• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

FCC opens inquiry into movement of live sports from broadcast TV to streaming

KeithE4 said:
Unless something's changed recently that I'm not aware of, only the NHL and maybe some colleges stream for free. MLB and the NFL have charged for their streaming audio for at least 20 years, unless one pays for the TV package which includes the radio feeds.
Click to expand...

In terms of streaming, Westwood One worked out an arrangement three years ago (I think) that allows its network stations to stream Westwood One's pro football games for free as well as allowing Internet listeners from outside of the individual teams' markets to hear the games on Westwood One's website without charge.

And, at least as far as pro football is concerned, @CTListener is absolutely right! All of the NFL games for each individual NFL team can be heard in each team's market on the radio with local play-by-play announcers and color commentators describing the games. Some of those local games have shown up online for free; others have not.
 
FCC Chairman Carr is now threatening the NFL's anti-trust exemption if they move too many games to streaming:

www.foxnews.com

FCC review of sports broadcasting rules draws thousands of comments amid streaming backlash, chairman says

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr says thousands of public comments support keeping major sports games free on broadcast TV amid streaming frustration.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

awfulannouncing.com

Are the Murdochs and Ellisons behind FCC's recent interest in sports fragmentation?

The Murdoch and Ellison families could be behind FCC chairman Brendan Carr's recent interest in sports fragmentation.
awfulannouncing.com awfulannouncing.com

It's not up to the FCC to determine who gets anti-trust exemptions. That was an act passed by congress.
 
Last edited:
TheBigA said:
It's not up to the FCC to determine who gets anti-trust exemptions. That was an act passed by congress.
Click to expand...
If anyone else was President I’d agree with you but this administration doesn’t care which powers are legislative vs executive.

Remember when he was asked if there were limits to his power, Trump replied: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
 
ted chittenden said:
In terms of streaming, Westwood One worked out an arrangement three years ago (I think) that allows its network stations to stream Westwood One's pro football games for free as well as allowing Internet listeners from outside of the individual teams' markets to hear the games on Westwood One's website without charge.

And, at least as far as pro football is concerned, @CTListener is absolutely right! All of the NFL games for each individual NFL team can be heard in each team's market on the radio with local play-by-play announcers and color commentators describing the games. Some of those local games have shown up online for free; others have not.
Click to expand...
If you have SiriusXM, you can listen to your favorite NFL/NBA/NHL & MLB local radio play by play broadcast. I did it last year while in New Orleans. I listened to Brad Sham & Babe Laufenburg with the app on my cellular telephone.
 
If the antitrust exemption is removed, and each NFL team then sells its own TV package, viewers will either have far fewer games available, or they will have to subscribe to 32 different streaming services to have access to “all the games”.

Not sure what the endgame is here…🤔😐
 
Mediafrog+ said:
If the antitrust exemption is removed, and each NFL team then sells its own TV package, viewers will either have far fewer games available, or they will have to subscribe to 32 different streaming services to have access to “all the games”.

Not sure what the endgame is here…🤔😐
Click to expand...
More ads in the same amount of space?

Network TV's highest rated programming is sports. As the league decides to encroach into even more days of the week to telecast the product (Th, F, Su, Mo - Tu will be next...) that's just even more opportunities to show games to more viewers.
 
TheBigA said:
The DOJ is investigating the NFL for possible anti-trust violations with its TV contracts

abcnews.com

DOJ probing NFL over potential antitrust violations in TV deals, sources say

DOJ probing the NFL over potential antitrust violations
abcnews.com abcnews.com
Click to expand...

Should this ever come to trial, the NFL will point out that the Justice Department was investigating it at the request of one individual. Depending on the jurist involved, that could get the whole case thrown out of court, no matter what its actual merrits are.
 
Mediafrog+ said:
If the antitrust exemption is removed, and each NFL team then sells its own TV package, viewers will either have far fewer games available, or they will have to subscribe to 32 different streaming services to have access to “all the games”.

Not sure what the endgame is here…🤔😐
Click to expand...
To have everything on broadcast TV. Would that also affect ESPN.
 
Don CT said:
To have everything on broadcast TV.
Click to expand...
If each team was to negotiate its own OTA TV deal the reach would be geographically limited due to differences in local fan interest. “All the games” would not be available to “all the fans” in the country. Actually having all the games available everywhere OTA has never happened.

And, as the NFL would be prohibited from selling any group packages, you would say goodbye to Sunday Ticket and Red Zone.
Don CT said:
Would that also affect ESPN.
Click to expand...
Yes, because ESPN is not an OTA network. They would only be able to produce games that would be aired by local OTA channels.
 
Mediafrog+ said:
If each team was to negotiate its own OTA TV deal the reach would be geographically limited due to differences in local fan interest. “All the games” would not be available to “all the fans” in the country. Actually having all the games available everywhere OTA has never happened.

And, as the NFL would be prohibited from selling any group packages, you would say goodbye to Sunday Ticket and Red Zone.

Yes, because ESPN is not an OTA network. They would only be able to produce games that would be aired by local OTA channels.
Click to expand...
They only care about the streaming services having access. They want it the way it was 20 years ago.

What they should be going after is the cost we end up paying for sports. A $300 cable bill is too much. Will they care about that.
 
Don CT said:
They only care about the streaming services having access. They want it the way it was 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
That would mean forbidding the NFL from doing deals with streaming services. No more free market agreements; the NFL would be restricted to broadcast and cable networks. Who would make that rule? I can see the lawsuits now; the government would be choosing who can and cannot bid on game rights.

You still would have to pay for cable to see many games, as you did 20 years ago.

Remember that any NFL games that are exclusive to cable or streaming are still available OTA in the teams’ home markets.
Don CT said:
What they should be going after is the cost we end up paying for sports. A $300 cable bill is too much. Will they care about that.
Click to expand...
The increasing cost of cable is due in great part to increases in sports rights payments. Get rid of sports on cable and your bill will go down. This is why the RSN model is collapsing.
 
Mediafrog+ said:
The increasing cost of cable is due in great part to increases in sports rights payments.
Click to expand...
Ironically I think that is starting to happen with streaming services. As Prime and Netflix and other streaming services pay huge amounts to acquire pro sports rights, we will see them (or have seen them) gradually start to increase their monthly subscription price.
 
Mediafrog+ said:
That would mean forbidding the NFL from doing deals with streaming services. No more free market agreements; the NFL would be restricted to broadcast and cable networks. Who would make that rule? I can see the lawsuits now; the government would be choosing who can and cannot bid on game rights.

You still would have to pay for cable to see many games, as you did 20 years ago.

Remember that any NFL games that are exclusive to cable or streaming are still available OTA in the teams’ home markets.

The increasing cost of cable is due in great part to increases in sports rights payments. Get rid of sports on cable and your bill will go down. This is why the RSN model is collapsing.
Click to expand...
Watch this from Florio.
 


Back
Top Bottom