dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
419
share rss forum feed


NO to ESPN

@sbcglobal.net

Problem is that Cable/Satelite is Funding High Sports Salary

If you want cable and satellite price is to go down then users should not be made to pay salaries of sports icons.

Have you ever wondered who pays the salaries?


iamwhatiam

@verizon.net
Actually, if you want all prices to go down... (If they banned commercials from broadcast sporting events, then the sporting businesses/franchises would either go broke/out of business or they'd start charging $10,000 per seat for a ticket per game--gee, I wonder which would happen. )

MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
reply to NO to ESPN
said by NO to ESPN :

Have you ever wondered who pays the salaries?

Umm... it's not a mystery. Team owners pay the salaries. Not viewers. My name is not on LeBron James' paycheck.

What is your actual question or point because it's obviously not this?


iamwhatiam

@verizon.net
And where does that money come from? networks/broadcasters

And where do they get their money? advertisers of products

And where do they get their money? producers of products

And where do they get their money? purchasers of products

(You think team owners just grow money on trees? Ultimately, ALL of that money comes out of our pockets... viewers and non-viewers alike. You really didn't know that? wow.)


N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:2
reply to MyDogHsFleas
By that reasoning, one could argue that every government worker works only for the Treasurer of their respective political subdivision.

Owners pay athletes with the revenue they get from ticket sales, advertising, and TV.

I almost NEVER watch ESPN, but I'm paying for it. It's one of the most expensive "basic cable" channels for the providers. That charge is passed on to me.

Therefore, I AM paying some athlete's salary, just by proxy.

Having lost one of my jobs in January, I'm giving serious consideration to dropping my cable TV. I almost never watch it anymore. Opting for the local newscast in the afternoon, reading, and NPR for background noise in the house.

I've purchased 2 e-books on my new iPad in the past month & a half. The total cost of them was less than 1/3 of my cable bill, and was much more enjoyable than hunting for something on TV.

I will miss certain show in History & Smithsonian, but I'm not married to them, especially for what they're charging...
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power


cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7
reply to iamwhatiam
Flawed logic. Everyone gets their money from someone else. If you keep following it back you'll just go round and round in circles.

MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
reply to iamwhatiam
Hah. The question was "have you ever wondered who pays the salaries"? Not, "How do the owners get the money to pay their salaries?"

It was a stupid question and deserved a stupid answer.

Note I also said, "What is your actual point or question?"

The OP never answered, but iamwhatiam said:

You think team owners just grow money on trees? Ultimately, ALL of that money comes out of our pockets... viewers and non-viewers alike.

If you don't watch the show, its ratings go down, and the network can't charge as much for advertising, and therefore it pays less to the league or team to carry the events. Also, if you don't watch the channel (ESPN), its overall ratings go down, and cable networks won't pay as much to ESPN for rights to carry their channels, which will cause ESPN to pay less to leagues and teams to carry their events. Finally, if you don't subscribe to "basic cable" at all, that puts an even bigger hurt on everyone.

So you have a choice as to how much you want to spend on your sports entertainment, both in actual money, and in viewing time (which translates to money for the providers).

Therefore, your statement that EVERYONE pays no matter what, is really not true at all. Consumers have choices and exercise those choices all the time. Cable networks come and go all the time because of the choices those viewers make.

The OP's assertion is "the problem is that cable/satellite are funding high sports salaries" has a hidden assumption that sports salaries are higher than they should be. According to whom? No one is holding a gun to your head and saying you have to watch and pay for sports. Players get paid because they make money for the owners! That's all. They're just workers who produce a product.

If there was a demand and money to be made offering sports-free channel lineups, they would already be there.