More stories

  • in

    N.B.A. Announces Lucrative Rights Deals With Disney, Comcast and Amazon

    The league rejected a bid by Warner Bros. Discovery to match Amazon’s offer.The National Basketball Association announced new rights agreements with Disney, Comcast and Amazon on Wednesday after rejecting a rival bid by Warner Bros. Discovery that would have kept games on its TNT network, which has broadcast the N.B.A. since the 1980s.The companies will collectively pay more than $76 billion over 11 years, according to four people familiar with the negotiations who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the financial details. That will substantially increase the league’s annual revenue and reflects the continued importance of live sports programming even as streaming has reconfigured the entertainment industry.In making the announcement, the league said it had rejected Warner Bros. Discovery’s bid this week to match Amazon’s offer for its share of the package.“Throughout these negotiations, our primary objective has been to maximize the reach and accessibility of our games for our fans,” the league said in a statement. “Our new arrangement with Amazon supports this goal by complementing the broadcast, cable and streaming packages that are already part of our new Disney and NBCUniversal arrangements.” (NBCUniversal is owned by Comcast.)“All three partners have also committed substantial resources to promote the league and enhance the fan experience,” the statement added.The new deals, which include N.B.A. and some W.N.B.A. games, will take effect with the 2025-26 season and are more than two and a half times the average annual value of the league’s current rights agreements.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    NBA Agrees to Massive Rights Deals With Disney, Comcast and Amazon

    The agreements, set to begin after next season, could potentially pay the league about $76 billion over 11 years.The National Basketball Association’s Board of Governors has approved a set of agreements for the rights to show the league’s games, Commissioner Adam Silver said on Tuesday, moving one step closer to completing deals that would reshape how the sport is watched over the next decade.Mr. Silver declined to discuss any financial details or even the companies involved, though there have been reports for months that Disney, Comcast and Amazon were close to deals with the league. TNT, which is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery, has shown N.B.A. games since the 1980s, but its prominent on-air personalities like Charles Barkley talked during the playoffs about how they worried that the network would lose the rights after next season, the last covered by the current nine-year TV deal.The companies are expected to pay the N.B.A. a total of about $76 billion over 11 years. On average, ESPN would pay the N.B.A. about $2.6 billion annually, NBC around $2.5 billion and Amazon roughly $1.8 billion, according to three people familiar with the agreements, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the financial details.The Board of Governors voted to approve the deals at its yearly meeting in Las Vegas. The N.B.A. must now present the deals to Warner Bros. Discovery, and once that happens, the company will have five days to match one of them to remain in the mix.“We did approve this stage of those media proposals, but as you all know there are other rights that need to be worked through with existing partners,” Mr. Silver said.Warner Bros. Discovery was expected to try to match Amazon’s offer, according to two people familiar with the company’s thinking, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the negotiations.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    FIFA Said to Be Close to TV Deal With Apple for New Tournament

    The agreement would give the tech company worldwide rights for a monthlong World Cup-style competition between top teams set to take place next year.FIFA, soccer’s global governing body, is close to an agreement with Apple that would give the tech company worldwide television rights for a major new tournament, a monthlong, World Cup-style competition for top teams that will be played for the first time in the United States next summer.The agreement could be announced as soon as this month, according to three people familiar with the matter, who were not authorized to discuss the deal publicly because it has yet to be officially confirmed. It comes after several false starts for a competition championed by FIFA’s president, Gianni Infantino. Plans to hold it in China in 2021 were scuttled because of the pandemic.The value of the deal might be as little as a quarter of the $4 billion FIFA had first estimated, the people said. It is unclear if the deal with Apple will include any free-to-air rights, meaning the entire event could be available only to subscribers of Apple TV+, a factor over which senior executives at FIFA have raised concerns.Should the deal go through, it would be the first time that FIFA, which will stage the first expanded 48-team men’s World Cup in the United States in 2026, has agreed to a single worldwide contract. It would also represent the latest foray into soccer for Apple, which in 2022 signed a 10-year, $2.5 billion agreement for the global streaming rights to Major League Soccer.Streaming services have become increasingly interested in live sports, as they seek to woo more subscribers. Peacock streamed a National Football League playoff game last season and Amazon Prime has been streaming Thursday night N.F.L. games since 2022. Apple also has a deal to stream Major League Baseball games. Netflix focuses more on sports documentaries, though it recently pushed into live “sports-adjacent programming,” including a multibillion deal to stream World Wrestling Entertainment’s flagship weekly wrestling show, “Raw.” It also announced that it would stream a boxing match between the former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson and the social media influencer Jake Paul in July.FIFA was hoping that the tournament, which will feature a mix of successful teams from across the globe, including 12 from Europe, where most of the world’s top talent plays, would create huge demand from broadcasters and commercial partners. But a combination of poor planning and delays prompted broadcasters to balk at the figures FIFA had sought. Sponsors have so far also been reluctant to commit the $150 million that the organization is seeking for sponsorship packages, according to the people.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Soccer Watchalongs Like Stretford Paddock Offer a Broadcast Alternative

