Live Sports - The Next Streaming War
THE DIGITAL SEATS REVOLUTION
By?Keith Teare?? Issue #316?
An average sports stadium can hold 50-100,000 fans. But teams have millions and sometimes billions of fans. What is the true value of the rights to stream games? This week Amazon bought UK Champions League rights. Can we expect more money to come for sports rights and who should own them?
Contents
Editorial
Software is about to eat live sports. The signs have been coming for some time. Apple pioneered the trend by buying the rights to Friday night baseball and MLS soccer. It is rumored to be interested in Sunday Ticket for NFL streaming.
Now Amazon is strongly favored to buy the rights to one of the biggest football competitions in the world — the UEFA Champions League — in one of its biggest markets — the UK. This follows the deal announced in March, an 11-year deal, valued at $1bn (£824m) annually, for Amazon to broadcast live NFL football in the US.
These deals highlight the next stage in the competition between broadcast, cable, and satellite networks on one side and streaming giants on the other. Live sports and live news are the only significant content that consumers want and streamers historically did not have.
The value of live sports to a rights owner is that it compels sports fans to buy subscriptions to services that host their favored events.
Rupert Murdoch pioneered the approach with Sky Sports when building out his BSkyB franchise. It required every football (soccer) loving home to install a satellite dish and set-top box. And they did.
Now Apple and Amazon are playing their game and have very deep pockets for doing so.
The key to understanding how to play the game is to understand its value. I am familiar with the English Premier League so using it as an illustration here are the facts.
The EPL has 20 teams. Between them, they have over 2 billion global fans who have 380 games per season. That is a total market available of 760 billion viewers. The EPL is currently planning to?sell the rights for £10.5 bn ($14.2) for 3 years:
For the 2022 to 2025 rights cycle, The Times says international deals will be worth UK£5.3 billion (US$7.1 billion), up 30 per cent, while domestic deals bring in UK£5.1 billion (US$6.9 billion), with commercial partnerships taking the total to UK£10.5 billion (US$14.2 billion).
That makes $4.73 bn per year. On a per viewer/game basis that is point six of a cent per viewer/game in revenue.
Of course, the rights buyers monetize the games at a multiple of their cost, by selling subscriptions and advertisements. The total value of the league measured in income is unknown. But clearly, it is well over $4.73bn a season. Perhaps 9–10 times that.
The income goes to the rights buyers, not to the League.
So if streamers gain control of the EPL, how much might it be worth?
Let us assume that 50% of the fan base watches one game a week and pays $1 a game. That would be as follows:
So at 1 game per week, at $1 a game, streaming could generate $38 billion per season. In reality, the price per game can be higher and most fans would watch more than one game per week.
The untapped fortune here is what I call digital seats. Liverpool FC can fit under 70,000 fans into its Anfield stadium. But over 500,000,000 would pay to watch live games. Double that for Manchester United. Streamers can create these digital seats. Over time they can deliver a better than stadium experience to those seats.
This means that the price Amazon is paying for European football is very small compared to the opportunity.
Beyond that, the EPL itself should probably retain the rights and offer ticket-based streaming directly to fans globally. In that case, the revenue would come back to the EPL and not be placed into the hands of middlemen.
The real promise of streaming is to cut out the middlemen and simply pay for production and transport, as a cost. Movies, TV series, News, and Sports will all go that way. This week Amazon is shining a light on this.
Video
That Was The Week’s video cast streams live each Friday. The recorded version is available only to subscribers.?Subscribe here.
Live Sports — The Next Streaming War
US retailer and streaming giant set to split UK rights with BT Sport, while BBC to broadcast highlights in new Match of the Day edition
Amazon is close to securing a groundbreaking deal to broadcast live Champions League football in the UK from 2024, with highlights returning to terrestrial TV for the first time in nearly a decade in a midweek BBC Match of Day show.
The US internet retailer and streaming giant, which already has a broadcast portfolio spanning Premier League football, tennis and rugby, is understood to be set to split the UK rights with existing holder BT Sport in a new deal with the governing body, Uefa, running from 2024 until 2027.
