So, apparently, if espn does not exercise its option by 2025, the media deal is over 2027.

So what does that mean for FSU? What does it mean for others in the ACC?

How do we think it will affect the court case(s)?

Do we think espn will re-up its media deal with the ACC?

If espn doesn't do a media deal with ACC, do we think that the GoR is therefore null and void, as it states:

Quote:Whereas, as a condition to the agreement of ESPN to offer additional consideration to the conference [...] each of the Member Institutions is required to, and desires to, irrevocably grant to the Conference, and the Conference desires to accept from each of the Member Institutions, those rights guaranteed within

And many other questions related to the question of what dominos may happen if espn does not exercise the option.

And noting that of course a corporation is typically not going to declare whether it is exercising an option unless and until it is most beneficial to them (or unless they are "forced" to by circumstances or "legal" constraints - courts/contracts/etc.) And I would expect that to be the last minute possible.

What do you all think?

(03-04-2024 10:24 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  So, apparently, if espn does not exercise its option by 2025, the media deal is over 2027.

So what does that mean for FSU? What does it mean for others in the ACC?

How do we think it will affect the court case(s)?

Do we think espn will re-up its media deal with the ACC?

If espn doesn't do a media deal with ACC, do we think that the GoR is therefore null and void, as it states:

Quote:Whereas, as a condition to the agreement of ESPN to offer additional consideration to the conference [...] each of the Member Institutions is required to, and desires to, irrevocably grant to the Conference, and the Conference desires to accept from each of the Member Institutions, those rights guaranteed within

And many other questions related to the question of what dominos may happen if espn does not exercise the option.

And noting that of course a corporation is typically not going to declare whether it is exercising an option unless and until it is most beneficial to them (or unless they are "forced" to by circumstances or "legal" constraints - courts/contracts/etc.) And I would expect that to be the last minute possible.

What do you all think?

This might be trivial but isn't it that ESPN has an option to opt out at the end of 2027? Isn't the contract through 2036 unless they opt out, rather than through 2027 unless they opt in for 9 more years? If that is the case wouldn't ESPN simply do nothing and the contract continues? This is where I think people get things wrong or confused. They say that the contract ends in 2027 unless...... whereas others say the contract runs through 2036 unless...... Maybe it is me that is confused? But it does seem like an important detail that posters either don't understand or use to promote their own purpose. If I'm correct then if ESPN doesn't intend to end their relationship with the ACC silence is what we would expect, not a declartory statement, and if they do intend to end the relationship with the ACC then only then would be get an announcement sometime in the next 11 months.

(03-04-2024 10:24 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  So, apparently, if espn does not exercise its option by 2025 ...

Is that a possibility??

Perhaps someone could educate me on what I am missing. Why would ESPN opt out(or not opt in) to an extension through 2037? That extension would give them the ACC's inventory at a discount for the next 12 years. If they decide not to continue with the relationship they risk losing the inventory for at least one if not multiple of the highest value schools to their direct competitor(FOX). What mitigating factor am I missing that would make ESPN think it was a good decision not to continue the ACC contract?

(03-05-2024 12:41 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 10:24 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  So, apparently, if espn does not exercise its option by 2025 ...

Is that a possibility??

Maybe. ESPN would actually stand to save money overall if they move certain programs around to other leagues and then force the ACC to backfill with AAC members. Would tank the ACC and AAC media values, increase the cost of the handful that get golden tickets to the P2, but overall be a similar amount of programs under the umbrella for less total money.

Didn't you start a similar thread a few days ago?

(03-05-2024 12:47 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Perhaps someone could educate me on what I am missing. Why would ESPN opt out(or not opt in) to an extension through 2037? That extension would give them the ACC's inventory at a discount for the next 12 years. If they decide not to continue with the relationship they risk losing the inventory for at least one if not multiple of the highest value schools to their direct competitor(FOX). What mitigating factor am I missing that would make ESPN think it was a good decision not to continue the ACC contract?

They could opt out, or rather not opt in, if they feel like the contract is overvalued. However, with the rising importance of the ACCN, I find that prospect unlikely.

(03-05-2024 12:41 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 10:24 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  So, apparently, if espn does not exercise its option by 2025 ...

Is that a possibility??

Of course. Choice is in the nature of options by definition. More specifically: ESPN requested this option. The network surely had a reason.

It's a bone of contention in the Florida State lawsuit that ESPN gets options 2025-2027 that the ACC's member schools do not. Signing over rights through 2036 in the absence of mutual consideration for that period... that kind of thing tends to be an eyebrow raiser under fair trade law.

And who knows? If discovery continues we may learn ESPN's reason. My own conjecture is that ESPN was looking ahead to the CFP crossroad and literally keeping its options open.

(03-05-2024 03:33 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 12:41 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 10:24 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  So, apparently, if espn does not exercise its option by 2025 ...

Is that a possibility??

Of course. Choice is in the nature of options by definition. More specifically: ESPN requested this option. The network surely had a reason.

