When you think about your cable TV bill, you usually think of it as a whole, cumulative figure. Well, at least I do.
What I don't consider is that certain channels cost more than others in coming up with the price as a whole. Maybe that's my naïveté, maybe that's normal. In any case, some of the most expensive channels also happen to be some of the most important for our case: the live sports channels.
According to the latest survey by Beta Research, ESPN was the most valuable cable network yet again (h/t Jon Lafayette of Multichannel News). Even for those who subscribe to the most basic level of ESPN -- the amenity we practically consider included in a typical cable set -- they have to pay upwards of $9 per month ($9.06 was the 2017 figure, by far the most expensive cable sports network according to Business Insider). William Parker of Kill The Cable Bill (which is a site devoted to exactly what you'd expect) additionally notes, citing other studies he's performed, that the reason most cable subscribes pay for sports programming is for the live sports aspect. It's not that they don't watch SportsCenter and other programs -- obviously, many people do -- but it's not the primary factor that draws them in.
Since we're not watching any live sports right now, Parker decided to crunch some numbers. Without live sports, how many people are paying for programs without reaping the primary benefit for which they initially subscribed?
The number is staggering. Parker estimated the total cost of sports programming as part of a cable package to be around $20 per month, and with 86.5 million pay-TV households in the US, that comes out to a grand total of $1.73 billion per month. All in all, the two months of no live sports action totals an amount estimated to be around $3.5 billion. Wow.
Parker also embedded the following tweet to show some of the action taken against this fact by notable politicians.
To be fair, I'm one of the many sports fans that has been able to consume ESPN's content without paying a cable bill, instead opting to use services like Roku, a Smart TV, an Apple TV, or one of the many potential streaming options available in this day and age. But for the many people that still use cable TV, primarily for live sports access, they're not exactly getting their money's worth.
Who's fault is it? Should people have canceled their subscriptions if they weren't getting live sports out of their ESPN channel package? Should cable companies cut the costs of subscribing to these channels, considering live sports aren't part of the package at this time? Or are channels like ESPN still providing much needed sports entertainment during this time, with replays, specials, and documentaries like "The Last Dance" -- which, by the way, is shattering viewership expectations -- thus making it worth it to pay for the subscription?
You can argue both sides, but regardless, it's interesting to think about.
LISTEN NOW on the RADIO.COM App
Follow RADIO.COM Sports
Twitter | Facebook I Instagram
