24 (Continued from Cover) When late-night TV show viewership in the U.S. was called into question, claims of viewer and advertiser drop-offs were, again, brought to the fore as those alarm bells rang even louder. Sure, there has been growth in U.S. unscripted and reality content in primetime but where else would content come from in its stead? Thus far, CBS seems to be weathering the storm with its traditional content, and ABC has brought in some sports (though it will lose its two F1 broadcasts from 2016, as streaming partner ESPN has lost rights to Apple TV). FOX continues its linear sports coverage. And NBC is coughing up around $2.45 billion a year just for the NBA (for a total of around $27 billion for the 11-year lifetime of the deal). Back in 2021, NBC and its streaming entity Peacock put up nearly $3 billion for exclusive rights to screen the U.K.’s Premier League football/soccer games for six years across the NBC and Peacock platforms, but NBC receives only a single Saturday game through that deal. No U.S. linear outlet takes any other matches — even from Major League Soccer, even though football/soccer is the most played and viewed sport in the world. Despite all this, all four U.S. TV networks now have sports-specific programming via their respective streaming sites. This illuminates the global pattern of “if you want to continue watching the sports you love, you’ll have to pay for them.” And that’s at the expense of ditching traditional scripted, unscripted, and reality shows, and making cuts to news divisions. (Inside sources, who asked to remain anonymous, told VideoAge that only one hour of scripted content will be lost and that “scripted is still a vital part of NBC’s programming strategy and will continue to be going forward.”) VideoAge was also informed: “As a company, [NBC is] always looking for a great balance between the two, and trying to be in tune with viewers’ needs and wants.” Mike Cavanagh, Comcast co-CEO, actually sent out a memo after the NBA announcement stating that the strategy behind the buy was more of a strategic swing, rather than a short-term financial win. “It’s important for us to take big swings when we believe they will benefit the company over the long term,” he wrote. Another good-sized swing from NBC is that it is reportedly planning to launch a new cable sports channel that will simulcast content currently locked behind the Peacock paywall. This move aims to generate additional distribution fees and re-establish NBC’s dominance in live sports broadcasting. However, little is being said about the introduction by NBC of another sports network — including how much money is being devoted to that project — or where it’s coming from. All in all, it’s a huge and expensive gamble in an attempt to capture audiences and, they hope, new ad revenues. Advertising could be another key to turning the tide. NBC reportedly plans to charge around $130,000 per 30-second spot during those NBA broadcasts — more than double TNT’s previous rate of $50,000. If viewership and engagement rise, the network could recoup significant portions of its early losses through ad revenue alone. The first thing that hit commentators about that price tag is, how can a network spend that much money exclusively on sports when they (and the other nets) have claimed there’s not enough money to pay for scripted shows? Of course, it would help if those with the power to greenlight had the confidence to have actually selected the right scripted content instead of playing it safe by not introducing anything in the way of brave new content but choosing instead to rely on familiar fare and recycled faves. However, while announcements are openly made about the acquisition of “this” sport or “this” team, when trying to get executives to answer some of the obvious questions, reporters are met with a wall of silence, or “Don’t say I told you this!” Sports attract huge viewing figures, albeit mostly males, so what happens to female viewers? No one has an answer to that, even when asking the question internationally. Perhaps, as long as there are enough eyeballs, no one seems to care. However, sports that traditionally had been viewed on terrestrial channels around the world are no longer seen — or only occasionally seen — on screens that were once home to all the national and international sports. Loris Menoni, executive director of SPORTEL (a company specializing in sports content media rights and technology conventions), said, “Streaming has completely reshaped the economics and philosophy of sports media. It is no longer just about broadcast; it is about building direct, long-term relationships with fans.” He also revealed that “leagues and rights holders now own their distribution channels, their data, and increasingly, their monetization strategies. This creates an entirely new cycle of value, one driven by engagement, personalization, and analytics.” A prime example of terrestrial outlet damage can be seen within the U.K.’s BBC, which has gotten to the point where its usual roster of varied and premium sports content has now been replaced by a minimal number of football (soccer in the U.S. and Canada) matches and an assortment of other lesser sports in minimal frequency. The BBC is so desperate to include sports events on its schedule that reps have resorted to covering “conker” competitions. This was a game once reserved for the schoolyard and involved testing two tree nuts to determine which one was the strongest. Further away we have the countries comprising Latin America, where sports are almost built into the DNA of all viewers. There are around 1,500 linear channels broadcasting across Latin America, all of which once sated the appetites of sports fans on a regular basis — with football/soccer leading the charge. Hungry for football/soccer, Telemundo provides a linear diet of 14 hours of English Premier League each week during the season. Despite that injection, slowly, in what has become a familiar global pattern, its free sports content is slipping away, off to bask in the financial warmth of a streaming or pay service provider, leaving fans out in the cold of a barren sports-for-free landscape. The total emigration to pay/streaming delivery will be slower in Latin America than, say, the U.S., U.K., or Europe, despite lower prices ($12-$30 a month), mainly because, traditionally, such services require payment via a credit card. This form of payment, however, discounts an average of around 70 percent of the population because they don’t have credit cards. Alternate payment methods have been arranged but none translate to the simple automatic payment by credit card. (By Mike Reynolds) If you want to continue watching the sports you love, you’ll have to pay for them. VIDEOAGE November 2025 Sports on TV JOIN T
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTI4OTA5