Latest news with #PatrickCrakes
New York Times
03-07-2025
- Sport
- New York Times
Will the NFL ever offer ‘Sunday Ticket' on a single-team basis? Sports Media Mailbag (Part 2!)
Welcome to the 42nd Media Mailbag for The Athletic. Thanks for sending in your questions via the website and app. There were nearly 100 questions, so this was a two-parter. Part 1 ran Tuesday. As a Jets fan who lives in Pennsylvania, the only way to watch all Jets games is to purchase a very expensive full NFL TV package. While I purchase single-team packages to watch the Mets, Knicks and Rangers for a reasonable annual fee, I skip watching NFL football on Sunday afternoons in the fall. Any chance the NFL will ever implement a single-team option that provides all the games for one team at a fair price? Great question. I personally don't think there's any chance the NFL would do that because the scarcity of the product is what drives the billions paid by the media rights holders. But I wanted to get someone who has worked at the networks for insight, so I forwarded your question to Patrick Crakes, a former Fox Sports senior vice president who now works as a media consultant. This is a long answer so stay with it. Advertisement 'I understand this sentiment, but I just don't see a route to single NFL team out-of-market season passes,' Crakes said. 'The core issue here is how game inventory is valued for different leagues. For the NBA, NHL and MLB team season passes, the game inventory is monetized regionally with telecast partners across six-month-long regular seasons. In contrast, 100 percent of the 272 NFL's regular season games are monetized nationally to include the majority of games that air during Sunday daytime and are regionalized across two windows (1:00 pm and 4:25 p.m. ET). This works out to only 17 regular season games for each team across only 18 weeks. 'This scarcity in game inventory combined with the extreme viewing demand for the NFL means every single regular season game has national strategically significant economic value for the most important media distribution platforms such as broadcast TV networks (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC), top pay-TV channels (ESPN) and top streaming platforms (Amazon Prime Video, Google, Paramount+, Peacock and Netflix). These are the ones that can afford to pay $13.3B overall in 2024 alone for America's by far most popular and valuable media property. These mega-strategic NFL telecast partners need some type of exclusivity for their NFL investments. 'When you consider the NFL's requirement that there will always be a free over the air (OTA) broadcast signal for each game regardless of its national telecast partner, you can see how from the NFL's perspective they believe they're fully serving local and national fans while also serving out of market ultra fans,' Crakes continued. 'They believe the NFL Sunday Ticket on YouTubeTV remains the best way for the most passionate of NFL viewers to gain access to as many games on Sunday afternoons as possible while maximizing per game economics. 'If your anchor is the per-game pricing for a NBA, NHL or MLB regular-season local package then any such hypothetical NFL package is going to look astronomical by comparison. For example, MLB's most expensive team season local passes are around $120 annually or about 75 cents per game over 162 games. Taking the total paid by NFL telecasters ($13.3B) last year and dividing it by the total number of NFL regular season games (272), you get an individual NFL regular season game value of $48M. That figure alone should tell you that you're going to pay a significant premium for a NFL team season pass because the per-game value of your local team is derived via a national market and not local/regional one. Unfortunately, there's probably no route to single NFL team passes in the near future.' Advertisement Build your all-time dream broadcast booths for NBA and NFL, along with a studio show for NFL. – Brandon S. NBA: Ian Eagle, Charles Barkley and Jeff Van Gundy in the booth. Craig Sager on the sideline. NFL: Al Michaels, John Madden and Troy Aikman in the booth. Pam Oliver on the sideline. NFL studio show: Bob Costas, Howard Cosell, Peyton Manning, Amy Trask and Will McDonough. Are the 2030 US broadcast rights for the men's football (soccer) World Cup a must have for Fox? — Brian D. One of the most interesting sports rights acquisitions for me over the last 10 months was when Netflix secured the exclusive broadcast rights in the United States for the 2027 and 2031 editions of the Women's World Cup. The deal marked the first time the Women's World Cup will be broadcast on a streaming service. That feels very significant to me as we approach the rights for the 2030 men's World Cup. Games will be played in six countries: Co-hosts Spain, Portugal and Morocco as well as Uruguay, Paraguay, and Argentina. It's going to be massively expensive for a U.S. media rights holder if they want to staff it properly. The 2030 tournament will also