    Soccer fans are tuning out broadcasts in favor of watchalongs: streaming parties where you hear what you want to hear and see everything except the game.With the lights adjusted and the cameras rolling, the production team gives Joe Smith his cue. In five seconds, he will be broadcasting live to a couple thousand people. Mr. Smith’s mind, though, is elsewhere. “Slate is definitely the best way to build a roof,” he mutters to his co-host, Jay Mottershead, as the countdown hits three. “All these years on, they haven’t topped it.”And with that, they are on air. They will remain so for the next four hours, essentially uninterrupted: a broadcasting endurance test staged in a subterranean studio, all exposed brick and industrial lighting, in the middle of Manchester’s achingly hip Northern Quarter.Before they have finished, they will have touched on subjects as diverse as: the slightly alarming frequency with which Mr. Mottershead has nightmares; the declining popularity of lemon curd; and the story of a man who attends Mr. Smith’s gym exclusively to read vintage copies of “Cars” magazine.Occasionally, their freewheeling, faintly anarchic conversation to be interrupted by what is supposedly the purpose of the evening’s activity: keeping track of the game between the soccer team they support, Manchester United, and the Danish champion, F.C. Copenhagen.That is, after all, what will attract more than 100,000 people to their livestream over the course of those four hours. It is the diversions and the tangents and the stream of consciousness about roofing, though, that will keep them there.Watchalongs like Stretford Paddock’s have become big business, with full-scale production crews and hundreds of thousands of subscribers.Rory Smith/The New York TimesHard-Core CommunityThe concept of watching two people watch a soccer game might sound like a distinctly postmodern form of entertainment, a close cousin of the gaming streams that proliferate on Twitch and the unboxing videos that for some reason captivate children on YouTube.In soccer, though, the form has deep roots. The idea of making most games available to watch on television, after all, is a relatively recent one. In Britain, home to the Premier League, many games continue to be blacked out, in the interest of protecting in-stadium attendances.Barred from showing those games, broadcasters have for years had little choice but to find creative ways to keep viewers up-to-date on what is taking place in them. Most have settled on the format pioneered by Sky’s “Soccer Saturday” — launched in the 1990s — in which an array of former players sit in a studio, watching feeds of the games only they can see, and update viewers on key moments in real time. (Think of the N.F.L.’s popular Red Zone channel, only without seeing anyone actually playing football.)A group reaction to a last-minute goal on Arsenal Fan TV in 2021 made a compilation of the watchalong’s greatest hits.The form of the show that Mr. Mottershead and Mr. Smith host on Stretford Paddock, the Manchester United fan channel they co-own — or its counterparts on outlets like The Redmen TV (Liverpool) and We Are Tottenham TV (self-explanatory) — is essentially the same. The function, though, is distinct.Most of their viewers, Mr. Mottershead said, are also watching the games, either legally or illegally. “They turn the commentary down and listen to us instead,” he said. They do so because they want a much more narrowly focused product: Stretford Paddock’s audience only wants updates on Manchester United, for example, not news about anyone else who is playing at the same time.And, crucially, they want those updates delivered not by the compromised and biased mouthpieces of the mainstream media — what they see as retirees protecting their friends and business interests, or commentators with the nebulous but definite prejudice against their club — but by dyed-in-the-wool fans like them. “We might disagree on things,” Mr. Mottershead said. “But we all want United to do well.”Still, after more than six years leading watchalongs with Mr. Smith, Mr. Mottershead has come to believe that what draws in fans is not simply a matter of having their obsessions met and their biases confirmed.What his viewers are looking for, he thinks, is simple. They want someone to watch the game with them.Viral EmpireThe part of the soccer industry that is made for fans and by fans is necessarily tribal. Every club essentially exists in its own silo. The biggest names in the Manchester United content universe will be largely alien to those who follow Liverpool, just as celebrated Arsenal podcasters will have little or no resonance to Tottenham supporters.The crowning exception is Mark Goldbridge, soccer’s 44-year-old livestream kingpin and the genre’s only real crossover star. It is not just that his fan channel, The United Stand, currently has 1.77 million YouTube subscribers. It is that almost every time Manchester United loses (or draws, or concedes a goal), he is liable to reach many millions more.Footage from Mr. Goldbridge’s streams reliably goes viral: rants that are by turns splenetic, wildly N.S.F.W., and vaguely