# When does the contract with Disney/ABC and Direct TV expire?



## dxtrfn80 (Apr 18, 2012)

With the Viacom-DTV war in full swing makes me wonder when does the deal with Disney/ABC expire? Would be a huge story if the rest of the kids channels. (not all of them but would be left with Cartoon Network, HUB, PBS Sprout) I just hope the deal expires in 2015 or later.


----------



## snappjay (Jul 16, 2010)

Let's be honest. Disney can ask for any amount of money they want with as many channels they want because of one thing... ESPN.

Most people know DTV as the "sports" provider. They would go completely under without the ESPNs.

"DirecTV, we have this new channel that plays Disney animation classics 24/7 and you are going to pay us $0.25 per sub"

"What?? No!"

"Well fine, say goodbye to ESPN"

"... fine, put it on our tab"


----------



## alnielsen (Dec 31, 2006)

Move ESPN's into the sports package and save the rest of us $5-6 a month.
Yep, I know it isn't going to happen, but I can dream.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"snappjay" said:


> Let's be honest. Disney can ask for any amount of money they want with as many channels they want because of one thing... ESPN.
> 
> Most people know DTV as the "sports" provider. They would go completely under without the ESPNs.
> 
> ...


Not just with directv, either. With everyone. Directv maybe more than others. But a system without espn would not survive.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"snappjay" said:


> Let's be honest. Disney can ask for any amount of money they want with as many channels they want because of one thing... ESPN.
> 
> Most people know DTV as the "sports" provider. They would go completely under without the ESPNs.
> 
> ...


I'd actually like that channel. Kind of like with Viacom, one mans trash channel is another's interest.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

What I know is that ESPN and all other ABC/Disney owned stations are 2 different contracts. I don't know about when ESPN was last renewed, but the last standoff between DirecTV and Disney over all the other channels was in March 2003. Now, if they signed a 10 year deal at the time, it would mean 2013.

I also know the Discovery Network contracts are due to expire by the end of the year, so we'll see some action there as well.

Of course, if a contract was re-negotiated between two parties well before the due date, it may not have been made public other then in some boring investor relation portfolio for their shareholders.


----------



## boufa (Dec 24, 2007)

When did ESPN classic and ESPNU change packages? I think that was from the new ESPN contract.


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

boufa said:


> When did ESPN classic and ESPNU change packages? I think that was from the new ESPN contract.


sometime last year i think


----------



## snappjay (Jul 16, 2010)

since this thing with viacom, my wife and I decided to do a simple, non scientific calculation on how many hours we watch a specific channel or a grouping of channels. The % works out to...

ESPN (1, 2, U, news, etc)
40% (this number goes to, at least, 70% in the fall)
Disney Channel (for the kid)
20%
Fox Sports Ohio/Cincinnati
20% (goes to zero in the fall)
Locals
10% (goes up to 20% in the fall)
Speed
5% (zero in the fall)
MLB Network (NFL Channel in the fall)
5%

As you can see, if Disney or Newscorp pulled out of DTV, especially during football season, we would have to cancel and move on to one of our other options (dish :nono2r cable:nono.


----------



## iceman2a (Dec 30, 2005)

snappjay said:


> since this thing with viacom, my wife and I decided to do a simple, non scientific calculation on how many hours we watch a specific channel or a grouping of channels. The % works out to...
> 
> ESPN (1, 2, U, news, etc)
> 40% (this number goes to, at least, 70% in the fall)
> ...


What content does ESPN carry during football season that makes it a must have?
There is "nothing" on ESPN that I can't get somewherelse except MNF and that is not enough for me to change providers and my primary viewing is sports!


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"iceman2a" said:


> What content does ESPN carry during football season that makes it a must have?
> There is "nothing" on ESPN that I can't get somewherelse except MNF and that is not enough for me to change providers and my primary viewing is sports!


College football?


----------



## iceman2a (Dec 30, 2005)

tonyd79 said:


> College football?


OK, got me there!
I know in many places college football is more popular than the NFL but wasn't even thinking that way!

Now here is another question, is ESPN's college football subscription pkg. negotiated within ESPN's carry agrement or is it a seperate negotiation????


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

iceman2a said:


> OK, got me there!
> I know in many places college football is more popular than the NFL but wasn't even thinking that way!
> 
> Now here is another question, is ESPN's college football subscription pkg. negotiated within ESPN's carry agrement or is it a seperate negotiation????


