[Update] Pac-12 Getting Ready to Announce $3 Billion Deal With ESPN & Fox
by Achilles on May 3, 2011 6:58 AM PDT
in News
Email
Print
Ryan set the table up late last night. In this early morning in West Coast the details are coming. Pac-12 is about to sign a blockbuster TV deal with ESPN and Fox worth more than $2.7B over 12 years. The deal reportedly averages out to more than $225M per year, and includes football, basketball and Olympic sports rights. Sports Business Daily broke the news early this morning about the deal which will more than triple the conference's current deals with ESPN and Fox.:
As part of its deal, ESPN is picking up football and basketball rights, plus rights to a package of Olympic sports. ESPN has committed to carrying an unknown number of football games in primetime on ABC.
Fox picked up football and basketball rights. It will carry football games on its Fox broadcast channel in primetime and on FX. It will carry basketball games on FSN. ESPN and Fox will rotate coverage of the Pac-10's basketball tournament and football championship game. The conference becomes the Pac-12 on July 1 when Colorado and Utah enter the conference.
To put this in perspective:
SEC schools got average of $18.3M in 2009-10. http://bit.ly/eEYzLM RT @wilnerhotline: Pac-12 deals averages out to $18.75 mill/school.
And the conference hasn't even signed its own network deal yet. It is holding some rights back that it still hopes to use for a conference network. Here is Jon Wilner on that point:
Neither network has plans to partner up on a Pac-12 Network at this point. But that doesn’t mean there won’t be a network.
Multiple sources have told me over the weeks and months that commissioner Larry Scott was dead set on doing a network unless he was paid enough money not to — and I’m not sure that $225 million annually over 12 years qualifies as enough to buy Scott out of a network.
(It shouldn’t, given the current market forces.)
Larry Scott has taken a lot of heat here on Bruins Nation. But if the details of the deal check out and UCLA is well taken care of given what the Bruins contribute to the pie through the LA market, he will deserve credit.
Now as Ryan mentioned the focus will shift on Dan Guerrero. What is he going to do with the extra money?
Given the additional cash flow coming UCLA's way the financial viability excuse used in attempts to steal students' sideline seating looks sillier. There will also be no excuses for not being able to make adequate improvements to our facilities and providing resources necessary to field elite major revenue programs.
It appears Larry Scott is being aggressive and bringing conference up to par with modern landscape of college athletics. The question for all UCLA alums, students and fans right now is whether Dan Guerrero and his stale approach to leading Bruins will follow suit?
UPDATE (A): NYTimes notes the deal is reportedly worth $3 billion over 12 years. HT FilmBruin in comment threads.
Don't forget to sign the petition to get students back on the sidelines today and also join Facebook event asking UCLA students to vote NO to STOP Morgan Center from taking away students' court-side seating.
28 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
$3 billion over three years
Wilner updated at 830AM these newer details:
Pac-12 deal is worth $3 billion over 12 years, or $250 million/year … or $21 million/school/yr. League will have its own network and a digital channel like ESPN3.
Article he cited is in the NYT
Working link
Sorry. This NYT link should work:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/sports/04sandomir.html?ref=sports
This is a BIG deal
(pun intended). Scott is showing that, while he may have questionable approaches at times, he is pushing the envelop and forcing the nation to take notice of our conference. For me, his extremely aggressive strategy is unlike anything the Pac-10/12 has experienced before.
Best news in a while, with room to even get better.
Only negative its with BSPN, maybe they’ll actually “cover” the rest of the teams a bit better.
I believe last year the Pac
earned $60 million. AKA, not even laundry money by normal TV standards.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
Here's a thought
Guerrero got wind of this deal about a couple weeks ago. Let’s say right before he sent out his email on the student seating fiasco. He didn’t need the extra revenue anymore and he can afford to act like he is doing what’s best for the students.
This interesting blurb is being reported on the Sports Illustrated Web site.
“As part of an agreement to give up their historically larger share of television revenues, Southern California and UCLA were each to receive a $2 million premium any year that the media rights did not reach $170 million.”
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/05/03/pac-10-tv.ap/index.html?eref=sihp
If this is true, that makes the deal even better for UCLA since Scott was able to get $225 million per year, well exceeding the $170 million threshold, thereby garnering an additional $2 million a year for UCLA (and, unfortunately but understandably) U$C*.
