NFL's possible coming deals with Amazon

[purplemonster]

https://sports.yahoo.com/did-cowboys-deal-with-dak-prescott-tip-off-gargantuan-broadcast-partnership-between-nfl-and-amazon-003511848.html

Not long after the lightning strike of Dak Prescott’s massive four-year, $160 million contract with the Dallas Cowboys flashed across the NFL on Monday, the lingering buzz turned to team owner and league powerbroker Jerry Jones.

It wasn’t the usual look-at-what-Jerry-just-did moment. Instead, this was a reading of the tea leaves when it came to the NFL’s bottom line.

After all, Dallas didn't just cut a massive $40 million per season deal with its franchise quarterback — it caved to a contract structure that will almost guarantee the team will be back at the negotiating table at least two more times during Prescott’s prime years. That’s the kind of move that will put Prescott in line for a landslide of money over the next decade, not to mention drive an adrenaline shot into an already-skyrocketing pay scale for quarterbacks across the league. Jones didn’t just change the Cowboys' future with Prescott. He changed the future of quarterback money across the NFL. All of which prompted deeper questions that ping-ponged around the league Monday night.

With the NFL on the verge of its next television rights package, did Jerry wave a white flag in the Prescott negotiations because he knows where the league’s revenues are going? Could the reported $100 billion in television rights packages be a reality? Are the NFL’s forecasts about betting-related revenues that promising? And could this be a sign of a long-anticipated partnership between the league and “The Big A”?

“There goes [Jerry’s] Amazon money,” one NFL general manager said half-jokingly late Monday night, after hearing Prescott’s overall contract numbers.

 

 

Longtime NFL agent David Canter put a finer point on it, responding to a tweet about Prescott now being positioned to eventually be one of the highest-earning players in league history.

“Strong point here is what does Jerry know about the TV deals and [money] coming. He’s obviously intimately involved and this deal reflects his knowledge and how big the new TV [money] will be,” Canter tweeted.

Canter wasn’t alone. Multiple agents shared similar sentiments, most revolving around the belief that the NFL is putting the finishing touches on its TV rights deals and also been able to draw up some new revenue models that reflect ancillary income related to the slowly loosening state regulations involving the betting industry. The widely held belief among many league and union insiders is that the NFL’s next wave of television deals and new revenue streams relating to gaming will propel the NFL beyond the $25 billion per year revenue goal that commissioner Roger Goodell laid out in 2010.

Of course, the pandemic threw a hitch in Goodell’s plans, which had already driven the NFL’s total revenue to more than $15 billion by 2019 and within striking distance of the commissioner’s $25 billion goal by the end of 2027. While it’s expected the NFL will see a significant hit to that gross revenue figure due to the pandemic, there is a monumental saving grace in the landscape that even Goodell couldn’t have predicted more than 10 years ago.

It's Amazon, the $1.5 trillion white whale that has made NFL team owners swoon whenever they spend time thinking about potential rights partnerships over the next decade.

 

While some have been fretting about the financial hits taken by the networks that made the NFL so rich in past television rights deals, there has been a ribbon of optimism inside the league office about the rise of Amazon as a major content player. And in a pandemic year when the NFL was taking its worst bottom line hit in history, Amazon was busy rising to unprecedented heights. The monolithic online retailer became the most valuable company on the planet. It’s also a 500-pound gorilla in the entertainment landscape that could purchase any major network of its choosing at any time.

All of this makes Amazon the company that the NFL most wants to deepen its relationship with. And there’s no better way to do that than by selling off a significant chunk of the broadcast rights to America’s most popular and lucrative sport.

 

How big will Amazon go in its initial foray into NFL broadcasting rights, and how quickly will it move for more expansive exclusivity over the next decade? As it stands, it’s believed that Amazon is vying for sole ownership of the league’s "Thursday Night Football" package by 2023, which it would then roll out as part of its Prime subscription service. If that package was a positive experience for Amazon, it could translate into the company eventually aiming for even bigger chunks of the NFL landscape to anchor future development of its entertainment content.

 

If Amazon lands the rights to "Thursday Night Football" and it’s a lucrative experience, it's expected that the next target down the line will likely be the Sunday and Monday night franchises — and maybe even a totality of carrying as much of the NFL rights that Amazon can get its hands on.

 

For competing networks that are already holding the league’s broadcasting rights (ESPN, NBC, Fox and CBS), the implicit message is simple: If you want to keep carrying the NFL’s product, there is a brand new bully on the block to deal with in the coming years. And the best way to deal with that bully is to box it out from as much content as possible. Everyone better go to the table with their best and richest deals now, because the bigger the foothold Amazon gets now, the worse it will be for the other networks down the line.