ESPN signed a 15 year deal with the SEC in 2008 and a separate deal with the ACC that lasts until 2027. In much of the country, SEC football and ACC (plus Kentucky and a few other SEC schools) basketball are bigger draws than the NFL or NBA.


----------



## 510207 (Jan 4, 2012)

Maybe someone smarter than me can answer this question: Does DTV have to pay per sub, regardless of whether they have a package including said channel, or is it only per sub that actually has a package with the channel. Always been curious on that one.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"Traegon" said:


> Maybe someone smarter than me can answer this question: Does DTV have to pay per sub, regardless of whether they have a package including said channel, or is it only per sub that actually has a package with the channel. Always been curious on that one.


Typically the latter.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"iceman2a" said:


> OK, got me there!
> I know in many places college football is more popular than the NFL but wasn't even thinking that way!
> 
> Now here is another question, is ESPN's college football subscription pkg. negotiated within ESPN's carry agrement or is it a seperate negotiation????


Pretty sure it is separate.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Regarding ABC, consider this on the airlines.
I can't recall seeing ABC on Jet Blue or Delta or United. But they carry ABC FAM and about 5 ESPN channels. So the airlines buckle under and accept ESPN without the ABC network feed.

So ABC gives up the prime time shows to CBS, NBC and FOX for ESPN and ABC FAM. That sort of sums up the ESPN power doesn't it?


----------



## snappjay (Jul 16, 2010)

iceman2a said:


> OK, got me there!
> I know in many places college football is more popular than the NFL but wasn't even thinking that way!
> 
> Now here is another question, is ESPN's college football subscription pkg. negotiated within ESPN's carry agrement or is it a seperate negotiation????


Well, I should have put Big10 in there somewhere. My wife is from Wisconsin, so she sets up camp right in front of the TV until the spring.


----------



## Old_School (Nov 29, 2011)

What channel is ESPN even on???


----------



## AMike (Nov 21, 2005)

Sorry to bring up this old thread, but it is relevant. Based on this article from 2005, the ESPN contract should have expired in September, so I'm sure there is some good faith bargaining taking place without threats of channel removals.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2005/01/20050124/This-Weeks-Issue/Directv-ESPN-Sign-For-10-Years.aspx


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

It seems Disney must believe in playing nice these days. Because when they negotiated with Dish they went well beyond the end of their old contract before they got a deal finally hammered out and their channels were never pulled.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tsmacro said:


> It seems Disney must believe in playing nice these days. Because when they negotiated with Dish they went well beyond the end of their old contract before they got a deal finally hammered out and their channels were never pulled.


There were extenuating circumstances with DISH as they were embroiled in a long term lawsuit. Pray that DIRECTV doesn't go there.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

AMike said:


> Sorry to bring up this old thread, but it is relevant. Based on this article from 2005, the ESPN contract should have expired in September, so I'm sure there is some good faith bargaining taking place without threats of channel removals.
> 
> http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2005/01/20050124/This-Weeks-Issue/Directv-ESPN-Sign-For-10-Years.aspx


Given that we had the SEC Network added already and Longhorn is in test mode, I think there must be good faith negotiations and that a new deal will be reached soon, and without ever losing any of he ABC/Disney channels.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

harsh said:


> There were extenuating circumstances with DISH as they were embroiled in a long term lawsuit. Pray that DIRECTV doesn't go there.


True but Disney could've still decided to pull their channels when the old contract expired and they didn't. The fact that there were those extenuating circumstances with Dish (some might say bad blood) actually makes it even more impressive that the channels were never pulled as far as I'm concerned. It does make it seem that someone at Disney has decided not to use pulling permission to broadcast their channels as a "negotiating tactic" as so many channel owners seem to do.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

tsmacro said:


> True but Disney could've still decided to pull their channels when the old contract expired and they didn't. The fact that there were those extenuating circumstances with Dish (some might say bad blood) actually makes it even more impressive that the channels were never pulled as far as I'm concerned. It does make it seem that someone at Disney has decided not to use pulling permission to broadcast their channels as a "negotiating tactic" as so many channel owners seem to do.