It's a bone of contention in the Florida State lawsuit that ESPN gets options 2025-2027 that the ACC's member schools do not. Signing over rights through 2036 in the absence of mutual consideration for that period... that kind of thing tends to be an eyebrow raiser under fair trade law.

And who knows? If discovery continues we may learn ESPN's reason. My own conjecture is that ESPN was looking ahead to the CFP crossroad and literally keeping its options open.

Was not it also found out that ESPN did not require the signing the GoRs for the ACCN? The ACC misrepresented the members and for the signing of the GoRs there was no considerations. No considerations, not binding.

(03-05-2024 12:28 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  ....
This is where I think people get things wrong or confused. They say that the contract ends in 2027 unless...... whereas others say the contract runs through 2036 unless...... Maybe it is me that is confused? But it does seem like an important detail that posters either don't understand or use to promote their own purpose.
....

A toggle switch is simply in the nature of options.

Toggle one way: contract through 2027.
Toggle the other way: contract through 2036.

What differentiates the options in this case is that 2036 was the only public story until recently. The public did not know until earlier this year that the toggle switch was even there.

It became known when Florida State University observed in its filing of complaint that the toggle existed only for ESPN and not for the ACCs member schools. The lack of mutuality has implications under fair trade law.

It's fair to say the ACC was not happy to see news of that detail getting out, and it now appears that ESPN wasn't thrilled, either. Florida laws require public disclosures, though. Depending on how early rulings go, the ACC could soon face a dilemma: keep things secret or keep fighting Florida State.

Be careful when talking about ESPN having the ACC “at a discount”.

They are getting a few of the top ACC schools at a bargain. They are overpaying on half to 2/3rds of the league. Those brands that they are getting at a discount aren’t being monetized to their full potential due to the lower value of the rest of the league limiting the number of great match ups that pull big tv numbers. (Eg. you’ve got Florida St vs Clemson and Florida St vs Miami but outside that, what match ups are the ACC going to generate to draw a national audience?)

For ESPN, the prudent thing to do is opt to not renew in 2027 and then move the best brands to the SEC where they can earn more off those brands due to more attractive match ups.

They could turn around and still bid on all or part of the leftover ACC package, and probably pay less per school than they are now.

The only potential drawback for ESPN is that weakening the ACC might send ND exploring other options like the Big 10 because the weakened ACC would be a major blow to their SOS and marketability of their own tv package.

(03-05-2024 03:39 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 03:33 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 12:41 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 10:24 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  So, apparently, if espn does not exercise its option by 2025 ...

Is that a possibility??

Of course. Choice is in the nature of options by definition. More specifically: ESPN requested this option. The network surely had a reason.

It's a bone of contention in the Florida State lawsuit that ESPN gets options 2025-2027 that the ACC's member schools do not. Signing over rights through 2036 in the absence of mutual consideration for that period... that kind of thing tends to be an eyebrow raiser under fair trade law.

And who knows? If discovery continues we may learn ESPN's reason. My own conjecture is that ESPN was looking ahead to the CFP crossroad and literally keeping its options open.

Was not it also found out that ESPN did not require the signing the GoRs for the ACCN? The ACC misrepresented the members and for the signing of the GoRs there was no considerations. No considerations, not binding.

The members don't have an agreement with ESPN, they have an agreement with the ACC. And the ACC required that GoR. Doesn't matter if Mickey Mouse demanded it or not, the ACC demanded it and FSU (and all the others) looked at their options and decided that their best one was to sign it. Kudos to the FSU lawyers for turning over every leaf, but this isn't the one will get you guys to Kyle Field for your first SEC game in 2026.

I'm wondering why we have two threads posing the same question.

Authors of OPs can change the heading, you know, if they decide they want something more precise.

(03-05-2024 12:28 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  This might be trivial but isn't it that ESPN has an option to opt out at the end of 2027? Isn't the contract through 2036 unless they opt out, rather than through 2027 unless they opt in for 9 more years? If that is the case wouldn't ESPN simply do nothing and the contract continues? This is where I think people get things wrong or confused. They say that the contract ends in 2027 unless...... whereas others say the contract runs through 2036 unless...... Maybe it is me that is confused? But it does seem like an important detail that posters either don't understand or use to promote their own purpose. If I'm correct then if ESPN doesn't intend to end their relationship with the ACC silence is what we would expect, not a declartory statement, and if they do intend to end the relationship with the ACC then only then would be get an announcement sometime in the next 11 months.

It doesn't make any difference, legally or contract wise, how it's phrased, as an opt-out or an opt-in. Either way, it's ESPN's decision to make.

And ESPN is under no obligation to publicly declare what they're doing. Heck, they're not obligated to make an announcement when they pick up the option, or opt out of the contract (whichever way you want to look at it).

(03-05-2024 12:41 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 10:24 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  So, apparently, if espn does not exercise its option by 2025 ...