have more inventory if the 64-team proposal goes through. I have no doubt Fox would want the property, but the question is the price. I don't think it's a must-have given the resources needed. I also would not be surprised if Netflix goes all-in. The one World Cup Fox always wanted is what they have — the 2026 men's World Cup. (BTW: I'd be fine with someone else doing the World Cup in the U.S. It could use a fresh set of eyes.) The prices of broadcast rights keeps going up. How much of that is due to inflation versus the actual value increase? — Martin D. You'd have to take it on a sport-by-sport basis for the best analysis, but let's look at the NBA/WNBA increases on its media deal. The new agreement — $77 billion over 11 years — is up more than 150 percent over the previous contract based on annual value. Whether these deals turn out to be good business for the media rights holders, we will see. But value is based on what someone is willing to pay versus global inflation trends. Advertisement 'Get off of my lawn' question here. The Stanley Cup playoffs just ended. Regardless of the great matchup in the Final, fan fatigue is a real thing, especially as the weather is warmer, and there is more to do aside from watching TV. Do the broadcast partners of the NHL care about the total length of the season and playoffs being simply too long, or do they just view it as 'inventory' where more is better? — John M. The recent news that the NHL and NHL Players' Association agreed to a four-year extension of the Collective Bargaining Agreement answers the question, given the deal increases the NHL regular season to 84 games per team. The NHL wants as much game inventory as possible because that has driven the media rights deals with ESPN/Turner Sports in the U.S. and Rogers in Canada. I do think viewer fatigue is a real thing, but there's no scenario I see where the postseason gets shortened. I would love to see the playoff format become either '1 versus 16' league-wide or '1 versus 8' in the conferences. I feel like when I turn to sports TV lately it's a lot of one big opinion versus another and tends to devolve from there. What's it going to take to get back to classic ESPN-style fun highlights and funny commentary nightly? Am I looking in the wrong places? — Matt B. The majority of what airs at night is live-game inventory, and that's not going to feature debate television. But opinion is very cheap to produce — you already own the studio/building so your biggest cost is talent. It's also the easiest television to do. Sports isn't alone in this. Look at what CNN's primetime lineup has become. Certainly pre- and post-game shows focus on opinions, but that's usually connected to the game. The days of SportsCenter being unique have long been over. Highlights are accessible everywhere. We live in a different world. My friendly advice is to find sports podcasts that offer what you are looking for, and there are plenty of good ones out there. Can we call on all sports announcers to cease describing the next play, game, golf shot etc… with words such as huge, important, crucial, critical. I understand they are trying to add a level of excitement, but when it is said a thousand times during a broadcast it becomes beyond insufferable. — Michael H. I can see that this is a critical and important question for you. I imagine if you are listening for those specific words, you will hear them a lot. But never forget, sports broadcasters are ALWAYS in the business of selling the product. One of the objectives is to keep you watching. Do the new WNBA broadcast media contracts come with professional announcer teams rather than home-team announcers? A very high percentage are insufferable. Right now it seems only ESPN has real announcers. Rebecca Lobo and Ryan Ruocco do a really good, objective job. I've also heard Debbie Antonelli on ION. She's got credibility from years in the game and does pretty well too. Don't know if she's a home-teamer or not. —J.M. When you watch the WNBA on ION or NBA TV, you are getting the local broadcast. When you watch ESPN/ABC, you are getting the national broadcasters such as Lobo, Ruocco, LaChina Robinson, etc… I watch a lot of WNBA League Pass, and there are a lot of homer broadcasts out there. I agree with you. Antonelli calls the Fever games locally, and she and Pat Boyle are excellent. I also like the Dallas broadcast of Ron Thulin, Nancy Lieberman and Fran Harris. People often say leagues are rooting for big market teams to help TV ratings. Does that really affect the leagues much? Are playoff TV contracts dependent on the teams that are playing? — Zachary What leagues and networks root for above all is length in a series. You just saw a real-time example. Game 7 of the NBA Finals averaged 16.6 million viewers. It bailed out a series that was trending brutally low on viewership. Media market size definitely matters, but where a game airs matters more (broadcast versus cable, for example). The broadcast contracts are fixed over years. The