What I remember was that Disney pulled their HD channels as well as ESPN News and ESPNU, because Dish refused to pay for HD of those channels but continued to show it, Disney said it was a breach of contract and removed the HD counterparts with 2 ESPN channels I mentioned, Then a lawsuit ensued, Those SD channels were the ones that ESPN/Disney didn't removed.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

acostapimps said:


> What I remember was that Disney pulled their HD channels as well as ESPN News and ESPNU, because Dish refused to pay for HD of those channels but continued to show it, Disney said it was a breach of contract and removed the HD counterparts with 2 ESPN channels I mentioned, Then a lawsuit ensued, Those SD channels were the ones that ESPN/Disney didn't removed.


The four HD channels DISH carried without permission were removed. DISH had a contract for the SD channels so they remained.

When the DISH contract with ABC/Disney expired DISH was allowed to continue to carry the channels that they had contracts for until the new contract was finalized. There were several months of carriage after the old contract expired ... which should inspire hope that no channel will be pulled if the contract with DirecTV should end before the final renewal contract is signed. DirecTV and ABC/Disney will work it out ...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Yeah,. Disney can't afford for their channels to be off the air, and neither can Directv. DIsney wont play that game. And heck, we know Directv isn't afraid of that tactic though, just recall Viacom....


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

And know on the verge of removing Raycom locals again because the agreement didn't finalized too well.


----------



## Raiderguy8 (Sep 23, 2007)

Hopefully an ESPN related contract will allow access to ESPN3.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Raiderguy8 said:


> Hopefully an ESPN related contract will allow access to ESPN3.


I'm hoping it allows Directv to put up an ESPN3 channel, plus enough alts to hold as many different ESPN3 streams as there ever are, once they have the new satellites available next year and have the capacity for it.

Making them available via the internet is nice, but that doesn't really do much for the commercial customers who can't legally display ESPN3 content streaming via internet.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> I'm hoping it allows Directv to put up an ESPN3 channel, plus enough alts to hold as many different ESPN3 streams as there ever are, once they have the new satellites available next year and have the capacity for it.
> 
> Making them available via the internet is nice, but that doesn't really do much for the commercial customers who can't legally display ESPN3 content streaming via internet.


Is the ESPN3 even legally possible to put in broadcast? All contracts for sports have rights allocated to them. You can't just take something from one platform or region and put it in another without agreements in place. I am not sure that the ESPN3 contracts allow for putting the games on other platforms. Anyone know?

(BTW, you said it yourself. If you cannot legally stream via internet, what makes you think DirecTV can bypass that for you. Oh, and who can't? I was in a sports bar when a HUUUGE storm came through and they changed to ESPN3 broadcasts until their DirecTV signal came back.)


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Some ISPs don't give ESPN3 access to business subscribers, that's on the ISP level though. It might be different when it's part of a TV deal and you have a commercial subscription for ESPN.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

tonyd79 said:


> Is the ESPN3 even legally possible to put in broadcast? All contracts for sports have rights allocated to them. You can't just take something from one platform or region and put it in another without agreements in place. I am not sure that the ESPN3 contracts allow for putting the games on other platforms. Anyone know?
> 
> (BTW, you said it yourself. If you cannot legally stream via internet, what makes you think DirecTV can bypass that for you. Oh, and who can't? I was in a sports bar when a HUUUGE storm came through and they changed to ESPN3 broadcasts until their DirecTV signal came back.)


I have no idea what ESPN's contracts look like, but I'm sure it could be worked out if necessary and there was incentive to. ESPN wants to maximize carriage of its content, the rights holders want the same thing. ESPN3 may be on the internet now because no one has the capacity to carry it otherwise. I very much doubt it is because anyone wants to avoid having it broadcast.

The reason sports bars can't legally stream ESPN3 is because there's nothing anywhere that says they can. Since displaying it in public is automatically a copyright violation, you need explicit permission to do so. Just because you saw a sports bar show ESPN3 doesn't mean it was legal. If you saw a bar knowingly serve a 17 year old a beer, would you assume that was legal, or that they were doing it because they didn't think they'd get caught? (Though to be fair, that bar may not have even realized what they did was not legal, copyright law often doesn't make a whole lot of sense)

If ESPN3 channels were carried on Directv, then sports bars would be able to show it, because the public viewing contract gives explicit permission to show the content you're paying for. If ESPN3 is included with the other ESPN channels, permission to show it would automatically be granted. If they wanted to withhold that permission for some reason, those ESPN3 channels wouldn't show up for public viewing customers.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Oh, and maybe when Directv renegotiates the contract public viewing customers will be granted permission to stream ESPN3 from the internet and be able to login to ESPN's site and do so.

