You must log in or register to comment.

Yeahha t1_j1k7mrk wrote

If this doesn't become a $5-$20 monthly price hike for all YouTube TV subscribers then I applaud the move, let those who use it pay for it.


babysharknado51 t1_j1jias9 wrote

Remember when streaming TV services were more reasonable than cable TV? Pepperidge Farm remembers.


Soupjoe5 OP t1_j1jbjcx wrote


Deal for Sunday games is an expensive way for parent company Alphabet to buy an audience

Streaming companies cannot stop spending their money on live sports. Amazon paid $1bn to be the exclusive provider of “Thursday Night Football”. Apple signed a 10-year deal with Major League Soccer. Now YouTube has agreed to pay about $2bn per year for exclusive rights to certain National Football League Sunday afternoon games.

Perhaps Alphabet chief executive Sundar Pichai is an American football fan? This is an expensive way for YouTube’s parent company to buy an audience. YouTubeTV costs $64.99 per month. If it charges a $25 add-on for NFL games, it will need 1.85mn subscribers to break even. That means increasing its subscriber base by around a third. It will hope to pick up subscribers from former NFL Sunday Ticket rights holder DirecTV.

There is a reason Apple and Amazon do not separate out profits and losses from their own streaming services. Alphabet reports only YouTube’s advertising revenue (which is down on last year). Subscriptions for YouTube Premium and YouTube TV are included in “other” — a huge category that also includes in-app purchases and sales of Fitbits.

Alphabet says the division’s growth is led by YouTube. Given the increase was less than 2 per cent in the nine months ending September 30, this is not particularly impressive.

Look at results published by rivals and the brutal impact of competition is clear. Disney’s “direct to consumer” media and entertainment unit — aka streaming — reported an operating loss of $4bn on revenue of just under $20bn in the 12 months to October 2. Charging low monthly rates while buying pricey programmes is expensive.

Alphabet has the funds to compete. The NFL deal is equal to about 3 per cent of free cash flow last year. Using sport to lock in long-term subscribers may mitigate the slump in US streaming audiences that Netflix reports. YouTube has a seven-year contract with the NFL.

But sports broadcasting is not an automatic money-spinner. See BT’s exit from the game. The scrummage of competitors will make it tough for YouTube to break through.


crtjer t1_j1jrqtl wrote

Well to be honest the NFL app is hot garbage. Sure it’s YouTube but they have been one of the only steaming services to cater to most sports.


nmgzzptswjmlsasgjtsw t1_j1kn4j7 wrote

The NFL app must be in competition with MLB TV in just how poorly you can treat people who just want to watch their local team through streaming. MLB TV impressively blacks out no less than 6 teams (1/5 of MLB teams) in because they believe they should subscribe to cable or incentise people to actually go and see their local team. Even if someone is hundreds of miles away from the nearest MLB stadium..


troyboltonislife t1_j1n0gkh wrote

the mlb doesn’t really even have a choice tho. every team has exclusive tv deals with local stations. they can’t just replace those deals overnight. i agree that the mlb should be working to do something because it’s completely ridiculous and ruins fans viewing experience (and overall popularity) but it’s not something the mlb can just snap their fingers to fix


TheIndyCity t1_j1q200p wrote

MLB owners need to get their head out of their ass. They’ve killed their sport with dumb shit like this. No one gives a fuck about baseball under the age of 50.


troyboltonislife t1_j1n0h5h wrote

the mlb doesn’t really even have a choice tho. every team has exclusive tv deals with local stations. they can’t just replace those deals overnight. i agree that the mlb should be working to do something because it’s completely ridiculous and ruins fans viewing experience (and overall popularity) but it’s not something the mlb can just snap their fingers to fix


NoelThePr0digy t1_j1kmajp wrote

The NFL Tv app is down right horrendous. Scores never update on the home page. Games don’t even trigger till like during the first drive.

I have to start watching on my phone and move to the tv when it finally catches up


FoggyBottom4u t1_j1jnsjz wrote

Apple's MLS deal is all games, all teams, no blackouts. NFL is....some games on certain days, hoping it is not blacked out, or played on Thursday night, Sunday night and Monday night, or is on fox, cbs, nbc or the nfl channel?


Speculawyer t1_j1kkaty wrote

Here, would you like to watch this Prager "University" video or nonsense from the "clean your room" Benzo junkie?

Fuck off.


frolie0 t1_j1kznfq wrote

Is the author of this article an actual idiot? Google won't come anywhere near breaking even at these numbers, you can't just count the existing fee for YouTube TV towards the $2 billion in new expenses. They need about 6.5 million subscribers at $300/year to break even for just the rights. They'll pour about couple hundred million into the tech and broadcast too, so add that on. Sure, there's value from increasing YouTube TV subs, but every sun increases costs from the content that comes along with it.

