Garden_KC
1st String
Posts: 1,599
Joined: Jan 2023
Reputation: 43
I Root For: Landscaping
Location: |
RE: Are we headed for a college sports media rights bubble?
(02-25-2024 06:05 PM)C2__ Wrote: (02-24-2024 05:30 PM)Garden_KC Wrote: (02-24-2024 05:06 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote: (02-24-2024 04:38 PM)Garden_KC Wrote: (02-24-2024 09:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: Here’s the thing: is it actually a bubble when sports rights have grown unimpeded since 1980? We have had a version of this story virtually every couple of years: when the Yankees signed a huge rights deal with MSG and Fox way outbid everyone for the NFL in the 1990s, when RSNs and conference networks rose and ESPN was at its household peak in the 2000s, and even people were legitimately questioning whether the Big Ten was making a mistake in taking a short-term TV deal in the mid-2010s as opposed to locking themselves down for the next 15 years like the SEC and ACC. (Seriously - was a common strain that the ACC signed a smarter TV deal than the Big Ten because “Of course the sports rights bubble will pop by 2020!”) All of those “bubble pop” predictions have been proven wrong.
You could argue that sports rights are more like the stock market: there might be hot periods and cold periods, but the overall trajectory is growth over a long period of time.
Now, the important thing about the stock market is that the gains aren’t evenly distributed. We see that in the current rise in the stock market that is largely driven by the “Magnificent Seven” growth stocks at the top - if you look at the value stock and small cap stock categories, they have lagged.
To go with your thesis here the money supply over the last 40 years has increased and over time that is the biggest inflating aspect as it relates to money and contracts.
The music industry has faced a near absolute contraction. Downloading ate into record sales at first. That led to the closure of record stores which for a lot of groups having something in the record store was their main form of marketing. Then you can't build a new base of fans if there is no way to market and eventually everything was pushed into streaming services where 10 million plays only nets you 30,000 dollars. The economics changed, the label investment stopped happening.
Even Jay-Z has stopped putting out records because they won't sell anything. Him and Diddy are the P2 of rap and can't do 500,000 anymore because of today's music economics. Taylor Swift is making money because she is touring. However name value is hard to engender in music without the traditional marketing avenues (record stores, national TV airplay). There really is no music "scene" or trends that are discernable.
The money can dry up at some point.
Artists still have plenty of ways to make money these days, they're just less focused on straight record sales and more focused on touring/crossovers/appearing in other people's albums as cross promotions/etc etc etc. Official Youtube Accounts ofc, too. And the reason that they can still make money is that people care about them. A lot of people care about Taylor Swift or JayZ, far fewer care about some random 1 hit wonder from the 90s, but people still care. For JayZ, he's already a billionaire, it's not worth it for him to tour b/c he makes more money now as a businessman. For Sting, Justin Bieber, or numerous other artists, they could just sell their entire catalogue for upwards of $200m. That kind of money was impossible to dream about for just about anybody a couple decades ago, now it happens well, maybe not all the time, but often enough that it's not big news if Selena Gomez or Ed Sheeran or David Bowie gets his 9 figure deal for the entire catalogue, either. So, yeah, plenty of money to be made, just not in the same old way as before.
All of the above could actually serve as a good way to view the medium to long term of CFB. Today, there's a ton to be made from stupid rich boosters and sports networks with cash to burn, perhaps tomorrow they have to rely more on ticket sales, or live player and coach meet and greets with wealthy potential boosters (already happening), etc etc etc. But, as I said above, as long as a lot of people care about the sports, there will be money to be made somehow. The real danger for football is something like the concussion thing, or perhaps just a general shift in future generations away from gladiatorial combat and towards more skill-based, or at least less combat-based sports like Basketball or Soccer, or perhaps new stuff on the horizon like pickleball.
The stars you are mentioning didn't build their names in the 2020s. Aside from a scant amount of youtube stars musicians aren't becoming stars. Yeah if you had money from the past you can grow it but that is a different subject entirely.
You can see how much fans of D1 basketball have hallowed out over the past 20 years. Fan support is about 50% of what it was once you get below the Top 10 conferences. The fanbase realized it couldn't compete in D1 and decided to tune out on it. There are individual cases like Houston where they've become one of the very top teams in the country and that has driven up support but for most out there which are just average D1 basketball teams its been a decline in interest.
Fans on this board tend to be older and have not given up on their teams yet. The reality has not set it that it will only become more difficult over time to compete. Any additional TV money will be going to compensate players and in-game attendance will continue to dwindle. Lack of expendable income in future generations with high cost of living will remove college sports expenditures from the radar.
Do you have stats for this or is this just what you seem to have noticed?
I think sports will always have a place in people's heart, even if it's just about school/civic/state/regional pride. Unless the supposed P2 really screw things up (by how they split, not just splitting if they do do [sic] that), the biggest brands will, at the very least, have fans in droves, even if not as many by percentage as the past.
Its somewhat difficult to see directly as schools have moved around but just taking a look at the MVC, MAC and Big Sky and their conference attendance ranking for that year.
1983
8. MVC (7,309)
12. Big Sky (5,028)
14. MAC (4,143)
1993
11. MVC (6,247)
15. Big Sky (5,015)
18. MAC (3,981)
2003
9. MVC (6,616)
12. MAC (3,739)
17. Big Sky (3,131)
2013
8. MVC (7,270)
14. MAC (2,982)
18. Big Sky (2,463)
2023
10. MVC (3,624)
12. MAC (2,804)
20. Big Sky (2,045)
For the MVC its a big drop off from what they historicalliy drew, a lot of which can be attributable to membership changes.
The MAC has slipped 33% from the early 80's in reported attendance however when you consider that a good 50% of their numbers are now ticket sold and not actual turnstile the drop is much greater. But even with that drop they are the 12th rated attendance conference in 2023, higher than 14th in 1983.
Big Sky has slipped from an average of 5,028 in 1983 to 2,045 in 2023. That is a 60% drop in fan support. It was a top mid major conference but now with a low major profile.
Median Conference attendance:
1983: 4,131
1993: 4,231
2003: 3,197
2013: 2,628
2023: 2,232
Definitely a hollowing out of mid major fanbases which is even worse when what is reported these days is over inflated on tickets sold. Media telling mid majors they don't belong and repeated screw jobs in tournament selection has taken the wind out of many programs sails.
|
|
/
Are we headed for a college sports media rights bubble?
