they plan to serve commercial venues, I suspect that this line of speculation is entirely wishful thinking.


----------



## Herdfan

Bender The Lab said:


> Depends on what speed they pay for.


In the city, sure. But that bar in the small town that has 1 speed to choose from will be hosed.


----------



## Herdfan

glrush said:


> "However, another source said the Google/YouTube deal could center around so-called “residential rights,” with Sunday Ticket carving out a separate package for “commercial” rights involving 300,000 sports bars and restaurants."





harsh said:


> Until such time as the winner indicates how they plan to serve commercial venues, I suspect that this line of speculation is entirely wishful thinking.


Those 300K bars and restaurants are where the money is. I think the current minimum price is $6K for a bar and is based on the FCO. It's too much money to ignore.

Now here is a thought. Since DirecTV does this for other large companies, I wonder how much they would charge for say Google to rent up to 10 streams for 8 hours on a Sunday. At that point DirecTV is not in the ST business, they would be simply renting streams to Google to put on what they want. DirecTV would get a fixed amount of revenue and Google would have access to those bars & Restaurants.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Herdfan said:


> Those 300K bars and restaurants are where the money is. I think the current minimum price is $6K for a bar and is based on the FCO. It's too much money to ignore.
> 
> Now here is a thought. Since DirecTV does this for other large companies, I wonder how much they would charge for say Google to rent up to 10 streams for 8 hours on a Sunday. At that point DirecTV is not in the ST business, they would be simply renting streams to Google to put on what they want. DirecTV would get a fixed amount of revenue and Google would have access to those bars & Restaurants.


directv / Joe Hand Promotions does the same way like they do for ESPN+ and others

Joe Hand Promotions does enforcement and deal with other streaming only events for commercial.
Pricing is based off of your location’s fire code occupancy

I don't think that any big chain bar / restaurant is allowed to have one master account but no each location needs to get it's own full account (no stacking added tv boxes at each site) with Pricing is based off of your location’s fire code occupancy. And each site will have it's own black outs as well.


----------



## b4pjoe

Report: YouTube to pay $2.5 billion per year for Sunday Ticket


> The Sunday Ticket package will be available on YouTube TV and YouTube Premium Primetime channels, if/when the deal is done. The price will be similar to the current DirecTV charge. That reportedly became the sticking point for Apple, which wanted to make the product less expensive for consumers.





> For most Primetime Channels, you can use YouTube to watch on up to three devices at the same time.


At least it won't be tied to having Youtube TV.

(Edit: the author of that article should have specified it as Youtube Primetime Channels and not Youtube Premium channels)


----------



## compnurd

b4pjoe said:


> Report: YouTube to pay $2.5 billion per year for Sunday Ticket
> 
> 
> At least it won't be tied to having Youtube TV.


Sounds like I’m signing up for YouTube premium


----------



## b4pjoe

compnurd said:


> Sounds like I’m signing up for YouTube premium


You don't need Youtube Premium for it. It is on Youtube Primetime Channels which you purchase from Youtube. Not Youtube Premium. Yes it is confusing.


----------



## compnurd

b4pjoe said:


> You don't need Youtube Premium for it. It is on Youtube Primetime Channels which you purchase from Youtube. Not Youtube Premium. Yes it is confusing.
> View attachment 32746


ahhh lol Im just glad the requirement wont be YTTV..


----------



## b4pjoe

compnurd said:


> ahhh lol Im just glad the requirement wont be YTTV..


Same here. If it were there would be no chance I would ever see it.


----------



## Bender The Lab

compnurd said:


> ahhh lol Im just glad the requirement wont be YTTV..





b4pjoe said:


> Same here. If it were there would be no chance I would ever see it.


What do you guys have against YTTV?

I had it and it was great for the price you paid
1080P Picture
Dolby Digital+ sound
Great Guide that you could customize to your liking
Unlimited DVR at no charge
3 Streams with no extra box charges

The only thing I keep seeing people complain about is channel numbers, but in the guide every channel is named, plus I was able to put my top channels on top.

And no RSN, but for me that was a bonus since I moved from Michigan to Florida 2 years ago, I have no interest in watching the Local Teams.

I have MLB for the Tigers and ESPN+ for the Red Wings, care nothing about Basketball.


----------



## B. Shoe

Bender The Lab said:


> What do you guys have against YTTV?


I think the connotation here is that, through YouTube (not YTTV), you'll be able to subscribe to Sunday Ticket, regardless of what TV provider you subscribe to. So the cost of Sunday Ticket is just that; no added monthly subscription for a primary provider, just to also have access to a Sunday Ticket subscription.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

3 Streams MAX will not cut it for some people with NFL ticket.


----------



## the2130

Bender The Lab said:


> What do you guys have against YTTV?
> 
> I had it and it was great for the price you paid
> 1080P Picture
> Dolby Digital+ sound
> Great Guide that you could customize to your liking
> Unlimited DVR at no charge
> 3 Streams with no extra box charges
> 
> The only thing I keep seeing people complain about is channel numbers, but in the guide every channel is named, plus I was able to put my top channels on top.
> 
> And no RSN, but for me that was a bonus since I moved from Michigan to Florida 2 years ago, I have no interest in watching the Local Teams.
> 
> I have MLB for the Tigers and ESPN+ for the Red Wings, care nothing about Basketball.


