• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is ESPN in Big Trouble?

SenorXm/Sirius said:
I have 4 kids. 2 no longer have cable at all. They get their programming elsewhere and have Netflix, etc. It's the sign of the times. There's a 1,000 other places to get your sports and news, and in the case of ESPN they barely do what they suppose to do anymore. It's barely a sports network anymore. So f'em.
Click to expand...

Yeah all 3 of my adult children have never subscribed to cable. I cut the cord over 3 years ago. I just don't watch sports anymore as it's too much of a pain to get the programming so oh well. ESPN and Cable might drag professional sports down with them. Honestly if a sport like soccer wants to make inroads in the US they need to find a way to cheaply introduce it to the cord cutters.
 
calamity said:
lol...I'm one of those who cut the chord. 8 or 9 years ago, I began living without TV and went over the top or outright bootleg to watch my entertainment. Seems this is happening across the board, but it is apparently hurting ESPN the most because so much of their revenue is dependent on cable bundles. Add to that their incredibly high expenses for sports programming, and you can see how their model is on the path to ruin.

ESPN Loses Another 555,000 Subscribers Per Nielsen | Outkick The Coverage
Click to expand...

ESPN or some other sports thing is often the butt end of the deal on most cable negotiations. Cable News and ESPN both have to find a way to link to cable-cutters. Yet, the cost effective of doing this is not exactly clear at this point in time. I have considered cutting cable multiple times, but as I have Verizon FIOS it is more cost effective for me to keep my cable package the way it is. I have a double play package with 75 MBPS and every channel but Starz. If I were to increase my internet bandwidth from 75 to 150 MBPS and drop my cable package I would be paying $5 more a month!

If I were to only sign up for cable streaming channels with no increase in bandwidth. My Bill would look like the following, plus whatever a single 75 mbps package costs at Verizon (as they love bundles, this is not evidently clear):

CBS ALL ACCESS: $6
Netflix: $10
HULU No Ads: $12
Showtime: $11
HBO: $15
Starz: $9

Total: $62 I would only be saving about $23 as I have Netflix now and that's not including cost of the internet itself!

And one all Inclusive Package like:
Sling TV: $20
-or-
Direct TV Now: $35
-or-
Playstation VUE: $75 (for everything)

If you already have set cable and broadcast network shows you like to watch regularly. It's not easy to cut the cord and not at all cost effective to even try. So streaming seems cheaper if you only want one of these services but add on two or three together and they quickly surpass whatever you were paying for cable in the first place. ESPN or not.
 
Last edited:
Winchester said:
Yeah all 3 of my adult children have never subscribed to cable. I cut the cord over 3 years ago. I just don't watch sports anymore as it's too much of a pain to get the programming so oh well. ESPN and Cable might drag professional sports down with them. Honestly if a sport like soccer wants to make inroads in the US they need to find a way to cheaply introduce it to the cord cutters.
Click to expand...

I live close enough to NYC so IF I wanted to totally cut the cord I have an antenna in my attic and will still get 8-10 NYC stations OTA. So the NFL, prime time programming, etc. is no problem. My biggest concern is baseball. I'm a HUGE baseball fan, so now that I've dropped all the way down to my providers base package there is no more ESPN, nor regional sports(in my case NYC). So no more NYC baseball. Most games I listen to on the radio anyway, baseball is, IMO, the perfect radio sport. And with MLB At Bat I get all the games, home and away on the radio. So that's great!!

But I still would be disappointed if I can't get baseball on TV, So come this March/April I'll have to see how strong I am that if I can't get any baseball games on TV. I'll see if I will be able to resist not bumping up to a higher TV package so I can get the NYC MLB again, at least for the summer. LOL
 
calamity said:
lol...I'm one of those who cut the chord. 8 or 9 years ago, I began living without TV and went over the top or outright bootleg to watch my entertainment. Seems this is happening across the board, but it is apparently hurting ESPN the most because so much of their revenue is dependent on cable bundles. Add to that their incredibly high expenses for sports programming, and you can see how their model is on the path to ruin.

ESPN Loses Another 555,000 Subscribers Per Nielsen | Outkick The Coverage
Click to expand...

I know one thing. I'll be watching NCAA basketball and all of a sudden ESPN reporters want to cut in and talk to someone like a SEC commissioner. I want to see the game not an interview with someone. AGGGHHH! :2mad:
 
Rule changes in sports have made even the more contact friendly boring. You can't even breath on a receiver and it's PI. In fairness to tv, attendance is down greatly as well. About the only thing exciting in sports the past year was the Cubs

ESPN might want to try something and get rid of commercial interruptions. Take a page from HBO and realize that ads have no place in a subscriber model
 
gdgyva said:
This isn't about ESPN folding

This is about Michael Eisner at Disney finally getting a handle on the expenses over at ESPN

Getting rid of some of the huge contracts....Berman and others

ESPN costs 10x more than any other channel in cable packages

They know they have to adjust that....

