Jump to content

Rogge says U.S. TV talks to begin soon


OneTimeOnly

Recommended Posts

LONDON (AP) - The long-delayed negotiations on Olympic television rights in the United States should begin by early next year, IOC president Jacques Rogge said Friday.

Rogge told The Associated Press that the International Olympic Committee is now ready to move because of signs of improvement in the U.S. economic situation and advertising market.

Rogge said he expects a half dozen media companies to bid for the lucrative rights and singled out Fox as a potential contender.

READ MORE

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

We already know IOC and Europe hates us, so I hope they lowball. And, the networks work together like US vs. Them. Give them like a $100 million, or set a ceiling and say no one will bid over $500 million. And say take it or leave it, I also hope Comcast is smart enough to tell that idiot Ebersol he doesn't have a blank check to spend a billion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do I have this feeling that the IOC hold their noses just long enough to take American money and run? Rogge talks about "good will" and tries to maintain the illusion of warmth and cordiality, but it feels like it's all a front. It looks like the IOC wants American money while sidelining all other American involvement as much as possible -- including not only future American bids, but American influence in the IOC and even American athletic dominance. A significant reallocation of funds will certainly have an effect on the latter. In an interview last year I remember Rogge referring to the U.S. as the most dominant medal-winning country "for the present." Something tells me he's pretty eager to see that change.... I'm glad I don't have to try to navigate through those waters on behalf of the USOC. Hopefully they have someone with a little more grace and a better poker face than me...

Link to post
Share on other sites

"It will take some time," Rogge said. "It's not going to be an easy discussion but there is good will on both sides to find a good solution. We want to find a win-win solution in the long term."

Rogge said a solution could help the U.S. chances of hosting the Olympics again. The revenue flap contributed to humbling defeats by New York and Chicago in bids for the 2012 and 2016 Games.

"We always welcome a good and strong American bid," Rogge said. "We know they can do it. To solve this money issue can only foster possibilities for the future."

"Ya aint nothing but a gold digger,

Ya aint messin' with no broke ******."

Link to post
Share on other sites

"It will take some time," Rogge said. "It's not going to be an easy discussion but there is good will on both sides to find a good solution. We want to find a win-win solution in the long term."

Rogge said a solution could help the U.S. chances of hosting the Olympics again. The revenue flap contributed to humbling defeats by New York and Chicago in bids for the 2012 and 2016 Games.

"We always welcome a good and strong American bid," Rogge said. "We know they can do it. To solve this money issue can only foster possibilities for the future."

I really wouldn't lay it entirely on Rogge's shoulders. I think he tries to be as neutral and as diplomatic as that post demands--but certainly more so than his predecessor who was such a blatant schemer and nepotist. Rogge (or whomever else it is in that position) has to say those things. And he speaks more sense that his counterpart in FIFA.

That's it, our American networks should lowball their bids; and I say the 6 American TOP sponsors (Visa, Coke, McDonalds, GE, Dow Jones, P&G) should be more patriotic than just bottom-line conscious. If they banded together, they could certainly pull out a U.S. win. THe key is in having THOSE SIX wear the flag on their sleeves!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

We already know IOC and Europe hates us, so I hope they lowball. And, the networks work together like US vs. Them. Give them like a $100 million, or set a ceiling and say no one will bid over $500 million. And say take it or leave it, I also hope Comcast is smart enough to tell that idiot Ebersol he doesn't have a blank check to spend a billion.

Ummm, you ever heard of a little thing called anti-trust legislation?

That's it, our American networks should lowball their bids; and I say the 6 American TOP sponsors (Visa, Coke, McDonalds, GE, Dow Jones, P&G) should be more patriotic than just bottom-line conscious. If they banded together, they could certainly pull out a U.S. win. THe key is in having THOSE SIX wear the flag on their sleeves!!

How many TOP sponsors are there in total?