surreal. He will howl that Manchester United’s defense has “all the resistance of a papadum catching a bowling ball,” say, or that the club is accidentally employing “a team of slow giraffes.”Quite what it is about Mr. Goldbridge that has made him so prominent is difficult to pinpoint, and he offered no clues: He declined through his representation to be interviewed for this article, on the grounds that he is currently exploring opportunities away from “the watchalong space.”In interviews, Mr. Goldbridge has accepted that there is an element of cringe comedy, in the style of David Brent or Alan Partridge, to his delivery. Peter McPartland, a host on Toffee TV, a channel dedicated to Everton, agreed. “There is an awkwardness to him that makes him funny,” he said.Channels like We Are Tottenham TV and others all emphasize their bona fides as fans, and can offer faraway fans a glimpse of the in-stadium atmosphere they might never experience in person.Whatever it is, it is undeniably effective. “He has built an empire,” said Paul Machin, a founder of The Redmen TV, the Liverpool fan channel. The problem is less his success, other hosts said, and more in the copycats he has inspired.“People see his videos going viral,” Mr. Machin said, “so now there are a lot of Manchester United watchalongs where people you’ve never seen before are kind of performing their anger.”The economics of the internet, in theory, incentivize virality. In an industry in which there is a direct correlation between clicks and revenue, going viral is held to be both the greatest prize and the ultimate purpose of all online content.Those who earn their living from fan channels, though, see that kind of attention less as a goal and more as a danger. “We don’t want that virality,” said Ben Daniel, who founded We Are Tottenham TV with his brother, Simon, in 2017.Clips that break tribal lines tend to do so by attracting a considerable proportion of “hate watches,” he said — views from fans of other clubs relishing another team’s suffering. But those are not people who might hit the like button, or subscribe. Virality, it turns out, brings the wrong sort of fame.ParasocialOn the surface, the rewards for watchalong fame are thin. YouTube’s algorithm is weighted toward shorter videos, not hours of broadcast. The platform’s chats, which allow viewers to append payments to their comments or questions, drive only a couple of hundred dollars of revenue.The benefits are largely second-order ones. They are worth doing, Mr. Smith said, because they can drive subscriptions. Mostly, though, they do them because “it would be weird not to: The game is the culmination of everything we talk about.”He and Mr. Mottershead are old hands by the standards of the genre: Stretford Paddock has been doing watchalongs for almost a decade. Most of the newer versions trace their origins to the pandemic, when social distancing rules kept fans from attending games in person.Before then, fan channels focused on giving supporters who could not or did not attend games a digital version of the experience: a taste from outside the stadium, and inside the crowd, before, during and after games.“People want to feel that connection to their clubs,” one watchalong host said, wherever they happen to be watching.Rory Smith/The New York TimesWith the stands empty, that was not possible. All that was left was to offer running commentary on the games that they, like every other fan, were watching on television.When fans returned to the stands, though, the channels noticed there was still a sizable audience craving that type of in-game coverage. “It was so popular that we couldn’t drop it,” Mr. Machin said of The Redmen TV’s experience.Creators of Premier League watchalongs said they all appeal to roughly the same audience, distinguished only by tribal allegiance: fans generally between 16 and 35, though with a substantial proportion who are just a little older. A slender majority live in Britain, but there are healthy constituencies in Ireland, the United States and Australia, as well as whichever country a given team’s stars call home. Tottenham, for example, has a sizable following in South Korea thanks to the club’s beloved captain, Son Heung-min.They are all watching, too, for much the same reason. “People want to feel that connection to their clubs,” Mr. Machin said, wherever they happen to live.Watchalongs create a different sort of bond: a form of what psychologists call a parasocial relationship. Viewers want their biases to be reinforced. They want to know how other, like-minded fans are reacting to the games. But they also want the digressions, the asides about roofing and nightmares and cultural appropriation as it relates to hairstyles.They are, after all, watching from home, all around the world, each of them locked in their own little silo. What they want, more than searing insight or expert analysis or even a cheap laugh, is a connection to people who are doing exactly the same thing.Mr. Mottershead and Mr. Smith are not trying to offer them detailed commentary. They are trying to recreate the feeling, Mr. Mottershead said, of “watching the game with your mates.” More

