Sports on cable TV: Will you have to pay more?

[spaceman_spiff]

Check this article from USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2003-10-08-cable_x.htm

Excerpt:
Sports channels, grouped in a tier, might cost $5 to $10 extra a month. But ESPN is adamant. Since TV sports is a perishable commodity that needs to reach the broadest possible audience immediately, it must remain on basic cable.

ESPN's Durso counters that cable operators typically enjoy 40% profit margins. They charge about $40 monthly for basic cable, but only about 25% of that fee goes towards paying for programming.

[57U]

Gimme a break "sports is needed on basic cable". If someone were to argue that some more intellectual programming is required, or that you got rid of all of the "trash TV", then I'd agree, but "Sports is necessary" - bull.

[spaceman_spiff]

I agree 57.

[kevinw]

Interesting paradox ESPN wants to be a basic channel but charge the provider a premium rate.
Talk about full of themselves. They are basically the CNN of sports with limited viewer live events added in. If it was not for the partnership with ABC the programming would be small market. Would any one REALLY miss ESPN?

I

[hancox]

When college basketball season rolls around, I would be on my deathbed without ESPN. My Huskies are on 10 TIMES this year!

[kojak light]

Programming costs are ridiculous! and ESPN is the worst offender.

Comcasts pays more money in programming fees than they do in salaries and benefits- about $4.2 billion.

Here is how the costs breakout:

Basic channels: 42%
Sports channels: 29%
Digital channels: 10%
Pay channels: 19%

So 30% of the cost goes to cover ESPN, and a few regional channels.

I'd be surprised if within 5 years ESPN wasn't moved to a premium status...