Sports Media

andyb 2021-01-27 19:23:19 UTC #121

All the big new revenue streams in sports are going to be related to gambling. It is certainly a brave new world to venture in, especially as online sites and owners and arenas want in on the game. There could be scandals in the offing, but it is not as if athletes were not already immersed in a sea of semi-legal and illegal gambling anyway.

As for sports channels, I think the big thing to see is if Sinclair/Bally comes up with a competitively priced standalone app or option. Changing the name is not going to get them on any streaming services.

el-pietro 2021-01-27 20:36:25 UTC #122

Gambling is extremely pervasive in sports in Europe. I think about half of the Premier League teams currently have a gambling company as their primary shirt sponsor and its a similar story thoughout Europe at all levels. Even those who don't have a gambling company on their shirt will have a "partner" and many teams have in stadium betting.

If you ignore the moral issue for a moment there are rarely any betting scandals at a high level. Its just much easier and more profitable for match fixing to work at lower levels where the people involved don't make much money and there are less people paying attention. I've heard of matching fixing occurring in amateur games in my area.
So when we see even more widespread gambling in the US than we currently do, I wouldn't expect there to be any integrity issues in the NFL, MLB or NBA, but I would worry about the minor leagues and college sports. If gambling is allowed at that level it will be very easy for the players to be persuaded to throw a match, or to engage in "spot" fixing which would affect prop bets but not necessarily the outcome of the game.

zambonir 2021-01-27 20:44:14 UTC #123

College has largely given in now as well. Used to be you couldn't host an NCAA event if gambling was legal in your state. Now it's legal in lots of states. It's just a massive culture change, but obviously it's the only growth area left for sports and media.

andyb 2021-01-27 20:45:14 UTC #124

I agree that I don't think we see much fixing around gambling. I was just noting that this will always be the argument. Here in DC Monumental Sports (the Wizards and Capitals) signed an official agreement with William Hill so I think we are going to have betting booths in the arena. And on our phone of course. Since there is so much gambling already out there It really won't change much practically from the athlete's point of view.

I placed a bunch of bets at William Hill when I was over in London in 2019 and went to one of the Yankee-Red Sox baseball games. It was fun as a novelty though I do think it will be less fun over time to see a game telecast where odds are constantly updating in the corner of the screen. Everybody will talk about the potential fraud and integrity issues. For me though, it might make games less fun to watch. It will certainly generate lots of revenue though, so everyone who says these cable fights are the end of the boom years for sports teams are all probably wrong.

andyb 2021-01-27 20:54:54 UTC #125

Also, I noticed today the Athletic added a "Sports Betting" section on the top menu. Maybe it was there for a while but more likely among the minor sports when you click "...".

Leagues are going to need to follow the NFL's example a bit more and provide transparent info on injuries. Am I the only one that gets annoyed in hockey when they list injuries as upper body injuries (which could be a concussion) or lower body injuries. Hockey does this for team competitive advantage, but it sure might ■■■■ off some gamblers if an injury is hidden.

zambonir 2021-01-27 21:02:48 UTC #126

Wasn't it actually a stipulation of the deal? Possibly legally as well as being good for business?

Athletic's been hiring for gambling editors/writers lately.

andyb 2021-01-27 21:08:16 UTC #127

They set up a temporary William Hill location in the arena last August. Of course there have been no fans in the building since last March though I assume the betting windows or kiosks face outside.

I am not sure it matters as much as sports teams want it to matter to have these locations in the arena. The bigger market is always outside the arena and if sports betting is legal everywhere, why would it matter to place a bet with the official vendor of a team?

el-pietro 2021-01-27 21:11:02 UTC #128

Phone betting has definitely changed things. My friends and I have been doing that in the middle of games for the last few years, specifically on Irsh football games and with very low amounts. At this point in arena kiosks are there for advertising as much as anything else.

zambonir 2021-01-27 22:04:43 UTC #129

I just remembered there was something interesting about it. Here it is:

The location, in a former indoor party area next to the main entry gate in center field, will not be accessible from within the ballpark on game days, a restriction mandated by MLB. The Nationals will share in revenue from the sportsbook, calculated based on handle.

Along with the retail outlet, BetMGM gets access to operate its mobile app within two blocks of the ballpark, a radius that includes the riverside restaurants and bars of DC’s white-hot Navy Yards neighborhood. DC sports betting regulations only allow sportsbooks to offer mobile betting within that distance of the district’s major sports venues, which sub-license those rights. The DC Lottery is the exclusive operator of mobile betting outside those carve-outs.

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/SB-Blogs/Breaking-News/2021/01/Nats-Park.aspx

Betting is run by the lottery in Oregon too, and unfortunately the legislature here is still pollyannaish about college sports (Oregon used to actually have an actually sports betting lottery ticket, which they got rid of in order to host NCAA basketball games).

