Clay Travis trigger warning for those of you triggered by Clay Travis. He put together a longform article on the ESPN/Charter dispute and the implications for the cable bundle. There's plenty of fire and brimstone and doomsaying, but the thrust of the article is interesting.

Essentially, Travis argues that ESPN has been losing business like crazy as the result of cord cutting and trying to make it up by jacking rates, and now Charter is standing up to them. Travis postulates that ESPN is a tent pole for cable bundles, and that these bundles subsidize sports. When (not "if" according to Travis) ESPN loses this battle, it will be 10x as expensive to watch sports, and that the other non-sport properties like TNT etc will fall as well.

https://www.outkick.com/espn-charter-cable-bundle-sports/

Thoughts?

Disney should've sold ESPN years ago.

Like most things with Clay Travis, he makes a few valid points and but then draws the absolute worst case conclusions.

He makes an interesting comparison with ESPN and Blockbuster. ESPN does broadcast live sports with their own crews and equipment, which isn't quite the same as a store renting out movies produced by other companies. But...what's to keep the sports leagues from eventually saying "Hey, we're just going to produce and broadcast our own games direct to the consumer...peace out, ESPN!"

I'm concerned that ESPN has screwed around with poor investments in shows/hosts that promote issues that have nothing to do with sports, and now they're strong-arming the cable/satellite companies in order to make up for those poor investments and bloated media hosts. In terms of sports content, the LHN is another failed example of ESPN putting a lot money into something that gave them no return on the investment. The SECN was a major success. We'll see if the ACCN is anywhere close to that.

But if ESPN wants to pull away and force consumers to buy directly from them, then it will have a major ripple effect among cable/satellite. People won't want to pay for a cable sub and an ESPN sub.

Right now, I can get access to ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and SECN to watch every single A&M game through YouTubeTV. That is literally the whole reason we dropped satellite and went with the less expensive 'streaming cable' option. It's the most value for us. But I would probably ditch YouTubeTV if I couldn't get the ESPN networks. We watch very little cable.

And then there's the SEC's decision to make ESPN their exclusive media partner. I think that was a short-sighted decision because ESPN doesn't have to compete with anyone right now for SEC content.

Belton Ag said:

---

Like most things with Clay Travis, he makes a few valid points and but then draws the absolute worst case conclusions.

---

This.

Travis is employed by the Fox Corporation. He's a talking head for both Fox News and Fox Sports, the latter of which is obviously ESPN's chief rival. Coincidentally, ever since his employment at Fox, he's become super anti-ESPN, to a comical degree, which also happens to play into his whole anti-woke crusade, which is one of the most transparent, audience-pandering cash grabs I've ever seen. Once he saw how much money could be made feeding the outrage machine, he made a noticeable shift in his persona and content, and has been fanning the flames ever since.

All that said, yes, he makes some valid points, and I do agree with certain conclusions, as is the case with most subjects he covers. But also like most subjects he covers, this article is filled with so much ridiculous hyperbole, it's hard to take any of it seriously.

ESPN is no doubt a shadow of its former self, and the cable landscape is obviously crumbling, which, in turn, will affect college and professional sports in myriad ways. But while it *could* be as bad as Travis barks about here... it almost assuredly won't be.

For a more sober, level-headed take on this whole thing, I suggest listening to Matt Belloni's episode The Town from earlier this week…

New pod: How this nasty Disney/Charter carriage fight might end, and what it has in common with...Taylor Swift?? With fellow @GetSpectrum customer @Lucas_Shaw. Listen! https://t.co/o0E0kTdvXT

— Matthew Belloni (@MattBelloni) September 6, 2023

Quote:

---

He makes an interesting comparison with ESPN and Blockbuster. ESPN does broadcast live sports with their own crews and equipment, which isn't quite the same as a store renting out movies produced by other companies. But...what's to keep the sports leagues from eventually saying "Hey, we're just going to produce and broadcast our own games direct to the consumer...peace out, ESPN!"