It's nothing against YouTube TV, it's that most people wouldn't want to switch their regular pay TV service from what they have now to Youtube TV. For fans of baseball and other sports, they wouldn't get the RSNs, since YTTV doesn't carry them. They could also lose other channels that aren't in the YTTV bundle. It would make little sense to require YTTV in order to get NFLST.


----------



## b4pjoe

Bender The Lab said:


> What do you guys have against YTTV?
> 
> I had it and it was great for the price you paid
> 1080P Picture
> Dolby Digital+ sound
> Great Guide that you could customize to your liking
> Unlimited DVR at no charge
> 3 Streams with no extra box charges
> 
> The only thing I keep seeing people complain about is channel numbers, but in the guide every channel is named, plus I was able to put my top channels on top.
> 
> And no RSN, but for me that was a bonus since I moved from Michigan to Florida 2 years ago, I have no interest in watching the Local Teams.
> 
> I have MLB for the Tigers and ESPN+ for the Red Wings, care nothing about Basketball.


I did the trial at one time. No A&E and at the time I think I was missing DIY which wouldn't be a problem now since it is The Magnolia Network now and I'd probably pay extra to not have that channel. Also at that time you couldn't FF through commercials on the DVR content but I understand that was fixed. Also don't care of taping one episode of something and then having every episode of that show in the DVR list for 9 months with no ability to delete it. And $20 per month for 4K. No thanks. Also it needs user profiles to separate users likes and recordings.


----------



## B. Shoe

JoeTheDragon said:


> 3 Streams MAX will not cut it for some people with NFL ticket.


You're assuming that functionality can't/won't ever change on the YTTV/YouTube platforms. YTTV has a tier with unlimited streams in the household.


----------



## b4pjoe

And another WSJ article that says it is an exclusive to Youtube TV only:

YouTube TV In Talks To Acquire NFL Sunday Ticket Rights



> Offering Sunday Ticket as an exclusive to YouTube gives subscribers a reason to choose its services over satellite and cable, *and forces them to pay for YouTube's $64.99 bundle*.


Clearly the people reporting on this do not understand what the differences are between Google, Youtube, Youtube TV, Youtube Premium or Youtube Primetime Channels.


----------



## Bender The Lab

b4pjoe said:


> And another WSJ article that says it is an exclusive to Youtube TV only:
> 
> YouTube TV In Talks To Acquire NFL Sunday Ticket Rights
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly the people reporting on this do not understand what the differences are between Google, Youtube, Youtube TV, Youtube Premium or Youtube Primetime Channels.


That was a opinion piece, not a News Story and no, he did not know what he was writing about.


----------



## spidey

I know a friend who got youtube TV because he was working out of town, two sons at college and wife back home. All were bee to be logged on and watching at the same time. Hoping this be same with the ST offering one thing that DTV fails is only one device can be logged onto the streaming version of ST


----------



## Sixto

Bender The Lab said:


> That was a opinion piece, not a News Story and no, he did not know what he was writing about.


Exactly. That link was a Forbes article. The initial article remains the WSJ story, though there's been a few articles from others which seem to have (maybe) more info. The WSJ article clearly stated both Google services, but we'll see how accurate their reporting is once it's officially announced. And it's not signed yet, so anything can change.

In reference to others with the "streams" question. If you add the 4K Plus add-on to YouTube TV you get unlimited in home streams plus 3 outside streams. And yes you need to pay more for 4K Plus, so you want more you pay more but you get more. Not sure of how Primetime Channels will work, it just says most channels today get 3 streams.


----------



## glrush

Would not surprise me, like at all, if there is some product that is rolled out similar to Sunday Ticket Max on DirecTV with more streams available etc. if you want to pony up more coin. They are gonna need to figure out a way to squeeze the turnip even harder to try monetize the product.


----------



## compnurd

Bender The Lab said:


> What do you guys have against YTTV?
> 
> I had it and it was great for the price you paid
> 1080P Picture
> Dolby Digital+ sound
> Great Guide that you could customize to your liking
> Unlimited DVR at no charge
> 3 Streams with no extra box charges
> 
> The only thing I keep seeing people complain about is channel numbers, but in the guide every channel is named, plus I was able to put my top channels on top.
> 
> And no RSN, but for me that was a bonus since I moved from Michigan to Florida 2 years ago, I have no interest in watching the Local Teams.
> 
> I have MLB for the Tigers and ESPN+ for the Red Wings, care nothing about Basketball.


I have nothing against it. It just doesn’t work for us. No RSN


----------



## slickpete

can you even stream ST on the Directv app? I know I cant using the app as i have a real dish.. I only can see some of my channels on the app even when using it at home.. I get even less channels when streaming to my fire tv instead of the roku. no locals or ST or most of the regionals show up on the app.


