Jump to content

IOC to award US TV rights in June


Recommended Posts

Wow, I'm stunned right now, not just for the implications on the Olympics, but everything else within Comcast and the NBC Sports group. Unbelievable

I highly doubt it will have any affect on NBC Sports most successful venture: Sunday Night Football. There may be a minor tweak here or there and maybe changes to its pregame show, but nothing major. I don't think they would dump Al Michaels or Bob Costas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I guess someone should tell the IOC (who will try and convince you 2014/2016 is worth $2 billion) that propaganda doesn't work as well as they'd like. Again, this is where it helps to look at the revenues. NBC generated $302 million on Barcelona and then $476 on Atlanta. That's not a small increase. There was serious competition for the Atlanta bid (ABC topped out at $450 million, CBS went as high as $415 million), but the bids occurred after the fallout from Barcelona and I think it may have been over-sold just how big these Olympics were, especially coming just 12 years after L.A. I'm not old enough to remember those really well and it certainly wasn't for a lack of big ratings from Atlanta, but I don't think it was quite the 'event of the decade' as NBC tried to push on us for Beijing. In short.. yes, the price was low, but in retrospect, it looks like it was right on the money.

NBC lost $100 million on the Barcelona Olympics solely because of the Triplecast. Their $401 million bid for the 92 Olympics included $100 million for the Triplecast. The value of the rights minus the Triplecast was about $300 million. When the Triplecast flopped, NBC lost almost all of the money they had spent on it. Without the Triplecast, NBC would have made a very small profit on Barcelona--likely in the $2-5 million range.

The rights fees for Atlanta didn't top the $500 million mark because of ACOG's incompetence. The IOC had advised ACOG to wait until 1994 to start the bidding for TV rights, but ACOG needed the money and forced the IOC to start the bidding in 1993. Before the bidding began, ACOG made a serious of ridiculous demands and refused to allow the IOC to be involved in most of the contract language. As a result, the U.S. networks refused to bid, and ACOG had no choice but to allow the IOC to control the process. By the time the networks came back to the table, ABC Sports had a new president (Dennis Swanson) who was literally in his first week on the job, and they were not prepared to make a bid in the $500 million range. Dick Pound even encouraged ABC to bid higher after the final NBC bid, but ABC wasn't able to offer any more money, and the IOC had to go with the NBC bid. If ACOG had allowed the IOC to control the process from the start, they probably would have gotten the $500 million from either NBC or ABC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rights fees for Atlanta didn't top the $500 million mark because of ACOG's incompetence. The IOC had advised ACOG to wait until 1994 to start the bidding for TV rights, but ACOG needed the money and forced the IOC to start the bidding in 1993. Before the bidding began, ACOG made a serious of ridiculous demands and refused to allow the IOC to be involved in most of the contract language. As a result, the U.S. networks refused to bid, and ACOG had no choice but to allow the IOC to control the process. By the time the networks came back to the table, ABC Sports had a new president (Dennis Swanson) who was literally in his first week on the job, and they were not prepared to make a bid in the $500 million range. Dick Pound even encouraged ABC to bid higher after the final NBC bid, but ABC wasn't able to offer any more money, and the IOC had to go with the NBC bid. If ACOG had allowed the IOC to control the process from the start, they probably would have gotten the $500 million from either NBC or ABC.

Interesting. Well, I thot the ACOG boys had more big-city sophistication than they were credited with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NBC lost $100 million on the Barcelona Olympics solely because of the Triplecast. Their $401 million bid for the 92 Olympics included $100 million for the Triplecast. The value of the rights minus the Triplecast was about $300 million. When the Triplecast flopped, NBC lost almost all of the money they had spent on it. Without the Triplecast, NBC would have made a very small profit on Barcelona--likely in the $2-5 million range.

You can't really breakdown the figures that way and separate the Triplecast from the rest of NBC's coverage. NBC paid $401 million for the rights to the `92 Olympics. It didn't "include" the Triplecast. NBC decided to partner with Cablevision and create the Triplecast (similar to how CBS partnered with Turner to offset costs) in order to try and generate more revenue. It's not like NBC spent $300 million on their portion of the coverage and would have broken even without the Triplecast. If they thought that was the case, they wouldn't have gone that route in the first place and risked as much as they did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't really breakdown the figures that way and separate the Triplecast from the rest of NBC's coverage. NBC paid $401 million for the rights to the `92 Olympics. It didn't "include" the Triplecast. NBC decided to partner with Cablevision and create the Triplecast (similar to how CBS partnered with Turner to offset costs) in order to try and generate more revenue. It's not like NBC spent $300 million on their portion of the coverage and would have broken even without the Triplecast. If they thought that was the case, they wouldn't have gone that route in the first place and risked as much as they did.

