How Much Would You Pay for Sports Streaming?

[flere-imsaho]

The announcement that HBO is going to come out with its own streaming service that doesn't require a cable TV subscription got me thinking about sports, and specifically Live Sports, which seems to be the last existing pain for cord cutters.


So, if your favorite league, be it NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA, EPL, MLS, whatever, offered a streaming service, how much would you pay for it, per month.

Assume:

• No cable TV subscription required
• Multi-device
• Stream any game, including any live game
• No ads in any game, except live games
• No "minimum period", meaning you can cancel at any time with no penalty

[larrymcg421]

I would pay quite a bit to get the college football and NFL. Not sure I would get anything else, except MLB for the playoffs and college basketball in March.

I have a feeling that we'll regret the demise of bundling pretty soon when the resulting individual markups mean we're suddenly paying the same to get fewer channels.

[MacroGuru]

I would pay for NCAAF, NCAAMB, NFL, NHL, MLS, EPL and some MLB..and I would be willing to spend right around $30 a month for it.

[BillJasper]

Between $10 and $20/month

I hardly watch any sports anymore.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

I would pay for NCAAF, NCAAMB, NFL, NHL, MLS, EPL and some MLB..and I would be willing to spend right around $30 a month for it.

For all of that combined? You'd be paying way more than $30.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I have a feeling that we'll regret the demise of bundling pretty soon when the resulting individual markups mean we're suddenly paying the same to get fewer channels.

Yeah I can see myself...
HBO $20
NFL $30
College Football $25
College Basketball $20

Wait I'm paying $95 a month and I can't watch an episode of Pawn Stars or PTI. And don't even get me started on my wife with Bravo, Oxygen. MTV...

[Blackadar]

The NFL games run from August through December or early January. Am I paying year-round for the games for those few months, or am I just paying for those few months?

I figured it was a year subscription, so I prorated what I would pay per year ($100) to see the NFL into a monthly sub. It's just not worth more than that to me and every year it's worth less and less.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

For all of that combined? You'd be paying way more than $30.

The OP is answering the poll question which is what he's willing to spend, not how much does he think it would cost. I know the NFL would cost more than $100, I'm just not willing to pay any more than that.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

The NFL games run from August through December or early January. Am I paying year-round for the games for those few months, or am I just paying for those few months?

I figured it was a year subscription, so I prorated what I would pay per year ($100) to see the NFL into a monthly sub. It's just not worth more than that to me and every year it's worth less and less.

Right now it's close to $300 on Directv so while I think they would lower the price if it became available to everyone I can't imagine it ever going that low.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

The NFL games run from August through December or early January. Am I paying year-round for the games for those few months, or am I just paying for those few months?

It's monthly, and:

No "minimum period", meaning you can cancel at any time with no penalty

So if you want to pay only during NFL season, you can. Presumably the NFL will try to keep customers (in this model at least) by offering good programming the other months (or a lower price?).

[Lathum]

I pay bout $125/ season for baseball and whatever I end up paying for Sunday ticket. I think $30 a month is pretty reasonable. I know I would pay that for sure to be able to get the PAC 12 network. Fucking Direct TV.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yeah I can see myself...
HBO $20
NFL $30
College Football $25
College Basketball $20

Wait I'm paying $95 a month and I can't watch an episode of Pawn Stars or PTI. And don't even get me started on my wife with Bravo, Oxygen. MTV...

My feeling on this is that eventually we'll get two kinds of content.

One is content that is free, where the provider monetizes based on the eyeballs. Basically the way most of the web works now, as well as broadcast television.

Two is content that is good enough that people will actually pay for it. I.e. the way HBO has always been, for instance.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I have a feeling that we'll regret the demise of bundling pretty soon when the resulting individual markups mean we're suddenly paying the same to get fewer channels.

Thats precisely what it means but you get the added bonus of a segregated apps that are designed by different companies and don't integrate when you want to just "browse" for something. Not that the aggregator (i.e. the catv, telco, dish companies) are doing wonderful things on the interface side but it is at least 1 "portal", which helps if you are open to finding things you aren't looking for specifically.

I happen to be in the industry and hold the opinions that:
1. If the video distributor did a better job of presenting on demand content...everything from how to find it, to navigation, to extending it to browse via your PC, tablet, etc....there would be no Netflix as we know it. Netflix does a great job of making the user experience interesting, integrated, and intuitive. Until recently, they had very mediocre content to be honest...just a LOT of it and present it much better than anybody else out there.
2. People have less problems paying the monthly bill (obviously very generally speaking here) when the experience is compelling & evolves with other modern interface experiences...and dare I say, innovates the experience. This will be evolving in the industry more & more but its just taken too dam long. Not good enough.

