Jump to content

Rogge says U.S. TV talks to begin soon


OneTimeOnly

Recommended Posts

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

But (1) if it's "blind" bidding, as it will be--then how can that be called 'collusion'?

(2) Even if such a 'charge' were to stay, if the negotiations and contracts are signed OUTSIDE the U.S., then like the 'bribery and graft' charges filed vs. the two Salt Lake men, they won't stick because they were done in the int'l arena--outside U.S. jurisdiction. Further, any 'sudden enrichment' charges (which would be part of a price-fixing scheme because it unjustly enriches someone) would make a certain party liable. And Certainly not the networks but the...IOC.

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

One has to think what the USOC thinks of the broadcast rights bidding process. Let's keep in mind they have benefited from the exorbitant amounts paid to the IOC, as they receive a percentage of the pie as well. The higher the price for broadcast rights, the more room they have to take a smaller percentage in their negotiations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Let's be realistic about what the Fox shout-out means. We know Comcast/NBC is interested in bidding. We know Disney/ESPN is very interested. CBS probably would be interested, but it cost them billions to retain the rights to the NCAA Tournament, so they're probably out, but who knows. But with Fox, all I'm reading into this is Rogge trying to increase the competition in order to up the ante for Comcast and Disney. I still consider Fox a distant 3rd in the running and unless they have a giant pile of money laying around somewhere that we don't know about, I don't see them winning this.

The IOC may be a crooked political organization as we know, but they're not completely stupid. This isn't like 2003 when there was only 1 network stupid enough to think they'd need a $2 billion to win the rights for 2010/2012. Now there's much more legitimate competition out there, so I just don't see the IOC saying "hey, Fox seems like they'll work, let's take whatever they offer us." They'll hear out all the proposals and decide who generates the most money for them, simple as that. Remember also.. part of the reason why NBC lost a ton of money on Vancouver (aside from the fact that they foolishly thought they'd need to bid $2 billion to beat the field) is that they tried to project in 2003 what the economy would be like in 2010. Yea, that didn't work out so well for them. This time, instead of 7 years in advance, we're probably only looking at 2-3 years in advance. And given that the economy hasn't rebounded yet and doesn't look like it will anytime soon, the bids will be a lot more cautious.

In the end, I still see Comcast/NBC winning this one, probably at a price of around $1.8 billion for 2014 and 2016. I agree it would be great for American companies and TV networks to screw the IOC over and low-ball them with their offers, but I just don't see that happening.

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!!

How many people do you think would actually care? They aren't afraid of losing 10 olympics geeks who are passionate about IOC politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

here's hoping Disney/ABC/ESPN get the nod.

That would be good. I'd love to see Jeff Van Gundy and Mark Jackson get into a heated debate during Olympic Basketball, as they do during the NBA season. The downside would be that they would use Stuart Scott and Chris Berman. And Jim Gray would obviously be used by ESPN to follow LeBron James every move during the Olympics. The resources they would use would use would be grand though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're NOT going to match NBC's foolishness. I really wonder if Comcast will allow Ebersole's team to be just as foolish it has been the past 2 decades.

I actually just read an article, though I can't recall where, that said that one of Comcast's key goals is winning the 2014 and 2016 games again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I guess the $223 million bath from Vancouver didn't really hurt the bottom line then.

This isn't the exact article I read, but, it's a good one:

NBC Universal-Comcast prep Olympic bid

3:44am EDT

By Andrew Wallenstein

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Rest assured that NBC Universal and its new owner Comcast will shake the playing field in the multibillion-dollar world of televised sports rights. But what remains to be seen is what's the game plan and who's the coach as negotiations begin for U.S. Olympic broadcast rights and the conglomerate mounts a strategy to challenge ESPN.

NBC Universal Sports & Olympics chairman Dick Ebersol seems well-positioned to take control of a considerable arsenal of assets, showing no signs of lowering his profile during the weekend at the U.S. Olympics Assembly in Colorado Springs. But while Comcast CEO Brian Roberts already has praised Ebersol, NBC Universal president and CEO Jeff Zucker also saw some predeal flattery, and that didn't exactly ensure his long-term job security.

With Ebersol likely in the driver's seat, it's certain Comcast will look for NBC Universal to extend its Olympics rights into 2014 and 2016.

READ MORE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I guess the $223 million bath from Vancouver didn't really hurt the bottom line then.

It probably hurt the bottom line a lot. Doesn't mean NBC/Comcast can't learn from it and still profit from bidding on 2014/2016. Nothing that happened from moment NBC signed the contract could have prevented them from losing money. Bad business decision 7 years before the fact? Absolutely. But NBC could have bid $1.4 billion and won 2010/2012 and had the economy not collapsed on all of us, NBC would have made millions off Vancouver. As it is, the fact that NBC announced how much they lost.. think maybe that's somewhat of a political ploy to drive the price down? How pissed off must the IOC be that they didn't put together a rights deal for 2014/2016 before the economy collapsed. I don't think we'll ever see advance negotiations like NBC has pulled off in the past for a long long time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the article, OTO.

