[throw3823423]

Iger wasn't sure about the purchase of ESPN in the first place, and we can see why.

The story is really about how the internet has done a lot of damage to sports television, and sports media in general. Basically everyone covering sports has had to make significant cuts. When the value of ads drop, it doesn't take very long for gambling ads to be the most profitable. This isn't just an American story either: European sports media is also going all in on gambling.

If the pushes for ties with gambling get regulated to oblivion (and they might), ultimately what we'll see is that sports league's viewership rights will not keep going up forever, as they seem to have gone for decades. This is ultimately why this whole gambling deal happens: Today, it's really hard to make a good profit from the sports content, given the current subscription revenue, and how many ads you can really subject people to.

For those of us that wish for less gambling, I am not necessarily optimistic though: See also how the market of videogames that rely on gambling mechanics with real money pouring in for every roll are larger than the entire traditional videogame console market...and that includes sports games which are already relying on a whole lot of booster pack opening revenue.

[lotsofpulp]

>Today, it's really hard to make a good profit from the sports content,

Are you sure the “good” in this statement should not be changed to “sufficient”?

Just because broadcasters overpaid for broadcasting rights does not indicate profit, or even good profit, cannot be earned.

Although, broadcasters like ESPN do not even need to exist in a world with broadband. They are trying to stave off their inevitable decline in relevance, and so rather than shut down, they are willing to entertain business with people who they normally would not have.

But I am sure NFL/MLB/European Football Leagues and the rest could make plenty of profit selling video streams of the games directly to customers.