---

I'm curious about the viability of this vs ESPN or other entities cutting deals with various leagues to become their provider. They already have this to a certain degree with things like SEC Network, but if offered as a subscription to just that platform there's a ton of potential.

We've seen it in different ways already: Amazon has Thursday night football, Twitter has shown different games, and in the most apples to apples comparison AppleTV has (almost) exclusive rights to MLS (Fox gets occasional matches to show, not sure how that's divyed out).

I know most here probably aren't soccer fans but the Apple MLS coverage is pretty awesome, it's every match live or as an on demand recording along with highlights and a league wide coverage show that bounces around to different matches in progress. That model totally works for a lot of different leagues if they're willing to sign an exclusive or mostly exclusive deal.

I do agree that there's not much value in the other ESPN programming, outside SEC Nation it's just something that happens to be on while I'm waiting for a game to start.

Gigem314 said:

---

what's to keep the sports leagues from eventually saying "Hey, we're just going to produce and broadcast our own games direct to the consumer...peace out, ESPN!"

---

So many organizations lately have thought this only to find out it's not that simple. Paramount, HBO, Universal, etc. all said, "Instead of paying Netflix why don't we just do it and keep all the money!" Nearly everyone who had started a streaming service is losing money on it. Look at all the regional sports networks that are declaring bankruptcy. I'm not saying sports networks won't try to launch their own services, but most will fail and then they'll all come back together.

Obviously, everything going to streaming is the future,but not everyone will host their own service. All of these places will partner will someone who will bundle their services and sell a package. Not saying ESPN will be the ones to do this, but someone will. Really big players (NFL) might see some value by going it alone, but most will not.

ESPN running into the same problems that caused all the Hollywood actors and writers to go on strike. Basically the market has changed and not everyone has adjusted yet.

I can't see into the future, so I have no idea how all this will play out. But I don't think Travis is wrong in analyzing how we got here, or how things look today.

ESPN is facing some giant challenges.

It sucks the sec is completely beholden to espin…b1g won that battle…

Oh no. Guess I better type in "*insert sporting event here* free online streaming" and watch it online

wangus12 said:

---

Oh no. Guess I better type in "*insert sporting event here* free online streaming" and watch it online

---

So international soccer in the early 2000s?

I'd second the recommendation to listen to The Town podcast mentioned above. Belloni has been discussing the problems the Mouse has been having and faces in future.


I think at some point many of these media networks will be absorbed out merged with each other or bought out by Amazon, Apple out Google (if they want to really enter the fray).


I think of interest to sports fans, here are the three interesting stories in media to watch.

1. Disney vs Charter
2. The Hulu breakup/separation
3. Bally's/ Diamond Sports Group bankruptcy outcome

4. NBA media deal

(Insert Spanish inquisition pic here)

5. Conference realignment next round of media deals

Travis has been anti-ESPN for much longer than since Fox bought Outkick in 2021. He published a book about them "helping ruin sports with politics" in 2018, and was disagreeing with how ESPN was running things for years before the book. He also worked on Gore's campaign and voted for Obama in 2008, but became more conservative.

I didn't say Travis became anti-EPSN when Fox bought Outback in 2021. I said he's been anti-ESPN ever since his "employment" at Fox Sports, which began in 2014, as a college football talking head.

Also, I realize he used to be a democrat. Hence why I said, "he made a noticeable shift in his persona and content." He saw the money the conservative outrage machine could bring in, and pulled a complete 180.

My overall points are, A) he's been part of the Fox family for nearly a decade now, a time during which his anti-ESPN rhetoric skyrocketed, and B) he's basically a different person than when I remember him coming onto the scene, around the time Manziel was blowing up as well. I know people change, and I'm sure some of that change was genuine and not unwarranted. But it's also obvious that, more than anything, he's driven now by $$$, outrage, and clickbait over any kind of pursuit of truth or common sense.

And look, good for him for finding the success he has. I don't really even dislike him, as I enjoy some of his takes, and find myself agreeing with a decent amount of what he says. But none of that takes away from the fact that he's also one of the biggest, most bias blowhards on the internet.

