ESPN offered to carry NFL Sunday Ticket for a significantly lower price
But the NFL shot it down
By Christopher Gates Jun 16, 2024, 10:01am CDT
Last week, we mentioned the trial that is currently taking place in Los Angeles concerning the National Football League and the NFL Sunday Ticket package that allows out-of-market fans to view their favorite team’s games every week. This week, a couple of interesting details came out that will likely frustrate those out-of-market fans and have them cheering against the NFL in this matter (for the few that weren’t already).
According to Arthur Weinstein at Awful Announcing, an e-mail was revealed in court this week that showed that ESPN had offered to carry the NFL Sunday Ticket package for $70 starting in 2023. Last season, when the package moved to YouTube TV after years spent on DirecTV, they charged over $300 for it and are offering it for $349 this season.
The e-mail also showed that ESPN was willing to offer team-specific packages, similar to what we talked about in our piece last week, but the NFL turned that down as well.
There are several other revelations that were revealed in court this past week from Weinstein’s piece, many having to do with how the NFL wanted to charge a premium price for the Sunday Ticket package and turned down other proposals that would have made it more widely accessible. I won’t crib the entire piece here, because it’s worth going to check out on your own.
The trial is expected to wrap up this week, I believe, though I don’t know when any sort of verdict or judgment will be rendered or if it will affect the way Sunday Ticket is offered for this coming season. It might be too late for this year but, with any luck, Minnesota Vikings fans (and other NFL fans) will have a bit more flexibility in their options going forward if this suit goes the way it seems to be going.
I was so happy when they made Sunday ticket available without a dish. So espn would have been a great option. However YouTube Tv is way better because I feel like espn would’ve monopolized broadcast rights. It’s part of my issue with all these onesie twosie games on prime and peacock. I think everyone just wants to subscribe to one service that covers all games instead of piling up multiple annual subscriptions. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Shiver Me Timbers:
Regardless.................
Watching the NFL on any streaming service sucks. "flipping channels" on normal cable is much more user friendly.
I’ve grown to love it. Multiview is fucking fantastic and I really like finding games by searching for sports vs trying to find a channel on the directv guide. The one frustration that they’ve thankfully fixed is you can now flip back and forth between channels. Can’t believe that was just recently addressed [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
One of two things is true:
1/ They were willing to offer it at $70 (vs $300 YouTube TV) because they were bidding a fraction of what YouTube bid... in which case, who cares that they were willing to pay less than market value for something and then offer it at a below market rate?
or
2/ Whatever $70 package they were willing to offer isn't apples-to-apples comparable to the $300 YouTube TV package. There's no way ESPN is in the business of leaving that much meat on the bone.
Or
3) They could attract a lot more customers at $70 and actually make more money overall, but the NFL wants the price to be artificially high so that it doesn't hurt broadcast TV ratings. Which, incidentally, is why they're being sued over it right now. [Reply]
3) They could attract a lot more customers at $70 and actually make more money overall, but the NFL wants the price to be artificially high so that it doesn't hurt broadcast TV ratings. Which, incidentally, is why they're being sued over it right now.
Yeah, I know that’s what the lawsuit alleges, but I’m pretty skeptical that’s the full picture. Or at least I’m skeptical that the $70 was a genuine pricing plan for the entire season. ESPN was also reportedly willing to offer a team-based plan, and then what would that have been priced at? $15? And again, if ESPN wanted to price it low and generate more subscriber growth, that’s a business decision fraught with risks. But they probably also didn’t outbid YouTube to begin with.
People are fanatical about the NFL, and given the proliferation of illegal streams, I’d think they’d feel like demand mignt be pretty inelastic. And the NFL already said that they’re seeing more subscribers through YouTube at $350-ish than they did DirectTV at $300-ish the prior year. [Reply]
What amazes me is that RedZone is available with most sports packages and they proudly assert that it is 100% commercial free. I usually have that on one screen and whichever network broadcast is better on the other. Unless I lived outside of KC I can't imagine having a need for Sunday Ticket. Actually at this point since most of our games are national I'd probably not bother with it even if I lived out of market. [Reply]
Originally Posted by wazu:
What amazes me is that RedZone is available with most sports packages and they proudly assert that it is 100% commercial free. I usually have that on one screen and whichever network broadcast is better on the other. Unless I lived outside of KC I can't imagine having a need for Sunday Ticket. Actually at this point since most of our games are national I'd probably not bother with it even if I lived out of market.
RedZone is great. If you don't have a full live streaming package you can get it through an NFL+ premium membership. I think I paid like 15 bucks a month for it and only paid for the 4 months it's useful. [Reply]
I'll just stick with NFL+ and watch any games via that when the Chiefs are not on over the air (which they are a surprising amount for out here). [Reply]
Most of the other NFL games idgaf about and have to end up betting on them just to feign interest. The local channels give me more than enough football at the current price of ST. [Reply]
Originally Posted by displacedinMN:
I would have paid 100 for just chiefs games.
yup, I don't care to watch any other team but my favorite team, which is the Kansas City Chiefs btw. Redzone is okay I guess but I would have paid for a Chiefs only package but they weren't interested in providing that. [Reply]
I was surprised how good and easy to find the streams were last year. I'd pay $70, but for $350 for like 4-6 Chiefs games that aren't nationally televised, I'll just go with the streams. [Reply]
Sunday Ticket for a Chiefs fans is just financially irresponsible, unless you really are going to watch all those other games....which you probably won't.
Chiefs are in so many prime time slots every year that you're effectively paying all that money for access to what, 3-4 games a season? I stopped buying Sunday Ticket after Reid's first season. Quickly realized most of our games were on local network TV so the cost wasn't worth the reward.
I'll just stream those games 3-4 games, thank you very much. [Reply]