Apple may want more Sunday Ticket flexibility than NFL will give
Sunday Ticket talks between Apple TV+ and the NFL are said to have been slowed down by complex rights issues, with Apple looking for fewer restrictions.
The long-rumored deal for Apple TV+ to stream NFL Sunday Ticket was once even reported to have been concluded, but now it's in doubt.
According to CNBC, complex existing rights restrictions are limiting what the NFL is offering Apple -- and Apple wants more. Unspecified sources have said that talks are continuing, but separate deals such as those with Fox and CBS to air local games are proving a problem.
Just as it does with one-off Apple TV+ fare such as the Oscar-winning "CODA," Apple prefers to have exclusive, worldwide rights, even if it has to pay a great deal for them.
"We weren't interested in [just] buying sports rights," Apple's Eddy Cue said in a talk at the Paley Center for Media. ""There's all kinds of capabilities that we're going to be able to do together because we have everything together."
"And so if I have a great idea," he continued, "I don't have to think about, OK, well, my contract or the deal of interest will allow this."
Apple's aim is to follow how it has transformed Friday Night Baseball, as compared to the sport's previous regular broadcasts. It's likely to want the rights to show local games which are subject to blackout, and may also be seeking global rights where the NFL has previously sold US-only ones.
CNBC says that the NFL hopes to choose in the next ten weeks which streaming service will get Sunday Ticket. It's believed that the League is asking for between $2 billion and $3 billion annually.
Read on AppleInsider
The long-rumored deal for Apple TV+ to stream NFL Sunday Ticket was once even reported to have been concluded, but now it's in doubt.
According to CNBC, complex existing rights restrictions are limiting what the NFL is offering Apple -- and Apple wants more. Unspecified sources have said that talks are continuing, but separate deals such as those with Fox and CBS to air local games are proving a problem.
Just as it does with one-off Apple TV+ fare such as the Oscar-winning "CODA," Apple prefers to have exclusive, worldwide rights, even if it has to pay a great deal for them.
"We weren't interested in [just] buying sports rights," Apple's Eddy Cue said in a talk at the Paley Center for Media. ""There's all kinds of capabilities that we're going to be able to do together because we have everything together."
"And so if I have a great idea," he continued, "I don't have to think about, OK, well, my contract or the deal of interest will allow this."
Apple's aim is to follow how it has transformed Friday Night Baseball, as compared to the sport's previous regular broadcasts. It's likely to want the rights to show local games which are subject to blackout, and may also be seeking global rights where the NFL has previously sold US-only ones.
CNBC says that the NFL hopes to choose in the next ten weeks which streaming service will get Sunday Ticket. It's believed that the League is asking for between $2 billion and $3 billion annually.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Why should they be forced to do anything? Why is everyone entitled to access? If you want it, pay for it.
Thus, if they want public money, they can expect public regulation.
Because I don’t see a single league offering to pay for their expensive stadiums out of their own pockets. They don’t want the “free market” when it comes to paying expenses — but they want the free market when it comes to profiting. This is called “subsidizing the risk, privatizing the profit”. It’s a con.
No need to defend the billionaire-class and their games.
More generally, streaming (and cable) are a mess. We need a Napster for video to force the content providers to make all of their content available across multiple platforms at a reasonable price.
Since some people don't understand, it should be pointed out that stadium financing varies case by case. Sometimes the venue is largely financed through taxpayer funds (like via a bond measure).
Some venues are almost completely privately funded.
Oracle Park (originally Pacific Bell Park) -- the San Francisco Giants ballpark -- was almost completely funded by private sources. In fact, the team paid off its loan a few years ago and is in the clear. When the team owner threatened to move the franchise to St. Petersburg, FL, a new ownership group emerged to keep the team in San Francisco. Several attempts to get taxpayers to pay for a new stadium failed so the ownership group came up with a plan to use private investment.
Even the Giants ownership group doesn't always agree amongst themselves so the decisions are mostly influenced by the majority owner despite the fact that person has a very low public profile and conducts business behind closed doors, away from television lights and press conferences.
The Green Bay Packers are another example of varied ownership which is technically a publicly held non-profit group. Shareholders are limited to 200,000 shares which amounts to about 4% of outstanding shares at this time. Thus, there is no majority owner.
So yeah, there's a representative from the Green Bay Packers ownership group (probably Mark Murphy, president) sitting next to Jerry Jones in league ownership meetings. But Murphy doesn't own the team, he represents the ownership group.
so please educate yourself before spewing communist ignorance as if the world owes you.
Nothing spells capitalism more than that.
That guy is against public money for “rich people” because he believe all public money should go to him like in a socialist regime
That guy is against public money for “rich people” because he believe all public money should go to him like in a socialist regime