But in the end, it doesn't say much...maybe yes, maybe no. Kinda like Soaring... ;)

What'll make Sochi attractive for a US network is if there was a reigning American singles ice queen...which since Johnette Weird ( :lol::lol: ) retired from comepetitive skating...is empty. Maybe Mirai Nagasu will start to shine this coming season and if she (and another US man and pairs or ice-dance couple can be on top), that'll make Sochi quite attractive. Rio will be even more attractive than London because of its favorable time zone.

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...

It's the US networks who pay the premium (as welcome as it is by the IOC) and then expect the IOC to bend over backwards to benefit them. Really to expect the games to come over to the US whenever they want them is to not understand the Olympics at all - and all that's happening now is the IOC is staying away because the Americans got too greedy in getting two games in 12 years - and naturally now that time has to pass until the time is right for them to return to the US.

And frankly, that time isn't too far away - I certainly look far more favourably now on the idea of the games returning to the US in 2024/28 than I ever did for the 2012/2016 bids, which would have been the third games in a generation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the US networks who pay the premium (as welcome as it is by the IOC) and then expect the IOC to bend over backwards to benefit them. Really to expect the games to come over to the US whenever they want them is to not understand the Olympics at all - and all that's happening now is the IOC is staying away because the Americans got too greedy in getting two games in 12 years - and naturally now that time has to pass until the time is right for them to return to the US.

And frankly, that time isn't too far away - I certainly look far more favourably now on the idea of the games returning to the US in 2024/28 than I ever did for the 2012/2016 bids, which would have been the third games in a generation.

/\ /\ Correct perspective, Brekki Boy. /\

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the US networks who pay the premium (as welcome as it is by the IOC) and then expect the IOC to bend over backwards to benefit them. Really to expect the games to come over to the US whenever they want them is to not understand the Olympics at all - and all that's happening now is the IOC is staying away because the Americans got too greedy in getting two games in 12 years - and naturally now that time has to pass until the time is right for them to return to the US.

And frankly, that time isn't too far away - I certainly look far more favourably now on the idea of the games returning to the US in 2024/28 than I ever did for the 2012/2016 bids, which would have been the third games in a generation.

I agree with your perspective on the 2012 and 2016 bids. They were both too soon. I also agree that Lake Placid, LA, Atlanta, and Salt Lake were an unprecedented bonanza that fueled unrealistic expectations.

I don't believe that the U.S.' financial contribution to the IOC constitutes any "entitlement" to host the Games.

My post was not limited to the issue of hosting. I am looking at a bigger picture that includes multiple issues, such as the manner of Chicago's first round exit, negatively slanted evaluation reports, the marginalization of American influence within the IOC, and even the elimination of baseball and softball. The IOC doesn't owe the U.S. the Games every couple of decades, but they do owe the United States a little more respect. Similarly, the U.S. needs to relate to the IOC respectfully. Obviously the USOC has failed miserably in that regard in the past. Currently, I see a good faith effort from the USOC -- granted, this must be sustained. It can't just be a flash-in-the-pan. I hope the IOC responds in kind and isn't just haggling for a hand-out.

Regarding the issue of future hosting, I get the impression that the IOC would like to keep the Olympics as far away from the U.S. as possible. Rogge usually sounds like he's choking on his own words every time he tries to be diplomatic about the U.S. hosting again. If I thought the IOC would give the U.S. a fair shot at 2024 or 2028, I would be much less frustrated about these financial negotiations. My feeling is that the IOC would prefer to marginalize the U.S. as much as possible by trying to "placate" the Americans with Youth Games or, if necessary, a Winter Games. I have the sense that they would prefer to postpone American Summer Games as long as possible and that is disturbing to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably an unfounded fear. That time is pretty much passing, and it was with good reason the will wasn't there for the 2012/16 bids.

Things are moving on though, and though not a certainty, a good bid from the US would have a good chance of succeeding now, but it's possibly come to the point now that like the rest of the world, only the US's biggest cities can really make a play for the games. There are a few other boxes the IOC might like to tick given the opportunity (notably South Africa, while I think Madrid is an inevitability too), but get the city right and the timing right (LA32 anybody?) and the US is always in contention of hosting.

Back to the issue of rights and obviously Rio is very favourable to the US networks - and as I and I'm sure others said during the campaign, the easy choice for the IOC in enabling them to have the games in the US timezone without having them back in the US just 20 years after Atlanta.