But I'd rather not mess with that, I would much prefer it simply be available via satellite. They'll have the bandwidth after D14 launches, might as well do something useful with it.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> The reason sports bars can't legally stream ESPN3 is because there's nothing anywhere that says they can. Since displaying it in public is automatically a copyright violation, you need explicit permission to do so. Just because you saw a sports bar show ESPN3 doesn't mean it was legal.


This was not some fly-by-night sports bar. This was a chain that I am sure checks out legality. And they had hundreds of TVs slaved to a switching system that allowed them to do it. Not exactly the on-the-spot handing of a drink to a 17 year old, which is really the bartender not doing their job.

BTW, since I know about as much about you as I do the bar I saw this at, why should I take your word for it anymore than theirs? You think NOBODY had ever worked a contract to be able to show ESPN3 content at a bar? Why? Because you know every contract in the world? Not trying to be nasty. Just pointing out that your evidence is anecdotal and I just brought another anecdotal piece to the conversation.

As for the contracts, it is not just as simple as saying "we want to put this on the satellite, okay?" There might be local TV contracts that conflict. ESPN3 is not always exclusive. Much of the content on it is syndicated to local stations. It depends on if they have exclusive or not and then they have to make sure they are compensating the teams appropriately.

These are not simple things to do. That is all I am saying.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

If it is a big chain like BW3 they would be able to negotiate directly with ESPN for this. That's not really practical for the little guy.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> If it is a big chain like BW3 they would be able to negotiate directly with ESPN for this. That's not really practical for the little guy.


Medium sized chain. They may have. Or they may have gotten something from their ISP (which is probably Comcast given where it was).


----------



## HaterSlayer (Mar 24, 2010)

I need to remember to save some PTO time for if they pull ESPN. That is gonna make working a nightmare! I hope it doesn't come to that.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

They won't pull ESPN. Dish's contract was expired and they didn't pull anything, and kept negotiating and eventually had the new contract done. It would only be if they were very far apart and neither side looked likely to move that this would happen, and all the public statements indicate that negotiations are going well - the addition of SECN and LHN demonstrates that.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

HaterSlayer said:


> I need to remember to save some PTO time for if they pull ESPN. That is gonna make working a nightmare! I hope it doesn't come to that.


Whoa. Slow your roll. No one is anywhere near pulling ESPN.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

tonyd79 said:


> As for the contracts, it is not just as simple as saying "we want to put this on the satellite, okay?" There might be local TV contracts that conflict. ESPN3 is not always exclusive. Much of the content on it is syndicated to local stations. It depends on if they have exclusive or not and then they have to make sure they are compensating the teams appropriately.


During basketball season, much of the ESPN3 content is also on ESPN Full Court. There might be contractual restrictions on some of the content, but certainly not all of it.

There was outrage recently among Kentucky fans when Big Blue Madness was only shown in its entirety on ESPN3. It could not be shown on local channels because ESPN had the rights to it. The same thing will happen next week when the Blue White scrimmage game will be on SEC+ (the online version of the SEC Network), which is owned by ESPN. Again, it cannot be shown anywhere else, because ESPN owns the rights.

I do not have Dish or U-verse, but when I tried to view Big Blue Madness on ESPN3, I discovered that it was available to Dish subscribers and U-verse subscribers, but not to DirecTV subscribers.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

According to the schedule, the Blue/White scrimage will be televised on the SEC Network and not exclusive to SEC Network+

Time Warner Cable is the main cable provider for Lexington and they don't have access to SEC Network+, it would have been a huge problem locally if it were exclusive to that. It's related to them being the first one to renew their contract, the rest of WatchDisney wasn't a thing yet, so their deal didn't include the digital rights for future Watch platforms.


----------



## HaterSlayer (Mar 24, 2010)

tonyd79 said:


> Whoa. Slow your roll. No one is anywhere near pulling ESPN.


Hah I know. Just the Raycom stuff was bad enough. If ESPN goes down for even a day then that is gonna suck.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

The big Sports Blackout is happening @ Dish with Turner content disappearing as the NBA season starts - just after Turner/ESPN signed a huge NBA Contract that will cause everyone's cable bill to go up approximately $2 a month just for the NBA contract come renewal time. They have already pulled all Turner channels except for TNT/TBS....which will disappear soon. Because of what Turner has to hold out for to pay for the NBA Contract, that one could go on a long while.

CBS is next as their contract runs out with Dish in November, so they will disappear, along with the NFL games around Thanksgiving - as the November Sweeps end. As CBS is determined to get $2 per sub retransmission - and has an axe to grind with the Hopper, that one will probably be nasty as well.

Directv will again be the DBS provider for Sports without Blackouts over the next 60 days....or more.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> The big Sports Blackout is happening @ Dish with Turner content disappearing as the NBA season starts - just after Turner/ESPN signed a huge NBA Contract that will cause everyone's cable bill to go up approximately $2 a month just for the NBA contract come renewal time. They have already pulled all Turner channels except for TNT/TBS....which will disappear soon. Because of what Turner has to hold out for to pay for the NBA Contract, that one could go on a long while.
> 
> CBS is next as their contract runs out with Dish in November, so they will disappear, along with the NFL games around Thanksgiving - as the November Sweeps end. As CBS is determined to get $2 per sub retransmission - and has an axe to grind with the Hopper, that one will probably be nasty as well.
> 
> Directv will again be the DBS provider for Sports without Blackouts over the next 60 days....or more.


Lots of speculation there especially since TNT and TBS hasn't been pulled and as I pointed out over on the Dish forum most NBA fans would barely notice even if they were gone. As for CBS, well lots of people also said there were all sorts of reasons why Dish/Disney negotiations would get nasty and it never happened. It seems that Disney has adopted a kinder gentler method of negotiating these days as they didn't go dark w/ Dish or Direct this time around. It's just as easy to speculate to say that maybe CBS will see the wisdom of doing things that way rather than the "I'm taking my ball and going home" way.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I have a feeling CBS will follow disneys lead somewhat on the hopper issue. 

And $2 a sub? When? If you mean over the life of the contract which is for many years and that it will be absorbed by easing all the rates of all the channels a little then guess what, you are off. That increase is coming anyway as they always ask for more anyway and $2 more over the next seven years is probably on the low end for what they plan to ask anyway.

Sports won't make tnt ridiculously expensive. 

And realize some of that money is because they also get to own and run NBATV that they will make money on as well. 

I blame sports for a lot of increases but the tnt nba deal is not a big deal at all. Pac12 and sec and Dodgers. They are all way more problematic because they are total increase and addition new channels


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

inkahauts said:


> I have a feeling CBS will follow disneys lead somewhat on the hopper issue.
> 
> And $2 a sub? When? If you mean over the life of the contract which is for many years and that it will be absorbed by easing all the rates of all the channels a little then guess what, you are off. That increase is coming anyway as they always ask for more anyway and $2 more over the next seven years is probably on the low end for what they plan to ask anyway.
> 
> ...


Then where is the $2.6B a year ESPN and TNT are now going to pay to the NBA coming from?

$2.6B divided by 90M MVPD subs = $28.8 a year or $2.40 a month just for the NBA Programming on TNT and ESPN.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

tsmacro said:


> Lots of speculation there especially since TNT and TBS hasn't been pulled and as I pointed out over on the Dish forum most NBA fans would barely notice even if they were gone. As for CBS, well lots of people also said there were all sorts of reasons why Dish/Disney negotiations would get nasty and it never happened. It seems that Disney has adopted a kinder gentler method of negotiating these days as they didn't go dark w/ Dish or Direct this time around. It's just as easy to speculate to say that maybe CBS will see the wisdom of doing things that way rather than the "I'm taking my ball and going home" way.


And as I told you in the Dish Forum, ABC had ESPN revenue and other channels bringing in upwards of $10 a month, where CBS does not. Simply put, Bob Iger does not have the balls Les Moonves does. He also feels that Dish mislead them in their last re-transmission agreement. So he is not going to walk softly (especially when he has December and January NFL games as leverage).


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Then where is the $2.6B a year ESPN and TNT are now going to pay to the NBA coming from?


