> The ESPN-branded multi-sport service [...] including Major League Baseball, National Hockey League [...]
Missing NBA and NFL and subject to regional restrictions and Fox Sports ownership. Any non-cable package that doesn't offer regional broadcasts of ANY of the major 4 is a weak one.
Until the leagues stop with regional restrictions, these sports packages will be hamstrung and never sell on their own. But why would the leagues do this when they can double dip: charge some customers for all-but-local (i.e. blacked out) online (e.g. mlb.tv) and charge others via their cable package for their local teams (i.e. there is no Fox Sports Go w/out cable subscription).
These companies (ESPN and Fox) really need to use their weight to make these leagues and teams stop w/ arbitrary restrictions based on location. But it goes the other direction these days, see the exorbitant prices cable networks pay leagues/teams for exclusive regional broadcast rights (on cable + their online package) and still don't get the right to serve it to someone out-of-region.
Until they use this weight, they will continue to falter because consumers are using their weight.
I am very curious how much money the broadcasters are making with this strategy, and how much money the leagues or ESPN are letting on the table by just allowing this to happen.
Football(soccer for Americans) is definitely the worst offender here, I know it is much more difficult to package and sell these streams because leagues are so fragmented, but if FIFA could use their weight to pull it off it would be gigantic(hell, even if it's just UEFA).
As an expat, I find it absurd it is impossible to get a legal stream to watch my home league, even UEFA champions league streaming is hard enough to get.
If you have a decent cable package in the states, you can stream EPL (NBC sports app), Bundesliga, UEFA, (Fox Sports 2 Go for last 2), English Championship, La Liga, Serie A, and Ligue 1 (last 4 Bein Sports). Granted I haven't confirmed whether they carry all games.
But those are perfect examples of regional restrictions because that's US only.
Far from that. I am a Brazilian in Europe, cable packages here are terrible, can't get any of the bigger European leagues(and of course, nothing from South America), I have relegated myself to just catch up with the news and watch bigger matches in a bar every now and then.
Missing NBA and NFL and subject to regional restrictions and Fox Sports ownership. Any non-cable package that doesn't offer regional broadcasts of ANY of the major 4 is a weak one.
Until the leagues stop with regional restrictions, these sports packages will be hamstrung and never sell on their own. But why would the leagues do this when they can double dip: charge some customers for all-but-local (i.e. blacked out) online (e.g. mlb.tv) and charge others via their cable package for their local teams (i.e. there is no Fox Sports Go w/out cable subscription).
These companies (ESPN and Fox) really need to use their weight to make these leagues and teams stop w/ arbitrary restrictions based on location. But it goes the other direction these days, see the exorbitant prices cable networks pay leagues/teams for exclusive regional broadcast rights (on cable + their online package) and still don't get the right to serve it to someone out-of-region.
Until they use this weight, they will continue to falter because consumers are using their weight.