This is the beginning of the changes there.....they no longer can just spend on any talent they want

They need to get back to reality....

But ESPN will still go after the big sports items....football, basketball, etc

Just have to do it at a lesser price than what they have been....
Click to expand...

The big contracts are for the sports themselves. They're paying i don't know how many billions for the nfl. What's going to happen is these sports leagues just make less $. The question is if at this rate ESPN will be around by the time contract negotiations come up
 
chromium said:
The big contracts are for the sports themselves. They're paying i don't know how many billions for the nfl. What's going to happen is these sports leagues just make less $. The question is if at this rate ESPN will be around by the time contract negotiations come up
Click to expand...

It really makes no sense in this day and age. I am sure I am not the only person who catches all their live events on line, ad-free and without paying a single dime. The way I see it, if they ever shut that avenue down, I'll either look for pay to play or just stop watching. I sure as hell won't pay a monthly fee to have a cable or sat hook up that I don't use 90% of the time.
 
calamity said:
It really makes no sense in this day and age. I am sure I am not the only person who catches all their live events on line, ad-free and without paying a single dime. The way I see it, if they ever shut that avenue down, I'll either look for pay to play or just stop watching. I sure as hell won't pay a monthly fee to have a cable or sat hook up that I don't use 90% of the time.
Click to expand...

They won't ever shut it down, any more than the music industry got everyone to keep buying cds. Then there is the simple reality half the country is living paycheck to paycheck and that means dropping the $100/mo cable bill. If ESPN doesn't like it, they can get congress to pass a living wage law. But they're too busy laying off their own staff
 
More doom and gloom for the Four-Letter.

...ESPN's subscriber losses have accelerated, averaging over three million lost subscribers a year. Now new jobs cuts are coming, only this time you're likely to know some of the casualties -- Outkick has heard from a variety of different sources that ESPN is cutting up to $100 million in on-air salaries...

At the same time that ESPN has been hemorrhaging subscribers, the network has also been paying incredible sums of money for live sports rights. In fact, ESPN will pay out $7.3 billion for sports rights in 2017, that's more than any company in America will pay for media content.

...Which is why ESPN's cutting employees so aggressively. They see the math coming, it's inevitable now. The problem is that ESPN can't cut costs fast enough to make up for the changing business reality.

ESPN Cutting Nearly $100 Million In On-Air Talent | Outkick The Coverage
Click to expand...

IMO, what we may be seeing is the sports bubble bursting in general. Everyone in sports has gotten fat on huge TV contracts. But, if the viewers aren't there, those contracts will not be renewed and Boom! down will come everything from players' salaries to owners' profits.

If I owned a Team today, I'd sell it, grab my $3B and run.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
ESPN struggles won?t go away, but Disney CEO thinks he has the answer - MarketWatch
Click to expand...

Disney should sell the brand and either eat the losses in a one-time hit and write-off or sell it at a discount and let the new spin-off default on the sport's packages to get out from under those ridiculous contracts. Then the brand can begin anew as a sports magazine-type media outlet providing radio, print and TV for unique content.

In other words, get out of the live sports broadcasting business, now, and at all costs. That's the only solution I see.
 
calamity said:
Disney should sell the brand and either eat the losses in a one-time hit and write-off or sell it at a discount and let the new spin-off default on the sport's packages to get out from under those ridiculous contracts. Then the brand can begin anew as a sports magazine-type media outlet providing radio, print and TV for unique content.

In other words, get out of the live sports broadcasting business, now, and at all costs. That's the only solution I see.
Click to expand...

I dropped my TV package down to the cheapest package my provider offers, which means no more ESPN. I haven't watched it in months, so it is no big lose. But the other day I'm at a bar and they had Sports Center on. It was unbelievably bad, at 1 point there were 5 people sitting around a table, talking. For awhile they talked about doing push-ups. And a couple of the people at the table got down a did some push-ups.

This is ESPN's flagship show. The show that made the network, now it's unrecognizable. It's mostly not even about sports anymore.

I agree with what you are saying, but when their flagship sports show is barely about sports now. Seems to me they've completely lost their way.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
I dropped my TV package down to the cheapest package my provider offers, which means no more ESPN. I haven't watched it in months, so it is no big lose. But the other day I'm at a bar and they had Sports Center on. It was unbelievably bad, at 1 point there were 5 people sitting around a table, talking. For awhile they talked about doing push-ups. And a couple of the people at the table got down a did some push-ups.

This is ESPN's flagship show. The show that made the network, now it's unrecognizable. It's mostly not even about sports anymore.

I agree with what you are saying, but when their flagship sports show is barely about sports now. Seems to me they've completely lost their way.
Click to expand...