I do wonder though if just offering one cycle at a time is the wisest move - I'd have thought any network who won the rights from NBC for the 2016 games would like to ensure their first summer games aren't their last.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the issue of rights and obviously Rio is very favourable to the US networks - and as I and I'm sure others said during the campaign, the easy choice for the IOC in enabling them to have the games in the US timezone without having them back in the US just 20 years after Atlanta.

I do wonder though if just offering one cycle at a time is the wisest move - I'd have thought any network who won the rights from NBC for the 2016 games would like to ensure their first summer games aren't their last.

Clearly the IOC wanted to go in another direction after all the pre-emptive strikes by NBC that essentially killed off the possibility of any competition. With Fox a much more serious player, CBS potentially in the mix (although I think their NCAA Tournament deal may have knocked them out of this one), and Disney/ESPN ready to push NBC for 2014/16, the IOC probably felt it better not to just accept the first offer from NBC.

That said, the IOC killed themselves by not getting a deal done before 2007 before the US economy started to collapse. That's why they're waiting so long now, the hopes that the economy will improve and the networks will be able to spend more serious money (as it is, I don't think it will take $2 billion to win the rights for 2014/16). I think we've seen the last of the long-term deals in the not-too-distant future.

1 other factor to consider all this.. The NFL is toying with the idea of expanding their regular season schedule to 18 games starting in 2012. What that means is that it would likely push the Super Bowl back 2 weeks, potentially putting it right in the middle of the Sochi games in 2014. There was a long thread on an NFL board I post on stating this isn't as big a deal as it seems and that the NFL couldn't care less about going up against the IOC like that. I disagree with that assessment. I think that if the NFL makes that decision and announces the Super Bowl will take place during the Olympics, you can probably drop ESPN from consideration, and possibly Fox as well (they're scheduled to cover the 2014 Super Bowl, clearly they'd need to switch out of that).

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 other factor to consider all this.. The NFL is toying with the idea of expanding their regular season schedule to 18 games starting in 2012. What that means is that it would likely push the Super Bowl back 2 weeks, potentially putting it right in the middle of the Sochi games in 2014. There was a long thread on an NFL board I post on stating this isn't as big a deal as it seems and that the NFL couldn't care less about going up against the IOC like that. I disagree with that assessment. I think that if the NFL makes that decision and announces the Super Bowl will take place during the Olympics, you can probably drop ESPN from consideration, and possibly Fox as well (they're scheduled to cover the 2014 Super Bowl, clearly they'd need to switch out of that).

Would the advertisers and the IOC's advertising consultants allow this to happen? I mean right after the Super Bowl, the WOGs, then you have March Madness... And Coke and Anheseur-Busch, etc., have only so many advertising $$ to spend; so I would think the top advertising industry honchos would not allow this to happen somehow. Maybe the NFL will start their season earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the advertisers and the IOC's advertising consultants allow this to happen? I mean right after the Super Bowl, the WOGs, then you have March Madness... And Coke and Anheseur-Busch, etc., have only so many advertising $$ to spend; so I would think the top advertising industry honchos would not allow this to happen somehow. Maybe the NFL will start their season earlier.

Love to get a more objective and not so much as "nothing is bigger than the NFL" response like that here. The NFL determined a few years ago that the ratings for games played on Labor Day or earlier don't draw as well, so the NFL avoids starting their season until the week after Labor Day, and I think part of their plan is to have the Super Bowl on President's Day Weekend. What happens in an Olympic year I don't know, but it seems like a total lose-lose situation for everyone involved in the Super Bowl is held during the Olympics because in a good year, the NFL can count on somewhere around a 43-44 rating for the Super Bowl. Drop 5 points to a 38 rating (which the Olympics could do, even from a European time zone), and that's a historic low for them, so it would make the NFL look a little worse for the wear.

As for the advertisers, I thought the exact same thing you did. Obviously certain companies have spent money on a lot of the big events, but if a later Super Bowl threatens to hurt the bottom line of TOP sponsors like Coca-Cola and Visa, would they consider dropping their NFL sponsorships as a result? Would the IOC pressure any company who does business with the NFL to tell them to screw off? NFL fans don't seem to appreciate how big and powerful the IOC is and while the NFL can crush every other sports league in this country, they're looking for an International presence, and I could absolutely seeing the IOC take steps to kill their efforts.

To Brekkie's point, I'm not sure if common sense would prevail, but I can make 1 prediction. A lot of NFL fans who weighed in on the subject have said why can't the Winter Olympics just move to get out of the way of the Super Bowl, which I find laughable. But if this turns into a game of chicken and 1 organization has to swerve to avoid the other, it'll be the NFL that moves long before they get the IOC to budge, and I know on this forum I probably won't get any objection to that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...