Is that a possibility??

That is indeed a possibility that ESPN wrote into the contract.

(03-05-2024 12:47 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Perhaps someone could educate me on what I am missing. Why would ESPN opt out(or not opt in) to an extension through 2037?

Short answer: We don't know.
Longer answer: We don't know, but isn't it significant that ESPN hasn't picked up the option yet? What do they know that we don't know? And what does it say that ESPN asked for the option period to be extended from 2021 to 2025?

Quote:That extension would give them the ACC's inventory at a discount for the next 12 years. If they decide not to continue with the relationship they risk losing the inventory for at least one if not multiple of the highest value schools to their direct competitor(FOX). What mitigating factor am I missing that would make ESPN think it was a good decision not to continue the ACC contract?

Really long answer: The cable bundle is crumbling (including the MVPD "Multichannel Video Provider Distributor" cable clones like YoutubeTV and DirecTV Stream and Hulu With Live TV and anything else that has channel numbers), which ESPN knew would happen to some extent and in some timeframe.

ESPN is preparing to shift more to a direct-to-consumer model, bypassing the big bundles. The scheduled launch of a ESPN streaming service (big boy ESPN, not just the discount-rack ESPN+ stuff) in 2025, and now the scheduled launch of the ESPN-Fox-WBD Joint Venture (mini-MVPD) this year means that day is coming fast.

When that day is here, what is the value of having a channel on every basic cable package (or about 2/3 of them anyway) for $1 or so a month when "every basic cable package" is 30M instead of 70M or 100M? You can put ACC Network on your streaming service, but is it worth the cost? How do you figure out the "ESPN Flagship" revenue that's tagged to the ACC Network vs the rest of ESPN? (That applies to the SEC NEtwork as well, but I don't know who is ready for THAT conversation).

I don't know, and you don't know. The green eyeshades in Bristol or in Disney HQ *might* know. OR they might still be trying to figure it out.

ESPN could upped the payouts for the ACC to raid the Big 12, upped the SEC payouts and move FSU, Georgia Tech, UNC, NC State, Virginia and Virginia State to the SEC. Move UCF, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Kansas, Houston and Colorado to the ACC. Maybe move Arizona and Arizona State to the ACC as well? Boise State, UNLV, San Diego State, Colorado State, Fresno State, UTSA, Memphis and Tulane to the Big 12 at a reduce rate. Football and basketball would not really taking a hit.

(03-05-2024 03:33 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  It's a bone of contention in the Florida State lawsuit that ESPN gets options 2025-2027 that the ACC's member schools do not. Signing over rights through 2036 in the absence of mutual consideration for that period... that kind of thing tends to be an eyebrow raiser under fair trade law.

FSU's case on "absence of mutual consideration" is not very good. They got Money ("Network Placeholder Consideration") based on the 2016 GOR and the 2016 ESPN contract.

Where the ACC has a problem is, if ESPN doesn't pick up the option, as far as I can tell the Grant of Rights doesn't give the ACC any rights past 2027. (The GOR is phrased "all rights necessary to carry out the ESPN Agreement" or something very similar if my memory fails. not all broadcast rights, all home game rights etc etc)

(03-05-2024 03:39 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Was not it also found out that ESPN did not require the signing the GoRs for the ACCN? The ACC misrepresented the members and for the signing of the GoRs there was no considerations. No considerations, not binding.

That was alleged by Florida State in their filing. That contention has not been proven or examined, at all at this point.

(03-05-2024 04:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Be careful when talking about ESPN having the ACC “at a discount”.

I think that's leftover thinking from The Before Times. I don't know if it holds up for a 17 team ACC (+21% to the base cost of the ACC-ESPN contract, not considering ACCn money) when cable companies seem very willing to sacrifice their cable TV business to maintain their "wire into your house that lets you get Internet" business.

Quote:For ESPN, the prudent thing to do is opt to not renew in 2027 and then move the best brands to the SEC where they can earn more off those brands due to more attractive match ups.

The second part has risks as well--a 20 team SEC costs ESPN an extra $300M, at $75M per SEC school (if that is the real number, nobody knows how it's sorted out between the SEC Tier 2/3 contract and the SEC Network contract).

(03-05-2024 04:25 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  The members don't have an agreement with ESPN, they have an agreement with the ACC. And the ACC required that GoR. Doesn't matter if Mickey Mouse demanded it or not, the ACC demanded it and FSU (and all the others) looked at their options and decided that their best one was to sign it.

Oh, it very much matters. The 2016 GOR states, in the WHEREASs, that "ESPN has informed the conference that (would) enter into the Prospective (2016) Agreement only if each of the MEmber Institutions" agrees to extend the grant of rights to 2036.

So if Florida State can prove that ESPN did NOT say that to the ACC, then they can argue that the whole GOR is based on false representations by the ACC. That. Is. Ballgame.

But as Han Solo said towards the beginning of STar Wars: "Well that's the real trick, isn't it?"