JDL 96 said:
Bottom line: we may not keep getting more sports than we pay for. Cable TV forced non-sports fans into subsidizing sports. New technology means people don't have to pay for as much that they don't want. ESPN, media deals, player salaries, stadiums, and owner profits, and maybe even youth sports will all shrink.
CAVEAT: gambling and sports betting may have a bigger role.
That will be interesting, but might not pan out. If we see cable and satellite (already happening to an extent) go to a true a-la-carte model like you could see with purely online content, the price might not have to shift too much.
Your TV bill stays about the same, but you no longer have 300+ channels you never tune to. I think we can all safely say there are probably less than 15 channels we actually tune into on a monthly basis. Now, what I'm not certain of is how much those channels I never tune into actually costs my cable provider compared to the channels I tune into regularly.
The cable and satellite companies are going to have to learn one VERY hard lesson though. We as consumers are tiring of added features and so called value for our billed dollar. What we want, is a lower bill. We want the programming that interests us, and nothing more. I called seeking to lower my bill a while back. Apparently they couldn't lower my bill, but they gave me a year of free Showtime. I didn't even know until a tech (water got into the outside box) pointed it out. I've still never tuned into it. I don't want it! I want a lower monthly bill!!!