Here are a couple of questions for you. Let’s say this becomes a real thing in the near future:
One industry source I spoke to believes ESPN would have to charge sports fans at least $30 a month for an a la carte version of the networks to offset lost cable subscriber fees and advertising. MoffettNathanson Research believes Disney would have to charge $36.30 a month for ESPN to achieve the same level of reach it enjoys today.
At this point, we’ve reached a similar structure to European television. Channels such as Sky Sports, which carries popular properties like the English Premiere League, are not part of the basic service and run at $40 a month for the family of networks. Sky Sports even offers “day passes” for roughly $15. While hardcore American sports fans can justify similar prices here in the States, casual fans will balk and just catch the big event games on over-the-air networks.
Would you subscribe and pay $40 a month for the privilege of watching ESPN?
Me? I probably would, if I could just subscribe for football season. The rest of the year would be a waste of money. I kind of doubt that’s the customer base ESPN’s looking for, though.
But if I’m typical, what happens to college athletics’ current business model when the broadcast revenue stream takes a significant hit from Mickey’s wallet shrinkage? With regard to Ovies’ last point, keep in mind that there is very little college football shown on an over-the-air basis now, so chasing the casual fans in bulk, which is implicit in building up a national playoff, is not as easy as it sounds anymore.
Eh, it’s probably no big deal. Delany, Sankey and Scott are on the mother, right?
Get The Picture 
I wonder if ESPN has an out in the contract if cable subscriptions fall below a certain level?
LikeLike
I wouldn’t blink an eye to pay the fee year round……..but I’m at a point in my life where $40 isn’t a big deal. For my 23 and 21 year old sons, I can see that being a bigger issue. That’s where the rub seems to be……..how many millennials would be able to fork it over.
LikeLike
There are enough Milennials whose parents will pay it for them. Probably not a problem.
LikeLike
I’d certainly pay the charge each month just for access to the football games, but the bigger issue maybe whether or not today’s kids will be as hardcore (college) football fans as my generation from the 1980s. We’ve already discussed their apathy when it comes to attending games and finding time for these things only becomes harder when you kids, families, etc. vying for your limited time outside of work.
LikeLike
The big difference in Europe though is that most channels are free via non-subscription satellite eliminating the need for people to pay $100 a month for 8 channels they like and 200 they could care less about. They can pay extra for premium ones. In that case, $40 a month seems a bargain to watch most CFB games since I am not paying for crap I don’t need.
LikeLike
The sword of free market economics certainly can cut on both edges.
LikeLike
^This, dude. I’d pay the forty and save move on eliminating the stuff I don’t watch anyway.
LikeLike
I think I’d pick up a new hobby. But I’ve spent money on more stupid things than this, so who knows?
LikeLike
Interesting, Sling TV offers ESPN and ESPN 2 with other channels for $20 a month, you can add sport channels (ESPN News, ESPN U and SEC network plus some others) for $5 extra
LikeLike
I cut cable about 5 or 6 weeks ago, and haven’t missed it much at all this summer. However, when the season rolls around, I will be subscribing to Sling just for the football. Will probably keep it through basketball season and then drop it again for the summer.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’ve not had DirecTV since Feb and I’m O.K. We’re even talking about going to the lake Labor Day weekend because I know the outcome of the ULM game which starts at noon. It’ll suck missing out on how the QBs shake out, but that’s what the internet is for.
LikeLike
My wife and I have said for years that if it weren’t for college football we would cut the cable. We’re going to give this package a shot. With Sling and a monthly subscription to Netflix I think we’ll be fine and we will be spending far less money. Of course, internet prices go up once you unbundle. And I’m going to hard wire the connection to the TV. Wireless has a tendency to have buffering issues. At this point, I would not be willing to pay $40 to get something similar over the cable. Unless Sling doesn’t deliver. We’ll see. $30 and you might get me to stay. Might. For me, getting away from Comcast/Xfinity is also a large part of the equation. They consistently have the worst customer service on the planet. And it gets worse every year, despite their claims to the contrary.
LikeLike
Comcast at my abode is rock solid….internet is much better than the competitors.
LikeLike
Just an FYI about Sling TV. They have had reliability issues initially, you are dependent on the quality of your Internet connection, and Sling only provides you with one stream per household. The importance of that last item is all your TVs have to watch the same channel. This may not be a big deal for some people but for a family with individuals wanting to watch different channels at the same time that is an issue.
I will say if you have a reliable high speed data connection and if Sling TV gets the kinks worked out on its service delivery reliability it is a very attractive offering.
LikeLike
Just a small correction, you can get more than one connection if you want too. For example if you have two TVs and want to use Sling on both for different channels at the same time you have to get two Sling accounts at $20.00 each.