P.S. It's Dow Chemical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the IOC Anti-American? I think it depends on the sport. In Olympic basketball, Anti-American sentiment from the IOC would mean the loss of relevancy for the sport in the games, speeding up the possible removal of the sport from the games, much in the same way baseball went away from the Summer Olympics. Nobody is going to want to watch a Team USA squad led by some relatively unknown b-baller from the NCAA level and a few D-Leaguers going up against a Spain team led by someone playing in a second level Euro league. In the lead up to the Beijing Olympics, the biggest international stars were the NBA guys, especially Kobe Bryant and LeBron James. The NBA guys were treated like rock stars everywhere they went in China. They even visited the Olympic Village, describing the scene there when they visited as crazy. Now, the IOC hears this and there's a huge smile across Rogge's face, most likely.

The IOC is playing nice to not tick off the USOC and the main American governing bodies of sports like Hockey and basketball. They tick off the USOC, they can forget ever seeing NBA players (or NHL players, depending on what happens with Sochi) in the Olympics ever again, therefore seeing Olympic basketball fading into relative obscurity. I say this because while the NBA is based in the United States, a majority of the teams that competed in the Olympic Basketball tournament had at least one NBA guy. Let's not forget all the talk of whether or not the NHL will return at Sochi, which Rogge hopes will happen.

After the Olympics wrapped up, American Swimmer Michael Phelps became the top athlete in the Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be interesting to see what happens with Universal Sports if NBC does not retain the Olympics bid, especially when it comes to lesser events in sports like swimming, gymnastics, track and field, volleyball, etc.

The contracts NBC has with the sporting federations has nothing to do with the the rights to televise the Olympic Games, so essentially nothing would happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm, you ever heard of a little thing called anti-trust legislation?

Not applicable, anti-trust regulation refers to collusion by sellers to set price or do something that's unfair due to market control, not consumers, or those who would be buyers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we are again.

The US Broadcasters and Partners (and the same applies to partners and broadcasters from every country) are not philanthropists. They pay the right to associate themselves with the Olympic Brand the amount they think it is worth. We shall see soon enough how much the TV rights for 2014-2016 are worth...

This attitude -"they hate us"- is typically the kind of attitude that won't bring back the Games to the US in a long time.

Thank god the USOC is finally smarter than that and is becoming to be much more present in the Olympic Movement than they had for the last 10 years.

As for the TOP, me thinks that the fact the two new American companies have recently joined proves that they are quite happy with what they get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rogge said a solution could help the U.S. chances of hosting the Olympics again. "We always welcome a good and strong American bid," Rogge said. "We know they can do it. To solve this money issue can only foster possibilities for the future."

As I have said multiple times - the IOC will ONLY come to the US for the money. Here Rogge himself says so...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not applicable, anti-trust regulation refers to collusion by sellers to set price or do something that's unfair due to market control, not consumers, or those who would be buyers.

I believe you are wrong in saying that it would not apply in all the networks got together to fix the price they would pay for the Games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you are wrong in saying that it would not apply in all the networks got together to fix the price they would pay for the Games.

Anti-trust regulation doesn't care about demand side, only supply side. For example if all the consumers across the country banded together and decided they will not pay more than $0.99 for a gallon of milk, the government can't say that's it everyone's going to prison, you're violating anti-trust regulation. Should the United States be the IOC's sugar daddy, but gets nothing in return even sugar daddy's get benefits. Everyone just hems and haws well that's the way the IOC works, nothing we can do about it. Sorry, I think they actively dislike and disrespect and work to undermine the US and the USOC, so hoping that they get punched in the face with a $100,000,000 contract for the game's rights in shitty places like Brazil and Russia, seems better to me than playing the game on their terms. They love the $$$ but they don't love us, so why should we keep giving them the $$$?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this, fellow Yanks? WHy don't we write, email or even open up a petition site for the 4 networks and the TOP six US companies NOT to kowtow to the IOC demands or they will face a boycott? Let us, the consumers, help them determine what is a reasonable sum for these Olympic follies!! We should also include the respective congresspeople, senators and governeros where those companies are HQTR'ed.

I think we have a few months headstart to get thru to these numbskulls. PM me if you want to get serious!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, not FOX.

Yep, because by the time Fox hosts, their entire primetime lineup will be nothing but animated shows created by Seth McFarlane.

