NFL+CBS+Fox=$8 Billion

[HoosierCat]

The two networks & the NFL just agreed to a 6-year TV contract extension woth 8 big ones. Must be nice, eh?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...o_ne/fbn_nfl_tv

Interesting note:

The deals give the NFL the option to move seven late-season games from Sunday to Monday night to feature more attractive matchups, according to an official within the league who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

Fans, the league & the networks have wanted that for years but the individual teams, players & coaches have always objected. I remember reading a few weeks back that the player's union wanted a bigger slice of the revenue pie in the next CBO, maybe this is the trade-off?

[San Antonio Bengal]

So, what would the schedule at season's start look like? Would everyone be scheduled for Sunday and someone moved to Monday night or would there be someone scheduled for Monday night who might get bumped back to Sunday?

[HoosierCat]

So, what would the schedule at season's start look like? Would everyone be scheduled for Sunday and someone moved to Monday night or would there be someone scheduled for Monday night who might get bumped back to Sunday?

I think the only way you could do it is to not schedule the last seven (or how many ever they decide to let "float") MNF games at all. I mean, you couldn't schedule someone for a Monday game and then tell them, oh, wait, you have to play a day early. So everybody would have a "default" Sunday game, and then one gets picked to go on Monday. My bet is that they would start to firm up the MNF schedule by midseason, though they might wait until the start of December or so to nail down the final week or two.

But that's just a guess...

[kevnz]

Interesting note:

The deals give the NFL the option to move seven late-season games from Sunday to Monday night to feature more attractive matchups, according to an official within the league who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

Fans, the league & the networks have wanted that for years but the individual teams, players & coaches have always objected. I remember reading a few weeks back that the player's union wanted a bigger slice of the revenue pie in the next CBO, maybe this is the trade-off?

Actually, the only networks that wanted that was ABC and ESPN. Fox and CBS did not want to give up any games that have major playoff implications. I wonder how much money the NFL had to give up to get that in the deal?

[HoosierCat]

Actually, the only networks that wanted that was ABC and ESPN. Fox and CBS did not want to give up any games that have major playoff implications. I wonder how much money the NFL had to give up to get that in the deal?

According to the story, the $8 billion is an increase, so it doesn't look like the NFL had to give up anything. Tho I wouldn't be surprised if ABC & ESPN payed a bit more and the other guys got some small break. But really, as the season winds down, there's going to be more than one or two games with playoff implications, so I don't think it would be that big of a problem. You could address it by saying, for example, that in the last 7 weeks of MNF no team could be on more than once so that ABC can't "hog" a particular playoff race.

[xjjeep90]

I would really hate to see what was said earlier about having games later in the week (Thursday or Friday) as another marquee game just to get ad revenue.

[kevnz]

I would really hate to see what was said earlier about having games later in the week (Thursday or Friday) as another marquee game just to get ad revenue.

Why not? The more football on TV the better.

[skyline]

I like the decision. Hopefully it will prevent teams like Miami from getting so many MNF games...

[Kirkendall]

Last I heard, was the Monday Night football game could go to NBC because ABC is losing $150 million per year on MNF alone. The Sunday night game could be on TNT, NBC, ESPN, Fox Sports Channel, or even NFL Network.

All said and done, possible $ spend could reach $20 billion.

I doubt we'll see a dynamic MNF schedule because I don't think any of the networks will pay the asking price.

[The_Next_Big_Thing]

I think the reason they want to have flexible scheduling in the latter part of the year is to give teams advanced notice. I doubt they will call them on Monday and tell them they are bumped to Monday next week.

This means a bigger salary cap folks.

[Dan2330]

This is the same thing that ABC tried getting last year. Their complaint was that too many games that are on MNF at the end of the year are dogs. They would have to figure out a way to work this so that fans don't get screwed out of games. For instance, in its current format after so many weeks CBS/FOX can shift early games to late games and vice versa on their networks to create a better nationally televised matchup, which is usually the 4pm kickoff game. For ABC to do that, even if they chose 6 or 7 weeks into the season would mean they would be shifting games out of Monday night and back into Sunday and vice versa. If I am a fan and have a ticket to a late season MNF game I would be pissed in this case- what if I have to work on Sundays and can't go to the shifted game?

