Comments for NFL to Stream Games Live Online -- Poorly

NFL to Stream Games Live Online -- Poorly

2007-08-27T17:55:52Z

Ars Technica is reporting that the National Football League in the US (i.e., football with your hands, not your feet), will begin streaming its games online this year. Subscribers of the league's $269 DirecTV satellite package will be able to pay an additional $99 to get games streamed to their PC. Running Windows. And Internet Explorer.

If that sounds like a bum deal to you, that's because it really is. Compared to Major League Baseball, a pioneer in online sports streaming, the NFL package sounds just awful. As a New York Yankees fan living outside of their local market, I rely on baseball's MLB.TV service to keep tabs on my favorite team. With MLB.TV for under $100 per season I can watch any out of market game streamed live, or watch full archives of completed games for the entire season, including edited/condensed games which show only the outcome of every at bat.

On the otherhand, because of the NFL's exclusive $700+ million per year deal with DirecTV (which runs through 2010) I have to be a subscriber to the satellite service to get access to out of market games. The cost is more than 3 times that of MLB.TV, and the service requires that I have a Windows machine and run IE. Yuck.

]]> Even without the price and compatibility issues, I'm not sure it is worth it for football. Unlike baseball, where there can be around 100 games in a week, there are only 15-16 any given week in the NFL, at least 5 of which will be shown on cable (usually 1 on CBS and 2 on FOX on Sunday, 1 on NBC on Sunday night, and 1 on ESPN on Monday) -- sometimes more are shown (i.e., there are two Monday night games scheduled week one). So would $368 be worth it for 9 or 10 games per week? That seems ridiculously over priced. Even fans outside of North America would be hard pressed to be able to justify that cost.

Compared to other major North American sports leagues the NFL has been the most protective of its online video (the NBA even has a YouTube channel, for example, while the NFL doesn't allow any outside site to show game clips of more than 45 seconds and requires that they are removed within 24 hours), and their exclusive deal with DirecTV has more or less crippled their ability to offer a compelling online video package.

Update: I just thought of another reason this service seems like a bad idea: if you're already paying for the TV package, why do you even need the online service? I guess, maybe, to watch it at work... but who really works on Sundays (when all out of market games would be played -- Monday and late-season Saturday or holiday games are nationally televised)? It just doesn't make sense. If anyone is considering paying for this service, please let us know in the comments why it appeals to you.

Comment from Chris on 2007-08-27

2007-08-27T18:54:56Z

They must be mad to add $99 on top of this $269 DirecTV satellite package and then saying they are proud to offer this service. If they allow free online streaming, the whole world will be watching and their advertisers will get exposed to more audience.

Comment from Eric on 2007-08-27

2007-08-27T19:22:45Z

Sounds like a half assed attempt to me. This is something I like to call a "symbolic completion of task" - they know it sucks just as much as we do but it's all about marketing. As long as they can put out a commercial that says you can catch all the games streaming live on the internet, they've done what they set out to do.

DirecTV is crap. I have their service and the HD programming is absolutely terrible, so much in fact they might as well not even have it. The satellite internet is God awful (my in-laws have it). This new NFL package is just keeping in step with the rest of their worthless offerings.

Windows? Internet Explorer? ONLY?! *shakes DirecTV violently* WAKE UP!

Comment from Ken on 2007-08-27

2007-08-27T19:25:06Z

Definitely sounds like a bum deal... and, for that matter, not very savvy. I'm sure its due to the locked-up nature of the deal with DirecTV, but at the least, they should offer the web streaming for $269 to anybody in the world to broaden their base.

Who would bother watching a game on their laptop if they already had a DirecTV subscription? It seems that the market for this would be for those people who a) live out of their team's normal broadcast range (Jet's fan in L.A.) and b) don't have access to DirecTV service. So, why only sell it to DirecTV subscribers?

By the way, big props to MLB.com, which lets anyone see archived games 15 minutes after they're final for free. This is great for catching a big inning here or there after the fact. Also, CBS has been equally generous with their NCAA basketball tournament streaming. Hopefully we'll see more leagues follow these examples in the future.

Comment from Chris Webb on 2007-08-27

2007-08-27T19:45:49Z

Don't forget, they also charge an additional $99 "Super Fan" upgrade on top of the $269 package to get the games in HD (plus the additional $10 for the HD programming package.)

So, Im already paying $378 to have access to every game including the HD feeds. Another $99 for online? No, thanks.

Why would I watch on my 19 inch laptop screen instead of my 56 inch big screen HD, anyway?

Comment from Chris Webb on 2007-08-27

2007-08-27T19:50:25Z

Update to my comments:

I went and read the Ars article after I posted my comments. I see now that the streaming is free for Super Fan subscribers. So for the $99 you get the HD upgrade AND the online streaming.

Since Im going to get it anyway, I might experiment with it a bit. I can see how it might be useful for Fantasy Football - watching 2 games at once, stats etc...

Comment from Josh Catone on 2007-08-27

2007-08-27T20:03:55Z

Of course that begs the entirely separate question: Why are they even charging extra for HD? One of the big selling points of satellite is supposed to be their superior HD programming... that seems like an up sell for a service that should be free.

Comment from Joel Price on 2007-08-27

2007-08-28T05:34:55Z

The NFL has very complex TV contracts and the networks are paying billions of dollars to keep NFL games on TV and essentially off the Internet. When the networks find a Internet business model to match TV ad revenues you will see NFL games online at a much lower cost. Other leagues that can't get the same TV dollars that the NFL is getting are more likely to look at the Internet as a revenue source.

Comment from jimmi on 2007-08-28

2007-08-28T11:39:46Z

Hi Im from Denmark.. Europa. And here NFL are starting to be big. But i have no chance to watch because I have no chance to watch the program (tv2 sport) I live on a domatary and are not alud to hvad a satellite dish.. So it is very bad.

99$ is mutch but im a BIG NFL FAN.. so if you put NFL TV and the games on. I wood bye it for sure.

Comment from Joel Price on 2007-08-28

2007-08-28T19:44:28Z

#8 If you live in Denmark you don't need the Direct TV package being discussed on the post. NFL Game Pass is for international users you can find out more information here: http://www.nfl.com/nflgamepass

Comment from JB on 2007-08-29

2007-08-29T12:33:01Z

I live in NYC where DirecTV is hard to come by. SO... I'm paying my friend the extra $99 to get access to his account online. So for me, it's only $99 for the year. Now, the big question that is left unanswered by the NFL: What is the stream rate? Probably like, 350k.

Comment from Jim on 2007-09-04

2007-09-04T16:26:07Z

I have NFL Sunday Ticket, and pay for Sirius Radio mainly for NFL. I'm a Steelers fan living in Michigan. And I like many people work on Sunday. I work for AT&T, and we have techs scheduled 365 in every market. I almost always have access to the internet. So this is appealing. It is expensive, but compared to tickets its still cheap. So hopefully they learn from ABC on how to stream HD.

Comment from Noah Lloyd on 2007-09-05

2007-09-05T19:41:53Z

Wuz up yo i am wandering if Regie Brown could talk some time. He is my most favorite wide reciver ever!!!!!!!!!

Your friend,
Noah