Is ESPN Doomed?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

This is true, but every cable subscriber they lose is lost revenue that they are not going to make back via other channels.  Isn't that still a net loss for them? 

No because I believe their payments to ESPN (and other networks) are on a per subscriber basis.

[Uncle Rico]

And who is going to pay these fees? Most of the fees are paid by those who do not watch the NFL. When these people stop paying it (aka cord-cutting), riddle me this ... how many Americans are willing to pay $300-ish/year for the NFL only?

Millions and millions of Americans.  NFL gonna be cashing big fat rights fees checks for generations

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Yes, Stephen A is garbage

Yep. But it's not "woke."

[forgetful]

So ... is this going to end cord-cutting?  Is this your argument?

Or are you saying you're willing to pay $300-ish/year for some version of "NFL ticket?"
----
10 years ago, ESPN had 100 million subscribers paying about $6/month ($600 million/month). Today, they have about 70 million paying $9/month ($630 million/month). So, 50 million people pay for ESPN and do not give a Sh!t about the NFL but are paying for it.

This link is the exact reason we have cord-cutting! They don't want to pay for stuff they don't want. And you posted a link that about 75% of the cable-paying public is uninterested in the NFL. And they are going to cord-cut and stop paying for it.

See the many stories I posted above: cord-cutting is accelerating, and $630 million/month is now falling, but broadcast rights are rising. This is why Disney wants to sell ESPN to the NBA/NFL.

When the 75% that are uninterested in the NFL complete cord-cutting, the 27 million that do care have to shoulder all the payment of the broadcast fees owed to the NFL. 

Do you think 27 million Americans will pay the NFL $300-ish/year to watch the Bills/Jets on Monday night? Are you?

Yes, I think sports minded Americans will pay $300/year to watch their sports. I actually think, if they are saving money cutting all the channels they don't want to watch, that they might pay $400/year.

And I think the number willing to pay for ESPN as a standalone $20-25 per month is likely around 50M subscribers (if they have sufficient dominance of the sports content), and possibly upwards of 100M worldwide (albeit the international subscription fee might have to be decreased).

The 100M subscriber mark has been consistent when you total in ESPN+ subscribers. Pretty much the yearly loss in cable TV subscribers is equally matched with people getting ESPN+.

[Not A Serious Person]

Millions and millions of Americans.  NFL gonna be cashing big fat rights fees checks for generations

Annual NFL Broadcasting Rights


ESPN/ABC (Monday Night) = $2.7B
Fox (Sunday NFC) = $2.29B
CBS (Sunday AFC) = 2.15B
NBC (Sunday Night) = 2.05B
YouTube (Sunday Ticket - Residential) = $2B
Amazon Prime (Thursday Night) = $1.2

Source
www.statista.com/statistics/615678/nfl-national-television-broadcast-deals/


Total Broadcasting fees = $12.39 billion (and remember his number is going up every year)

The average audience for an NFL broadcast totaled 16.7 million last year, down from 17.1 million in 2021
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2023/08/09/nfl-ratings-dominance-starts-early-with-biggest-hall-of-fame-game-viewership-in-5-years/?sh=4c3a104a6e36

That works out to $75 for an NFL fan. This does not include costs (someone has to pay Romo and Aikman production costs), and it does not include the playoffs.

So, I'll ask again: When cable goes away (where the vast majority of the $12.39 billion/year is now paid by people who do not watch the NFL), and everything is effectively pay-per-view (aka, all streaming), How many people are going to pay this?  In several posts above, the execs and the networks think it is actually $300-ish/year ($25/month).

[Uncle Rico]

Annual NFL Broadcasting Rights


ESPN/ABC (Monday Night) = $2.7B
Fox (Sunday NFC) = $2.29B
CBS (Sunday AFC) = 2.15B
NBC (Sunday Night) = 2.05B
YouTube (Sunday Ticket - Residential) = $2B
Amazon Prime (Thursday Night) = $1.2

Source
www.statista.com/statistics/615678/nfl-national-television-broadcast-deals/


Total Broadcasting fees = $12.39 billion (and remember his number is going up every year)

The average audience for an NFL broadcast totaled 16.7 million last year, down from 17.1 million in 2021
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2023/08/09/nfl-ratings-dominance-starts-early-with-biggest-hall-of-fame-game-viewership-in-5-years/?sh=4c3a104a6e36

That works out to $75 for an NFL fan. This does not include costs (someone has to pay Romo and Aikman production costs), and it does not include the playoffs.