All of this steers back to Dallas and Prescott. Of course, it’s pure speculation that Jones would suddenly cave to putting Prescott onto a historically lucrative path over the next decade. And as we’ve written before, the Cowboys had serious motivations to get this deal done now after essentially fighting it for two years. But it’s also fair to suggest that nobody understands the financial realities of the television deals better than Jones. And it’s worth noting that the NFL has made enough progress over the past month on the broadcasting rights deals that they are expected to land soon. Maybe as soon as the end of March.

 

Regardless of the timeframe, Jerry Jones knows what’s coming for the NFL’s bottom line. And the contract he just agreed to with Prescott suggests he’s extremely bullish on being able to afford blowing out a quarterback salary for the next 10 years. But the deals coming for the NFL might change everything, making Prescott’s lightning strike look like a modest spark.

 

[DMD]

I just wish NFL Sunday Ticket would move off Direct TV. I don't want to see the broadcasts piecemealed out to different entities so that you need to belong to multiple channels/ sites to see it all. I'm fine if it all goes to streaming, just keep it all in one place.

[Big John]

As long it is simulcast on NFLN.  I really don't like the idea of putting it solely on a premium website.

[stevegrab]

48 minutes ago, DMD said:

I just wish NFL Sunday Ticket would move off Direct TV. I don't want to see the broadcasts piecemealed out to different entities so that you need to belong to multiple channels/ sites to see it all. I'm fine if it all goes to streaming, just keep it all in one place.

From everything I have heard ST will almost certainly move off DirecTV as they are not interested any more based on stuff I've read elsewhere. But whoever does get it, is going to need to work on a way for both the consumer and business to have access to their product. Amazon was one of the potential streaming partners, but that probably doesn't work well for a sports bar.

 

12 minutes ago, Big John said:

As long it is simulcast on NFLN.  I really don't like the idea of putting it solely on a premium website.

 

It sounds like NFLN needs at least 5 games on their channel that are exclusive (not available on another TV channel, like the games on Fox & NFLN this past year). I think Amazon is going to want every game they get in the TNF deal to be on their streaming service, and they will want to be there exclusively, not also on NFLN. Of course Amazon also most likely needs a TV production company to be involved , unless they are going to provide production for the game as well. 

 

As for the Yahoo article itself, saw it early and it seems to say "Jerry did this because he knows there will be a ton more new money from TV deals" not sure I'm buying that, yes he may be more plugged in, but all the owners are hearing the same thing we are, that all the deals were going to increase significantly, meaning a lot more TV revenue (whatever share the teams get, split 32 ways). Sounds like somebody trying to say "no Dallas didn't mess up with Dak's contract, they're just better informed and smart." 

[stevegrab]

On 3/10/2021 at 4:57 PM, LordOpie said:

Nfln is more of exclusive than Amazon.

 

How do i get nfln without subscribing to Something expensive?

 

Many people have pay TV services that include NFLN at no extra charge, and do not require anything other than the basic or maybe 2nd tier of cable, not premium sports packages or movie package. That's not a very exclusive group. They already get NFL content on that channel including the NFL games. They'll lose that if games go to any streaming service exclusively. I personally am pissed because AT-T U-Verse dropped NFLN so I'm missing those games anyway (but have found a way to watch them if I really want to). 

How do I get Amazon Prime without paying them a regular fee for it, that is just for their product, which I may not need at all and just want to watch NFL games. 

 

I get that a lot of people have Amazon Prime already and so the addition of NFL games is a bonus. But not every Amazon customer has prime, far from it. Though if you talk to somebody that has Prime they'll wonder how you survive without it.

 

Streaming is gaining in popularity, but there are still many with traditional cable/sat TV, yes it is expensive but streaming isn't free and depending on what content you want could get expensive with numerous streaming services. 

 

PS  Maybe I'm missing your point, or you think the games on Amazon are available to anybody, or any Amazon customer and does not require their additional Prime pay service that includes video streaming. 

Edited March 12, 2021 by stevegrab

[Big Country]

20 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

 

How do I get Amazon Prime without paying them a regular fee for it, that is just for their product, which I may not need at all and just want to watch NFL games. 

 

 

Ummm.. that would be the entire point of Amazon acquiring exclusive rights to games.. to drive more people to their service.

 

Some people will pay for Prime for the shipping of products - the music streaming, tv streaming, exclusive tv shows, etc. is just a bonus to them that is included, not something they "need".

 

Some people are paying for the streaming service - the free shipping on orders is just a bonus, not somethin they "need".

 

If they do this, some people will pay just for the NFL games as something they "need". All the other stuff is just a bonus that may keep them around.

