Having murderers/rapists/wife-beaters/drug cheats on rosters, a commissioner denying CTE and owners shaking down cities for cash couldn't dent the NFL's ratings, but one guy protesting an anthem is the final straw. Nice to see we've got our priorities in order there.
I cut the cord this year and went with the streaming service PS Vue. This was 100% because of cost. Nothing else factored into it. That said, politics have played a role in the shows/games I watch. I generally only watch my NFL teams, but will occasionally watch on late Sun/Mon/Thr games. I avoided anything with Kaepernick. Unless there is specific game on ESPN, I am not watching their programming. It has become way to political for not only me but several of my close friends.
At least one pundit explored your point and said that that (Kap being the last straw) was perhaps exactly the point. The fact that the best the whole of the NFL could do was 1+ guys kneeling during the anthem was laughable considering all those issues they had to face internally. As if the nation's consumers were turning to the league and it's players and saying "If you're going to be silent on all this other stuff then don't give us some cosmetic social appeal distracting us from the game, either." That the whole situation was laughable. I'll see if I can track down that article.
Outnumbered by who. Dude give it up nothing more sickening are the blow hards on each side but mainly on the right that try to take every chance to push their political views. I stand by what I posted and I ses I have a few reps on what I said. It's a big difference to post conjecture like ex. "I wonder if the celebrity social The View theme trend of sports is turning viewers off " or claiming its the left political BS many where claiming. The thing with confirmation bias is one will make a declarative statement and the 2 or 3 other like minded individuals will chime in and create a "circling effect" there for confirming what you want to believe. Stats back up its mainly 18-38 yr old millenials driving the decline in cable. I'll try not to let the facts get in the way of your agenda.
I use a Roku. The picture is perfect with no skipping or loss of sharpness. I haven't tried 4k but its available.
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT CORD CUTTING. We are not talking about "decline in cable". We are talking about declining ratings. For the 4th time now. The two are EXTREMELY different issues. I have already agreed that people are not cutting the cord for political reasons. They are however a lot tuning out of sporting events and channels for political reasons. This is a fact. Now what percentage are doing it for political reasons is up for debate. Also, for the 3rd time the politics themselves are not being discussed or "pushed". Discussing the effect of politics on sports viewership is completely within the parameters of this forum.
I have a Roku as well. I somehow managed to get free Amazon Prime viewing. I signed up for a free 30 day trial and promptly cancelled it. I have continued getting it free ever since.
So here is a question. If ESPN is losing subscribers, and yet MLS maintains and/or slightly improves its ratings, does that not make the product more valuable to them?
Also, FYI you are doing exactly what you are accusing others of by making comments like "mainly on the right that try to take every chance to push their political views". Funny that you don't see it. That's the problem...no one sees it when they do it. You are the only one I see on here trying to push their view or getting political. I have definitely not made a single comment pro right or left.
As has been discussed here and elsewhere, ESPN's issues are more about what they've overpaid for other products and the net return from that side. Particularly with regards to filler (ie: studio) programming. Live sports remains a premium for them and other sports channels. So long as MLS continues to show safe and steady value on the dollar there will be takers. The question is really about how much so.
Agree to disagree. I can somewhat agree on the social theme of some shows. Just not the political spin some gave tried to make. Shows have become way too chatty about things like xyz players personal life and the story behind this. I call it the TMZ'ing of pro sports. I personally don't want to hear that stuff. Give me the old ESPN full of non desrcipt sporting events. Coverage from all over the US and world filled in by SportsCenter in the morning and evening capping the day in sports. I loved the old ESPN with the sing song commercial 99 cents per min ESPN lol. This rush to increase and capture the non traditional viewer is what ruined The Weather Channel. TWC went away from their no nonsense weather coverage with local on the 8s (with the cool jazz) to sensationalism shows in a attempt to bring in new viewers and expand It's base. In doing so they alienated the loyal base of die hards they had. Now in the ever changing tv landscape most providers have dumped the channel all together.