The Triplecast was included in NBC's bid when they won the rights in 1989. NBC and Cablevision had decided to partner before the bid, and NBC anticipated $100 million in revenue from the Triplecast. That's why they bid $401 million--NBC would not have bid that much in the first place without the Triplecast plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Triplecast was included in NBC's bid when they won the rights in 1989. NBC and Cablevision had decided to partner before the bid, and NBC anticipated $100 million in revenue from the Triplecast. That's why they bid $401 million--NBC would not have bid that much in the first place without the Triplecast plan.

Well, they also bid $401 million because they thought the next highest bid would be $400 million.. gee, why does that sound so familiar.

NBC shifted the $100 million to Cablevision after they won the bid, but again, you can't say "the value of the rights minus the Triplecast" because $300 million wouldn't have been the winning bid. CBS would have won out then and who knows what they would have done in terms of cable coverage. Who knows what the Cablevision deal did to their bidding price, and yes, we know what happened from there, but that separation of the NBC money and the Triplecast money occurred after the bidding, not before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting news out of the Fox camp...

Fox Sports on 2014 and 2016 Olympics: We'd show 'everything live'

I'm intrigued by this. The only thing that seems a little odd is the last paragraph where it says Eric Shanks (Fox Sports president) isn't worried about other outlets showing Olympic highlights after they've aired live on Fox. Maybe I'm continuing to drink the Ebersol kool-aid, but I think that's a pretty big concern.

Either way, Fox has laid down the gauntlet that they would NOT follow the Roone Arledge/Dick Ebersol formula. Let's see if they have the money and the desire to win out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting news out of the Fox camp...

Fox Sports on 2014 and 2016 Olympics: We'd show 'everything live'

I'm intrigued by this. The only thing that seems a little odd is the last paragraph where it says Eric Shanks (Fox Sports president) isn't worried about other outlets showing Olympic highlights after they've aired live on Fox. Maybe I'm continuing to drink the Ebersol kool-aid, but I think that's a pretty big concern.

Either way, Fox has laid down the gauntlet that they would NOT follow the Roone Arledge/Dick Ebersol formula. Let's see if they have the money and the desire to win out.

I wonder if they'll get higher viewer #s with this crazy scheme of theirs. I just hate it when they cut away from crucial volleyball matches to some ENDLESS cycling race or another field hockey match...

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if Fox wins, which sport will Joe Buck be doing?

For the Winter Olympics.. none. He's calling the Super Bowl 5 days before the Opening Ceremony, so it's questionable whether or not they'll send him to Sochi at all. For Rio, I have no idea, although I imagine they'd put him in a host role. Should also be noted that Gus Johnson has done track and field before for CBS, so I bet you he'd be their guy in Rio if Fox has that Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be the theme for when Fox hosts the Olympics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20v9Enadnq0

Since they have said that is now the universal theme for Fox Sports. They played it during the Champions League final today.

That's disgusting. I hope Fox never comes within a million miles of ever broadcasting an Olympic Games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've read that Fox was absolutely slaughtered for their coverage of the Champions League Final last night. Apparently it was very dumbed-down and lots of people saying that's a great shame because ESPN did a brilliant job of presenting soccer to US audiences at last year's World Cup without being patronising or constantly comparing it to Grid-Iron.

I do feel lucky that we have the BBC. They're not perfect, but we will be getting every hour of sport at London 2012 broadcast - 5,800 hours of content across their two main TV channels, their website, and their interactive services.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've read that Fox was absolutely slaughtered for their coverage of the Champions League Final last night. Apparently it was very dumbed-down and lots of people saying that's a great shame because ESPN did a brilliant job of presenting soccer to US audiences at last year's World Cup without being patronising or constantly comparing it to Grid-Iron.

I do feel lucky that we have the BBC. They're not perfect, but we will be getting every hour of sport at London 2012 broadcast - 5,800 hours of content across their two main TV channels, their website, and their interactive services.