I guess this would also mean that the NFL would have to have each team late in the season lock their stadiums up for possible Monday night games. Would hate to see them run into the same scenerio they did after 9/11 with the Superdome in which they thought they would not be able to move the Super Bowl by a week.

[richmond_mat]

Last I heard, was the Monday Night football game could go to NBC because ABC is losing $150 million per year on MNF alone. The Sunday night game could be on TNT, NBC, ESPN, Fox Sports Channel, or even NFL Network.

I don't understand the economics either Josh. According to the WSJ "FOX wrote off $397 million from its current $4.4 billion deal.....Monday night football on ABC has been estimated by analysts to post losses of $250 million a year, a figure ABC executives don't dispute."

CBS claims to make money on their deal, but the analysts are skeptical.

Tha ABC/ESPN deal is still on the table.

[BengalszoneBilly]

If these losses are accurate, it seems like a bubble inflating up to bursting pressure to me!

[The_Next_Big_Thing]

If these losses are accurate, it seems like a bubble inflating up to bursting pressure to me!

If these losses are correct, they are paying Madden too much money!

[HoosierCat]

If these losses are accurate, it seems like a bubble inflating up to bursting pressure to me!

It depends on what their (the networks') definition of "losses" is. Advertising time for big prime time shows like MNF is sold way in advance; they also sell "sponsorships" (the stuff you see when they do the "this broadcast brought to you by" bit) where advertisers pay extra money for things like category exclusivity (that they're the only beer or car or whatever advertised during the broadcast) or having their logo on field signs, and things like that. I guarantee you that if it costs ABC say, $20 million per game under the contract, they're selling at least $20 million in ads and sponsorships to cover it.

The wrinkle is that those ads and sponsorships come with guarantees. Usually these guarantees are in the form of ratings, i.e. ABC guarantees that Bud's ad will be seen by X number of households during the broadcast. So if you have a low-rated game, those guarantees don't get met, and that's where the "losses" come from. And that's why the networks want a more flexible schedule so badly.

I put losses in quotes because the final wrinkle is, if the guarantees aren't met, the advertisers don't get a refund. That money still stays with the network. Instead, the networks will provide "make goods;" they'll run some free ads for the advertiser to "make good" the guarantees. So when you see numbers like $250 million in losses, that can be translated as "due to low ratings they had to run $250 million in free ads." Now you might say that, well, that's $250 million worth of time that they can't sell for "real" money, but the networks can always "create" time by trimming an extra 2 minutes off a rerun of this or that sitcome to make room for some free ads. Or they give them time on other media they own, like web sites and cable channels. There are all sorts of ways to play this game. But the bottom line is that we aren't talking about real money here, but just numbers being shuffled around in the accounting department. If they were really losing $250 million actual dollars a year, they would have pulled the plug long ago.

[kevnz]

For ABC to do that, even if they chose 6 or 7 weeks into the season would mean they would be shifting games out of Monday night and back into Sunday and vice versa. If I am a fan and have a ticket to a late season MNF game I would be pissed in this case- what if I have to work on Sundays and can't go to the shifted game?

It's possible that they just won't announce any monday night games until the season is under way maybe?

Also, they may flag some games as possible shifts so people are aware of the chance of being shifted.

[xjjeep90]

I would really hate to see what was said earlier about having games later in the week (Thursday or Friday) as another marquee game just to get ad revenue.

Why not? The more football on TV the better.

It is a bad deal because NFL needs to be kept on Sundays and Monday nights. It doesn't need to go and do what the NBA did and dilute the interest in the Sunday games by having games on during the week. The anticipation of the upcoming Sunday games would be diminished a lot and I don't want the NFL to decline as rapidly as the NBA has.

[HoosierCat]

I would really hate to see what was said earlier about having games later in the week (Thursday or Friday) as another marquee game just to get ad revenue.

Why not? The more football on TV the better.

It is a bad deal because NFL needs to be kept on Sundays and Monday nights. It doesn't need to go and do what the NBA did and dilute the interest in the Sunday games by having games on during the week. The anticipation of the upcoming Sunday games would be diminished a lot and I don't want the NFL to decline as rapidly as the NBA has.