teams that play in the postseason has nothing to do with the contracts. Can the new baseball broadcast contract incorporate local TV announcers in the postseason? Use the same video feed, change the ad mix if using a separate channel or streaming service, but give TV viewers the option to hear their local broadcast TV team in the postseason. Gotta be a way to employ available technology and think of this as a value-add rather than a dilution of the potential audience. — Paul S. Not going to happen. The networks with postseason rights are paying a premium for those rights. If you have the local broadcast in play, the business for the national networks is impacted significantly because you dilute the media markets of the teams in the series. Advertisement What will be the state of successful local regional sports networks in five years? Is there any way AM radio can survive? Is basketball headed to be as niche as hockey now? — Chris K. Five years is a lifetime in sports media. Clearly, leagues such as MLB and the NBA would love to centralize the RSNs but I don't see successful regional networks forgoing that business for the better of the league. An easy prediction is teams will continue to develop their direct-to-consumer streaming business. AM radio is obviously challenged, but pay attention to this legislation. The NBA just signed a mega-media rights deal with three major players. It's not a niche sport unless you define niche as 'everything that's not the NFL.'
Indianapolis Star
05-06-2025
- Business
- Indianapolis Star
Will small-market Finals bother the NBA? Not necessarily. 'This is the league's future here'
OKLAHOMA CITY – Big stars. Small markets. That's been the verdict on these NBA Finals since the Pacers closed out the Eastern Conference playoffs over the weekend and sealed their place opposite Oklahoma City in this year's NBA Finals. And in the most basic telling, that is an accurate summation of the forthcoming series. But the public's (and the media's) love of easily digestible Nielsen ratings and viewership numbers glosses over what is in many ways a more nuanced discussion. Will Indianapolis and Oklahoma City make for a less commercially successful Finals? Not necessarily. It's important to acknowledge upfront there is some truth to the basic maxims of the TV-market discussion. In most cases, yes, pulling a major audience share like New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles or even Dallas-Fort Worth makes for a better-watched series. That just doesn't paint a full picture, according to Patrick Crakes, a former senior vice president at Fox Sports who now runs his own media consulting firm. 'The NBA Finals is a national event. It's better to have a base from big-market teams, from a mass of viewing, but the whole ecosystem is much more complicated than that,' Crakes said. Think of a television distribution deal as an ecosystem serving three key constituencies: The league (the rights seller), the carriers (Turner Sports, ESPN, etc.) and the distributors (Comcast, DirecTV, YouTube TV, etc.). Those constituencies are concerned with their own self-interests, yes, but in many cases, those interests overlap or align. These deals are also negotiated as large packages, with inventory (games) from the regular and postseasons all bundled together. ESPN/ABC did not secure the rights solely to these Finals. The money culled from the Finals is just a portion of the overall measure of the commercial success of the deal in a fiscal year. Per Crakes, advertising often constitutes approximately 20-30% of the overall financial pie, a meaningful number but not a decisive one. And much of that income that's attached to the playoffs is derived not from the showpiece Finals, but from the early rounds, where TV partners broadcast the largest sheer quantity of games. Yes, bigger markets in later rounds makes a difference, but sometimes not as much of one as a busy, engaging start to the postseason. Good, long series in rounds one and two will fill the advertising-dollars bucket long before the Finals. Short, uncompelling sweeps can leave a hole no big-city viewership or last-minute dramatics will fill. 'Postseason economics, a lot of it gets determined by the first couple rounds. That's where all the inventory is,' Crakes said. There are also headwinds untethered to a market share, or an individual sport's popularity. The rapidly fragmenting viewer ecosystem has prompted small dips in ratings for even America's most popular sports. Consumers no longer need easier-to-quantify access points to live sports like traditional carriers (Comcast, DirecTV, and so forth), with cord cutters eating into wider TV share. More fans come to games via social media, be it through highlights, real-time updates or other links back to the games themselves. There is an extent to which these Finals will be impacted by shifting viewer habits no matter the markets involved, whether it's No. 1 New York, No. 25 Indianapolis or No. 47 Oklahoma City (per SportsMediaWatch). Which circles back to one of Crakes' basic points: The Finals can also appeal across a wider base irrespective of market size. 