If I wanted to bet on college football - and it's probably just as well I can't because following a sport closely doesn't necessarily make you a better gambler, especially when entertainment and sentiment enter in - I'd have to drive to reservation land, where I could then use the MGM app, or go into the casino.

zambonir 2021-02-17 01:17:13 UTC #130

That Athletic benefits package might be looking good a year from now.

zambonir 2021-02-26 23:33:54 UTC #131

For lack of anywhere else to put it, this is highly entertaining

zambonir 2021-03-04 02:39:34 UTC #132

It's almost like this was written for julio

julio 2021-03-04 04:47:13 UTC #133

Yep. This is why Comcast and/or Verizon will never see a penny of my money fot cable service...nor will any other TV bundler that does business with Fox. Some things are just more important than being able to watch the Phillies. Not helping to fund those who would destroy our Republic certainly qualifies.

andyb 2021-03-04 12:51:11 UTC #134

Cable operators would take huge losses if they did this, so articles like this, as well intentioned as they are, really have no impact. We need to push for full a la carte channel access. Bundling is the problem and attacking it as ideology is really a distraction.

Now regulating content for cable channels like we used to for over the air channels is a different story. Same with social media. If we enact a cost for putting on false content then that content will likely go away or be diminished.

julio 2021-03-04 21:06:44 UTC #135

Agreed. I've been harping on a la carte cable for... oh, decades? But again, as long as tens (hundreds?) of millions of customers are willing to shell out monthly for bundles of channels, most of which they really don't use...there's little incentive for the cable giants to cater to those of us who refuse to play that game.

Just one of the many gratuitous monthly expenditures that most Americans think they "need," whether they can afford it or not.

Again, agreed. Of course, my idea of "exacting a cost" to cable channels who actively push disinformation to overturn the Republic might be a little draconian! Think Boards of Directors. Think penalties that don't involve money (because fines are just "the cost of doing business"). Think penalties that disrupt these peoples' lives, one way or another. If their freedom, or their lives are on the line, they'll cut the crap. Failing that, I really don't expect they will.

zambonir 2021-03-04 22:12:10 UTC #136

I'm a bit more cynical/apathetic about it all. There is no media company or sports league I can truly feel good about giving my money too, including my internet provider (which is Comcast).

zambonir 2021-03-08 03:02:10 UTC #137

Plenty of evidence suggests that sports broadcasts aren’t resonating as well with Generation Z—Americans born after 1996—as they did with previous generations. According to a recent poll, only 53 percent of Gen Zers identify as sports fans. And more troubling for networks that have invested heavily in live sports, Gen Zers are half as likely as Millennials to watch live sports regularly, and twice as likely to never watch.

Philsmania 2021-03-08 22:11:19 UTC #138

Gen Z is really shaping up to be a contrarian generation. They're not into sports, they don't wear jeans, probably other things too.

andyb 2021-03-08 22:24:02 UTC #139

The article mentions some important trends like cord-cutting and sports not resonating with Millennials, but I think it really fails to connect the dots. Young people are not subscribing to cable (and often live streaming services like YTTV) because they are too expensive. They get more from $14 to Netflix than $65 to YTTV. People like us can afford both. Kids can't.

I don't think young people dislike sports. They are just being priced out of it. It is not as if they are watching much less TV these days. It is that they are watching less live TV because it is so expensive. So when they don't watch it as much, the sports resonate less with them culturally.

This is the result of sports teams and networks killing the golden goose. It is not kids waking up and deciding they like sports much less. They are just choosing to watch other things. The end result is they care about sports less, but the journey to get there is important. In person sports became unaffordable for many 10-20 years ago. Now the same is happening for TV sports.

zambonir 2021-03-08 23:01:49 UTC #140

At this point Millennials are parents who can afford to get cable, and take their kids to a Phillies game if they are so inclined. But the under-24 crowd, they just grew up in a different world. Some probably like soccer best - and can watch Premier League if they want, not just MLS. Others may watch highlights and TikToks and follow LeBron on Twitter but still don't "watch live sports regularly." Losing free TV sports - with all but a very few things only being on cable - surely didn't help, and what parent is going to spend $200 for a family outing to CBP when the kids would rather stay home gaming - and the parents Netflix - anyway.

I don't really know what the answer is though. Some of these things would help, but in the big picture, with baseball specifically, do you chase young viewers, which you certainly need to have if you ever want to grow - or put more focus on the viewers you already know you have? It's never really clear what they want, though the networks really only care about the the latter I think. If they thought it was profitable to make start times more youth-friendly or felt that a speeded-up game would be good for them (instead of being a bigger window for commercials) it would happen.