  • in

    Tug-of-War Over N.B.A. Rights Provides Glimpse of Media’s Future

    The league’s longtime television partners, including ESPN and Turner, are undergoing major changes, which could alter how games are watched.The National Basketball Association’s season tipped off on Tuesday with stars like LeBron James and Nikola Jokic beginning the long quest for a title. But the action that will have longer-term ramifications for the league, and the media and entertainment landscape, is happening off the court.The companies holding the rights to show N.B.A. games — Disney, which owns ESPN and ABC, and Warner Bros. Discovery, the parent company of TNT — are collectively paying the league $24 billion over nine years for that privilege. But their contracts expire after next season, and the N.B.A. hopes to more than double the money it receives for rights in the next deal, according to several people familiar with the league’s expectations who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing negotiations.It won’t get that without a fight. After decades in which sports leagues garnered ever bigger piles of money for the rights to show their games, there are signs that media and technology companies are under increasing pressure to justify the exorbitant amounts they spend on broadcast rights. Interest rates are high, Wall Street is demanding profitability over growth, and streaming has reconfigured the entertainment industry.The result of the N.B.A.’s negotiations will say a lot about the future of broadcast networks, the cable bundle, streaming services and the sports media ambitions of technology companies.“I think in this era that we’re coming out of, this is the last of the big deals,” said John Kosner, who advises sports media and tech start-ups after a two-decade career as an executive at ESPN.The National Football League, the most valuable sports league in the world, did not quite double its rights fees when it signed new agreements in 2021. And that was before the stock market declined, interest rates rose and wars began in Europe and the Middle East.Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery, which have televised N.B.A. games for more than two decades, aren’t necessarily in positions to shell out lots of cash, either.Disney has carried out extreme cost-cutting and layoffs this year, and its chief executive, Robert A. Iger, has said the company is considering “strategic options” to sell equity in ESPN. Warner Bros. Discovery has also cut costs, and said in August that it had a debt load of nearly $50 billion following the merger of the two companies last year.The most likely scenario, according to the people familiar with the negotiations, is that Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery will sign new agreements with the N.B.A. to televise fewer games. The N.B.A. declined to comment for this article.The two companies together show about 160 regular-season games each year, as well as the playoffs and N.B.A. finals. Most games are shown on cable (ESPN and TNT), with a handful on ABC.For both companies, N.B.A. broadcast rights still represent a valuable bargaining chip in negotiations with their biggest customers: cable and satellite companies. Those distributors pay billions of dollars to Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery for the rights to show their cable channels, including TNT and ESPN, based in part on the expectation that those channels will air sports like N.B.A. basketball.An N.B.A. package would also help both companies shift to a streaming future. Warner Bros. Discovery recently added a live sports package to its streaming service, Max, while ESPN has been vocal about having a stand-alone streaming offering for its flagship channel in the near future.Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery are not likely to be the only companies showing N.B.A. games, though. If those companies end up showing fewer games in the new deal, the league may create a third rights package, perhaps even a fourth, of the games no longer included in the first two packages, as well as the league’s new in-season tournament.The most likely buyers for those packages of games are Amazon and NBC, according to the people familiar with the negotiations.Top executives at Fox, CBS and the Google-owned YouTube have said that they are unlikely to put in serious bids for broadcasting rights. The intentions of Netflix and Apple are less clear, but Netflix has long said it is uninterested in paying the kind of prices the N.B.A. is looking for. Apple has largely committed itself to a sports strategy of buying up all of a league’s domestic and international rights, like in its recent deal with Major League Soccer. That isn’t possible with the N.B.A.Amazon and NBC are attractive partners to the N.B.A. for very different reasons.For a generation, most N.B.A. games have been watchable only with a cable package. But the collapse of the cable bundle — from around 100 million households with a cable package a decade ago to around 70 million today — has made old-school broadcast networks, the most widely distributed television channels, more attractive. With CBS and Fox as unlikely bidders, the league could want games to be shown on NBC’s broadcast channel.As for Amazon, it is seen as highly unlikely that the N.B.A. — a league that is proud of being forward-thinking regarding technology — would sign a new rights agreement with only traditional media companies, according to some of the people familiar with the negotiations. Amazon has long been interested in broadcasting the N.B.A., according to a person familiar with the league’s negotiation history, and it has won plaudits for how it has handled Thursday night N.F.L. games.The media and technology companies declined to comment for this article. CNBC, Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal have all previously reported on parts of the N.B.A.’s media-rights negotiations.The league has a number of other media assets it could leverage. Most N.B.A. games are not shown nationally. Instead, they are broadcast in their local markets, with individual teams controlling the rights to sell those games. Teams have traditionally sold those rights to regional sports networks, but those are collapsing, leaving teams looking for alternatives.If Diamond Sports, which is in bankruptcy proceedings, collapses, the N.B.A. could suddenly regain control of the local rights for about half the teams in the league. If that happens, it might sell some of those rights to a national partner. But that would require the league to work with its team owners — as well as current rights holders — for the complicated task of navigating roughly 30 different local agreements.It would also leave out a number of high-profile teams, like the New York Knicks and the Los Angeles Lakers, which have long-term local rights agreements with successful regional sports networks.The N.B.A. could also sell some international rights. The rights to show N.B.A. games in some basketball-mad countries like China could be extremely valuable, especially as domestic streaming companies seek new markets. But the league — unique in American sports in that it sells all its international rights directly rather than working with third parties — is seen as more likely to sell those rights country by country to the highest bidder.The real wild card if the N.B.A. looks to do something groundbreaking could be its old stalwart: ESPN.Disney and ESPN executives have spoken in recent months with private equity firms, tech and mobile companies and sports leagues, and have concluded that if they are to give up equity, it should be to a league, or leagues, as part of a long-term partnership, according to two people familiar with ESPN’s plans.Analysts have valued ESPN at $25 billion to $50 billion, meaning a potential partner would have to trade billions in value for even a small stake. While a partner could pay Disney for a stake in ESPN, what the company is really looking for is exclusive content, some of those involved in the negotiations said.Disney executives have spoken with a number of sports leagues, including the N.B.A., about selling them equity in ESPN and what the company would want out of such an arrangement. According to one of the people, the benefits sought by ESPN in a partnership could include more closely integrating a league’s social media operations with the network’s, content like documentary rights and more in-game audio from players, distributing games it does not have the broadcast rights to within its apps and working together on marketing. More

