http://www.wralsportsfan.com/big-ten-television-deal-could-set-table-for-next-conference-realignment/15652491/
"When combined, even if the other half is less than what FOX is paying, it's possible the Big Ten will generate over $30 million per year for each conference member. Throw in Big Ten Network revenue, digital rights and championship reimbursements, every athletic department could make roughly $40 million each season through 2024.
For comparison, the ACC pays out an average of under $25 million per school."
"FOX's half of the Big Ten will be renegotiated by 2023-2024. The Big 12 has a media rights agreement with ESPN and FOX that runs until the 2024-2025 season. The PAC-12 has a similar deal with ESPN and FOX running through the 2024-2025 season. Notre Dame's contract to televise football games on NBC will expire in 2025. The ACC's exclusive deal with ESPN wraps up a season later, in 2026-2027."
"FOX's half of the Big Ten will be renegotiated by 2023-2024. The Big 12 has a media rights agreement with ESPN and FOX that runs until the 2024-2025 season. The PAC-12 has a similar deal with ESPN and FOX running through the 2024-2025 season. Notre Dame's contract to televise football games on NBC will expire in 2025. The ACC's exclusive deal with ESPN wraps up a season later, in 2026-2027."
"The ACC and ESPN have decisions to make
So, about that long-rumored dedicated ACC channel from ESPN ... Prospects for such a venture certainly don't look great from my point of view, but there's been speculation the conference could get a bump in rights fees in July if the network doesn't materialize.
During last summer's ACC football media event, commissioner John Swofford explained to David Teel of the Daily Press "the other alternative is larger rights fees (from ESPN)" if the ACC and the network felt the distribution wouldn't be "great" when the channel went live. When asked specifically if a deadline existed with ESPN related to a rights-fee increase, Swofford vaguely explained on 99.9FM The Fan that any partnership can be altered in any way the two parties so choose.
Regardless, it's clear that ESPN and the ACC must make a decision sometime soon. Whether the money in lieu of a channel would be satisfactory enough to keep up with the Big Ten and the SEC is another matter.
Same goes for the ACC and any long-term, exclusive arrangements with ESPN after the current deal expires in 2026-2027.
If I was in Swofford's golf shirt, I'd start laying the groundwork for a more robust digital distribution strategy. If ESPN doesn't want to work on a standalone streaming option for the conference, take a game usually assigned to Raycom and put it on a ACC Digital Network streaming app (something different from browser only web streaming currently available). The point here is to be first movers for whatever is next, much like the Big Ten was ahead of the pack when it came to a cable channel.
I'd also take another lesson from what the Big Ten is doing with FOX and leverage the ACC's massive inventory of sports programming to multiple networks. ESPN will always be a willing partner, but they don't have to be the only network.
NBC would be an obvious choice for Swofford or his successor to approach, along with Notre Dame, for a new broadcast partnership. The trick is convincing Notre Dame they could make more money as a full-time member of the ACC, which would allow the conference to package football home games on NBC and road contests on ABC/ESPN.
And who knows, while the market is currently soft for digital broadcasting rights, a company like Amazon or Facebook might be more inclined to invest in live sports ten years from now.
There's still time to figure all this stuff out, but the bottom line for the ACC is to fully recognize its worth rather than settle for a comfortable relationship with ESPN."
During last summer's ACC football media event, commissioner John Swofford explained to David Teel of the Daily Press "the other alternative is larger rights fees (from ESPN)" if the ACC and the network felt the distribution wouldn't be "great" when the channel went live. When asked specifically if a deadline existed with ESPN related to a rights-fee increase, Swofford vaguely explained on 99.9FM The Fan that any partnership can be altered in any way the two parties so choose.
Regardless, it's clear that ESPN and the ACC must make a decision sometime soon. Whether the money in lieu of a channel would be satisfactory enough to keep up with the Big Ten and the SEC is another matter.
Same goes for the ACC and any long-term, exclusive arrangements with ESPN after the current deal expires in 2026-2027.
If I was in Swofford's golf shirt, I'd start laying the groundwork for a more robust digital distribution strategy. If ESPN doesn't want to work on a standalone streaming option for the conference, take a game usually assigned to Raycom and put it on a ACC Digital Network streaming app (something different from browser only web streaming currently available). The point here is to be first movers for whatever is next, much like the Big Ten was ahead of the pack when it came to a cable channel.
I'd also take another lesson from what the Big Ten is doing with FOX and leverage the ACC's massive inventory of sports programming to multiple networks. ESPN will always be a willing partner, but they don't have to be the only network.
NBC would be an obvious choice for Swofford or his successor to approach, along with Notre Dame, for a new broadcast partnership. The trick is convincing Notre Dame they could make more money as a full-time member of the ACC, which would allow the conference to package football home games on NBC and road contests on ABC/ESPN.
And who knows, while the market is currently soft for digital broadcasting rights, a company like Amazon or Facebook might be more inclined to invest in live sports ten years from now.
There's still time to figure all this stuff out, but the bottom line for the ACC is to fully recognize its worth rather than settle for a comfortable relationship with ESPN."
I think I'd feel more comfortable if someone other than Swofford was doing the negotiating.
ReplyDelete