Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery are proposing a new sports streaming service to capture fans who are abandoning cable TV packages.
For years, the price of watching sports has steadily increased as streamers and traditional TV networks battle it out for exclusive rights. Consumer advocates and sports columnists have complained for years about “unstable” price increases.
At the start of last year, to try and watch all San Diego Padres games, a viewer would first need to subscribe to cable and then get an extra Bally Sports package on top of it. Adding to costs, some games were exclusive to Apple TV+ or other Fox Sports networks and apps.
If the three companies combine it would feature NFL, NBA, NFL and MLB games, as well as the PGA Tour and UFC. Analysts aren’t sure if the t venture will be cheaper but most think it will at least make things more convenient.
Q: Will a Disney and Co. sports streaming service be a step in the right direction for consumers?
Phil Blair, Manpower
YES: Streaming seems to be the way of the future. Viewers dislike paying for channels they will never use and yet having to pay full fare for multiple channels that are not included in their bundle. It is clearly time to “cut the cord.”
Gary London, London Moeder Advisors
YES: Hopefully consumers will be the beneficiaries from the cable vs. streaming wars. It’s not just lucrative sports programming that needs bundling. The entire video content world ought to be remodeled with some kind of “super-bundling” approach that diminishes confusion and is less costly. Streaming platforms are the evolving programming favorite. They must move away from their complex array of programming through consolidation and bundling.
Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates
NO: Spreading content across multiple services is not great for the consumer, but paying more to have everything in one place will be a massive rip-off for the consumer and will not yet include “everything.” Sports leagues are making it less convenient to watch their games, confusing consumers and making them pay everywhere they turn. How many subscriptions do we have, and how much are we paying? Too much.
James Hamilton, UC San Diego
YES: Whether you like it or not, streaming is the future of sports. It’s just a question of making the best of it. Combining sports streaming under one hat will make it more convenient for customers and help you avoid paying for things you don’t want. But I worry this is one more step in creating a world of haves and have-nots. We’ll miss the days when anyone can root for the local team for free by turning on the TV.
Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth
NO: Consolidation could create convenience but also command pricing increases in the long run. The streaming services have fragmented content ownership to a dizzying degree, so some degree of consolidation seems inevitable. More services are fighting for exclusive rights and live events are a natural battleground. Services usually start quite affordable to gain subscribers then migrate prices up, often releasing tiered offerings based on ad volume and, soon, bitrate.
Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health
YES: But only if they can make it easier to use and show all the games instead of having to purchase different subscriptions to see all NFL games. The combination of multiple subscriptions is becoming too expensive and very confusing for many. To be competitive, it must be less expensive. The streaming of the combined sports events offered through Disney-owned ESPN, Fox and Warner promises to do that, but we shall see.
Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere
NO: While this new service offers several sports offerings all in one place, consumers and casual fans will either have to keep cable or subscribe to several online streaming platforms to get the full breadth of sports. Cable TV isn’t cheap and if you add on multiple streaming service subscriptions, it can add up quickly for consumers. There’s also risk of alienating the casual fan or not being able to expose a variety of sports to those who can’t afford multiple streaming services.
David Ely, San Diego State University
YES: This will be an attractive service for sports fans who are not cable subscribers or would like to cancel their cable subscriptions. The new streaming service could offer sufficiently rich content for many fans. Antitrust issues are a legitimate concern since the arrangement involves three large media companies. But collectively, the companies will have more bargaining power when negotiating with major sports leagues, which could lead to a slower escalation of media rights values.
Ray Major, SANDAG
YES: The current sports viewing model no longer meets consumer demands or expectations in large part due to the way people choose to view content on platforms other than cable TV. Bundling services for sports fans will make access much more convenient, so definitely a step in the right direction, but beware! Although pricing may be attractive in the beginning, consider the companies creating the “sports viewing” monopoly and their major league clients, and prepare to pay through the nose for the privilege to watch sports in the future.
Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy
YES: I cut the cord three years ago and never looked back, but I occasionally have to go through hoops to watch sporting events. I am not alone. Less than half of U.S. homes subscribe to traditional pay-TV services and the share has been falling rapidly over the past decade. This new service will provide an additional option for sports fans, especially benefiting younger viewers who stream nearly everything they watch.
Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research
NO: There is only so much time, interest or willingness to pay for watching multi-hour competitions. Availability to choose specific sports and events is good if at reasonable cost. Watching network TV is not really free as viewers pay through a deluge of intrusive, often irrelevant, repetitive commercials disrupting the flow of games with more frequent and prolonged commercial breaks, which makes the viewing of sports to be disconcertingly less appealing. Either prospect risks alienating sports viewing.
Lynn Reaser, economist
YES: The consumer should benefit in two ways. First, it will reduce the number of networks and apps needed to access prime sports programming. Second, it will increase the bargaining power in negotiating with the sports franchises in holding down price increases. Consumers will still need existing connections to view favorite content not in the proposed three-way package. Hopefully all goes well. No more executive clashes leading to programming blackouts.
Not participating this week:
Alan Gin, University of San Diego
Haney Hong, San Diego County Taxpayers Assoc.
Norm Miller, University of San Diego
Have an idea for an Econometer question? Email me at [email protected]. Follow me on Threads: @phillip020