  • in

    How Phoenix Fans Watch Their Teams May Change How You Watch Yours

    Numerous franchises are expected to overhaul their local media deals, returning games to free networks. The transition is underway in Arizona.Days after Mat Ishbia reached a deal in December to buy majority stakes in the N.B.A.’s Phoenix Suns and the Phoenix Mercury of the W.N.B.A., he met with top executives to learn more about the teams’ business operations, including how local fans were able to watch their games on TV.The executives detailed three possibilities going forward, including sticking with Diamond Sports Group, which owned the regional sports network that for more than a decade had held the rights to show the teams’ games. Diamond Sports was saddled with $8 billion in debts — it would file for bankruptcy protection in March — but it still wrote big checks worth millions of dollars a year.Mr. Ishbia, though, gravitated to the riskiest of the three options: ditching the regional sports network model that most teams followed for decades and returning to showing Suns and Mercury games for free on over-the-air channels. It might cost the teams money in the short term, but the bet was that it would help them reach more fans, including those who dropped their cable subscriptions or, like many younger fans, never had one.“What was interesting was the amount of people that were reaching out to me on social media about how they couldn’t watch the Suns games,” Mr. Ishbia said in an interview, adding: “It’s their team. It’s not Mat’s team. To not be able to watch your game wasn’t an option that we were interested in.”In April, the organization announced that it would leave Diamond Sports and broadcast all Suns and Mercury games on over-the-air channels with the company Gray Television. They sent thousands of free antennas to fans who needed them. They also created a streaming option with the company Kiswe.Mr. Ishbia’s decision shook a sports media world — clubs, leagues, networks, cable and satellite providers — trying to navigate the decade-long shift in how fans watch their home teams. Those used to finding games on one channel are having to search for them elsewhere as networks and leagues reshuffle their distribution deals in response to the rise of cord cutting and the boom in streaming. Some clubs could face shortfalls as they search for ways to replace revenue lost by the end of local media deals, potentially hindering their ability to bid for top players.More teams are expected to overhaul their local media deals in the coming months as their contracts expire. Those that choose to show more of their games on free television are returning to a world that the N.F.L., which shows more than 90 percent of its games on over-the-air channels, never abandoned.“It’s back to the future,” said Michael Nathanson, a media analyst at MoffettNathanson. “As more people cut the cord, these teams are losing their ability to reach their fans. So why not put it over the air for free and also build a streaming product that’s more accessible for younger fans.”Bally Sports Arizona, the network that televised the games for Phoenix’s N.B.A., W.N.B.A., N.H.L. and Major League Baseball franchises, shut down last week.Christian Petersen/Getty ImagesAs the largest market going through this, Phoenix is ground zero for the rapid transition. In recent months, the Phoenix Coyotes of the N.H.L. and the Arizona Diamondbacks of Major League Baseball joined the Suns and the Mercury in overhauling their local media deals. On Friday, Bally Sports Arizona, the Diamond Sports network that carried all of those teams, shut down.The Phoenix-area franchises are part of a growing wave of teams doing the same. The San Diego Padres, like the Diamondbacks, ended their agreement with Diamond Sports, the largest regional sports network provider. Major League Baseball used its broadcasting and streaming capabilities to keep the teams on the air and guaranteed they would get 80 percent of the revenue they received in their Diamond Sports deals.Diamond Sports, which must make at least $400 million in annual debt payments, is in talks with its creditors, some of whom want to reshape the company’s business while others want to be bought out. Diamond Sports is also in talks with the N.B.A. and other leagues about reducing their rights fees.A company spokesperson declined to comment on the talks with creditors and the leagues.Last year, Monumental Sports Network, which is owned by Ted Leonsis, the owner of the Washington Wizards (N.B.A.), Capitals (N.H.L.) and Mystics (W.N.B.A.), bought NBC Sports Washington and unveiled a new