$225 makes $170 marker moot, I think
I think since the deal is now over $170 UCLA will not get that additional $2 million. That is the way I was reading it. I think that is a question mark from UCLA perspective. I think schools in LA should get a bigger cut. We not only provide the key share of the market, it also costs more to maintain programs in LA.
Not sure I like our share....
Schools like Texas leveraged the bigger market for a bigger piece of the pie, in way I would give DG or whoever negotiated the deal a negative mark for this. Both UCLA and USC could have done better, I hate to say it, but could have worked together to leverage a better deal.
We’ve opened up the area to more schools recruiting and in addition giving some smaller schools an equal piece of the pie?
It would be another mark against Guerrero
Larry Scott is doing his job. It is Guerrero’s job to look out for UCLA’s fair share. Questions should be asked as to whether he is doing it.
Although that would make SUC's silence on the issue odd
Because you know they look out for their money, and they’d definitely demand more for exactly the same reason. Not to say that Guerrero shouldn’t have been proactive on the issue, and I hope he was and was voted down or wringed out some concessions, but it would also be negligence on the part of SUC’s AD.
We don't exactly have the clout
as a program to demand a bigger piece of the pie. Once we jumped on board with the new media rights after holding out for more money, we lost any leverage we could have had.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
In fairness, look at the Big 10 and SEC
Both of the other two major deal conferences — the SEC and BIg 10 — also have equal revenue sharing. And it’s not like Iowa contributes equal value to Michigan and Ohio St. So I’m guessing there is an element to a mega-deal that makes revenue sharing somewhat of a necessity at a certain level, though of course I could be wrong.
At any rate, there is no comparison here to the Texas heist. It became quite obvious that the Big 12 couldn’t exist without Texas, and they had other viable options, including independence. Neither SC nor UCLA has the option of leaving for another BCS conference, or going independent. Had Texas split, 5 schools would’ve been without a conference, thus making it in their best interest to give Texas whatever it wanted.
The Big 12 may not exist without Texas
But similar to Texas, I don’t think the Pac 12 exists (as a legit BCS level conference) without Los Angeles talent/recruits, and exposure in that market is what other teams sell so that recruits don’t feel like they’re going that far away from home. That’s one area the Pac 12 is more similar to the Big 12 and much less similar to the Big 10 and SEC.
Absolutely.
Being in an expensive media market makes payroll for coaches etc higher and facility costa higher. In exchange, you get more media revenues
What had happened is we now have higher expenses than our PAC 12 rivals, but we all have the same revenue. This puts us at ancompetitve disadvantage
Haden and Guerrero should have banded together on this. They blew it
by silverlakebruin on May 3, 2011 11:06 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Should have read your reply first
It looks like both AD’s in LA dropped the ball on this arrangement.
You are correct.
Clearly, I misread the statement.
by orlandobruin on May 3, 2011 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Pac 12 Network
Am definitely hoping this becomes a reality in the not too distant future. I enjoy the Big 10 Network here in the upper Midwest and something like that would make our conference that much better.
In the meantime, this new deal sounds like a godsend for not only the conference in general but for UCLA in particular.
Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA Bruins!!!!!
by Minnesota Bruinfan on May 3, 2011 10:42 AM PDT reply actions
A little financial mathematics
12 years is a lot of time. If we assume it’s a flat $20.8M a year per school, that means assuming a 2.5% inflation we’re talking about a present value of the last year of the deal to be equivalent to $15.9M in today’s money.
Or basically, the $3B total = $2.6B in today’s money, or $18.25M per school per year on average (again, in today’s $)
Lack of Longterm Vision
Given that AD Guererro knew any new media rights deal would’ve resulted in increased revenue for the entire athletic department, he should’ve pushed harder to keep coach Caldwell. Details about her departure still remain murky at best, but I do not have confidence that AD Guererro either considered this new revenue when trying to restructure a new deal for Caldwell or explaining that the her program would benefit from the looming new media rights deal. In sum, allowing her to walk without mustering more of an aggressive pitch is inexcusable.
Obviously this new deal provides more resources, but the rub is whether the Morgan Center will use these new funds wisely and/or effectively.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