Essays of the?Week
RUMORS OF AN Apple electric car project have long excited investors and iPhone enthusiasts. Almost a decade after details of the?project leaked, the Cupertino-mobile remains mythical — but that hasn’t stopped other consumer electronics companies from surging ahead. On the other side of the world, people will soon be able to order a vehicle from the Taiwanese company that mastered manufacturing Apple’s gadgets in China. Welcome to the era of the Foxconn-mobile.
In October 2021, Hon Hai Technology Group, better known internationally as Foxconn, announced plans to produce three of its own electric vehicles in collaboration with?Yulon, a Taiwanese automaker, under the name Foxtron. Foxconn, which is best known for assembling 70 percent of?iPhones, has similar ambitions for the auto industry: to become the manufacturer of choice for a totally new kind of car. To date it has signed deals to make cars for two US-based EV startups, Lordstown Motors and Fisker.
Foxconn’s own vehicles — a hatchback, a sedan, and a bus — don’t especially ooze Apple-chic, but they represent a big leap for the consumer electronics manufacturer. Foxconn’s ambitious expansion plan also reflects a bigger shift across the auto world, in terms of technology and geography. The US, Europe, and Japan have defined what cars are for the last 100 years. Now the changing nature of the automobile, with increased electrification, computerization, and autonomy, means that China may increasingly decide what car making is.
If Foxconn succeeds in building a major auto-making business, it would contribute to China becoming an automotive epicenter capable of eclipsing the conventional powerhouses of the US, Germany, Japan, and South Korea. Foxconn did not respond to requests for an interview.
The automobile industry is expected to undergo big transformations in the coming years. An October 2020?report from McKinsey?concluded that carmakers will dream up new ways of selling vehicles and generating revenues through apps and subscription services. In some ways, the car of the future sounds an awful lot like a smartphone on wheels.
That’s partly why there’s no better moment than now for an electronics manufacturer to try car making, says?Marc Sachon, a professor at IESE Business School in Barcelona, who studies the automotive industry.
The company says its energy density is 255 Wh/kg and that it will debut in 2023, although it did not mention for which application.
Behind all the Web3 bluster is just “hollow abstraction.”
I cannot stop watching videos of Web3 boosters failing to explain the usefulness of the technology. I realize this is petty, but the videos are deeply cathartic.
I’m talking about two clips in particular, both of which were posted by Liron Shapira, a tech investor and writer, and a critic of crypto and Web3. The first is of Packy McCormick, a newsletter writer, investor, and advisor to A16z’s crypto venture-capital team. I urge you to watch this clip before reading any further (but I’ll also summarize parts of it below):
McCormick is questioned by Zach Weinberg, a crypto skeptic who asks McCormick to reason through why a given problem might be better solved with a Web3 or blockchain-based project. McCormick offers up the example of a blockchain-based real-estate transaction, which he says hasn’t been done yet but is touted as one of Web3’s “promised” examples. Property buying outside of the blockchain is a long, onerous process, McCormick argues. He suggests that, “theoretically, you could make all these things NFTs?… you could transact very quickly, borrow against them in the global market as opposed to going to Bank of America to take out your mortgage. You have a more open system that people are able to transact in more creative ways in.”
Weinberg stress-tests this particular scenario (putting your house on the blockchain) first by asking: What would happen in a decentralized mortgage market if a mortgage lender couldn’t get its money back? McCormick responds, essentially, that the lender could take legal action via the courts. They go back and forth a bit about smart contracts, and at every turn Weinberg pushes McCormick with some version of the same question:?What makes this blockchain version better than the current system??McCormick has no answer. Here’s a transcript of the end of their exchange:
领英推荐
For most startups, payroll is the primary driver of cash burn. And with inflation and economic unease on the rise, knowing trends within compensation is critical. How can a founder balance the need to conserve capital with the imperative to grow? How can leaders pay employees fairly through boom and bust cycles?
At Carta, we see it as our responsibility to share the insights that come from an unmatched amount of data about the private market. That includes data on startup headcount, payroll and equity metrics, salary medians, and remote work. We created this compensation report from data using more than 127,000 employee records from startups that use?Carta Total Comp, the premier compensation management platform for private companies.
Key trends: