ESPN is already starting to face a major backlash from pay TV providers and some Wall Street analysts to yesterday’s $15B deal extending its rights to Monday Night Football for eight years to 2021. The agreement – which is at least 60% higher than the previous deal — “will push the cost of pay-TV service into the stratosphere, making the product less and less affordable during a time of severe economic stress and high unemployment,” says Matthew Polka, CEO of the American Cable Association, a trade group for small and mid-sized operators. His main complaint is that ESPN requires distributors to offer the channel in the most popular expanded basic package which means “consumers with no interest in sports are required to subsidize the sports fan.” ESPN and ESPN2 represent about 20% of a typical pay TV provider’s wholesale programming costs even though the channels just appeal to 2.5% of the viewers, Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett says in a new report. If you throw in other services, including regional channels, then about $12.15 — more than half of the average monthly wholesale programming payments — go for sports. Moffett figures that pay TV subscribers would have to pay an additional 67 cents a month just to cover ESPN’s additional new football costs. The price would rise to 78 cents if Dish Network drops the Disney-owned sports channel, something that the satellite company’s chairman Charlie Ergen has threatened to do. No wonder some analysts say Disney bit off more than it can chew. Dave Novosel at newsletter Gimme Credit today reiterated his “sell” recomendation for Disney’s bonds. Although the NFL “is valuable programming even by sports standards,” he says, “let’s not forget that Disney, and other media companies, often lose money on sports programming.” In addition to the NFL, ESPN’s costs are rising for Major League Baseball, the PAC-12 Conference, and Wimbledon tennis — and from start up costs for the Longhorn Network (which specializes in University of Texas games). That’s troublesome, Novosel says, because ESPN’s ad revenues fell 1% after excluding unusual items in the quarter that ended in June.
Moody’s Investors Service analyst Neil Begley is less troubled. He says that the NFL “is must have programming” and will give ESPN ”more leverage in its upcoming and ongoing negotiations with pay TV distributors” as well as its deals with advertisers. Yesterday ESPN chief George Bodenheimer predicted that the new NFL deal “will be received very well by our distributors” calling the sports channel “the most valuable service in cable for more than 30 years.”





$12.15 a month?? No thanks, I’d rather have HBO.
ESPN itself only costs $4.34 per month with ESPN2 accounting for about another 58-cents (source: that link at the word “deal” in the article’s first sentence). The $12.15 figure is the estimated price tag for *all* sports channels combined, which *also* includes Fox’s megaplex of channels and the like. In that context, a hike of 67-cents for ESPN is still annoying but IMO shouldn’t be the breaking point for any cable/satellite system.
And I say that as a person whose only use for ESPN and ESPN2 is to watch World Series of Poker. I would hope, though, that if there’s a backlash against ESPN that reduced its carriage, that the WSOP would sign a next-day rebroadcast deal with GSN or some other basic cable channel.
Great. Another channel showing pro football that Time-Warner’s gonna drop.
What about those of us who love sports but loathe ESPN?
I agree, ESPN is unwatchable now. What used to be a channel devoted to sports highlights, news and a scrolling scores/stats ticker has devolved into TMZ: Sports.
Years ago I could watch the same episode of Sportscenter on repeat all morning. Try sitting through an hour today. You’ll get 15 minutes of college football realignment, 10 minutes of “analysis” (self-promotion) for whatever game(s) they’re showing across their networks that day, 5 minutes of some fugitive athlete’s latest transgressions, 5 minutes about some troublemaker’s latest tweet, 5 minutes about a baseball brawl from a week ago, 3 minutes of actual highlights/sports news and 17 minutes of commercials.
Last year’s LeBron saga and now the Longhorn Network mess just proves that ESPN is gaining way too much influence over sports and I would love to see the cable networks push back. There might be some backlash from subscribers but CBS/Fox/NBC all still air football games and the rest of sports fans’ appetites could be satiated between NFL Network, MLB Network, Fox Sports, Versus, online streaming plans and “season ticket” PPV packages offered by each league, local sports stations and newscasts and obviously the internet.
Great. Another channel showing pro football that Time-Warner’s gonna drop.
I wish Comcast would drop them I have 1,000 better uses for $12.00 a month.
I was excited when I saw the email from Sony saying I could subscribe to NFL season pass through my PS3, but almost had a heart attack when I learned they wanted almost 400 bucks a season for it. That’s just ri-goddamn-diculous, but it makes sense now as ESPN obviously has to recoup that 15B from somewhere. Not from me though, so good luck with that.
This model might work with any other major sports league since they play so many games in a season and every day of the week, but each NFL team only plays 16 games per year and they’re all played on the same day (I’m excluding MNF games and playoff games since those are nationally televised and still available without an NFL Season Pass). That amounts to $400 for 17 days worth or programming.
I don’t see why anyone in their right mind would pay that.
I agree with this story. I have god knows how many Espn, Espn2, epsn3, espnews, espncollege, espnclassic etc ESPN CHANNELS AND I HAVE NEVER WATCHED A SINGLE SHOW. WHY DO I NEED TO PAY FOR ALL THESE ESPN CHANNELS I DONT WATCH….WHY DO NONSPORTS VIEWERS NEED TO SUBSIDIZE THAT…Meanwhile because of that, I cannot afford the channels that I do want
Huh, I guess sports will be the new “piracy battleground” as people won’t pay the extra money when they can download the games (or watch them streamed live) online for free
I LOVE sports, sports games, news, reports, specials, etc. BUT, Im beginning to loathe ESPN, esp with the liberal slant its gotten lately! Dont need it, BUT,,is there another sports network I can watch 24/7?
“ESPN and ESPN2 represent about 20% of a typical pay TV provider’s wholesale programming costs even though the channels just appeal to 2.5% of the viewers, Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett says in a new report.”
There’s no way in hell that line passes the smell test. Only 2.5 percent of PTV viewers watch ESPN or its various other channels? That is simply not accurate.
The shakeup will come further down the road. Yet we are already seeing it. Young people are foregoing Cable programming, and watching programs on their computers via Hulu,Netflix etc. As the years go by the cable audience will get smaller, and the covergence audience will grow. There will come a time when we should be able to pick, pay and choose the programs/channel we want to watch and be billed accordingly- sorta like a public utility. Cable companies have had it their way far too long. It is only a matter of time.
JZ
I have DirecTV, and get every ESPN channel except one (ESPN Classic). In a time when there is NOTHING to watch on TV in prime time, the ESPNs are my “go to” when there is nothing good on, (aka “every night”).
Even sports can become boring and repetitive, but the NFL is never boring. I think it was a good move for ESPN to shell out the money, but they should stick the higher cost with the advertisers, not the viewers. Like the article said, why should people who don’t like sports have to pay for people who do?
I think it’s about time cable and satellite companies give ESPN the finger. And I don’t mean the “you’re number one” finger.”
I hope Dish drops ESPN, I HATE all sports and it pisses me off that I have to pay for that crap. This is a perfect example of why there needs to be changes in Satellite and cable. If they can’t do ala carte then at least to packages, sports, news, entertainment, family.
ESPN and sports channels like it are the only thing preventing millions of households from cutting the cord altogether.
And Monday Night Football games alone regularly draw 20 million viewers to ESPN. How can it only appeal to 2.5% of the population?
Why should this increase my cable bill? All they need to do is increase the cost that advertisers pay for commercial placement.
Advertisers won’t pay more, so they screw the cable companies (and in turn they screw the consumer)
until people pull their heads out of their ass and we get a real “a la carte” system for cable, this will only get worse.