I think the streaming prices are fascinating. I won’t leave DirecTV until Sunday Ticket moves on (cannot wait for Steelers-only version!) so it will still be a year or two before it matters to me…
The BRI that is used to set the salary cap includes local TV revenue. Nobody knows the answer yet, but how much will the salary cap and luxury tax thresholds come down if teams actually gave a deep discount to (or give away) their product? Because of arbitrage, if this streaming were to cost less than I’m paying DTV for my regional network that would also cost the teams $millions as the cost comes down (as I’d drop the RSN and stream it instead).
It’s going to be really interesting to see what happens to the salary cap. Local broadcast revenue isn’t a “loss leader” in small markets because this is a key component in the formula for BRI and the cap.
Yes everyone would like to pay less of their entertainment dollar. But I just don’t think you can see that really take place until the next CBA is signed and the NBPA is probably more interested in dollars for their players than “giving away” an income source for “exposure.”
Which is why I don’t understand blaming ownership. They are in the pinch until the next CBA is negotiated. It’s one thing for Cuban to pay out of his own pocket. Probably a tough sell for the Indy C.I.B. to ask for more money to cover a Pacers’ operating losses because management sabotaged local TV revenue while still being subject to paying a salary cap based on BRI.
There are plenty of people out there with a political view that the CIB shouldn’t fund the Pacers at all, I can’t imagine “deciding to forego a key revenue stream for local broadcast rights” will please them. They would expect consumers to cover the cost not a CIB subsidy.
There is just no business logic that streaming would cost any less than this, no matter how much people wish it did. Not until BRI and the salary cap get reset to a lower (ha!) number.
I think the streaming prices are fascinating. I won’t leave DirecTV until Sunday Ticket moves on (cannot wait for Steelers-only version!) so it will still be a year or two before it matters to me…
The BRI that is used to set the salary cap includes local TV revenue. Nobody knows the answer yet, but how much will the salary cap and luxury tax thresholds come down if teams actually gave a deep discount to (or give away) their product? Because of arbitrage, if this streaming were to cost less than I’m paying DTV for my regional network that would also cost the teams $millions as the cost comes down (as I’d drop the RSN and stream it instead).
It’s going to be really interesting to see what happens to the salary cap. Local broadcast revenue isn’t a “loss leader” in small markets because this is a key component in the formula for BRI and the cap.
Yes everyone would like to pay less of their entertainment dollar. But I just don’t think you can see that really take place until the next CBA is signed and the NBPA is probably more interested in dollars for their players than “giving away” an income source for “exposure.”
Which is why I don’t understand blaming ownership. They are in the pinch until the next CBA is negotiated. It’s one thing for Cuban to pay out of his own pocket. Probably a tough sell for the Indy C.I.B. to ask for more money to cover a Pacers’ operating losses because management sabotaged local TV revenue while still being subject to paying a salary cap based on BRI.
There are plenty of people out there with a political view that the CIB shouldn’t fund the Pacers at all, I can’t imagine “deciding to forego a key revenue stream for local broadcast rights” will please them. They would expect consumers to cover the cost not a CIB subsidy.
There is just no business logic that streaming would cost any less than this, no matter how much people wish it did. Not until BRI and the salary cap get reset to a lower (ha!) number.