So, I'll ask again: When cable goes away (where the vast majority of the $12.39 billion/year is now paid by people who do not watch the NFL), and everything is effectively pay-per-view (aka, all streaming), How many people are going to pay this?  In several posts above, the execs and the networks think it is actually $300-ish/year ($25/month).

Millions and millions of Americans will pay it.  NFL is gonna be rolling in the cash for generations.  League is unstoppable despite all the fans they've lost because of kneeling.  Owners are laughing their way to the bank.  You'll be dead and buried and the league will be making sick profits beyond your wildest imagination

[Not A Serious Person]

Yes, I think sports minded Americans will pay $300/year to watch their sports. I actually think, if they are saving money cutting all the channels they don't want to watch, that they might pay $400/year.

And I think the number willing to pay for ESPN as a standalone $20-25 per month is likely around 50M subscribers (if they have sufficient dominance of the sports content), and possibly upwards of 100M worldwide (albeit the international subscription fee might have to be decreased).

The 100M subscriber mark has been consistent when you total in ESPN+ subscribers. Pretty much the yearly loss in cable TV subscribers is equally matched with people getting ESPN+.

Make up numbers to fit a conclusion you already decided. Nice!

Meanwhile, people who actually understand this stuff think it is more than one-tenth your made-up number ...

May 23, 2023
It's About to Get Incredibly Expensive to Watch Sports
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/05/espn-streaming-and-the-rising-cost-of-watching-sports.html

[Not A Serious Person]

Millions and millions of Americans will pay it.  NFL is gonna be rolling in the cash for generations.  League is unstoppable despite all the fans they've lost because of kneeling.  Owners are laughing their way to the bank.  You'll be dead and buried and the league will be making sick profits beyond your wildest imagination

Are you long Disney?  You should your entire net worth only in this stock if you truly believe this.

[Uncle Rico]

Are you long Disney?  You should your entire net worth only in this stock if you truly believe this.

Millions and millions of Americans will pay a lot of money to watch the NFL.  These are facts.  League owns a day of the week and two nights of the week.  Gambling and violence, two things Americans love mixed together. 

[forgetful]

Make up numbers to fit a conclusion you already decided. Nice!

Meanwhile, people who actually understand this stuff think it is more than one-tenth your made-up number ...

May 23, 2023
It's About to Get Incredibly Expensive to Watch Sports
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/05/espn-streaming-and-the-rising-cost-of-watching-sports.html

You cited the 100M 10 years ago number.

Today, they have 71M cable subscribers, and 25.2M ESPN+ subscribers for a total of 96.2M between the two platforms.

Those are factual numbers.

Note, you linked to a Intelligencer article...which is clearly the brain trust of experts...that has nothing a long the lines of what you say experts are saying. Sometimes I think you get paid for driving links to these terrible sources.

Meanwhile, the actual experts modeling this have come up with an estimated price of $22/month.

Now, where does my 50M number come from. Estimates from polling from a number of sources say that around 50% of subscribers would remove ESPN if possible. That leaves ~35M that aren't giving it up. Add it to the 25.2M that already pay for standalone, and that means you have around a pool of 60M that are likely to buy in. I estimated that around 80-85% would actually pay for the service.

[Uncle Rico]

Rights fees for most sports are unsustainable.

The NFL will be the exception.  I know some people want it to fail because of how "woke" it is.  A player nearly died on the field from an innocuous hit last year and the league churns along with nary a blip.

14 African-American QBs will start for their teams this weekend.  Elite QBs will be making $70 million plus in a few years.

Other sports leagues are terrified to compete with the NFL.  The NFL owns Sunday and owns Monday night.  They have taken over Thursday night kicking college football to the curb without a fight.

The NFLPA has caved on the Thursday night issue, the 17-game schedule and expanded playoffs.  NIL will not bother the NFL in the slightest.

Cut all the cords you want.  People want and need the NFL.  Americans love gambling and violence because despite our proclamations, we consume sin and violence like it's water. 

[WhiteTrash]

Caleb's father = Lavar Ball?

It's astounding that these experts aren't professional head coaches.