I happened to catch like the last 10 mins of play...and granted it's not the World Cup nor were there any star US players on either team, but I thot it was OK. And it's probably only ex-pats and die-hard MLS fans in the US who were seriously following the game. It didn't mean a single thing to me...other to see the good Spanish players on the field again...in an atrocious uniform no LESS!! Then of course, Fox must've been using the "world feed," so the way it's covered is NOT any network's fault. There were TOO MANY freakin' commercials for brands I hate and DON'T buy!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, let me clarify that comment; they were annoyed at the pre-match, half-time, and post-match anlaysis which was apparently pretty patronising. The pictures would have come from the World Feed I guess, though I don't know what commentary you would have got.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, let me clarify that comment; they were annoyed at the pre-match, half-time, and post-match anlaysis which was apparently pretty patronising. The pictures would have come from the World Feed I guess, though I don't know what commentary you would have got.

Didn't catch any of those. Guess didn't miss much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suspect that whoever wins the American TV rights will spend a lot of production time during Sochi and Rio heavily promoting 95% of the American athletes to the casual fans. I say 95% due to the fact that two sports have athletes already well known to the casual fans: Hockey and basketball. Fox or ABC/ESPN will devote more time profiling someone like Track athlete Allyson Felix, Snowboarder Hannah Teter or Swimmer Rebecca Soni than they would Sidney Crosby or LeBron James. That is one thing that won't change I would think. The last thing that American fans need is a full in depth profiles of the Olympic basketball and Olympic hockey players. ALso, they probably won't profile some of the tennis players either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suspect that whoever wins the American TV rights will spend a lot of production time during Sochi and Rio heavily promoting 95% of the American athletes to the casual fans. I say 95% due to the fact that two sports have athletes already well known to the casual fans: Hockey and basketball. Fox or ABC/ESPN will devote more time profiling someone like Track athlete Allyson Felix, Snowboarder Hannah Teter or Swimmer Rebecca Soni than they would Sidney Crosby or LeBron James. That is one thing that won't change I would think. The last thing that American fans need is a full in depth profiles of the Olympic basketball and Olympic hockey players. ALso, they probably won't profile some of the tennis players either.

I don't know I'd say it will be 95% American. If there's a big name foreign athlete (think Kim Yu-Na or Usain Bolt), the networks will give them some attention. NBC has gotten better over the years at focusing less on just the big name Americans and spreading the wealth a little bit. Of course, you won't see big profile pieces on athletes in more familiar sports like hockey or basketball or tennis. What I think we will see though if ESPN gets the Olympics is a focus more on male-oriented sports. Remember also they're a rights holder for the NBA, so I could see the basketball tournament in Rio being a big deal for them (probably bigger than it should be. Even still, there's no reason to focus on a Sidney Crosby or a LeBron James. We see those guys often enough that them competing in the Olympics, especially that they're in team sports, isn't worth that much attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know I'd say it will be 95% American. If there's a big name foreign athlete (think Kim Yu-Na or Usain Bolt), the networks will give them some attention. NBC has gotten better over the years at focusing less on just the big name Americans and spreading the wealth a little bit. Of course, you won't see big profile pieces on athletes in more familiar sports like hockey or basketball or tennis. What I think we will see though if ESPN gets the Olympics is a focus more on male-oriented sports. Remember also they're a rights holder for the NBA, so I could see the basketball tournament in Rio being a big deal for them (probably bigger than it should be. Even still, there's no reason to focus on a Sidney Crosby or a LeBron James. We see those guys often enough that them competing in the Olympics, especially that they're in team sports, isn't worth that much attention.

True. If someone like Kim and Usain are present, the networks will give them some attention. And seeing as how ESPN is the rights holder for the NBA, this will be the likely theme music they use for the basketball coverage:

I find it very interesting that Men's Olympic Ice Hockey and Men's Olympic Basketball are competitive, although Olympic Hockey is pretty much an international tournament of NHL All Stars and Men's Olympic Basketball is an international tournament of NBA All Stars. And yet, over on the womens side of both sports, the competition is very much one sided. I noticed during the Vancouver games last year, there were zero features on the Men's Hockey players (and with good reason). Tennis is also a sport that doesn't get a lot of attention at the Olympics due to the fact that we've seen a lot of these Tennis stars before. It's going to be the same way with golf, assuming of course the big names in golf want to compete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...