Um, do you know why other conferences have their networks on DirecTV but not the Pac-12 (including the upcoming ACC Network)? It’s because those other networks all have a major sports network as their partial owner, giving them leverage over DirecTV in negotiations. The SEC Network and the upcoming ACC Network are both partially owned by ESPN. The Big Ten Network is partially owned by Fox Sports. The Pac-12 Networks aren’t. That’s the difference. They’re wholly owned by the conference, which is the reason why they can’t get anything done. They don’t have the leverage at the negotiating table to get a reasonable deal done. There is even more precedence for this because if you remember, even the old Mountain West Sports Network was on DirecTV. That’s because it was partially owned by Comcast and CBS Sports. Of course, the trade off of all these leagues having their conference TV networks partially owned by major sports networks is that said major sports networks take a share of the profits from the conference networks they partially own. With the Pac-12 wholly owning their network, they also get all the revenue generated by it. Which begs the question do you sacrifice potential revenue for wider distribution? Or, would the better idea be to sell an ownership share of the Pac-12 Networks to a major sports network to gain more leverage at the negotiating table, likely leading to more distribution, but lower revenue? It is a trade off really. However, it can also be argued that even if they were to sell an ownership share to a major sports network (such as NBC Sports, who needs more content), would the wider distribution lead to more potential revenue, thus negating the potential revenue lost via giving up sole ownership?
.
Loading ...