'If you think about a total package of how NBA rights work,' Crakes said, 'it's important to keep in mind that small-market finals, like what we're about to see, that feature some of the game's best young players, that are going to be around for the next 15 years, being showcased, is not a bad thing for the league.' Shai Gilgeous-Alexander's star turn this season has included a scoring title, his first-career MVP nod and a center-stage role for the winningest team in the NBA. There has been perhaps no more compelling individual storyline in these playoffs — certainly in the Eastern Conference — than Pacers star Tyrese Haliburton's ascension into the elite tier of the league's guards. Around them orbit meaningful subplots (Jalen Williams' remarkable year, Pascal Siakam's impact in Indy, the dynamism presented by Indiana's backcourt depth, Chet Holmgren's continued development). The sport by nature puts fewer players on the floor, offering a bright spotlight to its stars. And unlike in football or baseball, those stars are often involved in games for long stretches, unfettered by offense-defense swaps or at-bat limits. In many ways it's easier to sell stars in the NBA, so long as they deliver their best. Whether the uniforms they wear say New York, Indiana or OKC, compelling performances from those players will go a long way toward determining the commercial success of the series upcoming. 'This is the league's future here,' Crakes said. 'The Thunder are fantastic. If the Pacers give them a series, my guess is everybody gets interested, even in New York and L.A., and it carries along just fine.' Which leads into the most fundamental determining factor in this discussion: The series has to entertain. Crakes worked at Fox Sports in October 2000, when the Yankees and Mets delivered their famed 'Subway Series." Top to bottom, the company was energized by the prospect of capturing a compelling championship dominating the country's biggest market. Instead, despite the fact that every game was decided by one or two runs, national interest never materialized. The favored Yankees eased to a 4-1 series win in front of a national audience that delivered what was at that time the lowest-rated World Series in history. 'The thing was a giant dud, because the rest of the America (wasn't interested),' Crakes said. 'You can be the dog that caught the car when you wish for these things.' Which means, of course, the same can be said in the opposite direction. Oklahoma City and Indiana have been, across the season's final months, arguably the two best teams in the NBA. Their records since Jan. 1 are first (Thunder) and fourth (Pacers) in the NBA. The Thunder finished with the league's best record and, while Indiana's path might have been smoothed slightly by Boston's bow-out, by almost any measure the Pacers have been playing championship-level basketball for five months. If that continues in this series — if Indiana can stand toe-to-toe with Oklahoma City and turn this into a six- or seven-game series — it will drive viewership everywhere. Likewise, an uneventful series decided in five games or fewer wouldn't do well, regardless. 'The real component in how successful something like this is, is a seven-game series,' Crakes said. 'That's where the gold is. Game 6, Game 7, and if we get to that with this series, this Finals will do just fine.' Of course, there's an extent to which the Finals will own the airwaves anyway. With football in hibernation, and baseball entering its summer dog days, the NBA Finals are virtually always a ratings winner. Crakes pointed out there can be long-term benefits for the league in small-market success. The last decade has seen Cleveland, Toronto, Denver and Milwaukee all win the NBA championship, strengthening the league's exposure in those markets and suggesting efforts to even the playing field between big- and small-market teams are paying dividends. 'The system's working. The small-market teams are figuring out ways to compete with the big-market teams,' Crakes said. 'This is an opportunity for these smaller markets to continue to have a deeper relationship with the NBA.' As with so much in sports, the impact of this series will be determined foremost by what the NBA makes of it. Does Oklahoma City complete a season of dominance? Do the league's two best teams at this time of year deliver a compelling Finals? Does this mark the transcendent moment for one of the NBA's young stars? All those things can, in the long term, matter as much as raw viewer data. The tendency to compare across years is reflexive. The sport's ownership of the national stage at this point in the annual calendar, though, is undeniable. 'This is going to be a gigantic number,' Crakes said. 'It's going to rate better than anything else, probably anything else at this point in the summer, and the economics are already largely in the bank.'