And we really don't need Joe Buck or the creepy looking Kenny Albert doing commentary for Olympic events they know nothing about (of course, the same can be said about Buck and the NFL) or Kurt Menefee hosting a studio show from Rio. Knowing Fox, they'll also do the NBC route and have a football guy be a reporter for the Olympics, much like NBC did with Cris Collinsworth (although I think he does a good job there).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the IOC is talking Fox because

(1) they know NBC took a bath with Vancouver (and did NOT refund them any monies)

(2) that loss will be a consideration for NBC's new majority owners, Comcast, whne the next bidding round commences

(3) Fox ia Aussie-owned, so maybe any pressure on American networks would be less if Fox got pumped up.

So what they're saying is they're primed to start a new partnership with Fox if the usual Big 3 do NOT step up to the plate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am kind of torn, but I would say that I favor ABC/ESPN and Comcast/NBC over the others. I don't think the networks will strategize to low ball their offers, because who's to say that they will all abide by the same conditions? I most certainly do not want FOX to get it.

Who are the other bidders aside from CBS, FOX, ABC and NBC? Do you know if the IOC will choose their broadcaster before the revenue negotiations wrap up with the USOC or vice-versa?

I think the USOC should offer an olive branch to the IOC in terms of revenue sharing, but the relationship will most likely continue to remain sour. Rogge made it quite clear that the IOC essentially sees the USA just as a bunch of dollar signs, and nothing really more than that matters. At least that is my sentiment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-trust regulation doesn't care about demand side, only supply side. For example if all the consumers across the country banded together and decided they will not pay more than $0.99 for a gallon of milk, the government can't say that's it everyone's going to prison, you're violating anti-trust regulation. Should the United States be the IOC's sugar daddy, but gets nothing in return even sugar daddy's get benefits. Everyone just hems and haws well that's the way the IOC works, nothing we can do about it. Sorry, I think they actively dislike and disrespect and work to undermine the US and the USOC, so hoping that they get punched in the face with a $100,000,000 contract for the game's rights in shitty places like Brazil and Russia, seems better to me than playing the game on their terms. They love the $$$ but they don't love us, so why should we keep giving them the $$$?

You're still wrong: It's still Price Fixing. Prices can be fixed buy either buyers or sellers. In the situation you advocate, it would be price fixing by the buyers.

Price fixing is an agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product, service, or commodity only at a fixed price, or maintain the market conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and demand. The group of market makers involved in price fixing is sometimes referred to as a cartel.

The intent of price fixing may be to push the price of a product as high as possible, leading to profits for all sellers, but it may also have the goal to fix, peg, discount, or stabilize prices. The defining characteristic of price fixing is any agreement regarding price, whether expressed or implied.

Price fixing requires a conspiracy between sellers or buyers; the purpose is to coordinate pricing for mutual benefit of the traders. Sellers might agree to sell at a common target price; set a common minimum price; buy the product from a supplier at a specified maximum price;

WIkipedia Article on Price Fixing

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I suppose the agreement would have to be a gentleman's agreement with no documentation, however I doubt that many in the US would feel bad for the IOC, and any law suit that accuses the networks of anti-competitive behavior (because they agreed not to spend a billion dollars) would just bring bad PR to IOC, I doubt many American's considering the economy would feel bad for some shady self important European institution who has already in the past been awarded a multi-billion dollar contract. And consider how they've treated the country, they see the US as an ATM, or a money tree, and have no qualms about spitting in its face, while scratching the back of the European states.

So regardless of the legal status I'm a full supporter of the Television Networks of the United States screwing the IOC. I've never seen a Summer Olympics anywhere but NBC, and I saw one Winter Olympic games on CBS that I can remember, Fox did the BCS well and I have no problem with Fox Sports controlling the Olympic Games. If the IOC loves Fox so much why even go through the charade of bidding? I personally just think any network who spends more than a billion should be punished by the market, and hopefully they will especially after NBC-Universal lost $200,000,000 on Vancouver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the IOC loves Fox so much why even go through the charade of bidding?

Because that's the game the IOC (or any other organization or aspect) is best at.

Y should the process for the television rights be any different than the process for the bid cities.

Like anything else, it's just going through the motions so people can say that there was a 'process'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...