I’ve never been a fan of the intersection of sports and politics. Every time partisanship entered the sports arena, I shunned the discussion. It didn’t matter which party, person, or issue was involved. Sports are meant to provide an escape from the realities of day-to-day life, where we share in the viewing experience and embrace the community sports provide.
However, as I’ve aged, that’s changed. It’s hard to go more than a day or two without some political angle making its way into the sports ecosphere. The latest example involves broadcast network owners currying favor with the political establishment to secure what they believe is best for business. FOX owner Rupert Murdoch meeting with President Donald Trump during a reported dinner in February is the latest example.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Murdoch met with Trump to raise concerns about the NFL’s rights deals with streaming companies. The report states that Murdoch argued the prospect of streamers (Netflix, YouTube, etc.) acquiring more games had the potential to “kill broadcast networks.”
Kill broadcast networks? Is that a little much? Keep in mind, this is the same man who owns FOX News, which has bathed in sensationalism for decades. Also, consider the source of the reporting. Murdoch owns The Wall Street Journal as well.
Taking that for what it’s worth, would losing the NFL to streaming companies truly kill broadcast networks?
Timing Is Everything
Using FOX Sports as an example, the company currently pays a reported $2.2 billion per season for NFL rights. Last September, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said he was open to renegotiating the league’s television deals as soon as this year. The NFL season came and went, and by taking advantage of new measurement tactics through Nielsen Big Data + Panel, the league saw 10% growth in regular-season viewership.
Higher audiences give the NFL more leverage in pricing negotiations. It would with any league.
CNBC reported earlier this year that the NFL is seeking a 50% increase from CBS, now owned by Paramount Skydance. By the way, that’s a company that received approval for its purchase of CBS after making concessions to the current administration.
There’s politics again, but maybe that’s just business.
Then, months after discussions began with CBS, Goodell pushed back against claims that the league’s rights deals with streaming companies are “anti-consumer.” He told Vanity Fair that the majority of NFL games are still distributed through broadcast television and that streaming services are “incredibly widely distributed.”
“Netflix is not a small distribution. In fact, you can make an argument it’s bigger than some of the networks,” said Goodell.
Just days after that extensive Vanity Fair profile, news broke from the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal about a dinner with Trump regarding the NFL’s media rights with broadcasters.
In politics, timing is everything. You can read the tea leaves here. If one network executive can curry favor with the political establishment, why can’t another?
Oh, how I long for the days of just watching games again.
FOX Has Options
Now that the roadmap has been explained, does the Murdoch meeting with Trump say more about the NFL’s power or network television’s lack of creativity? When I worked in radio and we lost rights deals, we reinvested in programming and assets to attract the same audience or a larger one. When we wanted to retain rights, we examined the budget closely and reallocated resources to free up more money for franchise deals.
The NFL costs FOX $2.2 billion annually, easily its largest sports-rights expense. FOX doesn’t have the financial flexibility of streaming companies or even some broadcast competitors. Because of that, FOX CEO and executive chair Lachlan Murdoch said in February that the company could “rebalance” its sports portfolio.
“We have the ability to offset a portion of any kind of cost increases. Because we look at our sports portfolio as a whole. We would certainly consider balancing or rebalancing our portfolio as we move forward, when those opportunities become available. So we feel comfortable about the sports business.”
FOX currently has agreements with the NFL, MLB, NASCAR, FIFA, IndyCar, UFL, and the Big Ten Conference, among others. Could FOX survive without one or more of those properties to retain the gold standard of viewership the NFL delivers? Surely it could, That would also create opportunities for other networks and streaming platforms to enter the live sports business. See my recent discussion with CW Sports executives as an example.
The NFL is not keeping broadcast television alive by itself.
Yes, it remains the most-watched live programming available. But to suggest survival without it is impossible is laughable. NFL programming occupies roughly five months of the broadcast calendar year. It also overlaps with the NHL, NBA, college football and basketball, the MLB postseason, and numerous other live sporting events that networks still deliver to broadcast audiences.
If you want the most expensive car on the lot, and demand continues to rise, you’ll have to pay a higher premium. That’s smart business, not the death knell of the automobile industry for generations to come.
The Price of Doing Business
Like it or not, the NFL is in the driver’s seat. The league has every right to sell its product to whoever is willing to pay a reasonable price. As long as local markets maintain free access, which they have throughout this process on broadcast television, there should be no debate.
The reality is that this fight isn’t about preserving the sanctity of broadcast television. It’s about preserving leverage, control, and economics in a media landscape that no longer guarantees permanent dominance to any company. The NFL understands its value better than anyone else in sports, and it is operating accordingly.
If broadcasters want to remain major players in that future, the answer cannot simply be private dinners, political influence, or fear-based warnings about streaming destroying television. The answer has to be innovation, adaptation, and proof that they can still deliver value in a changing marketplace.
Because at some point, networks must stop acting like victims of disruption and start behaving like competitors within it. The audience has already evolved. The technology has evolved as well. Distribution models are changing in real time.
Network television can either evolve with it or spend the next decade blaming everyone else for why it didn’t.
And honestly, maybe that’s the most disappointing part of all this. Not that politics found its way into sports media once again, but that instead of competing for the future, some of the industry’s biggest power brokers seem more interested in lobbying against it.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
John Mamola is Barrett Media’s sports editor and daily sports columnist. He brings over two decades of experience (Chicago, Tampa/St Petersburg) in the broadcast industry with expertise in brand management, sales, promotions, producing, imaging, hosting, talent coaching, talent development, web development, social media strategy and design, video production, creative writing, partnership building, communication/networking with a long track record of growth and success. He is a five-time recognized top 20 program director in a major market via Barrett Medi’s Top 20 series and has been honored internally multiple times as station/brand of the year (Tampa, FL) and employee of the month (Tampa, FL) by iHeartMedia. Connect with John by email at John@BarrettMedia.com.
