The Looming bankruptcy of Sinclair sports networks

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

The production of the game can be separate from the distribution. The demand for consuming sports in the comfort of your home, or wherever you are, is not going down IMO. The manner in which it will be distributed is changing as others have articulated very well.

As long as there are distribution channels that consumers are willing to pay for, there will be people who will produce the games for a price.

Oh for sure. But Sinclair is on the hook for $1.77 billion USD in rights payments next year, plus the cost of producing the games. If, after a trip through bankruptcy, some of those get reduced, the economics of sports will change dramatically. I think its 100% likely the value of the broadcasts will still cover the cost of making them. But the value of the broadcasts might not cover the same huge-and-growing payment streams the leagues/players have gotten used to.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by dino7c

This is what I am saying and it would matter IMO...who is going to produce games regionally in the US? Is there money in it?

I have my doubts

What I foresee happening (and I'm actually surprised hasn't already happened) is the league taking over the production of the broadcasts and distributing a single video feed like the Olympics does. Then, the local/regional broadcaster could just put their own branding over the feed with their local announcers and a locally-produced intermission show.

With instant replay being an integral part of the rules of the game, every game needs to have roughly the same video coverage available. With the giant HD (or better) scoreboards in every rink, the in-house production teams are already producing a full tv broadcast for the 18,000+ in attendance every game, so the next logical step is just to standardize the productions and provide them as a package to whoever has the distribution rights. That would work whether it's ESPN, NBC, YouTube, Hulu or something that hasn't even been invented yet.

[Deegee]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Does anyone subscribe to DAZN? It seems extravagant but I always used to watch the EPL. What other networks or services carry EPL?

I do and love it. Would never not have it now as long as the NFL stays on it.

[DJones]

NHL will be fine, just need to move to non exclusive deals.

Blackouts are just ridiculous.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The Spanish flu was easier to contain? That's a hot take.

Things will go back to normal. And rumours of the death of professional sports are greatly exaggerated.

Thanks for setting it straight.

CP lol. What a dumpster fire this place has become.

Too bad. It used to be a neat place for honest discussion. So many people just looking to throw daggers at others now.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Calling it a dumpster fire will surely help!

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Corral

Thanks for setting it straight.

CP lol. What a dumpster fire this place has become.

Too bad. It used to be a neat place for honest discussion. So many people just looking to throw daggers at others now.

It is you that keeps throwing daggers, taking shots at CP because the majority of posters don't agree with your, usually extreme, and always extremely negative, takes.

[TheKurgan]

I cancelled my cable and went fully streaming back in March. DAZN is well worth the $20 per month during the NFL season (or yearly if your a big Euro sports fan) and I have Sportsnet NOW on a yearly subscription ($200 for the year).

As long as you have a decent internet package its the way to go.

[Monahammer]

Delete

[Beatle17]

I am so confused by this whole thing. Sinclair Sports is getting more back from leagues than they have to rebate to cable companies. And this article said they made a ton of money in 2020 so how are they going bancrupt?

https://www.mediapost.com/publicatio...nue-remai.html

[Party Elephant]

Originally Posted by Corral

Thanks for setting it straight.



CP lol. What a dumpster fire this place has become.



Too bad. It used to be a neat place for honest discussion. So many people just looking to throw daggers at others now.

I've been posting on this board for like 7 years now and one thing that has always been present is the odd whiner complaining about how this place used to be cool

[1991 Canadian]

I feel like nobody on the industry side has stopped and asked “what are the medium term impacts of maximizing short term sports revenue”?

Sports franchises/leagues have been more than happy to see tv deals skyrocket in value. Sports broadcasters like Sinclair have historically seen good advertising / cable carriage cost returns on these deals so have been happy to pay. Cable companies recognized that sports fans are going to be the last of the cord cutters so they seem content paying $5-7 a month for a sports channel to be in their cable packages.

I could make the argument that their greed is going to screw all of them in the long run.

Sports teams are losing the next generation of fans because their product is not as accessible and affordable as the competition (E-sports, Youtube, Netflix, Non-American sports streaming)
Sports broadcaster are stuck with expensive contracts that they cannot make a profit from
Cable companies are losing their subscriber base because they have tied themselves to carrying overpriced sports channels

There is a naïve belief that consumers will be continually content with increased sports costs and an even naiver belief that young people will just magically become sports fans.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by 1991 Canadian

I feel like nobody on the industry side has stopped and asked “what are the medium term impacts of maximizing short term sports revenue”?

Sports franchises/leagues have been more than happy to see tv deals skyrocket in value. Sports broadcasters like Sinclair have historically seen good advertising / cable carriage cost returns on these deals so have been happy to pay. Cable companies recognized that sports fans are going to be the last of the cord cutters so they seem content paying $5-7 a month for a sports channel to be in their cable packages.

