The ESPN-NFL deal raises many questions

It was a long time coming. It can last long.

The first sentence of the press statement calls for the deal between ESPN and NFL, a “undisputed agreement”. This makes it weaker than the handshake deal.

It is not binding because the federal government must agree to the treatment. This is not sure.

Assuming that, in the end, the non -binding agreement becomes binding, implemented and final, it will lead to various questions. Here are a few to mind.

1. Will ESPN now have a guaranteed group of US Football Association games?

With the league possesses 10 percent of ESPN, why doesn’t the league sell for itself one of the various windows of the American Football Association’s broadcast?

Therefore, it is difficult not to wonder whether ESPN has given part of the company to the US Football Association as insurance against overcoming the mix by a technical company ready and able to pay much more than ESPN.

This may mean that the American Football Association will accept less than ESPN in the rights deal. At the expense of the interests of the players, who participate in revenue. (More about that later.)

2. Why does the league want to have a piece of ESPN?

For years, the American Football Association has benefited from broadcasting partners who made deals that seem unwanted. Those days can end.

Although the numbers are still large and always increase, there is no longer the same incentive for excessive payment for professional football as a platform to promote other network shows. It comes to enthusiasm for games, period, or through subscription extracts, advertising revenues or each other.

So why not exchange money for stocks? If the company will continue to prosper (and will not hurt the guaranteed NFL fingerprint), the league will realize much more in the long run.

It will be worth 10 percent of ESPN more than 100 percent of the American Football Association media, because the American Football Association has never been able to properly increase the value of the internal media group.

3. What is there for the players?

It is a point that we recently created. If the American Football Association gets money for the features of the American Football Association (including the ability of more games), the players will be entitled to participate in the money. With property rights, who knows whether, when, or how will the players see a penny?

Players currently do not have royal rights in any aspect of the American Football Association. They will not get any ESPN shares.

For the temporary executive director of the American Football Association, David White, is an important question that must be treated immediately.

4. What is this for the masses?

At this stage, who knows? They will make wide and spoiling claims that they will be useful for consumers. They will insist that the Redzone product will not change, for example.

These promises are more binding than the current non -binding agreement.

Do not deceive yourself. They did not do that for us. They did it for themselves. Ultimately, to increase the value to the maximum shareholders and Disney shareholders. (As a 28 -year -old shareholder, thanks. I think.)

Also, with the US Football Association eventually possessing 10 percent of ESPN, it becomes very important to check any ESPN reports on league issues. Will they be honest in their criticism of the league and/or owners? Do they withdraw punches?

Will the American Football Association be more likely to call and complain if/when someone says or writes something that the league office does not like and/or the owner?

With the American Football Association possessing ESPN, it is an extension of the practical impact of the American Football Association network that owns all the American Football Association network.

Will you get the truth, or are you going on public relations? This is for the ordinary consumer to decide.

If the ordinary consumer cares.