OT: What You Pay for Sports

Submitted by Don on April 25th, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Just came across this website purportedly analyzing how your viewing dollars support the world of sports:

http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/

I don't know enough about the world of sports broadcasting to know whether their data and conclusions are valid, but I know there are some MGoBloggers who find the topic interesting.

Comments

mGrowOld

April 25th, 2013 at 11:01 AM ^

I'm actually pleasantly surprised at all the fees except one.  .02 for the NIT seems like a colossal waste of money to me.  I want that one back.

JohnnyBlue

April 25th, 2013 at 11:34 AM ^

will be interesting to see if cable can keep the bundled structure alive as we move into the internet tv era.  without the masses subsidizing espn, there is no way espn can keep paying the contracts they pay out. 

bluebyyou

April 25th, 2013 at 2:16 PM ^

With Verizon FIOS, I am sure I either have enough bandwidth or can upgrade my service to get enough, but that's me.  Most people don't have the greatest internet service.  Could our national data networks handle a Superbowl with hundreds of millions of people tuning in at the same time, many with mjultiple HD sets?  You can compress things down, but I would rather pay more for better quality.  Any viewing model that compromises my viewing experience would not be acceptable, regardless of cost. 

 

LSAClassOf2000

April 25th, 2013 at 11:36 AM ^

It seems that a shade over a quarter of my yearly "sports bill", if you will, goes to the NFL, but $33.70, or 41.2% of the $81.70, goes to college-related items, including the $0.02 for the NIT. 

As an interesting aside to this, here's the article on the same site regarding ESPN's subscriber fees broken down by ESPN channel and how upcoming contract renewals will affect them.(HERE)

Double Wolverine

April 25th, 2013 at 11:40 AM ^

The B1G, SEC & ACC all make in the $2.40 - $2.70 range (not including the B1G network). The Pac 12 ($1.25), The Big 12 ($1.10) and the Big East ($0.53) all make significantly less. Delany might not be the best PR person out there, but the future of the B1G looks financially solid at least.

joeyb

April 25th, 2013 at 11:54 AM ^

The Big Ten gets $5.10/year/subscriber. If 10% of current subscribers would pay for BTN for 3 months out of the year, they could charge $17/month and break even. That doesn't include those that would keep it for other sports. That's a low retention rate, and you'd get some out-of-footprint subscribers, so I'd imagine that they could probably get away with something like $5-10 and still increase profits significantly.

Tater

April 25th, 2013 at 12:08 PM ^

I cut the cable over two years ago, but I would be more than willing to pay for online streaming of the channels I want on a monthly basis.  

bluepuck

April 25th, 2013 at 12:15 PM ^

I have every channel besides CBS SN, Galavision and Pac-12 Network. By adding just CBS Sports Network, it jumps to $89.10. Besides a couple hockey games against ND, what else is there to watch on that channel?

French West Indian

April 25th, 2013 at 4:29 PM ^

I don't have a TV or cable and I watch all of my sports at the bar.  They need to create a survey that tells me how much of the cost of my rum & cokes goes to sports before I'll give them any credit.