USFL newshub breakdown of the tv numbers

[herns]

https://twitter.com/theusflnewshub/stat ... jh-25w145w

Basically summed up USFL week 2 numbers compare favorably to leagues that get hundreds of millions for tv rights and with the different cost effective business model and being owned by fox what is a success is likely very different. This opinion has been subsist backed up by Foxs EVPs twitter where he said the ratings were about right where they want them compared to the other established sports

[Tank55]

Any analysis that ignores volume is missing so much context that it's basically useless. Yes, ESPN is paying $400M a year for the NHL rights. But what are they getting in exchange? Not just that single weekly broadcast, but the rights to hundreds and hundreds of games, most of which they can park on ESPN+ to help drive subscriptions from October through May.

If the NHL just sold a package of just 43 games over a 12 week span, how much money would THAT command?

[GregParks]

It's also important to dig deeper than the overall numbers. What are the demos? The 18-49 and 18-34 ratings coveted by advertisers? Speaking of which, you have to acknowledge advertising - no matter the ratings, NHL and MLB are seen as more prestigious to advertisers than secondary football leagues, so they're willing to pay more and to advertise more. Those leagues have shown sustainability that secondary football leagues haven't yet.

Then there's the cost-benefit of the USFL to Fox. The network isn't paying huge rights fees, but is funding the league. Even on a smaller budget, it'll still be expensive. What's the point where, for Fox, the ratings are such that the benefit of putting money into the league isn't worth it compared to the ratings you'd get for lawn bowling or bean-bag toss on a Saturday afternoon, which you'd probably pay pennies for?

I'm not making a judgment either way about USFL ratings so far; just that discussion and analysis looking at the surface numbers without a deeper context is relatively meaningless.

[MGB01]

Yeah this just reeks of ball spiking here for "wins" over low/lower viewerships that are there anyway, and you're also not taking any viewers away from the ones in front of you. Don't trip over the bar that's lying on the floor.

Plus by effectively making low cost the basis of your argument, you're also getting dangerously close to "USFL=TSL2.0". FOX is also guilty of much of the same "We built it you should come" strategy that I zapped Dany Garcia for.

[Tank55]

Exactly. If all that was needed was to outperform a single NHL broadcast, the AAF would still be in business. Focusing on these other sports properties is distracting from the questions that actually matter.

What is the net cost of producing a USFL game?

What ad revenue is it generating?

Is that difference more or less than a replacement-level broadcast?

Most crucially, how do we expect these numbers to change over time?

[4th&long]

Any analysis that ignores volume is missing so much context that it's basically useless. Yes, ESPN is paying $400M a year for the NHL rights. But what are they getting in exchange? Not just that single weekly broadcast, but the rights to hundreds and hundreds of games, most of which they can park on ESPN+ to help drive subscriptions from October through May.

If the NHL just sold a package of just 43 games over a 12 week span, how much money would THAT command?

TNT/ Warner media is paying what $225 million for less games. So Seth's analysis is on the money. ESPN+ NHL games is filler, they are paying a rights fee of $400mm - thats $625mm annually for NHL.
USFL can certainly get by on alot less.

[4th&long]

Exactly. If all that was needed was to outperform a single NHL broadcast, the AAF would still be in business. Focusing on these other sports properties is distracting from the questions that actually matter.

What is the net cost of producing a USFL game?

What ad revenue is it generating?

Is that difference more or less than a replacement-level broadcast?

Most crucially, how do we expect these numbers to change over time?

If a STABLE league put on 43 games, 22 broadcast and 17 cable and 4 streaming, got 1mm viewers on Broadcast, 450k on cable and what ever on streaming (they all have some streaming too) - it should garner a $100mm annual package.

You are correct that AAF was financially mismanaged - and XFL 2.0 was high cost too. But if USFL does these numbers above - its a worthy TV asset for advertisers. USFL is going for stability 1st. AAF was a scam, and XFL was going BIG to generate a TV contract in yr 3 or 4. The USFL model is the least risky. The XFL (if fully funded) was the highest risk, and AAF was plain under funded.

Get on board the USFL train!

[Tank55]

TNT/ Warner media is paying what $225 million for less games.

Less games than what? Less than ESPN? Certainly not less than 43.

https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-turner-spo ... -324075352

As part of the agreement, Turner Sports networks will televise the NHL Winter Classic, the annual New Year's Day outdoor game, in all seven seasons of the deal.

It will televise all games in the Stanley Cup Final in 2023, 2025 and 2027, one conference final series each season, and half of the first two rounds of the playoffs, plus 72 regular-season games per season.

[Tank55]

Get on board the USFL train!

A better idea would be stop thinking about this a train that requires us to be either on board with or off. We all want alt football to succeed. Looking at the situation without bias isn't going to raise or lower the USFL's chances of success.

[4th&long]

Get on board the USFL train!

A better idea would be stop thinking about this a train that requires us to be either on board with or off. We all want alt football to succeed. Looking at the situation without bias isn't going to raise or lower the USFL's chances of success.

Chew Chew - ALL ABOARD! Come on man!