$24 BILLION New NBA TV Deal (ESPN & TNT)

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

Rolling in cash and the players get the pennies! Lot of people coming off deals in a couple seasons are about to get PAIDDDD!



http://www.celticslife.com/2014/10/nba-agrees-to-new-24-billion-dollar-tv.html

[kraidstar]

new deal is for 9 years. the current national TV deal only nets them a little over $900M per year. so teams will be making about $50 more each. sounds like the cap is indeed about to go up!

[Eja117]

Coulda sworn the owners insisted they weren't making money.

[wdleehi]

This has been expected.  The rumors are the NBA is trying to come up with a plan to slowly raise the cap now so the NBA players still get the proper % of the revenue when the big money hits without a sudden cap spike. 

[gpap]

Coulda sworn the owners insisted they weren't making money.

I was going to say, now we can't hear anymore bull s from the owners about how "ooh..we have no money."

Hopefully this is also a sign that perhaps another lockout will be avoided in 2017 as the league doesn't seem to have issues with generating revenue.

Of course, this could also cause the owners and players to want a bigger piece of the pie

[saltlover]

This has been expected.  The rumors are the NBA is trying to come up with a plan to slowly raise the cap now so the NBA players still get the proper % of the revenue when the big money hits without a sudden cap spike.

They'll have to negotiate with the players to alter the escrow account then, since if the cap is raised to account for 50% of the extra TV money, with the other 50% coming the following year when the TV deal takes effect, for certain the players will make more than the 51% of revenue they're allowed to.

For perspective, if the NBA made $2.67 billion in TV revenues instead of $930 million in TV revenues this season (which assumes that the NBA gets the average annual value of the respective TV deals instead of graduated payments) the salary cap this year would have been about $89 million instead of $63 million, assuming my quick math is near correct.

If they don't end up raising the cap by anything other than the normal amount, it will be interesting to see what players who have player options and ETO's in their contracts do.  A player like Kevin Love stands to get a decent increase next season, but could get a huge one the following year.  Even Jeff Green, while he isn't sniffing max money, would be a free agent in a bigger pool of money and could expect a salary bump, so maybe waiting an extra year works for him.

Finally, because everything Celticsblog must include Rondo -- if the big jump doesn't occur for two years, Rondo would be a bargain if he got a max next year.  A max contract next year would start somewhere in the $18-$19 million range.  In 2 years, Rondo would instead be eligible for a contract starting in the $29-30 million range (partly due to an extra year of experience -- if we hold that will part constant, he'd be eligible for a contract in the $25-26 million range -- still a huge jump).  It will be tricky for the Celtics if they do escalate the cap somewhat, as then Rondo might be eligible for a contract which, for a year, would make him the highest paid player in the game (along with Aldridge, who would certainly get the same deal, and Love, if he opts out.)  The following year a ton of players would pass him.

[bdm860]

According to this article, ESPN is expected to let you stream their NBA games without a cable provider, which is huge for cord cutters like me who don't want to use illegal streams.

ESPN has made plenty of forays into streaming video, but services like WatchESPN typically require that you already have TV service. That partly defeats the point of viewing online, don't you think? However, you might not face that limitation for much longer. According to sources for the Wall Street Journal, the NBA has signed a pact with Disney (ESPN's parent) to launch a new streaming service that doesn't demand a cable or satellite subscription -- a big deal for ESPN, which still makes most of its money from paid TV.

[saltlover]

According to this article, ESPN is expected to let you stream their NBA games without a cable provider, which is huge for cord cutters like me who don't want to use illegal streams.

ESPN has made plenty of forays into streaming video, but services like WatchESPN typically require that you already have TV service. That partly defeats the point of viewing online, don't you think? However, you might not face that limitation for much longer. According to sources for the Wall Street Journal, the NBA has signed a pact with Disney (ESPN's parent) to launch a new streaming service that doesn't demand a cable or satellite subscription -- a big deal for ESPN, which still makes most of its money from paid TV.

Wow -- I feel like ESPN could be shooting themselves in the foot with that one.  One of the two primary reasons cable is so expensive is due to the fact that ESPN and other live sports networks can command so much money from cable providers, and gets placed on the most basic tiers of TV (the other reason is complete lack of competition in the industry -- but then, ESPN benefits from that too).

[wdleehi]

According to this article, ESPN is expected to let you stream their NBA games without a cable provider, which is huge for cord cutters like me who don't want to use illegal streams.

ESPN has made plenty of forays into streaming video, but services like WatchESPN typically require that you already have TV service. That partly defeats the point of viewing online, don't you think? However, you might not face that limitation for much longer. According to sources for the Wall Street Journal, the NBA has signed a pact with Disney (ESPN's parent) to launch a new streaming service that doesn't demand a cable or satellite subscription -- a big deal for ESPN, which still makes most of its money from paid TV.

Wow -- I feel like ESPN could be shooting themselves in the foot with that one.  One of the two primary reasons cable is so expensive is due to the fact that ESPN and other live sports networks can command so much money from cable providers, and gets placed on the most basic tiers of TV (the other reason is complete lack of competition in the industry -- but then, ESPN benefits from that too).

Until NFL and collage football offers the same thing, nothing for them to worry about. 

[fairweatherfan]

Coulda sworn the owners insisted they weren't making money.

I was going to say, now we can't hear anymore bull s from the owners about how "ooh..we have no money."

Hopefully this is also a sign that perhaps another lockout will be avoided in 2017 as the league doesn't seem to have issues with generating revenue.

Of course, this could also cause the owners and players to want a bigger piece of the pie

It won't be a lockout, it'll be a strike, and it's very very likely unless the league is really proactive about working with the players.  Better believe most players remember all the concessions they had to make because of the owners pleading poverty (and an incompetent union).

[saltlover]

According to this article, ESPN is expected to let you stream their NBA games without a cable provider, which is huge for cord cutters like me who don't want to use illegal streams.

ESPN has made plenty of forays into streaming video, but services like WatchESPN typically require that you already have TV service. That partly defeats the point of viewing online, don't you think? However, you might not face that limitation for much longer. According to sources for the Wall Street Journal, the NBA has signed a pact with Disney (ESPN's parent) to launch a new streaming service that doesn't demand a cable or satellite subscription -- a big deal for ESPN, which still makes most of its money from paid TV.

Wow -- I feel like ESPN could be shooting themselves in the foot with that one.  One of the two primary reasons cable is so expensive is due to the fact that ESPN and other live sports networks can command so much money from cable providers, and gets placed on the most basic tiers of TV (the other reason is complete lack of competition in the industry -- but then, ESPN benefits from that too).

Until NFL and collage football offers the same thing, nothing for them to worry about.

And such agreements will begin to be negotiated as soon as ESPN launches their NBA online viewing product, if not sooner.  Why wouldn't college football, the NFL, and MLB want their product available for free online if someone is going to pay them billions for the rights to do so?

[wdleehi]

According to this article, ESPN is expected to let you stream their NBA games without a cable provider, which is huge for cord cutters like me who don't want to use illegal streams.

ESPN has made plenty of forays into streaming video, but services like WatchESPN typically require that you already have TV service. That partly defeats the point of viewing online, don't you think? However, you might not face that limitation for much longer. According to sources for the Wall Street Journal, the NBA has signed a pact with Disney (ESPN's parent) to launch a new streaming service that doesn't demand a cable or satellite subscription -- a big deal for ESPN, which still makes most of its money from paid TV.

Wow -- I feel like ESPN could be shooting themselves in the foot with that one.  One of the two primary reasons cable is so expensive is due to the fact that ESPN and other live sports networks can command so much money from cable providers, and gets placed on the most basic tiers of TV (the other reason is complete lack of competition in the industry -- but then, ESPN benefits from that too).

Until NFL and collage football offers the same thing, nothing for them to worry about.

And such agreements will begin to be negotiated as soon as ESPN launches their NBA online viewing product, if not sooner.  Why wouldn't college football, the NFL, and MLB want their product available for free online if someone is going to pay them billions for the rights to do so?

Because of the NFL ticket payday. 

[gpap]

Coulda sworn the owners insisted they weren't making money.

I was going to say, now we can't hear anymore bull s from the owners about how "ooh..we have no money."

Hopefully this is also a sign that perhaps another lockout will be avoided in 2017 as the league doesn't seem to have issues with generating revenue.

Of course, this could also cause the owners and players to want a bigger piece of the pie

It won't be a lockout, it'll be a strike, and it's very very likely unless the league is really proactive about working with the players.  Better believe most players remember all the concessions they had to make because of the owners pleading poverty (and an incompetent union).

Yes, that's what I meant to say, thank you for clarifying.

Though on the surface this sounds like good news for the NBA, this will also likely lead to the players wanting an increase of their basketball related income (or whatever the correct terminology is) and the owners (being greedy like they are) not agreeing to it.

[wdleehi]

Coulda sworn the owners insisted they weren't making money.

I was going to say, now we can't hear anymore bull s from the owners about how "ooh..we have no money."

Hopefully this is also a sign that perhaps another lockout will be avoided in 2017 as the league doesn't seem to have issues with generating revenue.

Of course, this could also cause the owners and players to want a bigger piece of the pie

It won't be a lockout, it'll be a strike, and it's very very likely unless the league is really proactive about working with the players.  Better believe most players remember all the concessions they had to make because of the owners pleading poverty (and an incompetent union).

Yes, that's what I meant to say, thank you for clarifying.

Though on the surface this sounds like good news for the NBA, this will also likely lead to the players wanting an increase of their basketball related income (or whatever the correct terminology is) and the owners (being greedy like they are) not agreeing to it.

The players are going to get their % of the revenue still.  I think the players will be able to increase the % next time around if they agree to other changes (like raising the age of those entering the league). 



How the NBA works out the cap for the next few seasons until the money hits will be interesting.  They don't want one season where the money just completely drop into the cap.  They want to build up to it.

[Csfan1984]

Any one else feel player caps hurt the players way too much? Teams are made by the stars pretty much. And titles are only won by top ten players or hall of fame lock guys. Jordan was making 33 million in 1998 and highest current player only making 24 million. Last year Kobe did make 30 but on average some of the best players are making just  12% more than players at their salary ranking 12 years ago. Seems to me like the owners don't want to pay the best players their due and now we have role players making 9 million.