----------



## compnurd

slickpete said:


> can you even stream ST on the Directv app? I know I cant using the app as i have a real dish.. I only can see some of my channels on the app even when using it at home.. I get even less channels when streaming to my fire tv instead of the roku. no locals or ST or most of the regionals show up on the app.


There is a separate app for Sunday ticket


----------



## slickpete

compnurd said:


> There is a separate app for Sunday ticket


i have that 2 but you only get to watch 1 game so its pretty much useless except for when Im not home.


----------



## hookemfins

Steveknj said:


> The NFL itself has diluted the ST package, with more and more games on Thursday, the whole spate of NFL Network games on Saturdays and even a few DH on both networks at the same time. But I guess when you are paying billions of fishnagles you want to protect your investment too.


 Diluted? There's one Thursday game/week other than Thanksgiving. Saturday games have been around only after the NCAA regular season is over. The purpose of ST is to give fans a chance to see there team who are not in the market. 

I think the NFL should keep ST in house like MLB,NHL and NBA do. With NFL plus you already get some features of ST like the condensed games and full game replays.


----------



## slickpete

It would be interesting to really know how many people pay $300 to watch their one team play 17 games when they might be on free tv 3-4-5 times anyway.. i know some do.. But that should always have been a separate plan.. A single team ST and a full every team ST.. Everyone I know who has it is because they are in fantasy or gambling and want to see every game not a single team..


----------



## harsh

Herdfan said:


> Those 300K bars and restaurants are where the money is.


You can't assert that none of the commercial venues have the necessary bandwidth. Most of them probably do and many who don't will have to come up with it. It isn't impossible.


----------



## harsh

slickpete said:


> i have that 2 but you only get to watch 1 game so its pretty much useless except for when Im not home.


It surely isn't reasonable to assume that a move to a streaming service will necessarily retain the single stream limit.


----------



## Steveknj

hookemfins said:


> Diluted? There's one Thursday game/week other than Thanksgiving. Saturday games have been around only after the NCAA regular season is over. The purpose of ST is to give fans a chance to see there team who are not in the market.
> 
> I think the NFL should keep ST in house like MLB,NHL and NBA do. With NFL plus you already get some features of ST like the condensed games and full game replays.


Sure they've deluded it. When I was a kid you got TWO games on Saturdays and only on the last two weeks of the season, now we are getting them on the last 4 weeks. You have a whole season of Thursday games, you have THREE Thanksgiving games when their used to be two. You have a couple of extra Monday night games that we never used to get. So yes, there are less games available on a week to week basis, especially early and late in the season (and of course to make the networks happy, they added another week to make up for it).

The NFL makes more money buy selling the ST package to a third party and let them handle all the logistics, incur all the costs and so forth. You do realize the other leagues ALSO have partners that take on much of the expenses as well. They just market it themselves.

Anyway, if I was the NFL, this is how I would do it. Remember, it's ONCE a week. The other leagues have games every night. So this is much different.


----------



## slickpete

we also have to wonder how a place that has 50+ tvs will handle streaming that many signals at once. most of them probably just have avg routers that may not send good signal to every part of their bldgs. every tv may not be smart ready they may not have outlets to plug in extra devices. lots of Issues


----------



## slickpete

Another issue is the remotes. Even in a house with 3-4 tvs the remotes is an issue.. To control the tv you want is often hard. With directv you can pair the remote/box. With smart TVS thats much harder and often an extra expense


----------



## harsh

slickpete said:


> we also have to wonder how a place that has 50+ tvs will handle streaming that many signals at once.


We don't have to wonder because it isn't really our problem. For many, that problem was solved years ago to deal with the NCAA offerings on Saturdays or just TV viewing in general.

How many venues will have 50+ streams? Now how many of those venues aren't also set up with some manner of modulator system or matrix switchers?

You technically only need as many streams as there are to be had rather than one for every TV.


----------



## Sixto

In the other thread as well: Bye Bye NFL Sunday Ticket on Directv.

"Exclusively distribute NFL Sunday Ticket to consumers in the United States"

"Add-on package on YouTube TV and standalone a-la-carte on YouTube Primetime Channels"

"Updated NFL Sunday Ticket product features and functionality will be announced ahead of the 2023 NFL season."

"The NFL and YouTube will work together to determine additional ways to support distribution of NFL Sunday Ticket in commercial establishments such as bars and restaurants."

NFL Network/RedZone: "Under the expanded relationship, the carriage agreement has been extended."

"Additionally, as part of the agreement, YouTube and the NFL will facilitate exclusive access to official content and attendance opportunities for select YouTube Creators at key NFL tentpole events."


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> If you want to believe some whacked out theory that the NFL demanded DIRECTV provide streaming feel free to do so.


From the NFL press release:


Roger Goodell said:


> For a number of years we have been focused on increased digital distribution of our games and this strategic partnership is yet another example of us looking towards the future and building the next generation of NFL fans.


Goodell's quote pretty clearly confirms the accuracy/validity of my "theory".


----------