Agree completely. I started reading his articles in 2014 (the anonymous mailbag got me through a lot of lunch breaks) and remember tuning into his original radio show he started around this time in 2016. He also had a really great guest writer (J-Mart I think) who did a lot of articles on TV and Film. But then I noticed his shift into politics and Whitlock came along, and then Outkick turned into another version of a garbage click-bait website and my interest in his content quickly died away.

He's made a fortune, and he loves reminding people of that. But he was way more level-headed 7-10 years ago.

Quote:

---

Also, I realize he used to be a democrat. Hence why I said, "he made a noticeable shift in his persona and content." He saw the money the conservative outrage machine could bring in, and pulled a complete 180.

---

It's more likely that he saw the light after learning more through life experience and research. That's happens to a lot of people. They grow and become more informed.

aTmAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Also, I realize he used to be a democrat. Hence why I said, "he made a noticeable shift in his persona and content." He saw the money the conservative outrage machine could bring in, and pulled a complete 180.

---

It's more likely that he saw the light after learning more through life experience and research. That's happens to a lot of people. They grow and become more informed.

---

Good morning, Clay!

aTmAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Also, I realize he used to be a democrat. Hence why I said, "he made a noticeable shift in his persona and content." He saw the money the conservative outrage machine could bring in, and pulled a complete 180.

---

It's more likely that he saw the light after learning more through life experience and research. That's happens to a lot of people. They grow and become more informed.

---

Conveniently, you of course left out the part where, literally two sentences later, I said, "I know people change, and I'm sure some of that change was genuine and not unwarranted."

As a YouTube TV subscriber I pay for ESPN in their package and assume if cable goes away my monthly sub may go from $55 to $100. Not a problem for me during football season but I would want the option to drop ESPN after football season to reduce the cost. I don't care enough about the other sports to pay the extra fees.

TCTTS said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Also, I realize he used to be a democrat. Hence why I said, "he made a noticeable shift in his persona and content." He saw the money the conservative outrage machine could bring in, and pulled a complete 180.

---

It's more likely that he saw the light after learning more through life experience and research. That's happens to a lot of people. They grow and become more informed.

---

Conveniently, you of course left out the part where, literally two sentences later, I said, "I know people change, and I'm sure some of that change was genuine and not unwarranted."

---

It's likely all of that change was genuine and warranted.

Makes me laugh when "Fox" anything triggers people. I don't disagree that Fox has its agenda. Let's be honest though. They ALL have an agenda. Yet Fox is the bogeyman. Turn all of it off and you'll feel better.

Gigem314 said:

---

But...what's to keep the sports leagues from eventually saying "Hey, we're just going to produce and broadcast our own games direct to the consumer...peace out, ESPN!"

---

They would if the numbers showed this was more financially beneficial to them. If ESPN, Fox, CBS, etc get to a point where they aren't willing to pay as much as they are now for NFL games, maybe the NFL will decide to broadcast it themselves. I think we're still a ways away from that.

If I could get the Astros and Rockets without buying 75 other channels too, it would be great.

TRD-Ferguson said:

---

Makes me laugh when "Fox" anything triggers people. I don't disagree that Fox has its agenda. Let's be honest though. They ALL have an agenda. Yet Fox is the bogeyman. Turn all of it off and you'll feel better.

---

This applies to EVERYTHING. Including documentaries, scientific studies, non-fiction and fiction, books, etc.

One should try to identify the agenda and keep that in mind when consuming.

aTmAg said:

---

TRD-Ferguson said:

---

Makes me laugh when "Fox" anything triggers people. I don't disagree that Fox has its agenda. Let's be honest though. They ALL have an agenda. Yet Fox is the bogeyman. Turn all of it off and you'll feel better.

---

This applies to EVERYTHING. Including documentaries, scientific studies, non-fiction and fiction, books, etc.

One should try to identify the agenda and keep that in mind when consuming.