While Caleb's father's comments are obviously idiotic, he'd really have to step up his game to match Ball. Do we all remember Lavar's assertion that he was a better player than MJ? 

I heard that the Ball brother absolutely love their father but as they got older have told dad to cool it. I guess that is why we don't hear from him any more.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Rights fees for most sports are unsustainable.

The NFL will be the exception.  I know some people want it to fail because of how "woke" it is.  A player nearly died on the field from an innocuous hit last year and the league churns along with nary a blip.

14 African-American QBs will start for their teams this weekend.  Elite QBs will be making $70 million plus in a few years.

Other sports leagues are terrified to compete with the NFL.  The NFL owns Sunday and owns Monday night.  They have taken over Thursday night kicking college football to the curb without a fight.

The NFLPA has caved on the Thursday night issue, the 17-game schedule and expanded playoffs.  NIL will not bother the NFL in the slightest.

Cut all the cords you want.  People want and need the NFL.  Americans love gambling and violence because despite our proclamations, we consume sin and violence like it's water. 

The NFL is also now playing on Black Friday and is putting a full slate of games up against the NBA on Christmas.

Also playing a playoff game exclusively on Peacock.

[cheebs09]

ESPN's biggest problem is you can get highlights on Twitter and YouTube almost instantly. There's also hundreds of podcasts of people talking sports. ESPN used to be the one stop shop for that.

Then they leaned into the debate shows and started creating the news rather than just reporting it. I think that's turned a lot of people off and they need the TV deals with the league to drive their viewership and build shows around.

[WhiteTrash]

ESPN's biggest problem is you can get highlights on Twitter and YouTube almost instantly. There's also hundreds of podcasts of people talking sports. ESPN used to be the one stop shop for that.

Then they leaned into the debate shows and started creating the news rather than just reporting it. I think that's turned a lot of people off and they need the TV deals with the league to drive their viewership and build shows around.

I totally agree with everything you stated. I'd add that the biggest problem ESPN has is that the major sports have taken control of their own content to the extent that they either have their own networks or are demanding huge fees for rights. They have had to over pay (relative to the past) for rights that teams or leagues can broadcast through other outlets. There used to be an exposure benefit along with fees that ESPN provided and they could leverage their platform for lower fees. Those days are over.

ESPN budget now affords them cornhole, lacrosse and women's soccer. Also, the big name talent has been cut and ESPN is left with on-air personalities that no one knows or wants to make a point to tune in and see. (ESPN radio has become awful in that respect)

There are signs this is a death spiral. Seems like the ACC contract is their last good asset.

[Not A Serious Person]

You cited the 100M 10 years ago number.

Today, they have 71M cable subscribers, and 25.2M ESPN+ subscribers for a total of 96.2M between the two platforms.

Those are factual numbers.

Note, you linked to a Intelligencer article...which is clearly the brain trust of experts...that has nothing a long the lines of what you say experts are saying. Sometimes I think you get paid for driving links to these terrible sources.

Meanwhile, the actual experts modeling this have come up with an estimated price of $22/month.

Now, where does my 50M number come from. Estimates from polling from a number of sources say that around 50% of subscribers would remove ESPN if possible. That leaves ~35M that aren't giving it up. Add it to the 25.2M that already pay for standalone, and that means you have around a pool of 60M that are likely to buy in. I estimated that around 80-85% would actually pay for the service.

It's good to have experts like you to tell us that everyone involved in cable and streaming is wrong.  All they need to do is what you did above, randomly pull numbers out of your a$$ ... and suddenly, there is no more problem!



September 10, 2023
It's Getting Harder—and Expensive—to Watch Sports on TV
https://www.wsj.com/articles/its-getting-harderand-expensive-to-watch-sports-on-tv-football-game-streaming-nfl-season-d8551aef
The NFL and other sports leagues risk alienating casual fans if they keep pushing games to costly streaming options.

I started trying to figure out how to stream football games a few days before the season began, because I knew YouTube tech support would be slammed on the first Sunday of the season, with millions of other dinosaurs like me calling in to ask out how to use their expensive new streaming toys. I downloaded the YouTube TV app on my phone, but Google wanted me to verify my location on another device and I wasn't able to do it after about an hour of trying on various devices and internet browsers. After a 108-minute call with a pair of polite but poorly trained support reps in Manila, we determined the problem. I signed up for the service using my email but, apparently, my wife is our Google "family manager," so we had to log in using her account.

Google signed a seven-year deal with the NFL, paying $2 billion a year for the rights to broadcast Sunday games. But my $399 commitment doesn't cover me for every Bills game this season. I need my DirecTV subscription, which costs about $150 a month, for two Monday night games on ESPN. I need a streaming subscription to Peacock to see a Saturday game against the Chargers. And I need an Amazon Prime membership to see a Thursday night game against the Buccaneers. I discovered that I could save $100 on my Sunday Ticket subscription if I switched from DirecTV to YouTube TV for my basic cable package, but then I realized I'd have to buy a Bally Sports Plus streaming subscription for $189 to continue watching my favorite baseball team, the Rays.

I'm also a tennis addict, and the sport has similarly pricey and muddled broadcast contracts. I need streaming subscriptions to ESPN+ and Tennis Channel Plus; other matches have been on Peacock, but I've yet to be desperate enough to buy that subscription. I'm not nearly as addicted to soccer, but when Lionel Messi signed with Inter Miami CF, I combed my channel guide, hoping their games would be on TV in Florida, where I live. But alas, I discovered that I need an Apple TV+ season pass to watch their games. Thank God I don't follow rugby or cricket, and college sports are still on broadcast television, at least for the moment.

-----

The NFL and other leagues risk alienating casual fans if they keep pushing their content to costly streaming options. Children whose parents can't afford streaming packages will be turned off from sports they could have had a future in.

I'd like to cut back on my sports viewing and save some money. Sports leagues of all kinds are making it less convenient to watch their games while jamming woke ideology down our throats. But with so much depressing news on offer—inflation, Ukraine, Trump vs. Biden—it's hard to beat bonding with my sons over our shared dislike of Patrick Mahomes and our collective admiration for Josh Allen, Carlos Alcaraz, Lionel Messi and other athletes. For the moment I'll keep paying, but I'm near the end of my patience, and budget, for sports streaming subscriptions.


----------------------------------

See the highlighted paragraph above. According to your "data analytics," 100 million people can afford all this.

Here is some reality .... only 22% of Americans (~60 million adults) have more than $10,000 in savings. But don't fret; 100 million will pay hundreds of dollars a year just to stream the NFL.

July 5, 2023
https://www.statista.com/chart/20323/americans-lack-savings/

Americans today are lacking crucial savings needed for managing short-term emergencies and building long-term wealth. According to a rolling representative online survey among U.S. adults by YouGov, 27 percent of Americans had some savings below $1,000 as of May 2023, while 12 percent said they had no savings at all.

This is about as many people as those who volunteered to give answers about the status of their savings and had more than $1,000 in the bank. 18 percent said their saving were at least $1000 but under $10,000, while 11 percent each had $10,000 to $49,999 and $50,000 or more saved up. A substantial share of respondents - 17 percent - preferred not to answer.

[Uncle Rico]

It's good to have experts like you to tell us that everyone involved in cable and streaming is wrong.  All they need to do is what you did above, randomly pull numbers out of your a$$ ... and suddenly, there is no more problem!



September 10, 2023
It's Getting Harder—and Expensive—to Watch Sports on TV
https://www.wsj.com/articles/its-getting-harderand-expensive-to-watch-sports-on-tv-football-game-streaming-nfl-season-d8551aef
The NFL and other sports leagues risk alienating casual fans if they keep pushing games to costly streaming options.

I started trying to figure out how to stream football games a few days before the season began, because I knew YouTube tech support would be slammed on the first Sunday of the season, with millions of other dinosaurs like me calling in to ask out how to use their expensive new streaming toys. I downloaded the YouTube TV app on my phone, but Google wanted me to verify my location on another device and I wasn't able to do it after about an hour of trying on various devices and internet browsers. After a 108-minute call with a pair of polite but poorly trained support reps in Manila, we determined the problem. I signed up for the service using my email but, apparently, my wife is our Google "family manager," so we had to log in using her account.

Google signed a seven-year deal with the NFL, paying $2 billion a year for the rights to broadcast Sunday games. But my $399 commitment doesn't cover me for every Bills game this season. I need my DirecTV subscription, which costs about $150 a month, for two Monday night games on ESPN. I need a streaming subscription to Peacock to see a Saturday game against the Chargers. And I need an Amazon Prime membership to see a Thursday night game against the Buccaneers. I discovered that I could save $100 on my Sunday Ticket subscription if I switched from DirecTV to YouTube TV for my basic cable package, but then I realized I'd have to buy a Bally Sports Plus streaming subscription for $189 to continue watching my favorite baseball team, the Rays.

I'm also a tennis addict, and the sport has similarly pricey and muddled broadcast contracts. I need streaming subscriptions to ESPN+ and Tennis Channel Plus; other matches have been on Peacock, but I've yet to be desperate enough to buy that subscription. I'm not nearly as addicted to soccer, but when Lionel Messi signed with Inter Miami CF, I combed my channel guide, hoping their games would be on TV in Florida, where I live. But alas, I discovered that I need an Apple TV+ season pass to watch their games. Thank God I don't follow rugby or cricket, and college sports are still on broadcast television, at least for the moment.

-----

The NFL and other leagues risk alienating casual fans if they keep pushing their content to costly streaming options. Children whose parents can't afford streaming packages will be turned off from sports they could have had a future in.

I'd like to cut back on my sports viewing and save some money. Sports leagues of all kinds are making it less convenient to watch their games while jamming woke ideology down our throats. But with so much depressing news on offer—inflation, Ukraine, Trump vs. Biden—it's hard to beat bonding with my sons over our shared dislike of Patrick Mahomes and our collective admiration for Josh Allen, Carlos Alcaraz, Lionel Messi and other athletes. For the moment I'll keep paying, but I'm near the end of my patience, and budget, for sports streaming subscriptions.


----------------------------------

See the highlighted paragraph above. According to your "data analytics," 100 million people can afford all this.

Here is some reality .... only 22% of Americans (~60 million adults) have more than $10,000 in savings. But don't fret; 100 million will pay hundreds of dollars a year just to stream the NFL.

July 5, 2023
https://www.statista.com/chart/20323/americans-lack-savings/

Americans today are lacking crucial savings needed for managing short-term emergencies and building long-term wealth. According to a rolling representative online survey among U.S. adults by YouGov, 27 percent of Americans had some savings below $1,000 as of May 2023, while 12 percent said they had no savings at all.

This is about as many people as those who volunteered to give answers about the status of their savings and had more than $1,000 in the bank. 18 percent said their saving were at least $1000 but under $10,000, while 11 percent each had $10,000 to $49,999 and $50,000 or more saved up. A substantial share of respondents - 17 percent - preferred not to answer.

It doesn't take an expert to know the NFL is thriving and will continue to thrive for decades

[forgetful]

It's good to have experts like you to tell us that everyone involved in cable and streaming is wrong.  All they need to do is what you did above, randomly pull numbers out of your a$$ ... and suddenly, there is no more problem!

None of the endless drivel of random links you provided is remotely germane to what I posted regarding ESPN. I also explained my number, including the exact numbers of subscribers currently with ESPN and ESPN+.

Further, even tangentially, your links actually support my stance and refute yours. Your links indicate that the smartest minds in the business, at entities like Google, think that Americans will pay for their sports.

[Not A Serious Person]

Charter and Disney strike a deal hours before tonight's game.

And this author thinks everyone's doomed ... literally!

September 11, 2023
Cable and Streaming TV Are Jumping Off the Cliff Together
The Disney-Charter deal is an admission of doom.

https://slate.com/business/2023/09/disney-charter-deal-streaming-cable-tv-doom-espn.html

The deal solves short-term problems for both companies. Spectrum avoids hemorrhaging more subscribers at the start of the football season, and Disney avoids cutting into the part of its TV operation that prints cash instead of incinerating it. But it doesn't solve the long-term problems, at least not on its own. Cord-cutting has accelerated, and the days of 100 million American houses having pay-TV bundles are very likely done forever. In addition to cutting into Charter's pool of potential subscribers, that trend will continue to lessen the number of fee-paying customers for Disney's channels. And now, to preserve its access to Charter's customers, Disney will let them have its streaming products for free. A Charter cable subscriber who gets ESPN's future flagship streaming offering for free is one who won't also pay Disney $20 or $40 or $65 per month for it (unless they get extremely confused). Disney and its peers are already subsidizing lagging streaming operations with money from their traditional businesses.

A deal like this one with Charter crystallizes Disney's lack of confidence that streaming can stand on its own. Other pay-TV providers were watching with bated breath as Charter stepped into the arena, and they will take lessons from the outcome. Other cable behemoths' negotiations with Disney might be complicated by the existence of their own streaming services, which are direct competitors with Disney's. (Would Comcast ever demand that its Xfinity cable subscribers get Hulu with their subscriptions, given that Comcast owns Peacock?) But those cable companies don't want to lose subscribers any more than Spectrum did, and Disney doesn't want to lose the fees those customers generate. The traditional TV business is losing customers until it hits a bottom that it may take a while to find. Streaming is losing money without any end in sight. It's ascending, but it's still underwater. Disney and Charter avoided a breakup. Now they can set about finding a way to change math.

[MU82]

From the WSJ:

The cable company reached an agreement with Disney after a blackout that lasted more than a week—and hours before the NFL season's first "Monday Night Football" game. The pay-TV provider will cough up higher rates to carry Disney's TV channels, enabling it to provide the Disney+ and ESPN+ streaming services to its Spectrum subscribers. The closely watched standoff became a referendum on television's future amid the rise of streaming.

Maybe only 9 toes in the grave. Tough to fully doom Disney as long as it has the once-thought-doomed NFL on its airwaves.

[Jockey]

Charter and Disney strike a deal hours before tonight's game.

And this author thinks everyone's doomed ... literally!

September 11, 2023
Cable and Streaming TV Are Jumping Off the Cliff Together
The Disney-Charter deal is an admission of doom.

https://slate.com/business/2023/09/disney-charter-deal-streaming-cable-tv-doom-espn.html

The deal solves short-term problems for both companies. Spectrum avoids hemorrhaging more subscribers at the start of the football season, and Disney avoids cutting into the part of its TV operation that prints cash instead of incinerating it. But it doesn't solve the long-term problems, at least not on its own. Cord-cutting has accelerated, and the days of 100 million American houses having pay-TV bundles are very likely done forever. In addition to cutting into Charter's pool of potential subscribers, that trend will continue to lessen the number of fee-paying customers for Disney's channels. And now, to preserve its access to Charter's customers, Disney will let them have its streaming products for free. A Charter cable subscriber who gets ESPN's future flagship streaming offering for free is one who won't also pay Disney $20 or $40 or $65 per month for it (unless they get extremely confused). Disney and its peers are already subsidizing lagging streaming operations with money from their traditional businesses.

A deal like this one with Charter crystallizes Disney's lack of confidence that streaming can stand on its own. Other pay-TV providers were watching with bated breath as Charter stepped into the arena, and they will take lessons from the outcome. Other cable behemoths' negotiations with Disney might be complicated by the existence of their own streaming services, which are direct competitors with Disney's. (Would Comcast ever demand that its Xfinity cable subscribers get Hulu with their subscriptions, given that Comcast owns Peacock?) But those cable companies don't want to lose subscribers any more than Spectrum did, and Disney doesn't want to lose the fees those customers generate. The traditional TV business is losing customers until it hits a bottom that it may take a while to find. Streaming is losing money without any end in sight. It's ascending, but it's still underwater. Disney and Charter avoided a breakup. Now they can set about finding a way to change math.

You do get an A for effort.

[WhiteTrash]

Serious question: Is Disney primed for a breakup? I don't know much about that space, but it is not unusual for these large conglomerates to split up when shareholders are looking to maximize value.

Keep in mind on a scale of 0 to 10 of media business knowledge, I'm a 1.

[Uncle Rico]

Serious question: Is Disney primed for a breakup? I don't know much about that space, but it is not unusual for these large conglomerates to split up when shareholders are looking to maximize value.

Keep in mind on a scale of 0 to 10 of media business knowledge, I'm a 1.

Yes.  ESPN is a prime candidate to be sold off. 

[MU82]

Yes.  ESPN is a prime candidate to be sold off.

It has been discussed and maybe it's still being discussed, but Iger has been pretty adamant about wanting to keep ESPN.

[WhiteTrash]

It has been discussed and maybe it's still being discussed, but Iger has been pretty adamant about wanting to keep ESPN.

He should sell it to AT&T. They make a habit of buying at the top (DirecTV, NCR, Time Warner).