Footy broadcasting - What do we have?

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
20,435
The 718
No they're not. They're gradually bringing you to an a la carte where you're paying $150-200 for less content than you had access to before and a more fragmented user experience.
well, yeah, but in theory if I could, for example, get what I want with, say, Sling, Peacock, Disney+, and one or two others, that’s much cheaper than cable. I agree that even the smoothest smart TV/Apple TV etc setup is kludgy compote just flipping around cable.
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
20,435
The 718
I am watching far less EPL and FA Cup this year due to Peacock and ESPN+, and it's quite unfortunate. Due to the nature of young kids, I'm up early and Saturday/Sunday morning soccer is/was one of my favorite things, but the inability to pause/DVR skip through stuff on top of essentially being double charged if I'm paying for Peacock and ESPN+ has kept me away from adding those services. As people in the Cord Cutting thread have found out with YouTubeTV dropping NESN, it's very difficult to find packages with everything you want.
this is how I got into PL and footy. When Lil O was born, the deal was from 5 pm Friday to 6 am Monday I was the primary on baby duty. On Saturday Mrs O would sleep in. Since I mostly watch sports and will watch any random event on, I started watching the PL, which was on ESPN then. I had no idea who was who or what was going on. Now 10 years lateras I write this I’m flipping around random Bundesliga games to scope out transfer target rumors and figuring out whether I want Holding, Alyioski, or Lowton as my 4th FPL defender.

Which raises a great point- if stuff is all paywalled and you can’t flip to it serendipitously or check it out without making a commitment , these leagues are going to struggle to get new converts.
 

Time to Mo Vaughn

RIP Dernell
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,063
well, yeah, but in theory if I could, for example, get what I want with, say, Sling, Peacock, Disney+, and one or two others, that’s much cheaper than cable. I agree that even the smoothest smart TV/Apple TV etc setup is kludgy compote just flipping around cable.
Yup the theory is what everyone wants, but the permutations unfortunately just don't work out. If you want NESN your only option right now is FuboTV, which doesn't carry TNT and TBS which means you're missing out on NBA and MLB playoffs. Then even with those even though I'd already subscribing to ESPN, I still have to pay extra for ESPN+ content and for Peacock in order to get all the EPL games and at this point non Peacock EPL coverage has been cut back so much that rather than getting the top 3 games of the week and a few additional games that are either derbys or featuring big 6 teams that you'll get 1 of the top 3 games and then a completely random game or two.

It's especially frustrating as a cable subscriber because I'm totally cool with spending the extra money for the convenience and simpler experience, but now with the networks needing to push for direct subscribers even that is gone.
 

SocrManiac

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
4,198
Somers, CT
My biggest gripe with Peacock is that the technology isn’t ready. I’ve lost the ability to control my content and watch at my leisure. I enjoyed that privilege with their previous pay service- why is it impossible to replicate?

The streams themselves are hit or miss. They have a low frame rate and the resolution is often pretty poor as well.

The app originally wasn’t available for FireTV Sticks (my primary consumption device), but weirdly was in the LG store. I have no idea if they’re resolved the problem with Amazon (I side loaded it), but that seems pretty unacceptable as well.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
12,029
A Lost Time
It just dawned on me that the next step is for leagues to directly sell themselves. I mean, if NBC wants to sell the EPL through the internet, it can't be that difficult for the EPL to cut out the middleman and do it themselves. That's what the NBA is already doing. But then it goes back to the problem that you need a medium that gives wider exposure to casual viewers.
 

Vinho Tinto

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 9, 2003
6,283
Auburn, MA
NBC isn’t a middle man. Media companies and corporate sponsors are paying a premium to these leagues. I don’t think removing NBC or SKY from the equation and selling direct to consumers is a win.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,396
well, yeah, but in theory if I could, for example, get what I want with, say, Sling, Peacock, Disney+, and one or two others, that’s much cheaper than cable. I agree that even the smoothest smart TV/Apple TV etc setup is kludgy compote just flipping around cable.
This is my main problem.. you’re paying more for a worse experience. Also NBC is replacing their EPL content that used to be the best games with absolute garbage programming. The fact that all the major games are basically moving to a worse service seems like a bait and switch.. they should be available on both.. or I should be getting money back from my cable provider since I’m no longer getting what I paid for. In my mind your best games should be available to your widest audience... especially since soccer is finally getting popular here because the content was finally available.
 

candylandriots

unkempt
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,680
Berlin
Has anyone else noticed that the closed captioning on ESPN+, at least for Bundesliga games, is unintelligible? I’m not hearing impaired, so it’s not the end of the world, but I usually leave it on so I don’t miss stuff on shows and movies I watch. If I were hearing impaired, I’d probably be losing my shit after reading stuff like this:
 

Attachments

swiftaw

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2009
2,507
My major frustration with more games being on steaming services is the broadcast lag. Games seem to be a minute or more behind ‘live’ meaning I often get notifications about a goal before I see it (if I forget to mute my phone).