streaming service. The N.H.L.’s Vegas Golden Knights said in May that they planned to shift to a free over-the-air channel. The N.B.A.’s Utah Jazz and Los Angeles Clippers are selling their games and programming directly to viewers with streaming packages, with the Jazz also broadcasting their games on a free channel.The Jazz are “probably the largest real media company in the state,” Ryan Smith, the team’s owner, said in an interview this year. “If you actually think about the N.B.A., we’re not that different than a media or tech company.”Mr. Smith said he expected most teams to take over their broadcasts entirely within three years.Major League Baseball and the N.B.A. have been preparing for this possibility for years. When Sinclair, Diamond’s parent company, bought the regional sports networks from Fox Sports in 2019, M.L.B. made a bid because it wanted to control as much of its content as possible, Commissioner Rob Manfred said.“That was a product of our belief the media was going to change dramatically,” he said, noting that 11 major league teams still have contracts with Diamond Sports.Local media deals have traditionally been handled by the clubs, but in January, M.L.B. hired executives from regional sports networks to develop contingency plans, like taking back the rights to Padres and Diamondbacks games and showing them on MLB.TV’s subscription service, as well as an array of cable and satellite companies. The broadcasts included the same announcers.While deals with regional sports networks bring in dependable checks for teams, cord cutting has led to shrinking viewership.Kevin D. Liles/Atlanta Braves, via Getty ImagesJason and Wendy Dow, who live in Queen Creek, south of Phoenix, canceled their cable package with Cox this summer to save money and signed up for YouTube TV. Now they watch the Diamondbacks using the MLB app, which they said had better streaming functions.“I was kind of upset at first, but it’s turned out to be better in the end,” Jason Dow said at a recent Diamondbacks home game. “On the old feed, you basically just saw the game without a lot of extras.”The N.B.A. began preparing for changes in 2018, creating a “next gen” service that includes a streaming service and production and distribution support that teams can use to stream broadcasts. So far, the Clippers, the Jazz and the Suns are using it.Diamond’s bankruptcy doesn’t affect every team. Franchises like the New York Knicks, the Denver Nuggets and the Wizards in the N.B.A. and the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox in baseball own their networks. Other teams are locked into long-term deals, like the Los Angeles Dodgers, who signed a 25-year, $8.35 billion deal with Time Warner Cable in 2013 and have part ownership of their regional sports network.While the deals bring in dependable checks, some teams are reaching a shrinking viewership because of cord cutting. For others, like the Nuggets and the Dodgers, disputes with carriers like DirecTV and Comcast meant their games weren’t available to most people in their markets for part of their contracts.The Suns first had games on cable television in 1981, and started broadcasting games on Fox Sports, which later became Bally Sports, in 2003.“​At the time it seemed pretty good, pretty solid,” said Jerry Colangelo, who was with the Suns as an executive and then an owner from 1968 until 2004. “And they had some strong years of growth, for sure.”Instead of outsourcing the production and ad sales to the networks, the Suns produced their own content “to control our own destiny,” Mr. Colangelo said.The Suns continued to produce their own games and sell their own ads after Mr. Colangelo sold the team. That gave them and the Mercury a head start when Mr. Ishbia decided to change course. Most other teams will have to create those resources if they cut ties with regional sports networks.The early results have been positive. Viewership for Mercury games jumped 418 percent last season, said Josh Bartelstein, chief executive of the Suns and the Mercury. Mr. Ishbia said getting fans hooked on the Suns and the Mercury was the goal. He has made big (and expensive) moves since buying the team, trading for the highly paid stars Kevin Durant and Bradley Beal, and investing more than $100 million in a new practice facility for the Mercury and a new headquarters for both teams.“I’m not focused on money,” Mr. Ishbia said. “We’re focused on success. We’re focused on fan experience. And money always follows those things.”He added: “I think other teams will follow whether they have to or whether they want to. I think this is the future.” More