Yep, ESPN no longer doing 20 minutes of highlights in a half-hour show reminds me of MTV no longer playing music videos. It's a major Fail in my book.

From what I gather, highlights on TV are no longer a big draw, since everyone gets them on YouTube or other websites now. Same applies to music videos. In fact, I think we can tie MTV and ESPN together as two companies that got rich on an expired business model who are now looking for a new one.

The big difference is though that MTV is not on the hook for billions of dollars in broadcasting rights. Maybe, MTV was smart to push reality shows instead of the rights to show Lady Gaga concerts or some such equiv to live sports.
 
Kobie said:
Here Come Big ESPN Layoffs*
Click to expand...

I realize I am old-fashioned, but even when I was younger I never, ever cared who was calling the game, I just cared about the game. Cosell and the other clowns in the booth did nothing for me. Same with ESPN, I don't care if they have 'stars' in front of the camera.

Just give the scores and the sports news.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
I realize I am old-fashioned, but even when I was younger I never, ever cared who was calling the game, I just cared about the game. Cosell and the other clowns in the booth did nothing for me. Same with ESPN, I don't care if they have 'stars' in front of the camera.

Just give the scores and the sports news.
Click to expand...

Actually i prefer it's like i'm at the stadium and there are no commentators. I find it offensive that it's assumed i can't figure out what i'm watching right in front of me. It's like the old canned laughing on comedy shows, just annoying. I especially don't need to hear old brent musberger drooling over a college kid's girlfriend or pontificating that jerry sandusky "does a lot of good for kids"
 
Aside from watching my local baseball team play when I can't see it anywhere else, I have no use for ESPN. Once the "big 4" in sports all got their own channels, ESPN became obsolete. If I wanna watch a baseball analyst show, I'll tune to MLB's station. Same for NHL. Same for NFL.
 
The Top 5 Reasons ESPN's Ratings Are in Freefall
Jeff Reynolds, PJ Media

[FONT=&quot]In March, several outlets gleefully reported that ESPN was near collapse as a network. Conveniently, several of these reports came from competitors to ESPN who hope to capitalize and gain market share. Nonetheless, it is true that ESPN will be cutting $100 million in salaries -- most from very recognizable on-air talent -- in a cost-cutting move to shore up their bottom line.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This new report comes mere months after a report showing that ESPN is losing subscribers at an alarming rate. In November 2016, ESPN lost over 600,000 subscribers, its worst month ever. ESPN has historically been a workhorse performer, one of the most successful cable channels of all time. Driven by live events, previously unavailable sports updates, an offbeat delivery, and compelling content, ESPN reached must-watch status and stayed there for a couple of decades. At the height of their popularity, in 2011, ESPN was available in over 100 million homes. A few years ago, however, the tide began to ebb. As of December 2016, that number had dropped to 88.4 million -- a steady, inexorable decline.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This has resulted in a precipitous drop in ad revenue at ESPN and its corporate parent company, Disney. This is what is driving the next round of layoffs. . . . [/FONT]
 
calamity said:
lol...I'm one of those who cut the chord. 8 or 9 years ago, I began living without TV and went over the top or outright bootleg to watch my entertainment. Seems this is happening across the board, but it is apparently hurting ESPN the most because so much of their revenue is dependent on cable bundles. Add to that their incredibly high expenses for sports programming, and you can see how their model is on the path to ruin.

ESPN Loses Another 555,000 Subscribers Per Nielsen | Outkick The Coverage
Click to expand...
We cut the cord from cable/satellite about 3-4 years ago, but we still watch tv. We use an antenna and Netflix. Our monthly tv costs went from $80-ish/mo to $9/mo. Nice. :)

There are a couple things that I miss in a minor way, but nothing critically life-altering.
 
radcen said:
We cut the cord from cable/satellite about 3-4 years ago, but we still watch tv. We use an antenna and Netflix. Our monthly tv costs went from $80-ish/mo to $9/mo. Nice. :)

There are a couple things that I miss in a minor way, but nothing critically life-altering.
Click to expand...

I've noticed several behavior changes in both me and the wife. Instead of sitting like zombies in front of the idiot box digesting some silly show or other, we each now spend most of our entertainment hours online reading and then discussing those things. She usually does most of the talking though :)
 
poweRob said:
I cut the cord but get my TV via slingtv internet tv. I get pretty much all the ESPN channels.
Click to expand...

We cut cable/sat years ago. We get 19 channels, two of which we block, PBS-KIDS and a local Seventh Day Adventist channel. Thinking about SlingTV, do they add on tax, title and other fees to their packages ??
 
hanger4 said:
We cut cable/sat years ago. We get 19 channels, two of which we block, PBS-KIDS and a local Seventh Day Adventist channel. Thinking about SlingTV, do they add on tax, title and other fees to their packages ??
Click to expand...

Very nominal amount.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom