# ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox Say Broadcasting Pro Sports Is a Loser



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

From all appearances, it appears that the sports channels will be getting more sports programming, while the networks give it up. Primary reason: The fees combined with the advertising revenue that the sports channels can charge.

From Bloomberg:

*ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox Say Broadcasting Pro Sports Is a Loser*

After agreeing to pay $28.9 billion over eight years to air those events, U.S. broadcasters say an advertising slump has made televising sports a money-losing venture, and they don't mind ceding the games to cable TV rather than paying more to keep them.

Advertising revenue at the largest networks fell 10 percent from 2000 to 2001 while regular-season ratings for the four major sports dropped an average of about 18 percent from 1997 to 2001. The NBA led the decline, plummeting 38 percent, according to research compiled by Fox Sports.

Full Article Here


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

I hope this is the beginning of the end for these hyper-inflated Broadcast rights. Considering that the sports channels are owned by Fox and ABC/Disney they may start saying no. Since the cable companies are now starting to squack about the prices of the channels....I couldn't be happier!

See ya
Tony


----------



## alv (Aug 13, 2002)

Also an end to the hyperinflated sport salaries?


----------



## Randy_B (Apr 23, 2002)

alv has hit it. Inflated salaries is the root of the problem. No one player is worth qtr of billion dollars, unless he is bringing that many fans INTO the stadium to pay that salary. The networks bear as much responsibility as anyone. Really got out of hand when Fox was so desparate to get NFL, along with NBC and the multi billion dollar Olympic deal.

I think Mark Maguire's agreement with the Cards gave him big bonuses based on the number of fans in the stadium above the average attendance for that day/series. There was no doubt that when he was chasing the HR record, the fans were flocking in to see HIM. It was reasonable that he get a big cut of those add'l tickets.


----------



## Eyedox (Nov 25, 2002)

Greed Greed Greed ... Just like MLB cut off their own foot with their bullsh*t strikes, the rest of the pro sports arena will do the same. I'm all for college sports as our new past time. Screw the greedy money whores.


----------



## Rusty (Apr 26, 2002)

One of the biggest problems is that, in every professional league, there is at least one owner who thinks that he can buy a championship by paying over inflated salaries to big-name players, many of whom are either over-the hill or overrated. A few years ago, Dan Snyder paid such high ridiculous salaries to sign former greats such as Deion Sanders that he put the Redskins in salary cap hell for at least two seasons.

Red McCombs in Minnesota has just done the same thing by overpaying greatly on a long term deal for QB Dante Culpepper. Culpepper is a very good, but not great, NFL QB and his deal that averages out to $10 million/year will raise the bar for other QBs with skills comparable to Culpepper. 

With salaries increasing at an exponential rate, the pro leagues look to TV rights fees to help bail them out. Thanks, in large part, to Rupert Murdoch and his Fox network, there are too many networks vying for sports product to televise and there is now always one network (currently NBC) without a chair when the music stops. Ergo, the networks overpay greatly to try and retain their sports packages. Although, they are all, apparently, losing money on sports, the networks are extremely reluctant to risk losing sports, particularly the NFL. NBC finally bit the bullet this past negotiation but it remains to be seen if the other networks will similarly lower their bids when sports contracts are due for renegotiation. I sure wouldn't bet the farm on it.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

How much is George Steinbrenner paying in salaries for the Yankees ithis year? Around $150 million, with some of the revenue coming from running the exclusive YE$ network.

I also watch the baseball highlight occasionally on the sports reports. I don't see the stands filled. Whats up with that?

It the last baseball strike, some of the comments coming from both players and owners gave the impression that they don't care for the fans at all.


----------



## RichW (Mar 29, 2002)

Since ABC and Fox have major sports cable channels, I see this as a move to make all pro sports a pay-TV commodity. If I remember correctly, there was some FCC legislation a long time ago about not allowing sports to abandon the broadcast TV spectrum by moving to Pay-TV.