---

Do you enjoy anything?

TCTTS said:

---

I didn't say Travis became anti-EPSN when Fox bought Outback in 2021. I said he's been anti-ESPN ever since his "employment" at Fox Sports, which began in 2014, as a college football talking head.

Also, I realize he used to be a democrat. Hence why I said, "he made a noticeable shift in his persona and content." He saw the money the conservative outrage machine could bring in, and pulled a complete 180.

My overall points are, A) he's been part of the Fox family for nearly a decade now, a time during which his anti-ESPN rhetoric skyrocketed, and B) he's basically a different person than when I remember him coming onto the scene, around the time Manziel was blowing up as well. I know people change, and I'm sure some of that change was genuine and not unwarranted. But it's also obvious that, more than anything, he's driven now by $$$, outrage, and clickbait over any kind of pursuit of truth or common sense.

And look, good for him for finding the success he has. I don't really even dislike him, as I enjoy some of his takes, and find myself agreeing with a decent amount of what he says. But none of that takes away from the fact that he's also one of the biggest, most bias blowhards on the internet.

---

Doesn't Disney own Fox?

bonfarr said:

---

As a YouTube TV subscriber I pay for ESPN in their package and assume if cable goes away my monthly sub may go from $55 to $100. Not a problem for me during football season but I would want the option to drop ESPN after football season to reduce the cost. I don't care enough about the other sports to pay the extra fees.

---

But....I'd wager the most costly thing ESPN broadcasts is college football. So I can definitely see them stepping in to prevent this, they need the money year round to supplement those few months. Or the price changes month to month.

The whole system is ****ed. I mean just the idea of paying $100 for cable, half of what you watch is commercials, and now the on the field action is also loaded with advertisements is crazy to me.

Fox News and Fox Sports are still owned by Murdoch under Fox Corporation.

Will probably end up like Sunday Ticket, where you have to pay for the season of whatever particular league/sport you want to watch.

Diggity said:

---

Will probably end up like Sunday Ticket, where you have to pay for the season of whatever particular league/sport you want to watch.

---

Yeah, but they can't even figure those models out lol......

I'd do MLB TV every year if I could watch the Astros on it.

oh, it will be a cluster for sure

BoomGoesThe said:

---

Travis has been anti-ESPN for much longer than since Fox bought Outkick in 2021. He published a book about them "helping ruin sports with politics" in 2018, and was disagreeing with how ESPN was running things for years before the book. He also worked on Gore's campaign and voted for Obama in 2008, but became more conservative.

---

Yeah I don't really get the issue with him being so vocal about ESPN today. When you're starting out in the industry, being loudly anti-ESPN isn't going to open doors. He, and probably a lot of people in the sports media world, had those feelings toward ESPN all along. Some gained the platform and independence to say something about it. It's the same thing in Hollywood or the mainstream media world...those under certain umbrellas are going to be less likely rock to the boat, but those who finally break free of it will be more vocal over the concerns.

He's made a lot of valid points over the years regarding conference realignment, money in college sports, TV deals, etc.

One can take any successful media figure, journalist, announcer, commentator, or celebrity and make them out to be a 'grifter' chasing the dollar. I'm sure many of them are, but what difference does it make if they have valid or relevant content.

I don't agree with Clay on everything, but I do think ESPN and Disney are in an awkward position right now. And I think cable vs. streaming is becoming messier and messier with every passing year.

Diggity said:

---

Will probably end up like Sunday Ticket, where you have to pay for the season of whatever particular league/sport you want to watch.

---

The problem with that is that the older generation still prefers the simplicity of cable, and the younger potential fans might not have simple access to even become a fan.

There is still value in having content easily accessible on traditional TV for sports leagues.

That's what I think will be so interesting about the NBA deal. ABC/ESPN and TNT have been the home for national TV coverage, but both are cutting costs and the big money deals the NBA was counting on might mean the games are on Amazon or Apple, but TNT and ESPN are still more accessible for most people.