  • in

    Luis Rubiales Apologizes for Kissing Jennifer Hermoso After World Cup Win

    “Probably I made a mistake,” Luis Rubiales, the Spanish soccer federation chief, said after grabbing Jennifer Hermoso and planting a kiss full on her mouth, igniting howls of outrage on social media.A day after drawing outrage by grabbing and forcefully kissing the Spanish forward Jennifer Hermoso on the lips during the Women’s World Cup medals ceremony, Spain’s soccer federation chief issued something of an apology.“I have to apologize,” the official, Luis Rubiales, said in a video broadcast by the federation on Monday afternoon. “Probably I made a mistake.”The kiss was delivered in Sydney, Australia, only a few feet from where the Spanish queen, Letizia, was standing onstage as she congratulated the women’s team for trouncing England, 1-0, to capture its first World Cup trophy on Sunday.Video footage shows Mr. Rubiales enveloping Ms. Hermoso in his arms, grabbing her face between his hands and planting a kiss full on her mouth.Spaniards reacted with confusion and disgust on social media. Many saw it as evidence of a callous disregard for Ms. Hermoso and, more broadly, lingering sexism in soccer.The episode is the latest in a string of incidents that have plagued the women’s national team in recent months. Last year, 15 star players walked out in protest, accusing the coach, Jorge Vilda, of outdated training methods and controlling behavior.But the soccer federation backed Mr. Vilda, and only three of the rebel players were readmitted to the team.At first, Mr. Rubiales responded to the latest controversy with flippancy, brushing off his critics as “losers” in a late-night interview with the Cadena Cope radio station before boarding a flight back to Spain from Australia.“We shouldn’t pay attention to idiots and stupid people,” he said then, claiming that the kiss had been just a “peck between two friends celebrating something.”But by the time his long-haul flight landed in Spain on Monday morning, condemnation of his behavior was widespread in Spain.Adding his voice to the chorus of complaints, the minister of culture and sport, Miquel Iceta, called for an explanation from the soccer chief, pointing out that it was unacceptable to congratulate soccer players by kissing them on the lips.Other prominent politicians demanded Mr. Rubiales’s resignation. The minister of equality, Irene Montero, accused Mr. Rubiales on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, of sexual violence.Mr. Rubiales then changed his tune. “There was no bad intention by either party,” he said on Monday. “We saw it as natural,” he added, apparently referring to Ms. Hermoso. “But it has caused a commotion and people are offended, so I must apologize.”Attempts to reach Mr. Rubiales by phone and email were not successful on Sunday and Monday.As for Ms. Hermoso, she seemed to have been taken by surprise by the kiss on Sunday, and expressed her distaste in a post-match video, saying, “Hey, but I didn’t like that!”Later, she appeared to downplay the episode. “It was a totally spontaneous mutual gesture,” she said, “because of the huge joy of winning a World Cup.” More

  • in

    Australian TV Deal Has World Cup Viewers Asking: Where Are the Games?

