SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
ESPN, which laid off 100 people this week, has a multitude of problems, but the basic one is this: It pays too much for content and costs too much for consumers.
That didn't used to matter because, thanks to the way the cable industry "bundled" channels, cable customers were forced to pay for it even if they never watched it. Now, however, as the cable bundle slowly disintegrates, it matters a lot.
[...] But it's a pipe dream to think that ESPN will ever make the kind of profits ($6.4 billion in 2014) that it once did, for two reasons. First, as is the case with so many other industries, the internet has both shined a light on the flaws of the cable model and exploited them. What was the main flaw of the cable model? It was that consumers had to pay for channels they never watched.
And now they don't.
It turns out that there were lots of people, including sports fans, who resented having to pay for the most expensive channel in the bundle. The popularity of streaming led to "cord cutting," but it also caused cable companies to begin offering less expensive "skinny bundles," some of which don't include ESPN.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:12PM (6 children)
The hell with that, I'm not a football/basketball/baseball/hockey fan and I'll be damned if I want my local taxes building some rich team owner a new stadium. Now, if someone was able to get tax money to build a local bike racing track (like Major Taylor velodrome in Indianapolis), that would be fine with me...
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:23PM
I'm pretty sure the OP was being facetious.
No pro-sports stadium has been built in the last couple of decades without massive taxpayer subsidies.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:25PM (4 children)
To hell with your silly little opinion. You're going to pay for rich team owners to have an expensive new stadium whether you like it or not. It's going to come from your taxes, and you'll probably need to pay a new tax just for the stadium. What are you going to do about it? Vote for someone different in your municipal elections? Sorry, but all your fellow citizens are going to vote for the guy who pushes a taxpayer-funded stadium.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @05:26PM
Except in San Diego. We don't do that shit here.
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:37PM
Years ago, we had a governor that wanted to reduce income taxes. He then proposed a soft drink tax which was to be used to build publicly funded sports stadiums and arena. He found no support in the statehouse or among the populace.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday May 02 2017, @09:06PM (1 child)
It may be an opinion, but I'd sooner fucking kill that rich bastard than make him richer. Period.
If my taxes go to fund a stadium, it will ONLY be because there were studies and simulations showing the economic benefits of doing so and which classes (poor,middle,upper,owning) that benefit the most.
It goes without saying too, that it the tax payers fund the damn thing, we get to USE the damn thing. Meaning, that cocksucking stadium owner who is an elite piece of shit, gets paid NOTHING on the days the public gets to use the stadium.
My taxes pay for it? You better fucking believe the local high schools get to use it for graduation and things like that. Otherwise? Kill the fucking owner that just got billions of our money in taxes for fucking nothing.
On that note, just how many schools could get made for one stadium? I'm betting that it is more than one, and that it really benefits more than one person too.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday May 02 2017, @10:13PM
Sorry, but your ideas are ridiculous. The public getting to use the stadium they paid for? Are you absolutely insane? High schools using it for graduation? That's crazy. If a high school wants to use it, they need to pay for it, just like anyone else, even though it was build with taxpayer funds. The stadium owner *deserves* to get rich off the backs of the taxpayer.
If you disagree, too bad, because most of your fellow citizens in your city think this is a great idea, and they happily vote for politicians who pass taxes to fund privately-run stadiums.