No but you took what I said as a offense and replied it wasn't intended at you but you felt obliged and went defensive with your post. You are right, you weren't the one that started the political issh on here, but you tried to defend it. I am simply calling it out as I did with my original post. We can all agree, lets stop the political nonsense on here. The OP wasn't intending for it when he posed the topic for analysis. They simply wanted to know if cord cutting would be a issue for the next tv deal?
Considering MLS has gotten this far without a huge TV deal I don't think they're really banking on it at all. Different story for a league like the NFL in fact. I think the gate driven leagues are the ones that are better poised for the future.
I'd argue that people have been turning from the NFL for those reasons. I stopped watching back in the 80s after yet another strike (memory's fuzzy - I think there were two). And I forget what it was, but the Cowboys' owner did something that angered my dad to the point where, while he continued to watch the Dallas Cowboys for free on tv, he never bought another official item from them. I suspect people have been slowly turning away for years; but kneeling during the natl anthem is more of a final "Jeez! Can't I just watch an effing sporting event...." moment. (and while I'm here) I quit watching ESPN sports shows because I got tired of the "hilarious" comments during the highlites and then finally, everyone yelling at each other to the point I couldn't make out what anyone was actually saying.
How does this acknowledge the fact that a) almost everybody who pays for cable/satellite is afforded some sort of access to streaming? b) I pay for cable/sat. I don't pay for Netflix/hulu/Amazon etc. so I would consider myself squarely in the non-streaming category. However, I do pay for the NHL Gamecenter Live on computer instead of getting the DirecTV package because of the amount of TV watched in our house the hockey games would interfere with our DVR. (However I do pay for DirectKick on DirecTV instead of streaming). Theoretically there's an pool of over 100% of the people to subscribe to these services. Thx, Jay!
This. I watch sport to be entertained and as a getaway from the 24/7 barrage of idiocy. I watch the NFL but don't go out of my way anymore, and haven't for a decade. I think I watched all of the Pats playoff games last year and that's it. "Social justice" has become a business like any other at this point IMO. It is sad, but the signs suggesting it are very, very real. Of course when Kap gave props to that "social justice" icon Castro, the "social justice" crowd here couldn't be heard. If folks don't understand why many are fed up in general...that would be a great example. Hypocrisy what is thy name? I have several Cuban friends in Miami who have lost loved ones, or had them imprisoned for "free speech" in Miami. I suggest Kap stays away from the streets. I never do this because it is demeaning, but....we have an interracial marriage in my family and I was in the wedding party, I was the best man at my wife's gay brothers wedding, I have an adopted Korean child. I grew up in the bowels of a very diverse NYC. I have always been very liberal socially, but this has become ridiculous...funny how almost all in my family agrees. The only one who doesn't is the super affluent white liberal who never had to do anything in his life. I always thought that he was an outlier but living in the Boston area I realize why this place has so many negative stereotypes around the country. Never have I encountered so many highly schooled, elitist (yeah, that word fits here) narrow minded, ignorant asses in my life. Talk about living in a bubble. Shocking. Note...grew up in NYC and sent a good chunk of time in DC. My brother still lives there. Clearly left leaning, but there was alway pragmatism and balance to be found. This place is radical. If u think Texas or the rural South is...no different here. Narrow and not open minded....but I have a piece of paper that says I am and u don't so you are an ignorant redneck. The schools here...jeez. They should all head to a leftist SA American state...see how they like it.
Not aimed at you, but the Kaep thing seems like such a silly reason for someone not to watch football. An individual action that probably doesn't even make the broadcast of most games was the straw that broke the camel's back? How does that reflect poorly on the entire NFL? Whatever the media machine does with it is a different matter, but like why would that make one stop watching games? The NFL didn't politicize, one of their players did. What are they responsible for here? And what are they supposed to do about it, suspend him? Yeah, that wont happen, NFLPA wouldn't let it. I get it when there's something that actually affects the viewing experience like the barrage of commercials, its one of the reasons lots of us here like the beautiful game, but this? Oh and we're 100% agreed on ESPN, its like, I liked when I was NINE, now that style doesn't do anything for me.