I've said it before, and I'll reiterate the point, I'm not sure there is any way to stop the natural selection process of content consolidation. Because thats ultimately the result of a la carte. The loser gets bought up by the winner and there are now less reasons to make compelling programming if there is no more competition for your viewership.

Personally, I think we've hit the apex of good TV. I think we are headed towards the natural watering down that accompanies less competition.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

For all of that combined? You'd be paying way more than $30.

Yeah I know...but a man can dream can't he...

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Personally, I think we've hit the apex of good TV. I think we are headed towards the natural watering down that accompanies less competition.

I doubt it.

There's plenty of money to be made off of good content. Hell, there's plenty of money to be made off of bad content that people love in spite of themselves.

In addition, the barriers to entry to creating such content have never been lower.

It may well be the end of TV as we currently understand it, but it's definitely not the end of that type of content presentation, nor is it the apex.

[saldana]

i pay 150 a year for Fox Soccer Plus so i can stream all the UCL and Europa qualifier games

[Arles]

Depends on the quality/delivery. I wouldn't want to save a little money but be stuck watching the NFL in non-HD, with lag/connection issues or not on my 60 inch plasma. If it was like HBO Go or Netflix and had good connection/quality, I'd probably pay $25-30 a month during the season and get rid of DirectTv.

Right now I'd pay $10 a month just for the Pac-12 network as my only option is using a cox account on an Ipad to watch.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Thats precisely what it means but you get the added bonus of a segregated apps that are designed by different companies and don't integrate when you want to just "browse" for something. Not that the aggregator (i.e. the catv, telco, dish companies) are doing wonderful things on the interface side but it is at least 1 "portal", which helps if you are open to finding things you aren't looking for specifically.

I happen to be in the industry and hold the opinions that:
1. If the video distributor did a better job of presenting on demand content...everything from how to find it, to navigation, to extending it to browse via your PC, tablet, etc....there would be no Netflix as we know it. Netflix does a great job of making the user experience interesting, integrated, and intuitive. Until recently, they had very mediocre content to be honest...just a LOT of it and present it much better than anybody else out there.
2. People have less problems paying the monthly bill (obviously very generally speaking here) when the experience is compelling & evolves with other modern interface experiences...and dare I say, innovates the experience. This will be evolving in the industry more & more but its just taken too dam long. Not good enough.

I've said it before, and I'll reiterate the point, I'm not sure there is any way to stop the natural selection process of content consolidation. Because thats ultimately the result of a la carte. The loser gets bought up by the winner and there are now less reasons to make compelling programming if there is no more competition for your viewership.

Personally, I think we've hit the apex of good TV. I think we are headed towards the natural watering down that accompanies less competition.

I'm pretty much in agreement with this and larrymcg421's quoted part. I think these business models are based on getting $100+ per month from people. There's no way that number goes down- the consolidation just means that the product suffers while the price remains the same or goes higher.

SI

[Fidatelo]

I'd pay about $10/mth each for NHL and NFL. I wouldn't pay for any other sport outside of ad-hoc (NBA playoffs I'd buy some games, for example).

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I doubt it.

There's plenty of money to be made off of good content. Hell, there's plenty of money to be made off of bad content that people love in spite of themselves.

In addition, the barriers to entry to creating such content have never been lower.

It may well be the end of TV as we currently understand it, but it's definitely not the end of that type of content presentation, nor is it the apex.

Not an overnight thing by any means. But the programming quality will go down as media consolidation occurs.

You may find it just as (un)compelling. But there certainly won't be as much quality programming as there is today in 10 years.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm pretty much in agreement with this and larrymcg421's quoted part. I think these business models are based on getting $100+ per month from people. There's no way that number goes down- the consolidation just means that the product suffers while the price remains the same or goes higher.

SI

The alternative is Idiocracy TV where everything is monetized elsewhere.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I have a feeling that we'll regret the demise of bundling pretty soon when the resulting individual markups mean we're suddenly paying the same to get fewer channels.

Indeed. People were laughing because CBS is releasing its own streaming service.. for $6 a month. But that's exactly what the result of a la carte programming is - each network is going to charge you a much higher sum than people assume in order to recoup the costs they get from cable's rebroadcast fees (also to pay for servers).

Maybe one day internet TV will be the norm, but that will likely mean each network will sell its own 'streaming service' for $5 a month (instead of allowing it to air on Hulu - which CBS doesn't, so that's why they have struck out). And maybe add a 'premium bundle' where you can get the network's cable offers (like Disney Channel with ABC, FX with Fox, etc, etc) for extra money. I mean the ABC/ESPN bundle will likely be $20-30 a month by itself.

[gstelmack]

On the other hand, most folks don't want most of it. I've done just fine cutting my TV bill WAY down, missing out on some sports and some Food Network channels, but I still get to watch some OTA sports, Netflix / Amazon Prime have a ton, and I pay for the occasional show to stream (and have considered the MLS package for my son).

When it goes a la carte, you'll watch lots of channels wither and die when not enough want to pay for them, when people budget for what they actually want to watch.

[henry296]

I'd be interested in a package that would give me my local teams or a team(s) of my choice. What is holding me back, is I can buy these items today, but what is of my interest to me is blacked out.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

On the other hand, most folks don't want most of it. I've done just fine cutting my TV bill WAY down, missing out on some sports and some Food Network channels, but I still get to watch some OTA sports, Netflix / Amazon Prime have a ton, and I pay for the occasional show to stream (and have considered the MLS package for my son).

When it goes a la carte, you'll watch lots of channels wither and die when not enough want to pay for them, when people budget for what they actually want to watch.

I think this overestimates how much people don't want "most of it". It's like Congress. People hate Congress, but love their Congressman. So, yes, channels will wither and die, but then people who are fans of, say, AMC are going to be really upset when it is one of the ones to go.

[flere-imsaho]

Honestly, they'll be fine when the spiritual successors to The Walking Dead, Justified, Sons of Anarchy or Mad Men show up on Netflix or Amazon Prime, having been created by the TV equivalent of a movie studio.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I said "less than $5/month" but truth is, I really don't know if I'd be willing to spend a dime on streaming any sports league.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Honestly, they'll be fine when the spiritual successors to The Walking Dead, Justified, Sons of Anarchy or Mad Men show up on Netflix or Amazon Prime, having been created by the TV equivalent of a movie studio.

And then Netflix and Amazon Prime become akin to the bloated networks, who get slammed (rightly enough at times) for not taking many chances. Mad Men only saw the light of day because AMC was looking to break into Original Programming and took a chance of Mad Men (which had been passed on by HBO and Showtime), whose pilot was written like 7 years before it actually got picked up.

It tends to be those networks that are trying to make a statement that pick up interesting but relatively mass-market limited shows (for instance the ratings for Mad Men are absolutely horrible - any other network would have killed it). It tends to be a loss leader and help raise the profile for other shows the network brings up that may actually be profitable (Mad Men begat Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead which actually make AMC some cash).

When channels start contracting you run into the big problem that you don't have networks that are trying to break in to interesting original programming, because every network that exist is one that has a relatively stable subscriber base and you don't want to rock that boat (one of the benefits of cable bundling is even if you really fuck up, you still are getting carriage fees and can use those to rebuild).

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by henry296

I'd be interested in a package that would give me my local teams or a team(s) of my choice. What is holding me back, is I can buy these items today, but what is of my interest to me is blacked out.

This. If by "stream any game" you mean "no blackouts" that's worth at least 25 bucks a month to me. If there are still local blackouts, not paying a dime.

[General Mike]

Please. If sports makes a streaming model available, the cable companies will just throttle down the internet speeds on people/ jack up the price on people.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by General Mike

Please. If sports makes a streaming model available, the cable companies will just throttle down the internet speeds on people/ jack up the price on people.

I don't know. It's one thing to give Netflix a hard time. It's quite another to give the NFL, MLB or NBA a hard time.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by General Mike

Please. If sports makes a streaming model available, the cable companies will just throttle down the internet speeds on people/ jack up the price on people.

The net neutrality debate suddenly gets a lot more ugly against the providers if that happens.

SI

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by General Mike

Please. If sports makes a streaming model available, the cable companies will just throttle down the internet speeds on people/ jack up the price on people.

It won't happen that way. It just accelerates internet metering. And the Netflix thing gets conflated with net neutrality. It has implications but not the implications that are thrown about.