Wall Street Journal
09-04-2025
- Automotive
- Wall Street Journal
Formula One's TV Rights Are Up for Grabs, but Media Companies Aren't Racing to Bid
Formula One is among the fastest-growing sports in the world, oozing sex appeal with young drivers and zippy cars. But it is having trouble translating that revved-up popularity into the large-scale rights package it wants. F1, which Liberty Media FWONA 1.34%increase; green up pointing triangle bought in 2017, has been shopping a rights package at around $150 million to $180 million a year beginning with the 2026 season, according to people familiar with the matter, though there isn't an official asking price. That would be up to double what ESPN has been paying recently, and a far cry from a multiyear agreement it reached with F1 in 2018, when the Disney-owned network had the right to air races for free. U.S. viewership for live F1 races on ESPN roughly doubled since 2018, to 1.1 million a season in 2024, according to Nielsen data. And this season is off to a strong start, ESPN said. ESPN walked away late last year from its exclusive negotiation window for a new package. Netflix, Warner Bros. Discovery WBD 1.43%increase; green up pointing triangle, Fox, and NBC are lukewarm on the offering, too—at least, at the current price, according to people familiar with those companies' discussions. The National Basketball Association and National Football League have inked giant media deals in recent years. But it is becoming harder for entertainment companies to justify big spending on other sports, as networks face continued challenges from cord cutting. Meanwhile, streaming services aren't scrambling for full-season packages. 'It's a cool sport, no doubt,' said Patrick Crakes, a sports media consultant and former senior executive at Fox Sports, of F1. 'But cool doesn't pay the bills.' Fox Corp. and The Wall Street Journal's parent company, News Corp, share common ownership. Some F1 rights bidders are still likely in the mix, and F1 is expected to improve on its existing deal, according to industry watchers—including Crakes. Research firm Ampere Analysis recently estimated that F1's U.S. rights package is worth above $100 million a year, but not the $180 million industry reports earlier said it was seeking. Derek Chang, who took over as chief executive of Liberty in February, said he is looking for the best mix of exposure to new fans and the highest-paying deal, but recognizes the industry is shifting—and challenging—for both broadcasters and streamers. 'The whole media world is a very fluid situation,' said Chang. The lack of fervor over F1's U.S. live-TV rights stands in contrast with global excitement around the sport. Models and actors clamber for spots in the paddock, close to the action as men pile into single-seat cars and navigate circuits in destinations including Australia, Mexico and Italy. High-end brands vie for prime promotional placement. Netflix's 'Drive to Survive' documentary series helped catapult F1's popularity in the U.S. Then came 'Gran Turismo,' a 2023 Sony film based on the story of a gamer who got a shot at competing in real life. This June, Warner Bros. is distributing an Apple film, 'F1,' starring Brad Pitt. Despite the Hollywood hype around F1, the races themselves aren't blockbuster draws. That is partly because of timing: Many races air early Sunday mornings for U.S. viewers. Some fans watch on-demand replays via the F1 TV service. That service is part of the media-rights discussion, according to a person familiar with the company's discussions. The coming U.S. rights deal represents a small slice of F1's revenue, but Liberty has focused on growing F1 in the country and the new deal will help determine the sport's next chapter here. The success of 'Drive to Survive' and earlier reports prompted speculation that Netflix might want in on F1 rights. But it isn't currently planning to bid, according to a person familiar with the matter. Three-quarters of F1 fans already have Netflix subscriptions, according to data from Ampere, leaving minimal chance to attract new customers, but potential opportunities for subscriber retention. ESPN hasn't completely ruled out new talks on F1, according to people familiar with the matter. Still, it has been making many tough choices lately. Disney signed on to a $2.6 billion a year deal with the NBA last year, and ESPN recently ended its 35-year relationship with Major League Baseball, saying it was unwilling to continue paying the $550 million the league wanted for a games package. It is also preparing to bring its programming onto a new streaming service. ESPN might be more inclined to bid for F1 if the company thought it would drive subscriptions to that service, said John Skipper, ESPN's former president. Write to Isabella Simonetti at