I could make the argument that their greed is going to screw all of them in the long run.

Sports teams are losing the next generation of fans because their product is not as accessible and affordable as the competition (E-sports, Youtube, Netflix, Non-American sports streaming)
Sports broadcaster are stuck with expensive contracts that they cannot make a profit from
Cable companies are losing their subscriber base because they have tied themselves to carrying overpriced sports channels

There is a naïve belief that consumers will be continually content with increased sports costs and an even naiver belief that young people will just magically become sports fans.

This is a big thing.

I used to be a big boxing fan. Watched Tyson, Holyfield and that era on TV, and it was always a big draw in the household of my friends. All us kids would watch and then talk about for the next week. Around the time of Lennox Lewis things started to go to PPV, and it became more cumbersome to watch.

These days, I don't know who most of the players are, and when a PPV for WBC Champion Slev Poinkers vs. interim CBYD Champion Poink Slevers is the next big thing, I for sure don't tune in.

Kids, with no frame of reference, probably don't even consider boxing a sport.

If there starts to be rumblings of big sports television having to restructure, like this Sinclair bankruptcy, I'm holding out some sliver of hope that a big player will clean up the cesspool that is boxing.

Turner Broadcasting, or someone of that ilk, coming in and creating a true rating system, focusing on a league system (one major belt, and two minor belts to build a 'up and coming' system of deciding contenders. Win the major belt and vacate the minor. Something of that nature.) to push out the multiple governing body system. Put everything on television. Promote the hell out of it. Kill the PPV system, except for the once or twice a year Boxomania.

A big boy could come in a kill the corruption, save the sport, and fill some of the void left by the crumbling major sports viewership.

...

Sorry, that went off on a tangent I didn't expect.
If you can't readily see the product, kids just won't care.

[nfotiu]

https://www.barrettsportsmedia.com/2...-rsn-sale/amp/

It looks like Sinclair is going to try to get rid of these.

The only thing that could make any sense is for the teams to buy them at a big discount. Teams can take them on, and have a soft landing as subscribers wind down vs losing their tv deals altogether if they go bankrupt.

This has the potential to be a seismic shift for mlb and nhl as there are many teams who get a very large portion of their revenues from RSNs.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

#### Sinclair Broadcasting with a recently-felled redwood tree.

And ironically, anal.

[nfotiu]

Looks like the inevitable result of all of this is the leagues and teams will own what's left of Sinclairs RSNs. These cover the majority of US based NHL teams.

https://nypost.com/2022/09/20/mlb-nb...works-sources/

Now, insiders say Diamond might fetch $3 billion including its debt, which is currently trading at a heavily-discounted $2 billion. Sinclair is expected to propose giving over Diamond’s equity to creditors who would then sell most of the operation to MLB, the NBA and the NHL while Diamond retains a minority stake in the business, the sources said.

“They will offer it to all three leagues,” one source close to the talks said. “There is a reasonable likelihood this will all happen. That’s where this is heading.”

If a deal isn’t reached in what is being described as a “grand solution,” there is a growing possibility creditors — mostly hedge funds that have scooped up Diamond’s distressed debt — could force Diamond and its Bally RSNs into bankruptcy in the next three to six months, sources said.

While Diamond does have the cash on hand to survive through next year, it is technically insolvent and creditors could soon force it into bankruptcy, sources close to the situation said.

“I believe Diamond is getting pressure from hedge funds to call the liquidation question early,” a source close to Diamond opined.

Diamond has been telling the leagues in recent days if it goes bankrupt it will be able to keep broadcasting games, but will not need to pay teams their rights fees as it will have protection from creditors, sources close to the talks said.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

until the day of the big game when you get nothing but buffering and you have a few in your living room

With streaming, there are always backup options if you have an outage and you search around the net.

At the end of the day cable sports is also streaming if you actually think about it.

Many online streams use H.264/MPEG-4 over https in your browser. The ATSC standard for cable HDTV is MPEG-2 or H.264/MPEG-4 also. You are just getting the bits from servers relayed through the cable TV portion of your ISP's network rather than the internet portion of the network. Both are compressed and both are contingent on your ISPs servers and networking as its all digital. It's the same damn thing.

[dobbles]

Took me quite a few posts to realize this was an old thread. Started wondering why everyone was so obsessed with COVID!

There was a lot of talk about the death of sports, and while that I think is pretty far fetched any time soon, I think there was a bit of valuable talk about how regional sports networks were propped up for a long time thanks to cable. I really think sports have gotten so money hungry and developed an unhealthy obsession with trying to grow revenue regardless of downside.