LikeLike
I have Sling for this very reason. But I bet that ESPN can walk away from that relationship if they deem it in their best interest. Also Sling at least through Charter kinda sucks.
LikeLike
I think if the system ever got to the point that people could pick and choose which networks they wanted to pay for it would be the death of big time sports. Everyone here is a pretty avid college football fan and would most likely pay for ESPN, SECN, etc. However, there are many millions of households with cable where no one could care less if any sports were on television. Think of all the female headed households, the wacky granola types, the artsy folks and all the people who really just aren’t into sports that much. Unless there was a year contract, most people would drop the network when football season ended and wait until the next September to pick it back up. If there was a year commitment, fewer people would be willing to sign up, sort of a vicious cycle.
I don’t think I’d pay $40 a month to see the away games, which is all I’d really care that much about watching. I could easily live without seeing other teams play and if there was a big game I was interested in, I’d go to a bar if no one I knew was having a get together to watch.
It seems to me that the whole unbundling and a la carte network selection has to be the nightmare scenario for ESPN and their Disney overlords.
LikeLike
Hey, watch it on the granola aspersions. U.S. Geysers are getting pushed there…
LikeLike
I paid for ESPN game plan fro years before they rolled out all the new networks. I would do it again for football. I really don’t watch ESPN otherwise. I would miss MNF a bit, but not enough to cover the $$$
LikeLike
I would cut my ties and not pay. subscribe to UGA network and listen on the net.
LikeLike
Listen on TuneIn Radio over the net without subscribing to the UGA network.
LikeLike
$40/mo for all ESPN’s football programming? And if I can subscribe from August to January, then I’m all in. That’s basically the price of a season ticket sans extortio… errr… donation.
LikeLike
If flexibility is available, I would pay the $40 a month for April (Masters), and September through December only. I do not care for anything on ESPN except CFB and whatever rights they have for golf majors. Have not flipped on the channels since Thursday/Friday of Master week.
I can add, the only live TV I watch is the aforementioned sports, and news. I can do without the live news if necessary. All other programming I watch is on delay via DVR and through Netflix. But I pay $200 a month for Direct TV service alone, my internet is a different provider.
LikeLike
I’m paying $170 a month for my Fios TV/Internet bundle, and we watch more or less the same 5 networks. I’d pay that ESPN fee and still probably cut $50 off my monthly bill if we could choose ala carte.
LikeLike
For the time being, yes, I would pay $40 per if I get all ESPN content. WatchESPN has come in handy more than once. I also envision a day 5 years from now where I have lost interest to the point that I won’t care enough about CF to follow it. My interest in the sport is already off 50% from 5 years ago. I love the Dawgs but don’t watch much of the other conferences broadcasts.
What’s interesting to me is my 31 year old son (life long Dawg, not an alumnus, Rollins class of “04) doesn’t have cable, doesn’t want cable and is fine with watching games at local establishments in Orlando. He’s not even in this conversation. And neither are his friends, from what I can tell. Cable is Old School.
LikeLike
It’s not the $30 – $40 for ESPN but the cost of the other channels I’d want to see if the economics are better or worse than my U-Verse bill now.
And I imagine the (free) networks would jump back into the bidding for more games if cable subscriptions take a hit.
LikeLike
This is good to know stuff. I have been researching cutting the cable for a couple of weeks. I’m on the fringe of the broadcast channels 70 miles away but the new antenna technology seems to make it possible. The Sling TV thing was looking like the way to go. It is actually owned by Dishnetwork. They have decided that the younger kids are cutting the cable and the Sat/Cable companies are going to eventually be Gone With The Wind. The neat thing is you get ESPN and ESPN2 in the main subscription thus satisfying ESPN’s contract with Dish but you can add the rest of ESPN including the SEC Network for $5.00. I did some cost analysis and even if I have to get two accounts I would be saving about $40.00 per month. I have to keep Comcast for my internet but that bill would drop from $170 per month to $70 for a fast connection. Before football season I’m going to try out the Sling TV just in case it sucks.
LikeLike
NO.
LikeLike
I would like to point out that people who are cutting the cable cord are still dependent on the very same company, most of the times, for their internet service which is allowing them to by “cable”. I predict that if al la cart becomes the way of television in the future, internet service costs will skyrocket. Verizon/Comcast et al will not lose a beat or a dime.
LikeLike
Large, metropolitan areas seem to have competition for internet provisions. In Birmingham, we have multiple providers available in my area and its rather inexpensive because of the competition. Charter is my only cable option, but ATT and the city are available for internet if I choose. The “free” market works, things change all the time…..
LikeLike
Sports programming is the golden goose. It isnt going to get cheaper.
What ala carte would do is kill the 14 other discovery channels that you are paying for. But cable needs to cut some of these channels and make the entire service and more predictable.
LikeLike