There's all those awkward pauses in the game where everybody stands around on the court waiting, because the bills are being paid by commercials. It doesn't all come out of the pay TV subscriber's pocket.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

sregener said:


> There's all those awkward pauses in the game where everybody stands around on the court waiting, because the bills are being paid by commercials. It doesn't all come out of the pay TV subscriber's pocket.


Incorrect, paying more does not mean more people will be watching, which is how commercials are priced.

And you think they can increase the number of commercials 170% in those breaks....as the deal goes from $930M a year in the old contract to $2.6B a year in the new contract.

No way to pay for it except for increases from subscribers.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Answering the OP, the deal with Disney/ABC/ESPN and DirecTV expires late December.

Unfortunately for DirecTV subs, they will get hit with the ESPN NBA agreement where Dish signed earlier this year before that was signed.

DirecTV also wants internet rights similar to what Disney did with Dish as part of their renewal.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Answering the OP, the deal with Disney/ABC/ESPN and DirecTV expires late December.
> 
> Unfortunately for DirecTV subs, they will get hit with the ESPN NBA agreement where Dish signed earlier this year before that was signed.
> 
> DirecTV also wants internet rights similar to what Disney did with Dish as part of their renewal.


Disney knew the NBA agreement was coming up and probably had a pretty good idea what they'd be paying for renewal back when they negotiated with Dish, so I very much doubt Directv will end up paying more than Dish due to that.

Disney knows ESPN's rights negotiation schedule with various sports leagues/conferences, and probably has it carefully budgeted out each year what they think they'll pay. They may not know exactly what they'll pay in 2020, but based on past growth in rights fees they can make a good guess.


----------



## mpie314 (Aug 27, 2014)

sregener said:


> There's all those awkward pauses in the game where everybody stands around on the court waiting, because the bills are being paid by commercials. It doesn't all come out of the pay TV subscriber's pocket.


I believe I also read that when they start doing sponsors on the jersey's that the TV companies will be getting some of that $$.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

mpie314 said:


> I believe I also read that when they start doing sponsors on the jersey's that the TV companies will be getting some of that $$.


NBA players are going to become walking billboards like NASCAR drivers? Yet another reason for me to not care about pro basketball and stick with college!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

You think that's not coming to college too soon enough?

Every team in all pro and college has some logo of the maker of the clothes and it's going to expand a little bit for additional advertising for everyone over time.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> You think that's not coming to college too soon enough?
> 
> Every team in all pro and college has some logo of the maker of the clothes and it's going to expand a little bit for additional advertising for everyone over time.


Depending on how the current lawsuits go, if college players get the money for using their uniforms as a billboard instead of the athletic departments it will reduce the incentive for the NCAA/conferences to permit it. Maybe it'll come eventually, but at least I don't see my school's field/court being sold to a corporate sponsor anytime soon, or that of any other major college team I can think of.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> NBA players are going to become walking billboards like NASCAR drivers? Yet another reason for me to not care about pro basketball and stick with college!


it's hip in nascar not so much in other sports.

Now I hope the players union makes so that players get there cut and make not count as part of the cap.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> Disney knew the NBA agreement was coming up and probably had a pretty good idea what they'd be paying for renewal back when they negotiated with Dish, so I very much doubt Directv will end up paying more than Dish due to that.
> 
> Disney knows ESPN's rights negotiation schedule with various sports leagues/conferences, and probably has it carefully budgeted out each year what they think they'll pay. They may not know exactly what they'll pay in 2020, but based on past growth in rights fees they can make a good guess.


No one expected the 170% increase in fees, regardless of when the contract was scheduled to expire. BTW, the new NBA fees do not go into effect until the 2016 Season, so I suspect that between the date and the amount, Dish will not take the same type of hit DirecTV will in fees.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> NBA players are going to become walking billboards like NASCAR drivers? Yet another reason for me to not care about pro basketball and stick with college!





JoeTheDragon said:


> it's hip in nascar not so much in other sports.
> 
> Now I hope the players union makes so that players get there cut and make not count as part of the cap.


What about the European soccer leagues and, closer to home, jockeys?


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> No one expected the 170% increase in fees, regardless of when the contract was scheduled to expire. BTW, the new NBA fees do not go into effect until the 2016 Season, so I suspect that between the date and the amount, Dish will not take the same type of hit DirecTV will in fees.