As far as I am concerned, I have given up on watching most sports anyway. The "pros" that play them, with some exceptions, are no longer very good role models of sportsmanship or of humanity. The NBA teams, in my opinion, are populated by a bunch of libertines and thugs.


----------



## Tomsoundman (Jun 17, 2002)

lib·er·tine ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-tn)
n. 
One who acts without moral restraint; a dissolute person. 
One who defies established religious precepts; a freethinker.



(Had to look that one up...)


----------



## DarrellP (Apr 24, 2002)

Well put, Rich and the Portland Trailblazers are a prime example of overpaid, whining babies. How many of them DIDN'T get arrested this year?

I would love to see all sports go to an a la carte tier and let the hormone starved males who crave such programming pay for it.


----------



## Timco (Jun 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by DarrellP _
> *
> I would love to see all sports go to an a la carte tier and let the hormone starved males who crave such programming pay for it. *


I didn't realize *only* hormone starved males watched sports.  
Anyway, if they were starved for hormones, I doubt they would be doing much of anything.....


----------



## RandyAB (Apr 4, 2002)

I think once it goes to a exclusive ppv service, the sports just lose out. Currently I watch baseball, basketball, and football. The only one I would even think about buying is the NFL. Which is good for them, but bad for the other sports. Wonder how many other people feel the same way, paying for one sport, and getting rid of the rest.


----------



## RichW (Mar 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Tomsoundman _
> *lib·er·tine ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-tn)
> n.
> One who acts without moral restraint; a dissolute person.
> ...


Glad to contribute to the vocabulary. 

Yes, it was the first definition of libertine that I had in mind. The NBA players are as bad as rock stars in terms of sexual promiscuity, and they appear to do it without proper protection from disease and from getting a groupie pregnant.

Yep, Darrell, the Blazers are a big disappointment to me. They have been for a few years now. I had hoped the the new coach would teach them a bit of morality. Perhaps now the Whitsitt is gone (my nickname for him is unprintable), the Coach might have a chance.


----------



## belsokar (Jul 2, 2002)

its funny to blame the players for the high costs...if anything, the players are just getting their fair share...is it alot of money? Of Course it is...is it too much? I don't know that...we the consumer put the money in their pockets,...we buy their jerseys, buy shoes that they wear...we go to their games and pay the ridiculous ticket costs, we tune in and watch them on tv...

if I am the NFL, and I can get someone to give me $4 Billion over however much time to display my product...I'm going to do it over and over until they stop paying...This money goes to the league, goes to teams, to greedy owners, etc...the players, who are THE PRODUCT, the entertainment value,...they just get their fair share of whats out there, because without them, we just don't enjoy the product as much...

Sports has usually always been a loser for the big networks...if you're cbs before they picked up the AFC division...you are an network with no viewers...so you go out and spend alot of money to get football, which pulls in viewers, and allows you to draw their attention to other shows they offer...In the meantime, you sell advertisement to offset the cost of obtaining the NFL.

The main point here is that the NFL/MLB/NBA/ETC will always take whatever they can get...this money in turn goes to the league, to teams, and thus eventually to players...if the networks decided to spend less, these leagues would get less, and players would get less...so players aren't causing the rising costs...they are just getting their fair share of what the networks are stupid enough to pay for in the first place to get a leg up on the competition...


----------



## marko (Jan 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Eyedox _
> *Greed Greed Greed ... Just like MLB cut off their own foot with their bullsh*t strikes, the rest of the pro sports arena will do the same. I'm all for college sports as our new past time. Screw the greedy money whores. *


Ah, college sports are all about greed too (major conferences controlling football/basketball--- BCS, etc). See recent acc expansion. Only difference is these schools don't have to pay the people that play.


----------



## Ken_F (Jan 13, 2003)

This is definitely a step in the right direction. It's the intensely competitive bidding between CBS, FOX, ABC, and until recently, NBC, that has helped to put sports rights at absurdly high value that they command today.

That said, it is going to be difficult for sports leagues to accept less than they are getting now, as they've based their operations, including long term player contracts, on the expectation that the money will just keep rolling in as it has.


----------