[stevegrab]

1 hour ago, LordOpie said:

this

but in addition, prime is cheaper than services that bundle NFLN. YouTubeTV is like $60 PER MONTH. I tried it, was disappointed in the value. For that amount, I can have amazon, hulu, netflix, disney+, and two more services that I can't think of.

NFLN needs to detach. I'd pay for it separately, but having to pay for an expensive service just for NFLN isn't going to happen for a lot of people. Plus, anyone still paying for cable TV? Seems like a rip off. I detached a decade ago.

If I have to watch commercials, I'd rather not watch TV. (except for sports/live, of course)

 

Yes millions still pay for cable/sat TV.  Do people really pay for Hulu and Netflix?  Or other streaming services? See how silly that sounds.

 

Watch commercials, I haven't done that since my first DVR well over a decade ago. Is streaming entirely ad free? 

 

As for NFLN detaching (offering its product direct to consumers for a fee), I'm sure there is a market for that, as well as many other channels if they were sold separately. But its not really worth it for the people involved (rights holders and their broadcast partners) to do ala carte. And if they did the price would probably be pretty high, everybody with packaged TV services is paying for a lot of stuff they don't want. I don't watch Hallmark and my sister doesn't watch ESPN, but we both pay for packages with those channels. 

[League_Champion]

I'll get my Buddy's Amazon Password. I ain't paying for shizz. 

[stevegrab]

Just now, League_Champion said:

I'll get my Buddy's Amazon Password. I ain't paying for shizz. 

 

You tell em    I figure some day the companies will get smart and work to prevent password sharing, heard something about Netflix doing something, here's one article. I recall something like that when using my brother's Amazon Prime trial at the holidays, it sending him something to authorize my use (he was visiting me at the time). 

 

https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/11/22325831/netflix-password-sharing-test-feature-piracy-security-streaming-video

 

This sounds a little like many of the financial or health care sites I'm using these days that will want to make sure you are you (not just somebody with the right user ID and password) by sending a text, email or call to confirm. 

[stevegrab]

On 3/12/2021 at 3:48 PM, LordOpie said:

lol $10 a month vs $100.

 

well, fools and their money and all that...

 

Right, just $10 because people with streaming and no cable/sat TV pay for only one streaming service    And there's far more than just Hulu and Netflix. 

 

They hook you with 'its only $5-10-15 a month" and get you to sign up for auto pay and you'll never cancel, even as prices increase. 

 

Your post was dripping with hyperbole asking if "anybody still pays for cable", so I responded with a DUH does anybody pay for streaming, since they are both equally ridiculous questions. Did you think the advent of streaming meant only a handful of idiots are still paying for cable? Would all the various providers really be in business with so few subscribers? 

[purplemonster]

19 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

 

Right, just $10 because people with streaming and no cable/sat TV pay for only one streaming service    And there's far more than just Hulu and Netflix. 

 

They hook you with 'its only $5-10-15 a month" and get you to sign up for auto pay and you'll never cancel, even as prices increase. 

 

Your post was dripping with hyperbole asking if "anybody still pays for cable", so I responded with a DUH does anybody pay for streaming, since they are both equally ridiculous questions. Did you think the advent of streaming meant only a handful of idiots are still paying for cable? Would all the various providers really be in business with so few subscribers? 

I think the majority of households still have cable/satellite pay TV, but the number is shrinking.  You see all these various streaming services coming out, Disney, Peacock, etc.  They are trying to get ahead of the trend a little bit.  I think it will be difficult for pay-TV to get subscribers back after they cut the cord and go to streaming, unless they find a way to get costs down. By then though, people will be more comfortable using the streaming services.  And there are frequently much less commercials. Unless you fast forward through them all on your cable TV and watch on delay.  Just saying there are changes afoot.  And Gen-X'ers are more e-sports, gaming, streaming adept so I don't think these trends favor cable bc cable's big draw is live sports and the demand for that is generally going down in younger consumers. 

 

https://www.axios.com/cable-tv-streaming-sports-live-4ab34f24-0e63-498a-b18b-a0647da5c554.html

https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/report-pay-tv-to-lose-most-subscribers-ever-in-single-year

[stevegrab]

5 minutes ago, purplemonster said:

I think the majority of households still have cable/satellite pay TV, but the number is shrinking.  You see all these various streaming services coming out, Disney, Peacock, etc.  They are trying to get ahead of the trend a little bit.  I think it will be difficult for pay-TV to get subscribers back after they cut the cord and go to streaming, unless they find a way to get costs down. By then though, people will be more comfortable using the streaming services.  And there are frequently much less commercials. Unless you fast forward through them all on your cable TV and watch on delay.  Just saying there are changes afoot.  And Gen-X'ers are more e-sports, gaming, streaming adept so I don't think these trends favor cable bc cable's big draw is live sports and the demand for that is generally going down in younger consumers. 

 

https://www.axios.com/cable-tv-streaming-sports-live-4ab34f24-0e63-498a-b18b-a0647da5c554.html

https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/report-pay-tv-to-lose-most-subscribers-ever-in-single-year

 

Yep I understand all that, but cable/sat TV is a far cry from dead as some are portraying it. 

[stevegrab]

16 hours ago, LordOpie said:

Lol, you have to argue to the point of stupidity. Congrats, you win.

You have to keep proving you're a dick, congrats you're still a loser 

 

Oh and "sorry if I upset you"  

[Big John]

Contracts were approved today: https://www.thebiglead.com/posts/nfl-new-tv-rights-deal-broadcast-partners-total-value-super-bowl-rotation-thursday-night-football-amazon-espn-fox-cbs-nbc-01f13fe248pz

 

Bad points as i said before that some games are moving to premium-website only games on ESPN+ (as per ESPN). TNF will be solely on Amazon. Not known if they will be on regular Amazon or the premium service of Amazon Prime.  Good point is that regular ESPN games will be simulcast on ABC.

[Patriots]

On 3/15/2021 at 6:09 PM, LordOpie said:

This.

Watching commercials is dumb.

Problem with streaming is you can't flip though the channels.    So when we cut the cord you could have football, playoff baseball, maybe golf all on at same time.    It sucks to try to watch them all at same time because you can't flip around channels.  You have to find out what streaming service its on, it take a minute to boot up, whatever.   We switched back to cable.      

[purplemonster]

19 minutes ago, Big John said:

Contracts were approved today: https://www.thebiglead.com/posts/nfl-new-tv-rights-deal-broadcast-partners-total-value-super-bowl-rotation-thursday-night-football-amazon-espn-fox-cbs-nbc-01f13fe248pz

 

Bad points as i said before that some games are moving to premium-website only games on ESPN+ (as per ESPN). TNF will be solely on Amazon. Not known if they will be on regular Amazon or the premium service of Amazon Prime.  Good point is that regular ESPN games will be simulcast on ABC.

That link is dead. Amazon Prime 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/18/nfl-media-rights-deal-2023-2033-amazon-gets-exclusive-thursday-night.html

[Big John]

Not in the announcement is that Sunday ticket will no longer be on direct TV.  It is slated to move to espn+.

[stevegrab]

On 3/18/2021 at 5:26 PM, purplemonster said:

That link is dead. Amazon Prime 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/18/nfl-media-rights-deal-2023-2033-amazon-gets-exclusive-thursday-night.html

 

I was going to say I didn't think there was ever any question that the games Amazon purchased were going to be on Prime. Didn't even realize there was video streaming with Amazon that isn't part of the Prime premium service.

BTW  I checked with my one brother who has Prime, its a single Amazon account tied to his wife's email, not sure how common that is I could see many people wanting their own unique accounts. 

[Big John]

Now they are moving a playoff game to Peacock.  A playoff game on premium streaming only is totally unacceptable to me.

[boltnlava]

14 hours ago, Big John said:

Now they are moving a playoff game to Peacock.  A playoff game on premium streaming only is totally unacceptable to me.

Get ready to really be pissed. It won't be long until all playoff games and the Super Bowl (ppv) will be stream only.

[Anonymouse]

15 hours ago, Big John said:

Now they are moving a playoff game to Peacock.  A playoff game on premium streaming only is totally unacceptable to me.

How is this different than NFLN or prime?

[Gopher]

16 minutes ago, Anonymouse said:

How is this different than NFLN or prime?

Maybe in the sense that it's a playoff game?  

[Big John]

NFLN is not streaming and I am already displeased with prime.

[stevegrab]

1 hour ago, boltnlava said:

Get ready to really be pissed. It won't be long until all playoff games and the Super Bowl (ppv) will be stream only.

That might just be the end of my being an NFL fan. Nothing but pure greed. NFLN was bad for me when my TV provider dropped it outright, not a short term failed negotiation, just cut the channel. (Of course no price reduction for the consumer.) But things like Prime and Peacock are premium streaming services that many NFL fans don't have. Of course those who paid for the content are hoping that they'll get millions of new subscribers. 

Story with some details. 

https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl-fans-will-need-to-subscribe-to-peacock-if-they-dont-want-to-miss-a-playoff-game-221224421.html

[gilthorp]

don't go stevegrab, come back.