    When FIFA sold Australia’s World Cup broadcast rights to a streaming service, it made it harder for casual fans to find the matches.The Women’s World Cup is by most estimates the biggest sporting event to be staged in Australia since the Sydney Olympics. FIFA, the tournament’s organizer, has trumpeted record ticket sales, and it has hailed the event both as a celebration of the popularity of women’s soccer and as a way to carry it to new fans and new markets.But while viewers in Australia could watch all 64 games of the recent men’s World Cup played in Qatar on a free-to-air network, FIFA struck a deal for the broadcast rights to the Women’s World Cup — as it did when the tournament was played in France four years ago — with the cellphone operator Optus, which has placed the bulk of the matches on its pay television network.For viewers in Australia, that has meant the majority of games can only be watched via subscription, making it harder for viewers living in one of the tournament’s host countries to watch the tournament than it has been for fans in places like Europe and the United States.“It’s very disappointing to not have the coverage the women deserve,” said Beth Monkley, who was in Brisbane with her daughter this week to follow Australia’s team. “It’s a fantastic sport for everyone, so inclusive. And for some reason Australia has decided not to show all the games free to air.”Legislation in Australia means the entire event cannot be placed behind a paywall, since games involving the men’s and national women’s soccer teams are considered of such significant importance that they are on a list of protected events that must be broadcast for free nationwide. The World Cup final also has a place on that protected list.This year, 15 tournament games will be available on Channel Seven, a free-to-air network authorized by FIFA and Optus to sub-license some rights. (Optus separately said it would offer to stream 10 games for free to users who sign up for its platform.)But the uncertainty about which games will be on the air, and when, has led to significant frustration among soccer fans, but also casual fans in sports-mad Australia, where soccer lags behind the country’s most popular sports, rugby, cricket and Australian rules football.On Thursday morning, Andrew Moore and his wife joined the throng of visitors to a FIFA fan park set up on the banks of the Brisbane River to watch the most eagerly awaited game of the group stage, a clash between the United States and the Netherlands. The Moores stood out.While most of the crowd were outfitted in the yellow and green of the Australian team that would play later in the day against Nigeria, the Moores were wearing matching maroon and golden jerseys of their favorite rugby team, the Brisbane Broncos, which was scheduled to play at the same time as the Matildas’ kickoff against Nigeria.While Australia’s matches are easy to find on television, the same is not true of all teams.Dan Peled/ReutersMoore said all the pretournament advertising and promotion had led him believe that all the games would be broadcast on Channel Seven, a network familiar to Australian sports fans. So a day after he watched Australia and New Zealand play their openers on free television, he settled in to watch the next round of games.But when he grabbed his remote control and flicked to Channel Seven, and then to its subsidiary channels, he could not find a game. “I thought there was something wrong with the television,” he said.Moore said for casual soccer viewers like his family, which already has several pay television subscriptions, signing up to Optus to watch the Women’s World Cup did not make sense, particularly since the sports he favors are on other networks. In Australia’s fragmented television market, most domestic sports rights are split across a number of pay and free-to-air networks. Fans seeking telecasts of major soccer leagues and tournaments from outside the country often must turn to more networks and more subscriptions.That has left FIFA trying to defend disparate priorities: its desire to attract new fans to women’s soccer, and a new commercial approach that seeks to maximize revenue for a tournament that it hopes will eventually grow closer to the popularity of the men’s event, which is the most-watched tournament in global sports.FIFA declined to comment on the rationale for its broadcast agreements in Australia beyond issuing a statement saying that both Optus and Channel Seven “have committed significant resources to covering and promoting the tournament” and claiming that their “combined efforts have led to record viewership figures for the FIFA Women’s World Cup in the region.”That record, experts said, was always likely to be met, given Australian and New Zealand’s host nation status and a favorable time zone for the games. David Rowe, a professor at the Institute for Culture and Society at Western Sydney University, described the lack of the type of blanket coverage that the men’s tournament typically enjoys as a “missed opportunity.”Optus, reacting to the outcry from viewers, has pointed out that broadcasters’ rights fees “are key to ensuring the continued growth and equality of women’s sport, and contribute to everything from grass roots momentum to salaries for our national players.”Soccer’s place within Australia’s sporting landscape has always been a precarious one, said Rowe, an expert on sports and media in Australia. He said the sport was for decades viewed with suspicion by a population grappling with a wave of migration after World War II.“Football got a reputation as foreign at time when there was a lot of suspicion toward people who were not British in the early days of multiculturalism,” he said.He credited the relative success of Australia’s women’s team in establishing itself as one of the best in the world as helping boost the sport’s appeal at home, much as victories and championships by the United States women’s team had popularized the sport in America.That popularity has been visible in the tournament, with record attendances and packed stadiums for Australia’s first two games.FIFA’s sale of the broadcast rights in Australia comes as it tries to promote the women’s game more broadly. Darrian Traynor/Getty ImagesStill, for FIFA, the Women’s World Cup is not close to being the cash cow that the men’s event has become. The estimated $300 million it will earn from selling broadcast rights to the women’s tournament is only about a tenth of what the organization brought in for the rights to the Qatar World Cup in 2022. FIFA and its president, Gianni Infantino, have accused broadcasters in Europe of undervaluing the tournament, and at one point even threatened to not sell rights in key territories — essentially imposing a blackout — if the offers were not increased. As the tournament neared, FIFA eventually backed down on that threat.With FIFA’s coffers swelling with reserves of $4 billion and forecasts of more to come with the next men’s World Cup estimated to generate $11 billion, there was little urgency to sell domestic Women’s World Cup rights to the highest bidder, Rowe said.“It’s chump change for FIFA,” he said. “I do think it’s a lost opportunity.”In Brisbane, as Matildas fever gripped the Queensland capital ahead of the Nigeria game, the sense of a missed opportunity appeared to be near universal.By the time Monkley got to Brisbane with her daughter this week to follow the Australian women’s team, she had been forced to fashion an unusual routine to watch other games in the tournament, by connecting a cable between her phone and her hotel television to stream the games.In Melbourne, where Australia now faces a must-win game against Canada, Alyssa Birley and her husband, Cameron, had traveled across the state so their children could watch the match. The family even booked the same hotel as the Australian team so that their children could get even closer to their heroes. But they said that they have not shelled out for an Optus subscription.The result, Alyssa Birley said, was that her children could not follow other top nations.“It’s inspirational, especially for young girls, to see these top tier athletes and it should be accessible to them,” Cameron Birley said. “Where else can they get that?” More