I follow TV rights stuff because it also impacts by mother favorite sport, college football. This guy has been watching and predicting the demise of ESPN since about 2010. Very interesting argument and statistics. He predicts that within 5 years ESPN will be bringing in less subscriber revenue than they pay for all of their rights fees. ESPN also has the lowest amount of ad revenue as a percentage of revenue, by far, of any of the other major sports broadcasters. http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-cutting-nearly-100-million-in-on-air-talent-030617
Look, an antenna ($35-$60) plus a converter ($35-$50 for an older TV) will get you all the locals & networks plus some others (Ion, Decades, Comet, etc). Sling can net you ESPN for $20 per month. For $25, sans the four letter, you can get Sling with FS1 & FS2, Telemundo, Univision & Uni Mas, NBC sports, NFL Network, + local Fox Sports channels. If you want the Sports package: you get bein, NBA TV, NHL TV, ESPN: U, news, goal line, bases loaded, buzzer beater, plus SEC & Pac12 plus a couple more for $5 (from the $20 ESPN model). Plus, there are all sorts of devices out there that can get you more for less. The days of cable ripping people off are over. Don't make the cable mistake again & we'll all be better off. Ditto for those Trump voters (or Hillary voters instead of Sanders).
The Kaep thing isn't even a thing if they'd stop tyring to monetize patriotism. Unless it is an international competition (Olympics, World Cup, Qualifier, etc) the anthem shouldn't even get played. Or if it is, for a league match, the players shouldn't even be out there for it.
It'll never get that far. Content providers have the leverage, and they'll always want to use that leverage to expose you to more content than you specifically wanted, in the hopes of persuading you to watch the other stuff (and being able to advertise how large their content library is). Now, it should be better--total filler programming will go away, as nobody's watching scripted stuff 'when it airs' anymore, and there's no need to fill out a programming schedule. (The closest I'll get to the political sub-thread is that it'll probably be good when the news channels no longer have 24 hours to fill with bullshit BREAKING NEWS ALERTs which are actually aimed at getting you to watch/pay attention for 'just a few minutes more' [ie until the next commercial break]). But because providers of real content--content you want to watch, content people are talking about, content that generates loyalty--have leverage over you, it seems like wishful thinking to believe they won't use it. Hopefully it'll just be much more subtle. If anything, the 'channel' as we know it will morph beyond recognition, Netflix being the closest approximation of the future here. You pay a monthly fee for Netflix, it includes a whole lot of programming you will never watch, but hardly anyone complains about that aspect of it. Imagine a world of about 6 or so 'content libraries' like that. The current media parent companies (Viacom, Turner, Fox, Disney, Comcast/NBC, etc) may be who organizes these content libraries. They will likely charge individually for each library, but chances are few will be able to 'get away with' paying for only one or two of them and get the programming they want. How that affects sports will be interesting. Sports are a somewhat 'polarizing' product as media content goes--the people who don't want it often really don't want to be compelled to pay for it in order to get some other programming they want. So I wouldn't be surprised if sports are separate from the rest of content. The next question would be, will sports then be split up among several providers, or will someone basically monopolize it. (As a separate thing, I think a consequence of the digital revolution might be a certain comeback for Over-The-Air TV, and one of the things they can broadcast that has mass market appeal is a few of the bigger sports products.)
Since we're still doing this, can someone give me a breakdown of this apparent saturation of ESPN programming by liberal opinion-mongering? This is a non-rhetorical question. I only watch sports programming on TV, never sports-opinion shows. I get all of my opinion and editorial stuff online, and while I can generally tell that the writers are liberal (like myself), it's hardly a constant stream of in-your-face politics, and more just the occasional aside or allusion. Similarly, when I'm watching Collinsworth and Michaels do a game, I know they're both quite conservative, and Michaels will semi-regularly make asides, but it's hardly like watching Fox News. I don't agree with everything Kaepernick says or does (who goes to all that trouble and then can't be bothered to vote?), but he's just a football player, so I'll watch him. I know some of my favorite football players voted for Trump (or endorsed him), but I watch them anyway. I don't tune out the USMNT because of Geoff Cameron's politics. Etc. So what on earth are they saying on the ESPN opinion shows? Is it really that saturated with politics?