The premise of Netflix is that a data access provider should guarantee bandwidth from a customer to them regardless of whether they (e.g. Netflix) have purchased enough throughput to get to each of the access providers and their associated peering points. And it is the job of every access provider to manage Netflix streaming through every peered connection*, including those that are not their own peered connections. That would actually not be so difficult if Netflix wanted to purchase 6 Mbps (or whatever) to each of their customers but that would be expensive of course...so why not have a data access provider be the "bad guy" and increase the data cost to consumers rather than charge consumers the $19.99 (if not more) if likely ends up costing for the level of guarantee they want. So they compromise and install caching servers in everybody's data centers and then complain about it...as if it should not be their business cost.

Now the latter solution (caching servers in the data centers) is actually where net neutrality starts to slightly slip in if a few other factors come into play. Theoretically, data providers can maintain existing peering capacities and simply point to the Netflix model if a new company wants to have their service "work". Naturally, this is the point of using a CDN but it does mean that one must use an Akamai or Limelight, or be large enough to be an Amazon or Netflix, to have some level of assurance their content will get to the end user. I think thats bad for consumers and startups longer term but alas...perhaps there is nothing that can stop that train.

*As an aside...and I'm sure many on this board would be aware of this type of stuff...but consider that Netflix is nearly 25% of the nominal internet and about 50% of the peak internet usage. Should it really be the business of other companies to manage that throughput on behalf of Netflix, or should they purchase enough throughput (wherever they choose to sell their service) to ensure their service works? And if they up & move 3 states over...should all of the access providers reshuffle their connections and peering arrangements to account for that titanic shift? I don't mean to sound like a shill, but its utterly wrong-minded in my view.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The net neutrality debate suddenly gets a lot more ugly against the providers if that happens.

SI

It wouldn't have to impact net neutrality necessarily. The cable providers could just do what the cell phone providers do... charge for how much data you use.

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

It won't happen that way. It just accelerates internet metering. And the Netflix thing gets conflated with net neutrality. It has implications but not the implications that are thrown about.

The premise of Netflix is that a data access provider should guarantee bandwidth from a customer to them regardless of whether they (e.g. Netflix) have purchased enough throughput to get to each of the access providers and their associated peering points. And it is the job of every access provider to manage Netflix streaming through every peered connection*, including those that are not their own peered connections. That would actually not be so difficult if Netflix wanted to purchase 6 Mbps (or whatever) to each of their customers but that would be expensive of course...so why not have a data access provider be the "bad guy" and increase the data cost to consumers rather than charge consumers the $19.99 (if not more) if likely ends up costing for the level of guarantee they want. So they compromise and install caching servers in everybody's data centers and then complain about it...as if it should not be their business cost.

Now the latter solution (caching servers in the data centers) is actually where net neutrality starts to slightly slip in if a few other factors come into play. Theoretically, data providers can maintain existing peering capacities and simply point to the Netflix model if a new company wants to have their service "work". Naturally, this is the point of using a CDN but it does mean that one must use an Akamai or Limelight, or be large enough to be an Amazon or Netflix, to have some level of assurance their content will get to the end user. I think thats bad for consumers and startups longer term but alas...perhaps there is nothing that can stop that train.

*As an aside...and I'm sure many on this board would be aware of this type of stuff...but consider that Netflix is nearly 25% of the nominal internet and about 50% of the peak internet usage. Should it really be the business of other companies to manage that throughput on behalf of Netflix, or should they purchase enough throughput (wherever they choose to sell their service) to ensure their service works? And if they up & move 3 states over...should all of the access providers reshuffle their connections and peering arrangements to account for that titanic shift? I don't mean to sound like a shill, but its utterly wrong-minded in my view.

This is a fantastic summation of why the net neutrality debate is actually far more nuanced than a lot of people would want to believe.

[flere-imsaho]

None of this would be a problem if we got serious about upgrading our infrastructure.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

None of this would be a problem if we got serious about upgrading our infrastructure.

But that's not going to happen unless there's real competition in the provider marketplace. And we're heading the opposite way on that one. When the choices in any major city are a single phone provider and a single cable provider, there's no reason for either to compete too hard.

SI

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

But that's not going to happen unless there's real competition in the provider marketplace. And we're heading the opposite way on that one. When the choices in any major city are a single phone provider and a single cable provider, there's no reason for either to compete too hard.

SI

Right. And you're lucky if you have 2 options. I know where I live there's no access to FiOS because Verizon didn't want to pay to put up the wires.

[Desnudo]

The 150-250 the NFL charges outside the U.S. and directv charges here I'd be willing to pay. 0 for any of the other sports.