I don't think showing more games during the week would do that. If the NFL expanded the number of games, or the number of playoff teams, then they risk going the way of the NBA.

[San Antonio Bengal]

Having games during the week didn't dilute interest. The interest in the NBA is diluted because the season goes on for forever and the playoffs go on even longer. There are a lot of meaningless games played in the NBA, both in the regular season and especially in the playoffs.

[HoosierCat]

Peter King has more details in his MMQB column on how this is all supposed to work...sounds like much more of a clusterfudge than I imagined...

1. I think these are my thoughts on the NFL's TV situation in the wake of the $8 billion extension signed by CBS and FOX:

a. The new deal allows for flexible scheduling. During the last seven weeks of the regular season (11 through 17), the NFL will have the right to switch the Monday Night Football game a total of five times. These decisions will not be in the hands of the network that wins the MNF package, but rather a partnership between the NFL and the network, with the league having final say. Here's the interesting part: The network with the Sunday doubleheader game each week will be allowed to keep one game per week from being switched to Monday, in all likelihood the late Sunday doubleheader game seen by most of the nation. And FOX and CBS will, in addition, be allowed to reject one request per year by the NFL, in any of the seven weeks, to a switch. An NFL guy told me the switches would be made about two weeks out, but the timing of the changes hasn't been determined with certainty yet. Let me give you an example of how it would work, say, on this past weekend. It's a FOX doubleheader weekend. The Monday night game Philly at Dallas. It's unlikely that would be moved anyway because of the Cowboys fans across the country. But let's say the NFL wanted to make a switch. The league goes to FOX and says, "We want Minnesota at Green Bay for Monday night.'' FOX exercises its "doubleheader" veto and says it wants that game for its broadcast. Then the NFL says, "We want Seattle at St. Louis." FOX chooses not to exercise its one wild-card veto, and so the NFL gives FOX Philadelphia-Dallas and puts Seattle-St. Louis on Monday night. I'm not saying this would happen in real life, but that's how the mechanics of the thing would work.

Ugh. That's going to create exactly the kind of fan issues that Dan referred to earlier. What if you work nights during the week and your Sunday game gets moved to Monday? Looks like that can only happen five times at most, tho, not eight.

b. The Sunday night/Monday night package probably won't be negotiated until next October. None of the packages needed to be negotiated until then, but FOX and CBS came up with bids that satisfied the NFL, and the league wasn't willing to wait to see if the economy downturned and forced the bids lower next year.

c. ABC's no lock for MNF. The Monday night package is in play. I'm no Bob Iger, but the league thinks Disney's going to have trouble ponying up the money for one contract in the ESPN/ABC deal [Disney owns both], never mind two. NBC and FOX are in play for Monday night as well, and there's a 95 percent likelihood that the Monday night winner will be an over-the-air network, not cable. I don't see NBC making a business deal that doesn't make business sense, though.

If Fox doesn get MNF can they please not put that ijit Bradshaw on?

d. A Thursday night package is likely, but coaches will hate it. The NFL, at least the money-grubbing part of the NFL, wants to take eight late-season games and put them on in prime time, mostly on Thursday nights, likely with a cable entity. "We're not kidding ourselves," one NFL source told me. "We know the coaches and even some owners will hate it, because it will disrupt everyone's schedule late in the year. Some owners don't think with their wallets." Picture the 8-4 Patriots winning a big game with the Jets at home on Sunday, then having a game at Oakland the following Thursday night. But I have a feeling mo' money will steamroll this concern. The coaches didn't like the idea of Monday Night Football 34 years ago, either. This is different, though. This isn't a one-day change on the calendar. It's a major inconvenience, and could be a factor in the pennant race. I know, from talking to the highly respected Dan Rooney in Pittsburgh

I think they'd have to arrange it so that the teams playing both had a bye week previously, and then the Thurs. game is their 1st after the bye. You can't have just 3 days in between games.

e. Rupert Murdoch tried to buy rights for every NFL game beginning in 2006 but was rejected. They never talked money because the league felt even if the money was a little better with one conglomerate, "We'd have lost too much promotional value by being on only one network," the source said.