Really? They had no idea how much it would go up? That would mean they were not very good at their jobs.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

tonyd79 said:


> Really? They had no idea how much it would go up? That would mean they were not very good at their jobs.


And your point?

Have you not noticed the longer term lockups in Sports Lately? This being done to keep Sports off "free" Broadcast TV for a very long time while Re-transmission fees kick in.

And while on that subject - and the naysayers about the $2 increase in cable bills thanks to the new NBA contract, SNL Kagan revised their estimates today.

ESPN (Main Channel - Not ESPN2 etc) goes from $6.04 today to $7.72 in 2017.

TNT goes from $1.48 to $1.92 in 2017.

Roughly 30% increases per month in the Wholesale cost. What they charge you is more so they can make their margins (41% for Cable and 25% for DBS).

It should also be noted that ESPN paid more for the NBA Contract than TNT did as ESPN has 100 Games, as well as additional games in the WNBA etc. TNT is getting 64 Games.

FWIW, Retransmission to Broadcast Station will average only $1.32 in 2017 - still far below ESPN and TNT.

Perhaps of interest, Broadcast TV has margins less than 20%.


----------



## mpie314 (Aug 27, 2014)

mpie314 said:


> I believe I also read that when they start doing sponsors on the jersey's that the TV companies will be getting some of that $$.


I think it will be more like kit sponsors in football/sponsor. A company will sponsor and nba team/jersey, my hope is it's not as visible as it is in soccer but who knows what will happen when the $$$ start flying


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> And your point?
> 
> Have you not noticed the longer term lockups in Sports Lately? This being done to keep Sports off "free" Broadcast TV for a very long time while Re-transmission fees kick in.
> 
> ...


How much do you think your bills have gone up because of football both college and pro. How about baseball. Heck even Nhl and MLS

That's one of the reason that prices get raised all the time anyway.

I don't think our prices are going to go up extra than they already wanted to raise them because of this deal. Maybe that's a better way to say it.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

inkahauts said:


> How much do you think your bills have gone up because of football both college and pro. How about baseball. Heck even Nhl and MLS
> 
> That's one of the reason that prices get raised all the time anyway.
> 
> I don't think our prices are going to go up extra than they already wanted to raise them because of this deal. Maybe that's a better way to say it.


Then you need to go back and research SNL Kagan projections for TNT and ESPN prior to 10/1/2014.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Then you need to go back and research SNL Kagan projections for TNT and ESPN prior to 10/1/2014.


So you think ESPN uses SNL Kagan's guesses instead of their own internal models/budgets to anticipate future price increases? Knowing how often analyst firms such as Gartner are wildly wrong in the technology field I wouldn't trust SNL Kagan any more than I'd trust Gartner. Anyone who uses Gartner's projections to plan their business will have rough times. They missed the growth of smartphones, missed on tablets, missed the decline in PC sales and I see no reason why SNL Kagan should be any more accurate with their guesses (sorry, I won't dignify analyst firms guesses with the title "projections") in the television field.

I'm sure you'll defend them to the death because you're using them to push your viewpoint, but the fact they were so wrong about TNT/ESPN shows how little value they have. Unless you can prove ESPN doesn't do any of its own projections but instead just cribs off SNL Kagan's playbook, this line of argument you're trying to use against inkahauts is completely invalid.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Then you need to go back and research SNL Kagan projections for TNT and ESPN prior to 10/1/2014.


Nah. They can only project based on outright knowns. They have no clue how much tnt or anyone else plans on spending that hasn't been announced and what they are budgeting to be asking for in the long run... Tnt had an idea how much it'd take for the new nba agreement ages ago. Probably more than a year... Snl would have no way to add that number in...


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> So you think ESPN uses SNL Kagan's guesses instead of their own internal models/budgets to anticipate future price increases? Knowing how often analyst firms such as Gartner are wildly wrong in the technology field I wouldn't trust SNL Kagan any more than I'd trust Gartner. Anyone who uses Gartner's projections to plan their business will have rough times. They missed the growth of smartphones, missed on tablets, missed the decline in PC sales and I see no reason why SNL Kagan should be any more accurate with their guesses (sorry, I won't dignify analyst firms guesses with the title "projections") in the television field.
> 
> I'm sure you'll defend them to the death because you're using them to push your viewpoint, but the fact they were so wrong about TNT/ESPN shows how little value they have. Unless you can prove ESPN doesn't do any of its own projections but instead just cribs off SNL Kagan's playbook, this line of argument you're trying to use against inkahauts is completely invalid.