Google is very unlikely to turn a profit on this directly and using it as a way to bring in more viewers in general is likely the play. Rumor has it that DirecTV was losing about $500 million/year with their cost of $1 billion/year, so Google has a big hill to climb. Making it more accessible and not requiring DirecTV could be a great start though.


contextswitch t1_j1lqvn5 wrote

I think you're probably missing all the ad revenue that they can make it they just broadcast it for free. For example Thursday night football is available for free on twitch.


frolie0 t1_j1lrk4l wrote

That's not how this works. They are rebroadcasting FOX and CBS games, there's no ad revenue to be had. Amazon is actually producing their own game, but Google will never do that under this package.


Neither-Biscotti-931 t1_j1m1ou0 wrote

Correct. I had the same thoughts as you. I’ll wait and see, but I don’t understand what the king game on this is.


OverallManagement824 t1_j1mpowd wrote

$90/mo to stream some NFL games? These people have lost their damned minds.

The whole reason sports became popular, and the reason sports leagues are as much of a juggernaut as they are is because fans grew up watching the games for free. This fueled merchandise sales, ticket sales, concessions, etc. If I have to pay to watch games, I simply won't do it and I'll just listen on the radio (I do this sometimes already if I can't find the game somewhere for free) or read about it in the paper. And tomorrow's generation will feel even less attached to it than I am. The only reason I'm a sucker for it is that I grew up with it.

Further showing how this pay-to-watch scheme is hurting their brand and their reach, consider the fact that my sportsbetting drops off by 95% in years when I can't watch the games for free to see the teams I'm betting on. If one of the sportsbooks offered live streaming of a game for anyone who placed a $1 bet, they'd honestly probably at least triple their customer base each week. Surely the bookies should realize how much people not watching the games hurts them. Major sports franchises are becoming less relevant every day.

I mean, sure, you could point your finger at the wild team valuations to say the league is stronger than ever, but that's just monopoly money for rich assholes. It's supply and demand. There's only so many teams out there that you can buy. The worth of the franchise to society is far less than it is to the fools running the show. The downhill slide will be gradual and the league will try to extract every nickel they can in the mean time, but you can already start to see the cracks forming.


NotJohnDenver t1_j1n76zt wrote

Realistically a big portion of the audience is sports bars..they have to pay massive multipliers for showing games based on bar capacity.


littleMAS t1_j1kimey wrote

Remember when Netflix was the stream queen? Now, it is a fee-for-all.


w3bCraw1er t1_j1l3fvm wrote

Apple was smart and decided to step back instead of overpaying despite making and having way more money. Not even sure Google will really make any profit from this.


kidslapper t1_j1mqq6y wrote

Jesus being a sports fan sounds exhausting and soon it sounds like it’s going to be very expensive. Imagine paying multiple subs to watch games throughout the week. If I’m reading all this correctly isn’t that where we are headed? Used to be if you pay for cable you get all the channels that will be playing the games.


PMzyox t1_j1kmtf2 wrote

Good finally someone is trying to work out where this huge cord cutting mess is leading.


CaliforniaF0g t1_j1le8os wrote

Chrome analytics probably realized a bunch a people watched Thursday NFL games on Amazon Prime Video, so Google/Alphabet decided to go full regard r/wallstreetbets style with the NFL.


mari0br0 t1_j1lpcpe wrote

Can they just put all the games on one subscription please? It’s so confusing having to figure out what platform each game is on


zeocsa t1_j1ky0ll wrote

Looks like the NFL is going lose fans. I'm not paying for l8ve streaming of games.


sdavidson901 t1_j1ml7xq wrote

This is only moving the Sunday NFL ticket package from direct TV to YouTube You can still watch the games on local broadcast (CBS, FOX, NBC for SNF and ESPN for MNF)


Vanman04 t1_j1kyuz6 wrote

Sure but the NFL isn't going to do it.


banananailgun t1_j1kthfo wrote

The homogenization of YouTube continues


mccoolio t1_j1l3pmq wrote

Hey man, I use YouTube TV and I ain't gay


Middle_Aged_Mayhem t1_j1n69cp wrote

YouTube TV is actually a pretty good streaming service. I've had it for about 2 years now. Rarely have I had any problems with the service as well. Can't say the same about cable and Directv that I ised to have.


mccoolio t1_j1n7fey wrote

Same, been a long time user and I'm very satisfied after cutting cable several years ago.