SNL Kagan knows what the current deal was - and knows how much others would pay.

No one expected a 170% increase.

NBA offered an earlier renewal with a 9 year term for a 170% price increase - and TNT and ESPN took it to wrap it up longterm.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> SNL Kagan knows what the current deal was - and knows how much others would pay.
> 
> No one expected a 170% increase.
> 
> NBA offered an earlier renewal with a 9 year term for a 170% price increase - and TNT and ESPN took it to wrap it up longterm.


Know they think they know. Just like all the experts knew how much the Dodgers and Clippers would sell for. The fact they where all of by hundreds of millions in both cases.....

And I have to wonder if they based their numbers on the same kind of contract going forward instead of new things like all the Internet streaming they have never had before in this deal. Not to mention more games. That increase is also for more games too. It's not just more Money for the exact same thing.

To many variables to call it an170% outright without mention it also includes a lot more for them to show and make ad dollars off of and such. And a new subscription plan it sounds like too!


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

mpie314 said:


> I think it will be more like kit sponsors in football/sponsor. A company will sponsor and nba team/jersey, my hope is it's not as visible as it is in soccer but who knows what will happen when the $$$ start flying


TNT and ESPN will NOT be getting funds for sponsorships inside the arena or on the player's uniform.

It is ridiculous to think that they will.

The only thing they get is when they electronically green screen an ad on a the side of a court (They do this all the time behind the batter on MLB).


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

inkahauts said:


> Know they think they know. Just like all the experts knew how much the Dodgers and Clippers would sell for. The fact they where all of by hundreds of millions in both cases.....
> 
> And I have to wonder if they based their numbers on the same kind of contract going forward instead of new things like all the Internet streaming they have never had before in this deal. Not to mention more games. That increase is also for more games too. It's not just more Money for the exact same thing.
> 
> To many variables to call it an170% outright without mention it also includes a lot more for them to show and make ad dollars off of and such. And a new subscription plan it sounds like too!


Considering the small number of people subscribing to NBA League Pass for $149 (or TV and digital for $199), it is pretty ridiculous to think a digital only subscription will make a dent in the amount TNT and ESPN are on the hook for each year.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Considering the small number of people subscribing to NBA League Pass for $149 (or TV and digital for $199), it is pretty ridiculous to think a digital only subscription will make a dent in the amount TNT and ESPN are on the hook for each year.


Maybe maybe not. If all sports could suddenly be had for individual subscriptions it would finally allow people to dump pay tv. Which is why I don't see this really happening as easily as it sounds right now.... But time will tell.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

inkahauts said:


> Maybe maybe not. If all sports could suddenly be had for individual subscriptions it would finally allow people to dump pay tv. Which is why I don't see this really happening as easily as it sounds right now.... But time will tell.


Unless things have changed, you can pay $10 to Dish and just sub to a Sports Subscription like NBA League Pass - or even HBO. A normal package is not needed. I did it for years to get HBO uncompressed off 148W.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Unless things have changed, you can pay $10 to Dish and just sub to a Sports Subscription like NBA League Pass - or even HBO. A normal package is not needed. I did it for years to get HBO uncompressed off 148W.


No that's a multi sport package which gives you out of market RSN's minus the NBA,MLB,NHL games since you need a 
seperate full season package for those.


----------



## coolman302003 (Jun 2, 2008)

I think Dish for a while now requires a minimum of the Welcome Package, in the past you could pay $5-6 monthly access fee (for having no base package) and then individually add NBA LP, ESPN FC, HBO, Showtime, etc. ... but that is no longer the case.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

coolman302003 said:


> I think Dish for a while now requires a minimum of the Welcome Package, in the past you could pay $5-6 monthly access fee (for having no base package) and then individually add NBA LP, ESPN FC, HBO, Showtime, etc. ... but that is no longer the case.


It was $5 for not having a package and $5 for HD access, or that was what I was charged....then added HBO-HD to it.

They always offered me the Sports Season Passes Packages (even the free previews) but I never took them up on one, so I know they were available on the plan.


----------

